Why the Mavs are Potentially Much Better Already...

[HAguiar95]

I think trading JRich was the thing to do -- among other things, believe he affirmatively wanted to be traded. So, good for the front office. 

However, I have to strongly disagree that the presence of Richardson was this team's biggest problem, and that we should credit Cubes for transforming the team by turning him into a trade exception. 

One could argue about just how good or bad Richardson was. I did not think he was a good fit, but I didn't think he was the roster's worst player, by any means. The Mavs had already demoted him to the bench. If their biggest issue was removing him from the court altogether, all they had to do was not play him, which was never even considered, as far as I am aware. By dumping him, they removed an unhappy player, and acquired a trade exception that they may or may not end up using. Cool. 

But I would submit that move, without more, was just more tinkering around the edges. The enormous issue for the Mavs, it seems to me, was turning KP into a player who is productive on both ends and fits into the system. Either through rehabilitating him, using him in a different fashion, or trading him for good value. WAY more important than taking JR off the court. 

They have addressed this, so far, by replacing the coach, although that was Carlisle's decision, rather than something they had planned to do. A new coaching system may help the situation, may not. It seems to me that the main issues with KP are defensive, and his own physical limitations are likely to be much more determinative than any change in the defensive system. 

They still need to address secondary playmaking (which turning JR into a TE didn't do), rim protection (which a 3&D guy doesn't directly address), and wing defense, which at least has a chance to be a little improved with Bullock. 

Imho, Cuban hasn't addressed any of the club's primary problems. Maybe he still will, who knows?

Exactly my thoughts. J-Rich was not a great fit in the secondary ball-handler role (good D, bad 3 in his case) but removing him is far from the solution. We need someone to take this task and run away with it. Currently, whoever get this reponsability will turn into J-Rich (THJ/Bullock/Brown/DFS) 2.0 (or Delon 3.0) and have bad numbers. Because they literally can't dribble/pass/penetrate. This hole will still haunt us untill we nail it. It's like having a bad worker, you don't solve your problems by just firing the guy, you gotta find a guy that can do the job as well.

I'm suspect about Bullock's defense and I'm hoping he can at least be neutral. But I'm confident he can't be that secondary ball-handler. He'll be another C&S guy that can't dribble waiting for Luka to find him (like DFS/Maxi/THJ/KP). To me it's clear his impact on offense is negative just like Maxi's. DFS can still fake the 3 at least and try to dunk/cut to the basket/offensive rebound.

As you've said, that's without mentioning the other glaring issues (rebound/defense frontcourt, forcing turnovers) this team has showed for the last couple of seasons. If this is our offseason, I really can't see a reason to give a grade better than a C given the money we had (AGAIN). Timothy is present in almost every bad lineup/pairing we had and still got re-signed to a fat contract and people CELEBRATED. His on/off numbers were also bad. Bullock should be in place of Hardaway, not and addition (C&S bench guy).

Nothing is lost. As most have said KP is the key to having a chance to go past the 1st round.

[Kammrath]

On-off numbers also do not result in a ranking of what the team's worst problems are -- a player could play ten minutes the whole season and have the roster's worst on-off number in those ten minutes. That doesn't mean that guy is the team's worst problem. 

That is 100% a straw argument. 

I offered 3,461 minutes of data. You can have the opinion that the data isn't saying anything significant to you, but please do not discount the extremely large sample sizes that are at work here and which I am referencing. 


This is an irrefutable fact:

Of their 3,461 regular season minutes this year, the Mavs performed their worst (more than any other player with more than 600 minutes played) in the 1760 minutes that JR played, being outscored by 6.3 more points during those minutes when he was on the court. This is 2.9 points worse than the next closest player on the team. 


I believe the vast majority (but probably all) of data analysts would see this data and see that JR was the poorest on-court fit with the Mavs this year and the on-court fit that needed to be addressed more than any other this offseason. Sometimes on/off can be hard to analyze and interpret, especially in the middle of the pack on the team. But at the extreme ends, where you get the superstars clearly being the single most positive on a team and then the weak links at the bottom, it is much easier to analyze.

[mavsluvr]

That is 100% a straw argument. 

