(09-05-2023, 01:09 PM)omahen Wrote: Not sure why you think the author took this excercise as a personal attack on Mavs. 

Based on what would you put THJ ahead of Brooks, Barnes and Hayward? Hayward is scoring a bit more, has more rebounds and assists while playing similar defense. Brooks is a worse offensive player but way better defender. Barnes is a steady 2-way player, scoring more on a better team and playing better defense. 

What would make GW better than Bey, Williams, Love, Stewart or Avdija? He was 8th or 9th guy on Boston. Nothing really puts him convincingly ahead of names mentioned. Sure we may hope he will show more in a bigger role, but at the moment that is just our hope.

Mark Williams, Collins and Wiseman (in Detroit) were better than Powell in probably every stat category, certainly key ones.

(09-05-2023, 02:44 PM)The Jom Wrote: I would’ve ranked Luka #3 behind #2 Curry and #1 the Harlem Globetrotters. What, you say the Globetrotters are not a point guard? Neither is Luka.

(09-05-2023, 01:38 PM)omahen Wrote: I was too quick going through that piece. The author assessed the team total at each position, which is represented by the chosen starter. The starter weight on the score is roughly 70 %. Thats why George backed by Powell combo is 3rd in SG, for example. Of course each excercise like that is subjective to an extent. But, it gives us a picture, what a more or less objective author thinks about where Mavs are. To be honest, I am not at all interested in disecting each player and if he should be 25th or 26th on the list as I don't think it is that much important in a big picture.

This is the criteria author used:

Basketball: How do you see a player in terms of non-shooting scoring (baskets inside the paint and generating free throws), rebounding, playmaking, defense and shooting efficiency? In general, players who are consistently good and do a variety of things on either end of the floor will have their teams rank higher.
Availability: Injuries exist; there is no “if healthy,” because we know some players won’t play and haven’t played as much as others. Players who are more injury (or suspension) prone make their reserves more relevant.
Depth: Even though they’re not listed here, I looked into all 30-second units since we have enough roster spots filled for those on every team.
Career: I have to consider where players are at in their careers. Younger players have upside, but they have to show something too. Players in their 30s are always a cliff threat.
Morale: Actually wanting to play for current team — and vice versa, with other teams exploring shaking up position. Stability is going to upgrade some positional situations and downgrade others.

(09-05-2023, 02:50 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: He is a PG on offense. 100%. 

It's defense where he plays a different position, but labeling people by their defensive position has always seemed silly to me, especially when it comes to PG, which implies offensive facility right there in its name.

Magic Johnson was even bigger than Luka, and I'm sure he defended a ton of forwards, and even bigs from time to time. We call him a PG, right?

(09-05-2023, 03:06 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: At the beginning of the article he actually wrote about his disdain for the term positionless basketball.

(09-05-2023, 02:44 PM)The Jom Wrote: I would’ve ranked Luka #3 behind #2 Curry and #1 the Harlem Globetrotters. What, you say the Globetrotters are not a point guard? Neither is Luka.

(09-05-2023, 03:57 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: I agree with the disdain. I think that was a phrase thrown around about a decade ago in some specific situations, noting some specific philosophical inflection points, but that the media and fans have just run with it, to a point where people are spamming it to mean things it was never intended to convey. 

There are positions, of course, and players are still required to learn the responsibilities of the ones they play within the confines of their systems. It's just the the responsibilities and expectations for what each position does have changed a lot from what longtime basketball followers might consider traditional.

(09-05-2023, 12:16 PM)omahen Wrote: Interesting analysis. They ranked starters of each team on each position. Here is where Mavs are according to this:
PG: Luka, #2 (behind Curry)
SG: Irving, #5
SF: THJ, #27
PF: GW, #26
C: Powell, #29 (only Hayes ranked lower)

https://theathletic.com/4811677/2023/09/05/nba-position-group-rankings-2023/

(09-06-2023, 03:40 AM)surfpuckmd Wrote: It's always interesting to see what an objective outsider thinks of our roster.  Thanks for posting.  

