Game 63: Miami Heat (35-26) vs. Dallas Mavericks (34-28)

[dirkfansince1998]

I didn’t feel like comparing 8 games of Gafford to 10 years of Powell but maybe Luka, Nico and Lindsey are wrong and you are right.

The best Mavs team of the Luka era had Kleber/Powell playing center. Not KP. Not Gafford. Not Lively. And Powell has been a big net positive over his career as a Mav. A bigger on/off, +/- sample size is helping his case. Cannot say the same about Gafford but it wouldn't be fair to bring up his time on tanking teams in a comparisation like this.
Already stated it. Not sure what makes you think that the track record of this front office is a point in Gafford's favor. Even more because they are searching for players that can play in Kidd's 2020 Lakers scheme.

[Smitty]

The best Mavs team of the Luka era had Kleber/Powell playing center. Not KP. Not Gafford. Not Lively. And Powell has been a big net positive over his career as a Mav. A bigger on/off, +/- sample size is helping his case. Cannot say the same about Gafford but it wouldn't be fair to bring up his time on tanking teams in a comparisation like this.
Already stated it. Not sure what makes you think that the track record of this front office is a point in Gafford's favor. Even more because they are searching for players that can play in Kidd's 2020 Lakers scheme.

I’m not arguing that Gafford isn’t without flaws. Just that he provides something for this team that the other 2 do not. I’ve seen for years the Powell truthers point to his +/- as a reason he’s a great center and mostly ignore them because it does no good to argue with people that only use advance stats to make a case.

I use and look at numbers also. Some fit the eye test - some don’t. Some fit the narrative I’m trying to frame and others dismiss it. You can almost find anything to support your stance if you want to. I’m just as guilty as the next guy.

The point is, Gafford does more positive things than negative in certain matchups. This is my opinion. You have a different one. We will have to agree to disagree.

[dirkfansince1998]

I’m not arguing that Gafford isn’t without flaws. Just that he provides something for this team that the other 2 do not. I’ve seen for years the Powell truthers point to his +/- as a reason he’s a great center and mostly ignore them because it does no good to argue with people that only use advance stats to make a case.

I use and look at numbers also. Some fit the eye test - some don’t. Some fit the narrative I’m trying to frame and others dismiss it. You can almost find anything to support your stance if you want to. I’m just as guilty as the next guy.

The point is, Gafford does more positive things than negative in certain matchups. This is my opinion. You have a different one. We will have to agree to disagree.

It's not about being a Powell truther or liking one player more than the other. +/- in itself is objective but obviously comes with a a lot of flaws (lineups, opponent...). The bigger the sample size the better. Or even better a big sample size used in a regression that tries to eliminate the randomness of the mentioned flaws.
But on the same team a direct comparisation between two players in the same role is pretty fair. What is your explanation? Why are the same lineups that outscored opponents with Powell on the floor not able to do the same with Gafford instead of Powell?

Powell outperforming other Mavs bigs in those metrics isn't me trying to make the case that he is a great big. I think he has been a solid backup for his entire career and the dislike of Mavs fans is more about the Mavs inability to find someone that can replace him. We have seen Powell play major minutes year after year because of that. Took a few weeks (maybe a month) and he was getting minutes over the guy that was supposed to replace him. Followed by never ending attempts to explain why players like Wood, McGee, WCS are better and just held back by coaching/teammates...whatever.

Maybe Gafford could be better than Powell in a different setup. But based on the available information I have the Mavs looked better when Powell was getting his minutes. Are lookinng better when Lively/Kleber are playing. That's objective. Once again. Feel free to explain why that is the case. There has to be a reason that explains why Gafford is looking as bad in the mentioned metrics.
Is he playing in matchups that don't favor him? If that is the case why? And what are the matchups in which he provides value?

[Smitty]

It's not about being a Powell truther or liking one player more than the other. +/- in itself is objective but obviously comes with a a lot of flaws (lineups, opponent...). The bigger the sample size the better. Or even better a big sample size used in a regression that tries to eliminate the randomness of the mentioned flaws.
But on the same team a direct comparisation between two players in the same role is pretty fair. What is your explanation? Why are the same lineups that outscored opponents with Powell on the floor not able to do the same with Gafford instead of Powell?

Powell outperforming other Mavs bigs in those metrics isn't me trying to make the case that he is a great big. I think he has been a solid backup for his entire career and the dislike of Mavs fans is more about the Mavs inability to find someone that can replace him. We have seen Powell play major minutes year after year because of that. Took a few weeks (maybe a month) and he was getting minutes over the guy that was supposed to replace him. Followed by never ending attempts to explain why players like Wood, McGee, WCS are better and just held back by coaching/teammates...whatever.

Maybe Gafford could be better than Powell in a different setup. But based on the available information I have the Mavs looked better when Powell was getting his minutes. Are lookinng better when Lively/Kleber are playing. That's objective. Once again. Feel free to explain why that is the case. There has to be a reason that explains why Gafford is looking as bad in the mentioned metrics.
Is he playing in matchups that don't favor him? If that is the case why? And what are the matchups in which he provides value?

For me to make any definitive conclusion on what Gafford can or can’t provide for this team in 11 games, less than 200 minutes is irresponsible. Would Tim be better in a different scheme, better coach. Would Green? Was McGee? I don’t know. Will Gafford be a net negative with a bigger sample size? Will this coach figure out how to make it work with the players available? 

This is my last post on the subject because it doesn’t look like we’ll find common ground. I respect your opinion though.

[Mavs2021]

Except Gafford didn’t work well as a starter. I mean, I could understand that logic, if it were true, but the first quarter was the worst part of the game by far.

I based it more on the outcome of the games. We are 3-0, when Gafford starts. Small sample size, opposition and everything. Maybe his minutes are not great, but the overall set-up might work better.

Personally I think we brutally missed Exum. He was the difference last night. He was +16 in 17 minutes with Kleber/Lively, they even dragged Timmah to a positive +/-.

[WillE]

Two observing thoughts on the recent discussion:

1) +/- has flaws
Less on big sample size, but the more, the fewer games are in scope.

A player can simply benefit from being on the floor during one significant run or vice versa suffer from one long draught, but not beeing realy responsible for any of this as there could be endless reasons for each development.

So if the game subsequently develops in the other direction without that one player on the floor, it does not necessarily mean, that wouldn't have happened without him too. This effect is evened out on bigger sample size, but for one game only, +/- can't be used the same way.

2) Starter position is overvalued
Beeing the starter does not always equal being the best player on that position of your team. Starting means no more than it's the best unit to begin.

But that's just the starting point, and what follows is putting the rotations together (artistically) in a way that also generates the highest probability of winning.

This can also mean that due to the different strengths and weaknesses of the players, certain rotations are avoided or only used at certain points in time.
For example, one DeShawn Stevenson was starting that one year but only played limited minutes. And I remember Jet saying that he didn't care about starting games, but rather about finishing them.
Both players were important. Jet was obviously the better player individually, but it was better for the team if he wasn't the starter. He was a great good finisher though.

So if anything, then the closing job should have increased value/importance.