I offered 3,461 minutes of data. You can have the opinion that the data isn't saying anything significant to you, but please do not discount the extremely large sample sizes that are at work here and which I am referencing. 


This is an irrefutable fact:

Of their 3,461 regular season minutes this year, the Mavs performed their worst (more than any other player with more than 600 minutes played) in the 1760 minutes that JR played, being outscored by 6.3 more points during those minutes when he was on the court. This is 2.9 points worse than the next closest player on the team. 


I believe the vast majority (but probably all) of data analysts would see this data and see that JR was the poorest on-court fit with the Mavs this year and the on-court fit that needed to be addressed more than any other this offseason. Sometimes on/off can be hard to analyze and interpret, especially in the middle of the pack on the team. But at the extreme ends, where you get the superstars clearly being the single most positive on a team and then the weak links at the bottom, it is much easier to analyze.

In my opinion, "most important problem" is not something that can be measured by any particular box-score stat. If you disagree, I guess that's what makes horse races. 

Additionally, the proposition that the team has been transformed by turning JR into a trade exception is just not the case. At the very least, the effect remains to be seen. If they can turn his trade exception into a transformative player, then sure. But, at this point, they haven't. They still need the playmaker he was supposed to be. Their critical problems were not solved by dumping him.

[Kammrath]

Additionally, the proposition that the team has been transformed by turning JR into a trade exception is just not the case. At the very least, the effect remains to be seen

Right, the team as a whole wasn't transformed but a significant piece was removed. 

The data suggest this MIGHT make a huge difference:





So the data suggests that the Mavs without JR this past season were REALLY good. Of course, it may not be as simple as removing him, BUT removing COULD get the team a good chunk of the way to where they need to be.

P.S. I still 100% agree that KP is the elephant in the room that we all need to watch.

[KillerLeft]

I don't think anyone is feeling like removing Richardson from the equation is a bad thing (at least I hope not). 

I think the disagreement stems from the idea that the amount of overall basketball talent on the roster is not remotely close to where it should be for a team hoping to compete for an NBA title. So, while subtracting negative impact players is a step in the right direction, some are finding it difficult to celebrate that because of the lack of a positive impact player being placed into the hole created by the subtraction. 

Yes, Richardson being gone carves out some minutes for Bullock and Brown, but trading him wasn't actually necessary in order to sign them. Ideally, trading him as part of a package to add an actual talented player about whom we could be excited, and not just a TPE that, if we're being honest, will probably not ever get used, would have been the move. 

Additionally, most of us hoped for, and some even expected, at least one incoming player this offseason who had more team altering potential than Reggie Bullock. 

I believe that's an accurate paraphrasing of this discussion, yes?

[dirkfansince1998]

Right, the team as a whole wasn't transformed but a significant piece was removed. 

Richardson not playing certainly won´t hurt the Mavs but we basically saw the no-Richardson scenario in the playoffs and it wasn´t enough to beat the Clippers. I think what some of us are trying to say is that simply removing Richardson won´t change anything. Whoever gets his minutes needs to be a clear upgrade. Hopefully Bullock can be that guy (at least when it comes to defense and shooting). Hopefully they can add another playmaker. But that´s not a given.

[mavsluvr]

Right, the team as a whole wasn't transformed but a significant piece was removed. 

The data suggest this MIGHT make a huge difference:





So the data suggests that the Mavs without JR this past season were REALLY good. Of course, it may not be as simple as removing him, BUT removing COULD get the team a good chunk of the way to where they need to be.

P.S. I still 100% agree that KP is the elephant in the room that we all need to watch.

I guess I am not doing a good job of making my point. 

Which is, the current on-court team is not any better or any worse for dumping JR. Even if he were still on the roster, taking him off the court altogether was a choice they would  have as a coaching matter. Trading him didn't eliminate some kind of requirement to play him, since there was no such requirement. 

The team didn't acquire any new player as a result of the trade, other than Moses Brown. According to some reports, the Mavs did not independently want Moses, and determined at the time of the trade to keep him around in case he was useful as trade filler, but did not plan to use him in summer league or training camp to protect against his being injured and becoming untradeable. Even if he ends up playing after all, he will be a very minor piece. Bullock and Sterling Brown were obtainable without respect to the JR trade. So they just have a trade exception to show for him -- not a player. 

