Game 65: Dallas Mavericks (36-28) vs. Chicago Bulls (31-33)

[dirkfansince1998]

I haven’t said anything to you…

Yeah...you are taking this way too serious.

[KillerLeft]

It’s not personal or an insult? You yourself said you would try to be less negative about Gafford in the game chat the previous game or two. You continue to talk about it any time I post something positive about it and bring dirkfan into it.

I posted the first half stats of the 2 centers. You replied to me “To dirkfan's point...against the most extinct front court in the league, right?” I then pointed out that CHI gives up the least amount of points in the paint emphasizing how it’s even more significant what they’re doing. And you brought up the bulls record as some kind of counterpoint, which has nothing to do with what the Mavs are doing to the Bulls tonight.

Yes, I found dirkfan's point to be very interesting, and worth discussing. There isn't a lot of that around here these days, so I tried to engage. All of that seems logical to me (the progression you're summarizing there) and it obviously points in the opposite direction of your sense of things, at least to me. For example, it's not "even more significant" that the centers played well against the slowest, plodding center tandem in the NBA. You and I could out run them. It's much LESS significant, because the ability to MOVE is the most non-negotiable part of the game. That's the point, I think, but you seem to think differently, which is fine. I guess I was just surprised that my attempt to engage read to you as negativity. 

I like to talk basketball. Not stats, not hate for my least favorite players on the team, and not (exclusively) roster move suggestions. Those seem to be the only three things happening here anymore. I won't burden you with attempts to do that anymore now that I know it's irking you.

[SleepingHero]

[KillerLeft]

Yeah...you are taking this way too serious.

It's my fault. No need for you guys to get sideways.

[Smitty]

Yes, I found dirkfan's point to be very interesting, and worth discussing. There isn't a lot of that around here these days, so I tried to engage. All of that seems logical to me (the progression you're summarizing there) and it obviously points in the opposite direction of your sense of things, at least to me. For example, it's not "even more significant" that the centers played well against the slowest, plodding center tandem in the NBA. You and I could out run them. It's much LESS significant, because the ability to MOVE is the most non-negotiable part of the game. That's the point, I think, but you seem to think differently, which is fine. I guess I was just surprised that my attempt to engage read to you as negativity. 

I like to talk basketball. Not stats, not hate for my least favorite players on the team, and not (exclusively) roster move suggestions. Those seem to be the only three things happening here anymore. I won't burden you with attempts to do that anymore now that I know it's irking you.

What a turn this has taken. I’ll call it a night!

[soog]

Combined stats at the center position tonight -

42 pts / 14 rbs / 4 ast / 4 blk / 3 stl

All on 20/21 shooting

I don’t care what people are arguing about, after years of Dalembert/Powell/McGee/WCS/Noel/washed-Deandre/washed-Bogut/washed-Pachulia I think we can all agree this is awesome!

[surfpuckmd]

Yes, I found dirkfan's point to be very interesting, and worth discussing. There isn't a lot of that around here these days, so I tried to engage. All of that seems logical to me (the progression you're summarizing there) and it obviously points in the opposite direction of your sense of things, at least to me. For example, it's not "even more significant" that the centers played well against the slowest, plodding center tandem in the NBA. You and I could out run them. It's much LESS significant, because the ability to MOVE is the most non-negotiable part of the game. That's the point, I think, but you seem to think differently, which is fine. I guess I was just surprised that my attempt to engage read to you as negativity. 

I like to talk basketball. Not stats, not hate for my least favorite players on the team, and not (exclusively) roster move suggestions. Those seem to be the only three things happening here anymore. I won't burden you with attempts to do that anymore now that I know it's irking you.

I'm actually really enjoying reading this conversation about our centers and specifically Gafford.  

I'm a big Gafford and I really like what he's bringing us.  I would prefer he be our backup big rather than start though.  I think his ferocity as a rebounder and finisher is exactly what we needed off the bench.  I really appreciate the constant effort that he plays with.  

I understand the plus/minus data isn't good for Gafford thus far but I believe that will improve with time.  I think he made need some time and experience to catch up within our defensive system.  Especially as Jason Kidd is not really a very good communicator and coach.  

