Game 36: HOU (21-10) @ DAL (12-23)

[mvossman]

My thought -- maybe the Mavs (wisely) sacrificed something on one end, for parts of the game, and gained it back and more besides on the other. The Rox are big enough to overwhelm other teams. Here, the Mavs lineup overall did manage to shoot 55% (38% on 3s) and hold HOU to 39/24. If it was all a coaching disaster, nevertheless SOMETHING in those coaching choices sure went right. 

If you want to say CF is not (yet) skilled enough to run the offense most of the time, sure, that makes sense. But if you hope that he can get there, you have to accept the learning pains where he is given the task from time to time. And as you do that, what's the overall picture for the game? In this one, it's a win against a top team, and CF was a +4. That doesn't feel like a disaster at all.

Bigger picture for me is, when the team wins, against a top opponent who they should not beat, I don't think style point criticisms are really merited, as they ignore the fact that the sum total was a plus, not a minus. And no, the idea that the loss of Sengun made all the difference isn't persuasive to me at all -- I've watched too many NBA games and know it doesn't work like that.

So if they win then Kidd is a genius, and if they lose then he is "stealth tanking"?  Flagg may have been +4 for the game, but he was -13 playing in those silly lineups.  As others have mentioned, other than walking the ball up the floor he is not really doing a lot of PG things.  I was not watching the Bucks in Giannis early days, but I am doubting this is what it looked like.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

So if they win then Kidd is a genius, and if they lose then he is "stealth tanking"?  

I told you guys this 4 bigs lineup would be amazing.  Look, it worked tonight.  Don't worry about all those times it didn't work.  That was because the Mavs are tanking and trying to develop Cooper Flagg.

[F Gump]

So if they win then Kidd is a genius, and if they lose then he is "stealth tanking"? 

Two things can be right at the same time. I didn't say genius, but I do think he has skills that some here don't recognize. And I'm still waiting for an alternative (and reasonable) answer to how the Mavs beat the Rox, and regularly beat other good teams, while losing to bad ones, that's better than what DanS offered. "Kidd coached them.badly, into a win against a really good team" doesn't cut it for me as a reasonable explanation.

[mvossman]

Two things can be right at the same time. I didn't say genius, but I do think he has skills that some here don't recognize. And I'm still waiting for an alternative (and reasonable) answer to how the Mavs beat the Rox, and regularly beat other good teams, while losing to bad ones, that's better than what DanS offered. "Kidd coached them.badly, into a win against a really good team" doesn't cut it for me as a reasonable explanation.

There is so much variance from game to game in the NBA.  Bad teams beat good teams all the time.  There are so many factors that swing games, whether its injuries, or rest (back to backs) or 3 point percentage luck (which is a huge driver of outcome).  

One big swing for the Mavs side is AD.  When he plays they win roughly half their games and occasionally against good teams.  when he is out they lose a lot of games, occasionally against terrible teams.

In this game the big swings for Houston were losing their best player in the first minute (this does matter, I don't know how you can argue it doesn't) and shooting 24% from 3, which is another huge factor.  So Houston lost.  It happens.

We have seen the Flagg PG experience enough this season to know it does not work.  The numbers are blatant and they have lost games because of it.  In this game that lineup was -13.  It was a disaster like it has been all season.  It does not make sense to defend that lineup because they happened to win this game.  You can make an argument that its helping his development, and maybe it is, but I don't see it.

[Winter]

We have seen the Flagg PG experience enough this season to know it does not work.  T

I'm not really disagreeing with this as a whole, but this last sentence struck me funny. 

What does "work" mean in that context?  I never once thought Kidd was trying to make something "work"  in the context of winning games. I rather thought the opposite. That Kidd was possibly sacrificing games for 1. lack of a first-rate PG and 2. And giving Flagg the steering wheel just to test drive.

Without a working Dlo at PG, why not? They weren't going to competitive without a PG (BWill had that hamstring injury and Nembhard was too raw at the time). Do I think Kidd was not wanting to play Nico-ball before the Front-office fired him? Probably. Did Kidd have his own agenda? Probably. Did it include not playing DLo? Maybe. But that was an easy call since the roster was so flawed. I mean why not? If you're going to lose games, make it educational for Flagg's development. 