The ROSTER-BUILDING situation is a little better for trading JR. Instead of an ill-fitting player, they have a TE. But, as we have learned with cap space, trade exceptions don't win games. The ON-COURT situation is exactly the same, whether JR was traded or just benched, with the minor exception that they now have another player they didn't really want in Moses Brown. Nothing was solved as an on-court matter by moving JR. They need a new player who can do what they hoped he was going to do -- maybe they will still get one with the TE, who knows?

[Kammrath]

we basically saw the no-Richardson scenario in the playoffs and it wasn´t enough to beat the Clippers

This is what we saw in the playoffs:

DAL w/ JR (94 mins): O 93.8, D 123.8, Net -30.0

DAL w/o JR (242 mins): O 120.3, D 116.6, Net +3.6

So we saw the Mavs outscore LAC over 242 minutes by a rate of +3.6 when JR didn't play. 


Again, my point: 

DAL last year (regular season AND playoffs) performed as a GOOD team (literally contender level) when JR didn't play. Not playing JR at all next year MIGHT result in the team playing at a contender level. That is a real possibility. Hence, the whole point of this thread.

[Kammrath]

The ON-COURT situation is exactly the same

And the ON-COURT situation without JR is the Mavs outscoring their opponents at a rate of +6.1, which would have ranked them 2nd in the whole NBA last year. 

The data suggests that the Mavs don't NEED to improve the ON-COURT situation of the team when JR isn't one of the five. They were already performing as one of the better teams in the whole league last year on the court when he wasn't playing.

[mavsluvr]

And the ON-COURT situation without JR is the Mavs outscoring their opponents at a rate of +6.1, which would have ranked them 2nd in the whole NBA last year. 

The data suggests that the Mavs don't NEED to improve the ON-COURT situation of the team when JR isn't one of the five. They were already performing as one of the better teams in the whole league last year on the court when he wasn't playing.

If you were in a deposition, I would say this answer is non-responsive. Once more, the on-court situation is exactly the same with or without the trade, except that they no longer have the option to play JR in his good lineups. No talent has been added as a result of his departure. 

They could have played JR as much or as little as they wanted to if he were still here. You are arguing that the Mavs would potentially be much better if they played JR less. They had the option to play him less, whether they traded him or not. Even if we acknowledge that he was bad in some of his lineups compared to the alternatives, the trade did not help in terms of their on-court options. Whether JR was a good fit, and whether the Mavs are better on-court as a result of his trade are separate issues.

Tbh, it seems like you are straining to come up with an argument that the front office has made the team much better and solved their "worst problem" simply by dropping a player they didn't want and not acquiring talent that can fill that position.

Cuban has led us down this sort of primrose path for years now -- the idea that clearing out space/exceptions means that the team is already much better. The team isn't better at all until the requisite new talent is actually acquired.

[Kammrath]

Once more, the on-court situation is exactly the same with or without the trade. No talent has been added as a result of his departure. 

They could have played JR as much or as little as they wanted to if he were still here. You are arguing that the Mavs would potentially be much better if they played JR less. They had the option to play him less, whether they traded him or not. Even if we acknowledge that he was bad in some of his lineups compared to the alternatives, the trade did not help or hurt in terms of their on-court options. Whether JR was a good fit, and whether the Mavs are better on-court as a result of his trade are separate issues.

Tbh, it seems like you are straining to come up with an argument that the front office has made the team much better and solved their "worst problem" simply by dropping a player they didn't want and not acquiring talent that can fill that position.

1) The on-court situation is only FIVE players at a time (while TEN sit on the bench and are off-court). The on-court situation last year involved 1790 minutes of JR and 1671 minutes of no-JR. This year there will be ZERO minutes of JR. Hence the on-court situation WILL be different. To say it is the same, makes absolutely no sense. And like I have been saying the on-court situation was REALLY good when JR was not one of the five. You continue to ignore this fact.