Gafford's advanced stats were really good with the Wizards so it's not a stretch to think they'll improve with the Mavericks.  

Most NBA teams continue to play a center in most lineups so I think it's wise to have two capable ones on our roster.  Lively has been hurt a lot and spends a lot of other time in foul trouble.  Gafford is the solution to those problems.

[soog]

I'm actually really enjoying reading this conversation about our centers and specifically Gafford.  

I'm a big Gafford and I really like what he's bringing us.  I would prefer he be our backup big rather than start though.  I think his ferocity as a rebounder and finisher is exactly what we needed off the bench.  I really appreciate the constant effort that he plays with.  

I understand the plus/minus data isn't good for Gafford thus far but I believe that will improve with time.  I think he made need some time and experience to catch up within our defensive system.  Especially as Jason Kidd is not really a very good communicator and coach.  

Gafford's advanced stats were really good with the Wizards so it's not a stretch to think they'll improve with the Mavericks.  

Most NBA teams continue to play a center in most lineups so I think it's wise to have two capable ones on our roster.  Lively has been hurt a lot and spends a lot of other time in foul trouble.  Gafford is the solution to those problems.

I said this in another thread but I like him as the starter. I don’t care about advanced stats.The Tyson quote of “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face” comes to mind. I love the way he plays bully ball underneath. I love the way he goaltends shots off of the backboard. I love the ferocity of his dunks. He brings an edge this team has missed since we had guys like Deshawn Stevenson and Tyson Chandler. That’s why I like him starting - that aggression helps set the tone of the game, a tone this team desperately needs.

As a wise man once said, “ Listen, I like milk drinkers, but I don’t like too many milk drinkers”

And to your point of having two centers - let’s remember many roads in the playoffs eventually lead to the likes of Denver or Philly. Having two centers of this caliber will be key if the Mavs are fortunate enough to face either of them.

[myconsumerclub]

Center was freaking awesome tonight especially the shooting %'s

[MFFL]

I just don't want to follow a team that's heading the opposite direction of how basketball is evolving. I don't think they need two of them, that's all. 

It might be the opposite direction of how basketball is evolving but its a direction that maximizes Luka's impact. Luka is his most effective with a rim-running center and the Mavs also need a defensive anchor.
Lively was a perfect choice to fill that role but he's missed quite a few games this year so we got another player who maximizes Luka. In a couple of years, Gafford's contract will expire (or we'll trade him) and we'll be down to the one center.  But in this moment in time we actually NEEDED the player despite how the league is evolving.

[soog]

It might be the opposite direction of how basketball is evolving but its a direction that maximizes Luka's impact. Luka is his most effective with a rim-running center and the Mavs also need a defensive anchor.
Lively was a perfect choice to fill that role but he's missed quite a few games this year so we got another player who maximizes Luka. In a couple of years, Gafford's contract will expire (or we'll trade him) and we'll be down to the one center.  But in this moment in time we actually NEEDED the player despite how the league is evolving.

I also like how having Gafford frees Lively up to play more aggressively. There were many games early in the season where you could see Lively play more timidly once he got a few fouls. Now he can play aggressively and see what he can get away with knowing Gafford is waiting in the wings.

[The Jom]

All good points. My similar take is that there were teams who could just out physical us by such a margin in the recent past that we just couldn’t compete with them. Last year’s Knicks were that way. This year’s T-wolves. Adding Gafford made that a thing of the past.

[Jason Terry]

Yes it was a bad team but lots of good vibes from this game

We only shot 31% from 3 but it never felt like we struggled on offense

It’s a game changer when we can get the bigs going. Not every team will be so terrible against the PnR. Good to get some practice but we need to force this against the teams we can to make it easy. There’s several playoff teams that will have no answer for the Lively/Gafford/Maxi combo

The rotations are amazing now…..