I don't think any of this has a right or wrong answer. I think Kidd just took the opportunity to coach Flagg that way given a bad roster. Kidd made a choice on how he saw the team and how he saw Flagg. I don't mind that he did it that way. I would just as soon not have 6-9 more wins anyway. 

Of course we don't know what Flagg actually gained. That part is unknown. But we do know these Mavericks were not a competitive playoff team with those PG issues. So for me personally, I don't care. It's water under the bridge. Let's see if we can draft Flagg a good teammate.

[KillerLeft]

I never once thought Kidd was trying to make something "work"  in the context of winning games. I rather thought the opposite. That Kidd was possibly sacrificing games for 1. lack of a first-rate PG and 2. And giving Flagg the steering wheel just to test drive.

I agree with this, exact perspective. I think he was pissed that nothing like what he perceived to be a real PG was on the roster, didn't think Russel fit the bill and kinda went out of his way to make a point of it all. That, for me, fits the information we have. 

Whether he was doing it just to give Harrison the finger in front of God and everyone or he was carrying out some Machiavellian plan to get Harrison fired, I don't know, but it's interesting that most of the Mavs wins this season happened in the stretch right after Harrison got the boot, when (shocker) Kidd started playing Russell, Williams (who was hurt initially, to be fair) and eventually Nembhard (who got a short audition in the first group of games, to be even more fair). Those guys getting more burn and starting to play better created what might end up being the most successful portion of the entire season (on the court, at least - we'll see what the ping pong balls do to help). 

I'll state the point that's central to all of this, and that bizarrely nobody seems interested in discussing, again: one of the problems with the 2 big lineup, and the one perhaps most unique to this roster, is that almost all of their good players are centers and forwards. You play two centers, but you don't want to shelve PJW or Marshal, so already you're in an awkward situation. You obviously can't sit Flagg, nor should that even be considered, so you're basically forced to give him the ball. Stein echoed this exact sentiment in the latest DLLS podcast, and you know he's getting it from the coaches. They have no choice but to play Flagg at point in that huge lineup, unless they sit either him or PJW (and my lord, sometimes even Marshall is on the floor with that group - insane). This is just as true now as it would be with a healthy Lively, and I can't even imagine how awkward the rotation would be at this point if he hadn't gotten hurt. 

News flash: you can still run the offense through Flagg plenty in lineups with appropriate, complementary skills (like shooting, for example). I'd argue that he'd get even better opportunities to grow if he was initiating in sets/actions/lineups that played to his strengths. In fact, during the more successful games, and in most of those where Flagg balled out impressively, this exact approach was used to close out 4th quarters. 

The roster has many good pieces, but they don't fit with Flagg nearly as well as they fit with Luka. What worries me is whether or not the next GM sees the same thing I do, because I think something has to be done about this, and fairly soon. If you're going to lose games, fine, but at least put some kind of offensive plan in place so progress can be made for next season.

Incidentally, this is why I haven't been on the "trade AD" train as hard as everyone else. I'm into it if the deal is right, but AD/Flagg together works, and actually might be the very best discovery of this season so far, as far as I'm concerned. There's a real synergy between them at the defensive end when AD is at the 5 and Flagg is at the 4. Almost all of the Mavs basketball I've enjoyed this season has come out of that lineup.

[mvossman]

I'm not really disagreeing with this as a whole, but this last sentence struck me funny. 

What does "work" mean in that context?  I never once thought Kidd was trying to make something "work"  in the context of winning games. I rather thought the opposite. That Kidd was possibly sacrificing games for 1. lack of a first-rate PG and 2. And giving Flagg the steering wheel just to test drive.

Without a working Dlo at PG, why not? They weren't going to competitive without a PG (BWill had that hamstring injury and Nembhard was too raw at the time). Do I think Kidd was not wanting to play Nico-ball before the Front-office fired him? Probably. Did Kidd have his own agenda? Probably. Did it include not playing DLo? Maybe. But that was an easy call since the roster was so flawed. I mean why not? If you're going to lose games, make it educational for Flagg's development. 