2) The Mavs traded for JR hoping he would be the answer at guard next to Luka. They INVESTED in him. They tried that investment out and as the minutes piled up they started to realize that basically every variation with JR wasn't working. It eventually got to the point where RC cut his minutes drastically. Even with a lesser role his team impact wasn't improving. But the Mavs didn't "really" have a choice to just bench him. They had an obligation to Duffy (his agent, same as Luka's) to try to salvage the situation. The Mavs had to preserve relationships as best they could, because they arent' playing NBA2K. 

3) I am not "straining" at all. I am simply presenting concrete data. You have presented no concrete data and it seems you are "straining" to ignore what the data is suggesting about the possible impact of removing JR from all lineups next year.

[mavsluvr]

1) The on-court situation is only FIVE players at a time (while TEN sit on the bench and are off-court). The on-court situation last year involved 1790 minutes of JR and 1671 minutes of no-JR. This year there will be ZERO minutes of JR. Hence the on-court situation WILL be different. To say it is the same, makes absolutely no sense. And like I have been saying the on-court situation was REALLY good when JR was not one of the five. You continue to ignore this fact.

2) The Mavs traded for JR hoping he would be the answer at guard next to Luka. They INVESTED in him. They tried that investment out and as the minutes piled up they started to realize that basically every variation with JR wasn't working. It eventually got to the point where RC cut his minutes drastically. Even with a lesser role his team impact wasn't improving. But the Mavs didn't "really" have a choice to just bench him. They had an obligation to Duffy (his agent, same as Luka's) to try to salvage the situation. The Mavs had to preserve relationships as best they could, because they arent' playing NBA2K. 

3) I am not "straining" at all. I am simply presenting concrete data. You have presented no concrete data and it seems you are "straining" to ignore what the data is suggesting about the possible impact of removing JR from all lineups next year.

Thanks, Kamm, I think we're just repeating ourselves at this point. 

Point of View A:  A team is already much better as an on-court matter solely as a result of dropping players in favor of space. (The Cult of Cuban.) 

Point of View B: Clearing out players does not by itself make a team better as an on-court matter. Replacing the talent with upgraded/better-fitting talent is required to improve the team. 

I think that more or less summarizes our differences. It seems to me that it serves a purpose to have these sorts of discussions, even if they don't lead to an agreement, as they tend to result in the exposition and clarification of the varying philosophies. Thanks for playing!

[omahen]

Mavs didn't lose in the playoffs because JRich minutes were bad. Mavs lost because non Luka minutes were a disaster. Dumping JRich for air and getting Bullock for MLE didn't solve that at all. Perhaps Luka minutes will be a bit better because Bullock is a better shooter, but non Luka minutes will remain exactly the same. And each team that will figure out how to limit Luka just a little bit will kill Mavs. Not to mention it is impossible to expect Luka will be able to play outwordly through whole playoffs. Mavs were a one trick pony and remain the same, unless further moves are made.

[Kammrath]

Point of View A:  A team is already much better as an on-court matter solely as a result of dropping players in favor of space. (The Cult of Cuban.) 

Point of View B: Clearing out players does not by itself make a team better as an on-court matter. Replacing the talent with upgraded/better-fitting talent is required to improve the team. 

1) My position: You can improve in TWO ways. A) By removing the ill-fitting parts. B) By adding better-fitting parts. These can be separate or mutual. You can improve just by not playing a part that doesn't fit. You can also improve by playing a part that better fits. Both are legitimate ways to improve a team. I WANT the Mavs to do BOTH. And I think they did by exchanging JR for Bullock/Sterling. I also want the Mavs to KEEP adding better fitting parts. But the reality is that they were a pretty dang good team last year when certain guys played. They MAY not need to do much more tinkering to get into the contender conversation. Not for certain, time will tell, but there is reason for optimism.

2) Calling it "Cult of Cuban" clearly shows your bias here. Did he do something bad to you? I do NOT like Cuban (as I have repeatedly told you) and never think of him in these conversations (he does not occupy my head space). I am simply looking at lineup and performance data for the last year and trying to see what it is revealing. And it suggests that Nico has already addressed the most pressing and easily fixable issue.

