NBA Playoffs

[Gopher]

Everyone has their own interpretation/definition of what it means to be soft, but in my opinion, people confuse being soft with being a finesse player, in many cases. Dirk is unique in that he's basically a 7-footer whose strength in his game is his shooting... I'm not sure you can say that about another elite PF in the game today. He's relatively slow, has a vertical "leap" in the range of about 10 inches, and appears somewhat awkward when he drives to the basket... None of which mean he is weak, soft, or has no spine. And, he's never been a flopper... That's Gasol.

 

The bottom line is that Dirk has rarely had much of a supporting cast, at least in terms of another star player... something that is basically a requirement/necessity, if you want to win a championship. He had Nash and Finley several years ago (before Nash's prime, in my opinion), and has Kidd/Marion now (well after their prime). Other than that, they've always had a decent cast of players (Stackhouse, Terry, etc.), but never have they had multiple players that I would consider to be stars. They still don't... Kidd is a veteran player, but he's no longer a top-five PG. And, Marion is basically a shell of his former self... but he's got the experience factor going for him, which has helped.

 

The other part of this where some of us are obviously misinformed is the recent playoff history of Dallas. For some reason, people have this impression of Dallas being perennial underachievers, when it comes to the playoffs. Other than 2007, when they bowed out to Golden State in the first round, as a 1-seed, that's simply not the case. Let's look a little bit closer, instead of just throwing out generalizations/assumptions without anything to back it up. Dirk's playoff career:

 

2001 (5th seed) - Beat Utah in the 1st round, then lost to SA in the 2nd round - Overachieved (Utah was the 4-seed)

2002 (4th seed) - Swept Minnesota in the 1st round, then lost to Sac in the 2nd round - As expected, pretty much.

2003 (3rd seed) - Beat Portand, then beat Sacramento, then lost to SA in conference finals - Overachieved

2004 (5th seed) - Lost to Sacramento in the 1st round - As expected, basically.

2005 (4th seed) - Beat Houston, then lost to Phoenix - Pretty much as expected.

2006 (4th seed) - Beat Memphis, SA, and Phoenix... Lost to Miami in the Finals - Definitely overachieved, although they gave up a 2-0 lead in the Finals (lost 4-2). However, Dirk completed a crucial 3-pt play in Game 7 of that SA series, to force OT, and eventually knock of the defending champs.

2007 (1-seed) - Lost to Golden State in one of the biggest upsets (at least on paper) in NBA playoff history - Underachieved, definitely.

2008 (7th seed) - Lost to New Orleans in first 1st round - As expected

2009 (6th seed) - Beat SA, then lost to Denver - Overachieved.

2010 (2nd seed) - Lost to SA - Underachieved... probably 2nd worst performance, behind 2007 - Underachieved.

2011 (3rd seed) - Beat Portland, LA... Up 2-1 on OKC - Overachieved, no matter what happens from here.

 

So, basically, Dallas teams with Dirk have exceeded expectations far more times (five, by my count) than they have failed to meet them (twice). The failures have been more recent than some of the good playoff runs, so maybe that's why there is confusion. Not sure what else there is to say... The people who say Dirk (and/or Dallas) typically chokes in the playoffs don't know what they are talking about. It actually makes me wonder if people actually watch basketball, or just repeat what they see/read in the media?

 

Let me add that I am not, in any way, shape, or form, a Dallas fan. I've never been a huge supporter of Dirk, either... But, I think he gets a bad rap, when people call him soft (which he's not). He simply plays a different style than 90% of the power forwards in the game today. Think about it... finesse and power don't exactly go hand in hand... they actually contradict each other, somewhat, which is part of the reason people call him soft. Given his lack of actual athletic ability (relatively speaking, in comparison to some of the other freakish athletes in the NBA), I think he's actually pretty tough... He goes up against players on an every-game basis, who are stronger, and can jump higher, than he can. Yet, he still manages to put up 25 a game, averaging 8-10 boards and a block, per game, as well.

