HALLELUKA: Luka Clinches All-NBA 1st team. 4th in 5 years

[mavsluvr]

if this was a scientific publication, and with such limited and inconclusive data, one would instead need to state that: these stats indicate that this player might have negative effect on defense, but due to small sample size and multiple unexplored parameters, further experiments need to be performed to evaluate the players effect on defense and as a defender. Basically this is an indication, but we don't know, and we are open for other views, until more evidence comes in.

In general to me: This feels a lot of scheme being off on offense. Combined with really really bad inside presence on defense from Powell and WCS as well as Bobi. Maxi, KP are needed for that and then less help defense will be needed. If Maxi/KP are around the paint, they dont need the same help as does Powell, and with less help, less movement and switches and less complex movements will maybe needed from the others.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts at such length, burekemde. 

On the substantive matters, I agree that the Mavs' issues so far this season are multifaceted, and don't seem to come down primarily to the failings of any particular player or coaching decision. You have detailed a number of the challenges in your posting. Agree that they are in "Beta" mode at this point, and that a lot of the confusion and execution issues can be expected to improve as the team gels. 

If they want to compete at a higher level, I think they will need to acquire better players, as the supporting cast as it exists do not seem like they are ever going into turn into the likes of Kyle Lowry, or Jimmy Butler, or Tyler Herro, or Bam, or comparable players on contending teams, and gelling is unlikely to change that. If I am proven wrong about that, I will love it. But that's not something they can solve in the immediate term, so focusing on the here-and-now issues seems appropriate. 

On the "procedural" matters, I am reminded of a story Ben Franklin included in his autobiography. He had formed a group for the purpose of discussing a number of things, and one night a Quaker friend in the group took him aside and told him he was alienating people and making the group unpleasant  with his aggressive argumentation and insistence on proving himself right all the time. 

He then organized a change in the rules of the group, encouraging respectfulness and learning from each other. Members were supposed to precede the offering of conclusions with phrases like, "it seems to me," etc. The group imposed a small fine for stating opinions as if they were facts (the proceeds used for buying drinks for the group and the like). Ben observed that the group discussions became much improved, less argumentative, and more informative, and that he himself was much less mortified when he said something that turned out to be wrong, lol. 

I use the "lawyer" method when something important is at stake depending on convincing a third party that my particular position is correct. But for discussion groups, I prefer the academic model that you reference. I suppose people come at this with a variety of objectives, so hopefully the "discussers" and "arguers" can peacefully co-exist. 

Thanks again for the observations!