[dirkfansince1998]

This is what we saw in the playoffs:

DAL w/ JR (94 mins): O 93.8, D 123.8, Net -30.0

DAL w/o JR (242 mins): O 120.3, D 116.6, Net +3.6

So we saw the Mavs outscore LAC over 242 minutes by a rate of +3.6 when JR didn't play. 


Again, my point: 

DAL last year (regular season AND playoffs) performed as a GOOD team (literally contender level) when JR didn't play. Not playing JR at all next year MIGHT result in the team playing at a contender level. That is a real possibility. Hence, the whole point of this thread.

And that´s why the Mavs reduced his role to the bare minimum. He only played 13 minutes per game. Less than 10 in the last three games. Outside of the THJ/Doncic/DFS minutes the Mavs couldn´t compete with the Clippers. Richardson was bad and lost minutes. Brunson wasn´t doing any better. Burke was worse. Green only played 4 minutes.
Based on my posts in the last couple of month most people should know that I am super low on Richardson but I don´t think replacing him with the next best 3&D wing was the solution. I do think that Bullock is a solid signing but looking at the big picture it is more of the same. A little bit more 3 and D in exchange for less playmaking. Another player that probably belongs into the Maxi/DFS/Brunson category. Great rotation players but if you have to start more than one or in a worst case scenario two of them the team probably isn´t going to make a deep playoff run.

Three years into the Luka experience that´s not enough for me. Moving Richardson without giving up any assets was a minor success. Just don´t see it as a franchise changing move that will lead to a top 4 seed next season.

[KillerLeft]

I do NOT like Cuban (as I have repeatedly told you) and never think of him in these conversations (he does not occupy my head space).

[Kammrath]

Based on my posts in the last couple of month most people should know that I am super low on Richardson but I don´t think replacing him with the next best 3&D wing was the solution. I do think that Bullock is a solid signing but looking at the big picture it is more of the same. A little bit more 3 and D in exchange for less playmaking. Another player that probably belongs into the Maxi/DFS/Brunson category. Great rotation players but if you have to start more than one or in a worst case scenario two of them the team probably isn´t going to make a deep playoff run.

Three years into the Luka experience that´s not enough for me. Moving Richardson without giving up any assets was a minor success. Just don´t see it as a franchise changing move that will lead to a top 4 seed next season.

I think this is a fair position. 

You (or anyone else) don't need to adopt my position. I couldn't care less about that. I am just wanting to look at data together and see what it might be telling us. In six months it might be clear that JR-out and Bullock-in was not enough, and that secondary playmaking is the issue. Or maybe in six months we will see the opposite. I will be at the front of the line, ready to admit I was wrong if this team struggles next year just as much when RB plays as it did with JR.

[HAguiar95]

Again, my point: 

DAL last year (regular season AND playoffs) performed as a GOOD team (literally contender level) when JR didn't play. Not playing JR at all next year MIGHT result in the team playing at a contender level. That is a real possibility. Hence, the whole point of this thread.

If we assume that, who gets his minutes and more important, his ROLE (I think that's the point we're trying to say)? Is it Bullock?

I certainly don't want Luka playing 48 minutes like Durant did. There has to be a better replacement (Bullock can't create either and I'm expecting his defense to be similar to J-Rich's, Bullock is a better shooter for sure, but J-Rich did a bit of penetration/mid-range game, sometmes needed). If we get Dragic, then maybe we can talk. As long as the team is currently, there are no one capable of handling the ball besides Luka/Brunson.

Hey, maybe JB evolves into the secondary Ball-handler we need (would require an improvement to play 30mpg, some in the league view him as a starter in other teams, why not here?). He already does it with the bench mob. For now, the team did not get much better (as the thread proposed).

[mavsluvr]

Calling it "Cult of Cuban" clearly shows your bias here.

Just a smidgen of humor, no offense intended, bro.

[omahen]

Hey, maybe JB evolves into the secondary Ball-handler we need

I really like JB, but offense was not his only problem. He was getting absolutely picked on on defense and couldn't do anything about it. That's why I am affraid it will be difficult to expect such a huge jump on both ends of the floor. Perhaps Clippers are just totally bad match up for him and he would do better against a team where primary creators are smaller than Kawhi/PG13 and can't abuse him in the paint.