I don't think any of this has a right or wrong answer. I think Kidd just took the opportunity to coach Flagg that way given a bad roster. Kidd made a choice on how he saw the team and how he saw Flagg. I don't mind that he did it that way. I would just as soon not have 6-9 more wins anyway. 

Of course we don't know what Flagg actually gained. That part is unknown. But we do know these Mavericks were not a competitive playoff team with those PG issues. So for me personally, I don't care. It's water under the bridge. Let's see if we can draft Flagg a good teammate.

I mean the OP argued that it "worked" because they won the game.  I'm skeptical that this organization is currently trying to lose games, and from the context of winning games it obviously does not work, even considering last nights outcome.

As for the development angle, I really don't see Flagg as the next Giannis.  I think he will always be best off ball as a secondary creator.  Using last nights game as an example, he had no assists and two turnovers as the "PG" but had 6 assists and no turnovers when playing off ball.  My opinion is that he is better off learning the role he will likely be playing in the future in a functional offense than the shitshow we see when there is no legit PG on the court.

[F Gump]

I mean the OP argued that it "worked" because they won the game.  I'm skeptical that this organization is currently trying to lose games, and from the context of winning games it obviously does not work, even considering last nights outcome.

You say winning was their goal. And they won the game. Fact. Against a much better team, even. Another Fact.

So however they got there, they were successful BY THEIR STANDARD, wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying we erase it because they didn't do X, Y, and Z the right way in achieving what you say was their goal?

Style points missing, oh me oh my. Of our own creation, too, because we don't know ANYTHING about the Mavs sub-agendas for this game - if any. They messed up and won the wrong way!!!!! Help!!!!!!

[mvossman]

You say winning was their goal. And they won the game. Fact. Against a much better team, even. Another Fact.

So however they got there, they were successful BY THEIR STANDARD, wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying we erase it because they didn't do X, Y, and Z the right way in achieving what you say was their goal?

Style points missing, oh me oh my. Of our own creation, too, because we don't know ANYTHING about the Mavs sub-agendas for this game - if any. They messed up and won the wrong way!!!!! Help!!!!!!

Based on this logic, if a team wins a game then they were perfect.  You can't question anything they did during that game.  You do realize how simplistic this logic is, right?  If a team employs a method that loses 9 out of 10 games are you going to argue that it was a great method for the one game they won?

Win/loss is not a good metric for lineup effectiveness.  Lineup net rating is significantly more useful.  10 minutes is a very small sample and won't tell you much about whether that lineup will be effective in the future, but it will tell you if it was effective in sample.  It was not.  For the season we actually have a decent (way too big) size sample and the signal is incredibly strong.  Playing without a PG has been consistently wildly ineffective.

[FireNicoHarrison]

Two things can be right at the same time. I didn't say genius, but I do think he has skills that some here don't recognize. And I'm still waiting for an alternative (and reasonable) answer to how the Mavs beat the Rox, and regularly beat other good teams, while losing to bad ones, that's better than what DanS offered. "Kidd coached them.badly, into a win against a really good team" doesn't cut it for me as a reasonable explanation.

I don't know for how many years you watch NBA but it's just a mediocre team NBA season with their best player can't play 3 games in a row.

Some great Ws at home and a lot of bad Ls... No more explanations.

Even the best team had injuries or bad night in a 82 games season, but the records are still there.

13-23 is clear. Even with some flashy Ws

[FireNicoHarrison]

About Kidd i think it's not the right season to judge him but for sure record is bad and the eyetest is even worse.

But honestly Kidd team never played good basketball at all, i think he doesn't (or he can't) teach offensive schemes.

[Winter]

I mean the OP argued that it "worked" because they won the game.  I'm skeptical that this organization is currently trying to lose games, and from the context of winning games it obviously does not work, even considering last nights outcome.

