A Few Thoughts on Mavs 107, Raptors 110

[mavsluvr]

don't fault Rick for trying something that didn't work. However, in retrospect, I think he let it go on too long, and I think he would probably agree with that. 
….. 

So if we agree with Rick that it really was an 'L' on him because he let it go on too long, then is it just too difficult to say in this case the fault IS on Rick?

I don't see it as productive to view this in terms of "fault." I see the debacle as exposing a team weakness that can be shored up. 


Say a person tries an experiment that didn't work. I can logically say both that the experiment didn't work, and that it made sense to try it.  

I don't think we can say this loss was entirely on Rick, despite the fact that he said that. He could have implemented all the strategies we are proposing, and still have lost the game. We can't know what an alternative reality would have looked like. Additionally, the players made plenty of mistakes on their own that were somewhat surprising for NBA athletes. I tend to think that we learned that he should have intervened -- not so much because it might have salvaged a win, but because it seemed that the experience in the end seemed more (inadvertently) cruel than educational.   

Maybe the most important bigger-picture takeaway is that this was a pretty clear statement that the Mavs don't see themselves as in ultimate win-now mode. If Carlisle's instructions were to go all out for the best W-L record possible, he likely would have approached it differently. So anyone expecting the organization to sell the farm in January to bring in a couple of vets to seal a title run might want to think about whether it makes sense to adjust their expectations. 

Appreciate your thoughts, dahlsim.