 

As for the Bird comparison, I think people forget just how great of a player Larry was. The one area that I think Bird has Dirk beat, by a mile, was in Bird's passing ability... Larry was one of the best passers in the game, when he played, and I'm not sure anyone would say the same about Dirk. Bird averaged not only more assists per game than Dirk (over twice as many, actually... 6.3 to 2.7), he averaged more rebounds as well (10.0 to 8.6). Not to mention, twice as many steals, with only slightly less blocks. Plus, right or wrong, players in the NBA (as well as other sports), are partially judged by their team's success. Sure, it takes other star players to win championships. But, it's hard to say they're similar players, when one has several rings (and better statistics across the board), and the other doesn't have any.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Gopher

[Avernus]

Since when is 3 sentences a novel. the rest was a link of his accomplishments, and I even listed the link of the source.

 

Besides Im over trying to convince people Dirk hasnt been the problem in Dallas the last decade. Dallas would have been a lottery team without him, and that isnt debatable.

 

now you're spinning it at an angle to where "Dirk is the problem"?......I'm just saying that instead of improving on his play from the regular season, he has always taken a step down....this is the first time I've seen him play harder when it counts rather than not be as much of a factor...and this goes for 2006 as well...

 

I've never seen Dirk play like this in the playoffs....

 

so how is he the problem again?....

 

ps: having this argument with you sucks...you keep twisting crap around....

[Brent]

Everyone has their own interpretation/definition of what it means to be soft, but in my opinion, people confuse being soft with being a finesse player, in many cases. Dirk is unique in that he's basically a 7-footer whose strength in his game is his shooting... I'm not sure you can say that about another elite PF in the game today. He's relatively slow, has a vertical "leap" in the range of about 10 inches, and appears somewhat awkward when he drives to the basket... None of which mean he is weak, soft, or has no spine. And, he's never been a flopper... That's Gasol.

 

The bottom line is that Dirk has rarely had much of a supporting cast, at least in terms of another star player... something that is basically a requirement/necessity, if you want to win a championship. He had Nash and Finley several years ago (before Nash's prime, in my opinion), and has Kidd/Marion now (well after their prime). Other than that, they've always had a decent cast of players (Stackhouse, Terry, etc.), but never have they had multiple players that I would consider to be stars. They still don't... Kidd is a veteran player, but he's no longer a top-five PG. And, Marion is basically a shell of his former self... but he's got the experience factor going for him, which has helped.

 

The other part of this where some of us are obviously misinformed is the recent playoff history of Dallas. For some reason, people have this impression of Dallas being perennial underachievers, when it comes to the playoffs. Other than 2007, when they bowed out to Golden State in the first round, as a 1-seed, that's simply not the case. Let's look a little bit closer, instead of just throwing out generalizations/assumptions without anything to back it up. Dirk's playoff career:

 

2001 (5th seed) - Beat Utah in the 1st round, then lost to SA in the 2nd round - Overachieved (Utah was the 4-seed)

2002 (4th seed) - Swept Minnesota in the 1st round, then lost to Sac in the 2nd round - As expected, pretty much.

2003 (3rd seed) - Beat Portand, then beat Sacramento, then lost to SA in conference finals - Overachieved

2004 (5th seed) - Lost to Sacramento in the 1st round - As expected, basically.

2005 (4th seed) - Beat Houston, then lost to Phoenix - Pretty much as expected.

2006 (4th seed) - Beat Memphis, SA, and Phoenix... Lost to Miami in the Finals - Definitely overachieved, although they gave up a 2-0 lead in the Finals (lost 4-2). However, Dirk completed a crucial 3-pt play in Game 7 of that SA series, to force OT, and eventually knock of the defending champs.

2007 (1-seed) - Lost to Golden State in one of the biggest upsets (at least on paper) in NBA playoff history - Underachieved, definitely.

2008 (7th seed) - Lost to New Orleans in first 1st round - As expected

2009 (6th seed) - Beat SA, then lost to Denver - Overachieved.

2010 (2nd seed) - Lost to SA - Underachieved... probably 2nd worst performance, behind 2007 - Underachieved.

2011 (3rd seed) - Beat Portland, LA... Up 2-1 on OKC - Overachieved, no matter what happens from here.

 

So, basically, Dallas teams with Dirk have exceeded expectations far more times (five, by my count) than they have failed to meet them (twice). The failures have been more recent than some of the good playoff runs, so maybe that's why there is confusion. Not sure what else there is to say... The people who say Dirk (and/or Dallas) typically chokes in the playoffs don't know what they are talking about. It actually makes me wonder if people actually watch basketball, or just repeat what they see/read in the media?