As for the development angle, I really don't see Flagg as the next Giannis.  I think he will always be best off ball as a secondary creator.  Using last nights game as an example, he had no assists and two turnovers as the "PG" but had 6 assists and no turnovers when playing off ball.  My opinion is that he is better off learning the role he will likely be playing in the future in a functional offense than the shitshow we see when there is no legit PG on the court.

When you phrase it like that, I am too. 

I would say, however, that winning the game isn't the current focus every night. That's more how I see it. If you take winning out, there are a lot of ways to experiment with the lineup without sacrificing anything. There's a lot of data to be gleaned from trying different things.

As for the second paragraph, I don't have a strong opinion. I'm not sure I can project what is best for Flagg at this point.

[Chicagojk]

. 

I'll state the point that's central to all of this, and that bizarrely nobody seems interested in discussing, again: one of the problems with the 2 big lineup, and the one perhaps most unique to this roster, is that almost all of their good players are centers and forwards. You play two centers, but you don't want to shelve PJW or Marshal, so already you're in an awkward situation. You obviously can't sit Flagg, nor should that even be considered, so you're basically forced to give him the ball. Stein echoed this exact sentiment in the latest DLLS podcast, and you know he's getting it from the coaches. They have no choice but to play Flagg at point in that huge lineup, unless they sit either him or PJW (and my lord, sometimes even Marshall is on the floor with that group - insane). This is just as true now as it would be with a healthy Lively, and I can't even imagine how awkward the rotation would be at this point if he hadn't gotten hurt. 

News flash: you can still run the offense through Flagg plenty in lineups with appropriate, complementary skills (like shooting, for example). I'd argue that he'd get even better opportunities to grow if he was initiating in sets/actions/lineups that played to his strengths. In fact, during the more successful games, and in most of those where Flagg balled out impressively, this exact approach was used to close out 4th quarters. 

The roster has many good pieces, but they don't fit with Flagg nearly as well as they fit with Luka. What worries me is whether or not the next GM sees the same thing I do, because I think something has to be done about this, and fairly soon. If you're going to lose games, fine, but at least put some kind of offensive plan in place so progress can be made for next season.

Incidentally, this is why I haven't been on the "trade AD" train as hard as everyone else. I'm into it if the deal is right, but AD/Flagg together works, and actually might be the very best discovery of this season so far, as far as I'm concerned. There's a real synergy between them at the defensive end when AD is at the 5 and Flagg is at the 4. Almost all of the Mavs basketball I've enjoyed this season has come out of that lineup.

This the big point.  It looks like I was wrong with the super big lineup.   I was never a huge fan and prefer skill, but I thought it would look ok.   AD with one of our centers was always weird, but you compound it with trying to play PJ at small forward and asking him to chase smaller players, starting Flagg in his career at a guard and combining him with another just ok creator.    As you mention, the super big lineup may have been doomed from the start but it was always doomed with the current talent.   Would it work if you had for example Flagg at the three and Phillys backcourt?    

The Mavs have good players.  A lot of good contracts.  The roster just doesn't fit.   They can't have a fire sale though.    The fix will probably not be quick.   They need to prioritize smart and skilled players.   Hopefully they have a type.   We appear a ways off from being a good/great team and we are.   Although, the bump to less than average to sort of good should not be a hard fix.  The sort of good to really good is a much harder jump.

[KillerLeft]

Well, at least we're starting to get some good conversation going in game threads. That's fun, even if I have to be called a shot-sighted, unthinking whiner for it to happen.

GO MAVS!

[mvossman]

When you phrase it like that, I am too. 

I would say, however, that winning the game isn't the current focus every night. That's more how I see it. If you take winning out, there are a lot of ways to experiment with the lineup without sacrificing anything. There's a lot of data to be gleaned from trying different things.

As for the second paragraph, I don't have a strong opinion. I'm not sure I can project what is best for Flagg at this point.

I agree with all of this.  I merely pointed out that a lineup that was -13 did not contribute to winning the game (I wouldn't that that would be a controversial statement).  I do think we have enough data to glean that playing Flagg at PG is not conducive to winning.

As for Flagg development, I don't know what the best route to take is, and my views are probably tainted by not wanting to watch terrible basketball.