Starters:
Luka
Kyrie
DJJ
PJ
Gafford

Let these guys come out and set the tone. Then turn to the bench for energy

First subs:
Exum for Kyrie
Lively for Gafford

Next subs:
Green for DJJ
Maxi for PJ

That should be the blueprint to every 1st quarter. From that point we can pivot based on game flow. Luka goes to the bench and those 2nd quarter starts can be bad. Perfect time for Hardaway to come in and we can see what kind of night it will be

Hardy is continuing to show improvement. Lawson plays with energy

[HAguiar95]

Loved DJJ defense against Coby White and PJ's defense against DeRozan. Our centers showed up big on both sides as well.

IMO the keepers for next year are clear:

Doncic/Exum
Irving/Hardy (needs to be tested for real)
X/DJJ
Washington/O-Max (needs to be tested for real)
Gafford/Lively

Use Green/Hardaway/picks to upgrade X spot.

[surfpuckmd]

I said this in another thread but I like him as the starter. I don’t care about advanced stats.The Tyson quote of “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face” comes to mind. I love the way he plays bully ball underneath. I love the way he goaltends shots off of the backboard. I love the ferocity of his dunks. He brings an edge this team has missed since we had guys like Deshawn Stevenson and Tyson Chandler. That’s why I like him starting - that aggression helps set the tone of the game, a tone this team desperately needs.

As a wise man once said, “ Listen, I like milk drinkers, but I don’t like too many milk drinkers”

And to your point of having two centers - let’s remember many roads in the playoffs eventually lead to the likes of Denver or Philly. Having two centers of this caliber will be key if the Mavs are fortunate enough to face either of them.

I suppose I see the argument about Gafford vs Lively starting as reasonable either way.  I like the idea of injecting Gafford's energy off the bench when the Mavs are lethargic.  I'm also fine with that intensity being expressed at the beginning of the game.

Gafford's limitation is that he compounds our biggest defensive weakness which is slow defensive rotations.  I think he would be more effective if Luka, Kyrie and THJ weren't such limited defensive players.  I think we also can't really be sure what he's being told to do defensively.  Maybe Kidd would rather give up some open 3-pointers than allow uncontested parades to the basket when Gafford is in the game.  

What I don't like though is the argument that we only need one capable center.  Many of the league's best teams employ a defensive "dinosaur" at center.  Somehow the Celtics have survived the season with Porzingis defensively.  Horford is no longer fleet of foot as his backup.  They actually play Luke Kornet occasionally as well who is only 7'2" and neither quick nor rangy.  The Timberwolves have been one of the league's best teams with 3 of their top 6 players as bigs.  

I think many teams would rather not spend the salary or assets to have two expensive centers.  I think we need two bigs though.  Lively has been unexpectedly excellent but he has been often injured and often in foul trouble.  I think Maxi brings some positive things to the game but is not fit to compete with bigs like Jokic, Nurkic, Valanciunas or Gobert.  I also like the high-efficiency finishing of our bigs as a supplement to our offense that is highly reliant on 3-point shooting.  Luka is no longer getting calls on drives to the basket so we need some more efficient offensive strategies.  Having PJ shooting 30% from 3 and Maxi shooting 32% is hurting our offense.  Gafford and Lively hitting 70% at the rim is the antidote to that.  Luke plus a big who can finish at the rim is an awesome combination.  

Also, We lost against the Warriors a couple years ago partly because we were dominated on the boards by Kevon Looney.  Gafford and Lively will prevent us from being dominated at the rim and on the boards. 

Despite some recent struggles, I really like our roster right now.  Even if we lose in the first round of the playoffs, I think we have the ingredients on this team now to be a contender.  We might just need a little more experience and another coach.

[Scott41theMavs]

I suppose I see the argument about Gafford vs Lively starting as reasonable either way.  I like the idea of injecting Gafford's energy off the bench when the Mavs are lethargic.  I'm also fine with that intensity being expressed at the beginning of the game.

Gafford's limitation is that he compounds our biggest defensive weakness which is slow defensive rotations.  I think he would be more effective if Luka, Kyrie and THJ weren't such limited defensive players.  I think we also can't really be sure what he's being told to do defensively.  Maybe Kidd would rather give up some open 3-pointers than allow uncontested parades to the basket when Gafford is in the game.  