 

Let me add that I am not, in any way, shape, or form, a Dallas fan. I've never been a huge supporter of Dirk, either... But, I think he gets a bad rap, when people call him soft (which he's not). He simply plays a different style than 90% of the power forwards in the game today. Think about it... finesse and power don't exactly go hand in hand... they actually contradict each other, somewhat, which is part of the reason people call him soft. Given his lack of actual athletic ability (relatively speaking, in comparison to some of the other freakish athletes in the NBA), I think he's actually pretty tough... He goes up against players on an every-game basis, who are stronger, and can jump higher, than he can. Yet, he still manages to put up 25 a game, averaging 8-10 boards and a block, per game, as well.

 

As for the Bird comparison, I think people forget just how great of a player Larry was. The one area that I think Bird has Dirk beat, by a mile, was in Bird's passing ability... Larry was one of the best passers in the game, when he played, and I'm not sure anyone would say the same about Dirk. Bird averaged not only more assists per game than Dirk (over twice as many, actually... 6.3 to 2.7), he averaged more rebounds as well (10.0 to 8.6). Not to mention, twice as many steals, with only slightly less blocks. Plus, right or wrong, players in the NBA (as well as other sports), are partially judged by their team's success. Sure, it takes other star players to win championships. But, it's hard to say they're similar players, when one has several rings (and better statistics across the board), and the other doesn't have any.

 

great post Karl. Couldnt have said any of this better myself. And the Mavs have frustrated us many many times, but when looking back, it was just as much because they exceeded expectations, and then didnt finish the job, as choked to a lower seed..

[piratesownninjas]

Um..........yeah, that's exactly what is meant by "spine".

But that doesn't change the fact that the production is the same. The only difference is he's being a little more vocal, which I credit Tyson Chandler for more than anyone else.

[piratesownninjas]

I'm just saying that instead of improving on his play from the regular season, he has always taken a step down....this is the first time I've seen him play harder when it counts rather than not be as much of a factor...and this goes for 2006 as well...

 

I've never seen Dirk play like this in the playoffs....

 

so how is he the problem again?....

Proof? How has he taken a step down? He's 25/10 in the playoffs for an average.

[Gopher]

......I'm just saying that instead of improving on his play from the regular season, he has always taken a step down....this is the first time I've seen him play harder when it counts rather than not be as much of a factor...and this goes for 2006 as well...

 

I've never seen Dirk play like this in the playoffs....

Not trying to pick a fight, but production-wise, this is simply not true. Dirk averages more points and rebounds in the playoffs than the regular season, and he's done so throughout his career... every season, in fact, with only a couple of exceptions. I can post the season-by-season comparisons, if you want, but it's probably not necessary (see the link below if you want to verify). On the other hand, to say that he takes a step down could mean a lot of different things, I guess, so it's really a matter of opinion. All I'm saying is that the numbers totally disprove that notion... If anything, he's stepped up his game, typically, in the post-season.

 

Other than raw data/numbers, I'm not sure what there is to support the notion that Dallas and/or Dirk haven't stepped up in the playoffs. What else could it be... that he/they just didn't look that interested to be there, in past seasons? Seriously, I think they get a bad rap because all people remember is that Golden State debacle... Other than that, they've met or exceeded expectations in each and every one of the seasons, while Dirk has been there, with one exception. Not bad for a decade's worth of playoff appearances.

 

Dirk's career regular- and post-season stats

[Gopher]

Proof? How has he taken a step down? He's 25/10 in the playoffs for an average.

It's a misconception that a lot of people have, apparently, with absolutely nothing to back it up.

[Avernus]

Not trying to pick a fight, but production-wise, this is simply not true. Dirk averages more points and rebounds in the playoffs than the regular season, and he's done so throughout his career... every season, in fact, with only a couple of exceptions. I can post the season-by-season comparisons, if you want, but it's probably not necessary (see the link below if you want to verify). On the other hand, to say that he takes a step down could mean a lot of different things, I guess, so it's really a matter of opinion. All I'm saying is that the numbers totally disprove that notion... If anything, he's stepped up his game, typically, in the post-season.