I do think he has our players somewhat lower than they deserve but I think it does illustrate how weak our roster is apart from Luka and Kyrie.

My greatest criticism of his rankings (besides the pitiful charts) is his analysis of our small forward position.  I actually believe the THJ/Josh Green combination is pretty strong and probably should rank at league average.  I think THJ is already  a quality starter and Josh will become one.  I think our small forward position should rank somewhere between 15th to 18th in the league.

The reality is that we are counting on improvement of our young players to elevate our roster.  Especially, we are anticipating Josh Green continues to improve and becomes the starter at SF.  We are also hoping Derrick Lively develops over the next couple of years and becomes our starting center.  

I like this approach and it's more fun to project the future potential of our young players than see us constantly turning over the roster every off-season with veterans who are past their prime.

(09-06-2023, 12:06 PM)Ghost of Podkolzin Wrote: In all reality, Luka is our starting SF.

(09-06-2023, 12:10 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Incorrect. He's the PG. 

On defense, he plays forward, for sure. Not always the 3, though. He plays the 4 quite a bit, too. 

But, the guy with the ball in his hands (above the break, and even bringing the ball up) 97% of the time IS, FACTUALLY, the point guard.

(09-06-2023, 12:44 PM)mvossman Wrote: Yeah, its what makes doing lineup depth charts awkward because Luka is always going to be the point when he is on the floor, but generally a forward when playing defensively.  It also probably makes substitutions a little more complicated.  You can't simply replace him with another PG, or our undersized lineup becomes even more undersized.  If you are leaving Kyrie on the floor while Luka goes out, then you want to bring in a forward to fill his defensive spot, but we don't have one that can handle secondary playmaking, so other changes may need to be made.  There are a lot of advantages to having a point forward, but it does make the rotations interesting to manage.

(09-06-2023, 12:10 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Incorrect. He's the PG. 

On defense, he plays forward, for sure. Not always the 3, though. He plays the 4 quite a bit, too. 

But, the guy with the ball in his hands (above the break, and even bringing the ball up) 97% of the time IS, FACTUALLY, the point guard.

(09-07-2023, 07:45 AM)Ghost of Podkolzin Wrote: Y'all, on both offense and defense Luka is a point forward, a SF that plays from the point.  This is what allows us to have Luka and two guards on the floor without any issues.  See Joker for reference.  I don't think anyone is going to deny he's a point center.

(09-07-2023, 07:52 AM)omahen Wrote: You can describe Luka as point forward if you wish. But the fact that he is a PG, also allows us to play two shooting guards or one guard and one wing instead of a PG and SG. This is what allows Mavs to have a bigger team on the floor without sacrificing any playmaking. Average PG is much smaller than Luka. 

I would say while Jokic is a point center, he is not really Denvers PG. That is Murray and I think Denver always plays with a PG on the floor. Jokic is just very good at facilitating and creating, but he is not running PnR, for example.

(09-07-2023, 07:58 AM)Ghost of Podkolzin Wrote: Wood is going to excel.

https://theathletic.com/4837058/2023/09/06/christian-wood-lakers-free-agent/

(09-07-2023, 07:41 AM)Ghost of Podkolzin Wrote: So Joker is a PG?

(09-07-2023, 07:52 AM)omahen Wrote: You can describe Luka as point forward if you wish. But the fact that he is a PG, also allows us to play two shooting guards or one guard and one wing instead of a PG and SG. This is what allows Mavs to have a bigger team on the floor without sacrificing any playmaking. Average PG is much smaller than Luka. 

I would say while Jokic is a point center, he is not really Denvers PG. That is Murray and I think Denver always plays with a PG on the floor. Jokic is just very good at facilitating and creating, but he is not running PnR, for example.

(09-07-2023, 11:09 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: No, because how/where they handle the ball is completely, night and day different. 

One is a PG, the other is a center who handles the ball a ton, relative to others at his position.

---

This ^^^

I can't believe we don't have consensus on this. Luka is 100% playing PG for the Mavericks and has been since the back half of his rookie season.