What I don't like though is the argument that we only need one capable center.  Many of the league's best teams employ a defensive "dinosaur" at center.  Somehow the Celtics have survived the season with Porzingis defensively.  Horford is no longer fleet of foot as his backup.  They actually play Luke Kornet occasionally as well who is only 7'2" and neither quick nor rangy.  The Timberwolves have been one of the league's best teams with 3 of their top 6 players as bigs.  

I think many teams would rather not spend the salary or assets to have two expensive centers.  I think we need two bigs though.  Lively has been unexpectedly excellent but he has been often injured and often in foul trouble.  I think Maxi brings some positive things to the game but is not fit to compete with bigs like Jokic, Nurkic, Valanciunas or Gobert.  I also like the high-efficiency finishing of our bigs as a supplement to our offense that is highly reliant on 3-point shooting.  Luka is no longer getting calls on drives to the basket so we need some more efficient offensive strategies.  Having PJ shooting 30% from 3 and Maxi shooting 32% is hurting our offense.  Gafford and Lively hitting 70% at the rim is the antidote to that.  Luke plus a big who can finish at the rim is an awesome combination.  

Also, We lost against the Warriors a couple years ago partly because we were dominated on the boards by Kevon Looney.  Gafford and Lively will prevent us from being dominated at the rim and on the boards. 

Despite some recent struggles, I really like our roster right now.  Even if we lose in the first round of the playoffs, I think we have the ingredients on this team now to be a contender.  We might just need a little more experience and another coach.

I disagree with one thing you said. I think you're overstating Lively's unreliability to some extent. He didn't choose to have his face/nose broken, and otherwise he's fine. Doesn't change the fact he can't play 48 mpg, and I agree with everything else you said. Great post.

[surfpuckmd]

I disagree with one thing you said. I think you're overstating Lively's unreliability to some extent. He didn't choose to have his face/nose broken, and otherwise he's fine. Doesn't change the fact he can't play 48 mpg, and I agree with everything else you said. Great post.

I didn't really mean it as a criticism.  He's missed 19 games this season.  When he's out, I think we've been somewhat helpless.  I think we can better survive a stretch without Lively now.

[HoosierDaddyKidd]

Someone has to be advising Luka that these triple doubles will help his MVP narrative
Unfortunately its Jokic's award to lose at this point.

Just get the win and get out of there. Get to 50 wins and he might still be in it.

---

24-12-14 aint bad though 

Luka is having a hallmark season. If the Mavs had a better record, he'd clearly be more acknowledged as an MVP candidate.  And I also don't see them getting to 50 wins.

[Chicagojk]

Bulls didn't have it last night. I think that is fair to say. I loved the Mavs ball movement to start the game. Even a slow Ky start did not impact the team. Mavs shot 31% from three. That has been a stat where if the Mavs struggle it typically impacts the win rate. I love how the Mavs centers (especially Gafford) are making teams pay when they are a switching defense. Gafford is very good going to the ball and going up strong and it is almost impossible to stop when he has a smaller guy on him. He also goes after offensive rebounds. Lively is good at this as well. He just isn't as strong as Gafford at this stage to catch the ball in traffic and convert non dunks. It is coming though.

The defensive rotations was also better last night. I saw a few poor ones that left guys open, but it was better. Again, the Bulls stunk. But, our worker bees were really working hard and we had a big protecting the rim inside. I hope that is something they can build on.

[SleepingHero]

Decided to see what Wilts games were during his stretch. There wasn't any play-by-play so we don't know when exactly his streak ended. To get to that 35 in a row made shot counter it took Wilt 3 games:

1/19/1967: 27 points, 22 rebounds, and 7 assists on 11/11 FG%
1/20/1967: 32 points, 30 rebounds, and 9 assists on 15/15 FG%
1/23/1967: 22 points, 27 rebounds, and 6 assists on 9/12 FG%


The last game is where the streak gets funky. Wilt absolutely made 26 shots in a row. But because we don't know exactly *when* he missed in the last game, stat keepers are assuming he made 9 straight and missed his last 3 to get to 35 made shots in a row.

Perhaps Gafford already has the record and we don't even know...