 

Other than raw data/numbers, I'm not sure what there is to support the notion that Dallas and/or Dirk haven't stepped up in the playoffs. What else could it be... that he/they just didn't look that interested to be there, in past seasons? Seriously, I think they get a bad rap because all people remember is that Golden State debacle... Other than that, they've met or exceeded expectations in each and every one of the seasons, while Dirk has been there, with one exception. Not bad for a decade's worth of playoff appearances.

 

Dirk's career regular- and post-season stats

 

read my previous post before the one you quoted...I'm not talking numbers, there is a difference in the way he's playing and I'm talking about stuff that doesn't show up on the stat sheet....but before I waste any more typing, just read my post before that...or two posts before that as I addressed this already...

Edited May 23, 2011 by Avernus

[Gopher]

read my previous post before the one you quoted...I'm not talking numbers, there is a difference in the way he's playing and I'm talking about stuff that doesn't show up on the stat sheet....but before I waste any more typing, just read my post before that...or two posts before that as I addressed this already...

I read it... I'm just not buying it. What exactly is he doing, that he wasn't doing before?

[Azazello1313]

dirk is a great player. always been someone I've loved watching. I'm just sayin he's not a top 10 all-time player. top 10 now? yeah absolutely. and he is playing incredible ball right now.

[detlef]

Gopher, I think my "issue" with Dirk is this. And I put it in quotes because I do think he's an elite player, so we're really talking about the sort of tiny little things that one has to get to when discussing "all-time greats". I mean, you have to scrutinize these players more because you're already assuming that he's heads and shoulders ahead of even guys who made multiple All Star games and such.

 

Your breakdown on how they achieved past their seed as often as up to it is valid. But there's also something to be said for the fact that, if you're going to have a stretch of 50+ win seasons like they've had and, thus, earn a shot at the title, eventually you need to poke through and win it.

 

And that might be the one thing that Dirk hasn't done that, each and every guy who is being put ahead of him has. At one point, they put their team on their back and lead them all the way there. And maybe he does that this year. And if he does, that puts a huge feather in his cap. But, right now, he's on a level with other guys who came up short.

 

And, no, I don't buy the fact that he played on inferior teams. He may not have had amazing players around him, but if you guys are seriously discounting his time with Nash at PG because that was before Nash was MVP, then you're really stretching. Because Nash was a top PG during his years with Dallas. He was named All-NBA when he played there! Michael Finley was there for a while. I mean, it wasn't exactly going it alone. Every single year, when the season started, I'd look at the roster and say, "They added who? Wow." I'll buy any number of arguments you all are making, but not that one. Because it is entirely off-base.

[Gopher]

Gopher, I think my "issue" with Dirk is this. And I put it in quotes because I do think he's an elite player, so we're really talking about the sort of tiny little things that one has to get to when discussing "all-time greats". I mean, you have to scrutinize these players more because you're already assuming that he's heads and shoulders ahead of even guys who made multiple All Star games and such.

 

Your breakdown on how they achieved past their seed as often as up to it is valid. But there's also something to be said for the fact that, if you're going to have a stretch of 50+ win seasons like they've had and, thus, earn a shot at the title, eventually you need to poke through and win it.

 

And that might be the one thing that Dirk hasn't done that, each and every guy who is being put ahead of him has. At one point, they put their team on their back and lead them all the way there. And maybe he does that this year. And if he does, that puts a huge feather in his cap. But, right now, he's on a level with other guys who came up short.

 

And, no, I don't buy the fact that he played on inferior teams. He may not have had amazing players around him, but if you guys are seriously discounting his time with Nash at PG because that was before Nash was MVP, then you're really stretching. Because Nash was a top PG during his years with Dallas. He was named All-NBA when he played there! Michael Finley was there for a while. I mean, it wasn't exactly going it alone. Every single year, when the season started, I'd look at the roster and say, "They added who? Wow." I'll buy any number of arguments you all are making, but not that one. Because it is entirely off-base.

I'm not saying those Dallas teams were a bunch of bums and Dirk. They did have some very good players, and I agree with you... they usually added a nice FA or two, to fill the holes. Not Lebron/Howard/Shaq type of free agent signings, but adequate to above average players, who would start on more teams than not. And, sure, Nash was a top-five PG for Dallas... I'm not saying he wasn't. I do think he got even better in Phoenix, but your point is well-taken... He was certainly no slouch in Dallas, either.

 

My issue with the "Dirk has always underachieved" argument is that, besides being factually incorrect, it's somewhat inconsistent in that other players aren't held to the same standard. Fine... you're saying that a star players should, at some point, put his team on his back, and win a ring. Does that mean Nash is an underachiever as well? How about Malone/Stockton? Is Malone not a top-ten all-time PF, because he didn't win a ring? There are other teams (in the West) who have had similar runs to what Dallas has done, in terms of how often they've made the post-season, over the past couple of decades... Utah, Phoenix, Portland, Denver, etc. Not current runs, necessarily, but teams that made the playoffs, on a regular basis, for several years in a row, with maybe an exception here or there. None of them appear to be held to the same standard as Dallas.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that, the one year where Dallas was the #1 seed, they blew it in the first round... That sticks fresh in people's minds, and Dallas/Dirk get labelled as perennial underachievers, as a result (when they really aren't). That's all I'm saying... If you want to crucify Dallas for one of the biggest first-round choke jobs in NBA history, go for it. But, don't talk about arguements that are entirely off-base, and then sit here and tell me that the Mavs have choked regularly, or that Dirk hasn't shown up in the playoffs, in the past. Some of these people, who I'm guessing would call themselves casual basketball fans, make it seem like they've spent the last 10 years studying Dirk's play, as if they're writing a thesis on it. Yet, when asked for specifics on what has changed, in terms of his play, they have no answer.

[detlef]

Here's the thing though, Gopher, I would argue that, as a team, Dallas should have done better than the seeds they earned during that stretch. So, Just because they got out of the first round as a 6 doesn't mean as much if they should have been better than a 6 to begin with.

 

And, what I'm saying is that, in a game like basketball, where one player can make a bigger difference than in pretty much any other team sport, taking your team all the way matters more. And it's why Nash and Malone will also always have that knock on their resume.

 

Mind you, Malone and the Jazz did make it twice but happened to do so while, perhaps the greatest player of all time, was doing his thing. They also made the conference finals 3 other times.

 

Dallas kept getting bounced by Sacto, who was also a team that couldn't close the deal. The Mavericks and Dirk were not merely second fiddle to one team led by possibly the greatest player ever. They were 2nd or 3rd or 4th fiddle to any number of teams.

 

I think that matters.

 

As far as "there being something different", it's not just about 25-10. It's about taking over games. It's about willing your team to win. Stats don't tell you everything. There are a lot of guys who were total stiffs, and yet, when you look back at their stats, they weren't nearly that bad. And I think guys like Avernus are saying they see those things. Not saying, even for a second, that Dirk was ever a stiff, but that he's taken things to a different level.

[Brent]

The west has been dominate for the last decade. First it was Utah, San Antonio, and the Lakers. Then it was San Antonio, LAL, and Sacremento, to lately, San Antonio, LAL, New Orleans, and Denver. And this year, San Antonio, LAL, OKC, and Memphis. The West has always been stacked.

 

 

Sac-town had Bibby, Peja, Webber, and a host of other players, and they were robbed against LA by the refs. Just as Dallas was robbed by the refs in game 4 of the Finals. Now Dallas was only 2-2 at the time, and had plenty of time to make up for that, but Sac certainly didnt. Im not making excuses for either team, but its hard enough to just play your opponent, let alone the whistles getting the other teams stars to the line at will.

 

 

Saying Dirk wasnt as good 7 years ago when Finley and Nash were both in Dallas isnt a knock on Dirk, he has improved since Nash left. But Nash hasnt exactly got his team to the Finals, and he has won 2 MVPs since he left Dallas.

 

This is the best Dallas team ever. And its sad Kidd, Peja, and Marion are past their prime, and Butler is hurt. While Roddy B isnt ready to shine yet. But Dirk is playing his best ball ever right now. He seems to have gotten better every year, working on his game, and doesnt look like he is slowing down a bit yet. Hopefully he can sustain this for 2-3 more years, Barea and Chandler stays, Roddy B improves, and they fill in for aging pieces like Kidd, Terry, and Peja. Marion is going to be here a while, he has 3 years left on his contract, but terry has 1 year left, and Peja is a RFA. So this team could look dramatically different in the near future. Chandler and Barea are both going to be hot commodities.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Brent

[Gopher]

Here's the thing though, Gopher, I would argue that, as a team, Dallas should have done better than the seeds they earned during that stretch. So, Just because they got out of the first round as a 6 doesn't mean as much if they should have been better than a 6 to begin with.

So, now, Dallas underachieved during the regular season (rather than the post-season), and should have had a better seed, in the past? No offense, but that seems like grasping at straws, and the argument keeps changing. Even if that were the case (and it might be... I'm not arguing that), it doesn't support the argument that Dirk wasn't trying as hard, in past seasons (which is the part I have trouble buying).

 

And, what I'm saying is that, in a game like basketball, where one player can make a bigger difference than in pretty much any other team sport, taking your team all the way matters more. And it's why Nash and Malone will also always have that knock on their resume.

Definitely agree with this... Winning a ring puts players at another level of greatness, right or wrong.

 

Mind you, Malone and the Jazz did make it twice but happened to do so while, perhaps the greatest player of all time, was doing his thing. They also made the conference finals 3 other times.

 

Dallas kept getting bounced by Sacto, who was also a team that couldn't close the deal. The Mavericks and Dirk were not merely second fiddle to one team led by possibly the greatest player ever. They were 2nd or 3rd or 4th fiddle to any number of teams.

 

I think that matters.

No question... The West was a bunch of solid to very good teams during that era, and Dallas certainly never rose to the top, and distinguished themselves from the rest. Again, I'm not arguing with that. I just don't particularly think they SHOULD have done any better than they did. Malone was better than Dirk (and was arguably the best PF in history, or at least the best to not win a championship), and Stockton is the all-time assists leader in NBA history. Straight up, at that point in time, Stockton was better than Nash, and I don't think you would find many people who disagree.

 

As far as "there being something different", it's not just about 25-10. It's about taking over games. It's about willing your team to win. Stats don't tell you everything. There are a lot of guys who were total stiffs, and yet, when you look back at their stats, they weren't nearly that bad. And I think guys like Avernus are saying they see those things. Not saying, even for a second, that Dirk was ever a stiff, but that he's taken things to a different level.

I agree that stats certainly don't tell the whole story, but it's certainly a lot more concrete than saying that a player just looked different. We hear the saying that a player "stepped up his game" all the time, and I do think that applies to Dirk in this situation. For whatever reason, he's getting it done this year, when they did the exact opposite 3-4 years ago, against the Warriors. But, I just have a hard time believing that he wasn't trying just as hard, in past seasons. Or, that he wasn't as focused in past seasons. Or, that he was a flopper, etc. Those kinds of comments come from people who don't actually watch the games, the same kind of people that Avernus referred to in one of his previous posts (next-morning sports page readers, or something to that affect). There's just nothing substantial that backs up any of those sentiments, and that's a fact.

 

Dallas was what it was, over the past decade... A pretty solid team within a group of several other solid teams, in a dog-fight to make the post-season, much less worry about getting one of the top four seeds. Heck, haven't there been a couple of 50-win teams to not even make the playoffs, in the West, during the past decade? So, it's not like we're talking about an era when it should have been easy to come out of the West. It was, in fact, quite the opposite.

[Brent]

So, now, Dallas underachieved during the regular season (rather than the post-season), and should have had a better seed, in the past? No offense, but that seems like grasping at straws, and the argument keeps changing. Even if that were the case (and it might be... I'm not arguing that), it doesn't support the argument that Dirk wasn't trying as hard, in past seasons (which is the part I have trouble buying).

 

 

Detlef 101

Edited May 23, 2011 by Brent

[Gopher]

I'm not sure this is the best Dallas team ever... Certainly, they've got the right mix of chemistry, veteran experience/leadership (Kidd/Marion/Dirk), and energy from guys like Chandler... at least, so far. But, I think they have had teams that could be considered just as good, if not better. We've seen a bit of a transformation in the past year or two, in the NBA... The West is no longer superior, at least at the top of the conferences. It's still no easy task to make the playoffs, obviously, but it's not what it once was.

 

I do think a lot of things factor into playoff runs... sometimes, it pays to be the right team, at the right time. I think they caught the Lakers at just the right time (when LA wasn't playing great, and clearly has/had some chemistry issues), and they are likely facing OKC a year or two before that team transforms from good to great (most likely). So, in both of those cases, it's the right time, right place scenario for Dallas. I don't mean to take anything away from them, as they have certainly earned everything they've accomplished, so far. I just think that's always going to be the case, in nearly any sport... various situations, chemistry, matchups, and timing play a big role in who comes out on top, in the end.

 

Dallas has hit their stride, and faced the right teams, at the right time.

[Gopher]

I'm now going to step away from this thread, or at least this argument. I can't believe I am arguing on Brent's behalf... Usually, I am arguing with him.

 

Side note, getting back to this year's playoffs in general... The more the season progresses, the more it looks like the Heat's year to take it all. If that happens, I have to give Spoelstra (not sure if that's how it's spelled) his props... there was certainly a point (or several points, actually) in this season, where it didn't look like they were going to get it together. He's made some nice adjustments, and their recent success has to be partially attributed to him... not just chalked up to Lebron/Wade/Bosh, and the other role players, playing better as a group.

 

Not saying he's coach of the year, or anything, but this team looked like a trainwreck, 4-5 months ago.

[detlef]

The west has been dominate for the last decade. First it was Utah, San Antonio, and the Lakers. Then it was San Antonio, LAL, and Sacremento, to lately, San Antonio, LAL, New Orleans, and Denver. And this year, San Antonio, LAL, OKC, and Memphis. The West has always been stacked.

 

 

Sac-town had Bibby, Peja, Webber, and a host of other players, and they were robbed against LA by the refs. Just as Dallas was robbed by the refs in game 4 of the Finals. Now Dallas was only 2-2 at the time, and had plenty of time to make up for that, but Sac certainly didnt. Im not making excuses for either team, but its hard enough to just play your opponent, let alone the whistles getting the other teams stars to the line at will.

 

 

Saying Dirk wasnt as good 7 years ago when Finley and Nash were both in Dallas isnt a knock on Dirk, he has improved since Nash left. But Nash hasnt exactly got his team to the Finals, and he has won 2 MVPs since he left Dallas.

 

This is the best Dallas team ever. And its sad Kidd, Peja, and Marion are past their prime, and Butler is hurt. While Roddy B isnt ready to shine yet. But Dirk is playing his best ball ever right now. He seems to have gotten better every year, working on his game, and doesnt look like he is slowing down a bit yet. Hopefully he can sustain this for 2-3 more years, Barea and Chandler stays, Roddy B improves, and they fill in for aging pieces like Kidd, Terry, and Peja. Marion is going to be here a while, he has 3 years left on his contract, but terry has 1 year left, and Peja is a RFA. So this team could look dramatically different in the near future. Chandler and Barea are both going to be hot commodities.

Nash was 3rd team All-NBA with Dallas. That would mean that he was the 3rd best PG in the game that year. So, are you implying that, anything short of having the single best or 2nd best PG in the entire league is some hurdle that a player needs to overcome?

 

The simple fact is this: He had about as good a PG as you could hope for, an extremely solid complimentary shooter in Finlay, and some good-enough role players inside. Exactly how much more stacked were they supposed to be?

 

And I don't think that Peja and Bibby were a better combo than Nash and Finlay. Also, I place Dirk higher than Webber historically. So I don't think you can accurately point to Sacto's trio and say, "Well, what do you expect?"

 

And Gopher, my point about out-playing their seed only holding so much water simply points out that I think their team was good enough on paper that, maybe they shouldn't have been as low as #5 or #6 as often as they were. That, IMO, Dallas had some very good teams with plenty of talent around Dirk for a long time. And rationalizing that they did well because they kept outlasting their seed in the play-offs is a pretty thin argument. Do you think that's the goal at the beginning of the season, do outplay your seed?

[Brent]

I'm not sure this is the best Dallas team ever... Certainly, they've got the right mix of chemistry, veteran experience/leadership (Kidd/Marion/Dirk), and energy from guys like Chandler... at least, so far. But, I think they have had teams that could be considered just as good, if not better. We've seen a bit of a transformation in the past year or two, in the NBA... The West is no longer superior, at least at the top of the conferences. It's still no easy task to make the playoffs, obviously, but it's not what it once was.

 

I do think a lot of things factor into playoff runs... sometimes, it pays to be the right team, at the right time. I think they caught the Lakers at just the right time (when LA wasn't playing great, and clearly has/had some chemistry issues), and they are likely facing OKC a year or two before that team transforms from good to great (most likely). So, in both of those cases, it's the right time, right place scenario for Dallas. I don't mean to take anything away from them, as they have certainly earned everything they've accomplished, so far. I just think that's always going to be the case, in nearly any sport... various situations, chemistry, matchups, and timing play a big role in who comes out on top, in the end.

 

Dallas has hit their stride, and faced the right teams, at the right time.

 

 

No question OKC is going to get better, and Dallas will go in the other direction as years go by. But Dallas has never had a 5 like Chandler. He makes so much difference to their defense. Barea is a shorter version of Devin Harris, but makes better decisions with the ball. They do not miss Harris like I thought they would after the Kidd trade. Kidd is the glue to this team, and is a calming figure both on the court and the bench. they clearly have lacked that over the years. terry is playing better than Terry has ever played IMO, hitting clutch daggers again and again. Marion is an excellent 7th guy on this team, and Peja gives them another shooter, they lacked in 2006. Josh Howard was the 2nd best player on the Mavs in 2006, but Chandler IMO is much more important, than Howard ever was. terry looks better to me, and they not missing Devin because of Barea. Dirk is better than Dirk in 2006. Not because he was soft then, but because he has added to his game since then. And Butler is hurt, but he had alot to do with their huge start. I still think this is the deepest, best team ever in Dallas. And Im not sure it can beat either team in the EAST.

 

Chicago may have the ultimate weapon against Dirk. Noah. he is long, and so much more athletic and active than Collison who has given Dirk his share of problems. Taj Gibson is another defensive weapon to throw at Dirk, and could force him into a passer. Boozer inside and the MVP could get the Dallas bigs in foul trouble. the only way I see dallas beating Chicago is simply outscoring them on the offensive end. And Im not sure that will work.

 

Now Miami is a completely different animal, they have 3 big time scorers that can get their shot at will. And pose match up problems all over the court. I thought Miami was a year away, but they clearly are proving they can do it this year.

 

 

Now if Dallas can get Miami, and erase those ghosts, beating this team this year. that will be a huge step for Dirk. I simply do not see it happening, even though Im rooting like hell for it to happen.

[Brent]

Nash was 3rd team All-NBA with Dallas. That would mean that he was the 3rd best PG in the game that year. So, are you implying that, anything short of having the single best or 2nd best PG in the entire league is some hurdle that a player needs to overcome?

 

The simple fact is this: He had about as good a PG as you could hope for, an extremely solid complimentary shooter in Finlay, and some good-enough role players inside. Exactly how much more stacked were they supposed to be?

 

And I don't think that Peja and Bibby were a better combo than Nash and Finlay. Also, I place Dirk higher than Webber historically. So I don't think you can accurately point to Sacto's trio and say, "Well, what do you expect?"

 

And Gopher, my point about out-playing their seed only holding so much water simply points out that I think their team was good enough on paper that, maybe they shouldn't have been as low as #5 or #6 as often as they were. That, IMO, Dallas had some very good teams with plenty of talent around Dirk for a long time. And rationalizing that they did well because they kept outlasting their seed in the play-offs is a pretty thin argument. Do you think that's the goal at the beginning of the season, do outplay your seed?

 

 

 

Nash is a offensive PG and a huge defensive liability. Why the Mavs of old lost in the playoffs, is because they didnt play defense. And its why Nash has never been to the Finals, even with Marion and Amare in their prime.

 

Who were the role players inside that could compete with Shaq and Duncan in their prime. Who? Which is the problem.

 

 

No one said Peja and Bibby were better than Nash and Finley.

But Sac-town was loaded then.

 

their starting 5

 

Mike Bibby

Bobby Jackson

Doug Christie

Chris Webber

Vlade Divac

 

Bench

 

Hedo Turkoglu

Mateen Cleaves

Scot Pollard

Gerald Wallace

 

Bobby Jackson was their Jason terry that killed us with big shot after big Shot. Doug Christie gave Dirk fits, as did Webber. Hell even Vlade Divac was a force against our weak inside bigs. And Peja and Hedo could score at will against us

 

 

Our roster

 

Nash

Finley

Dirk

Juwan Howard

Bradley

 

Bench

 

Avery Johnson

Raef Lafrentz

Najera

Nick Van Exel

Greg Buckner

Wang ZhiZhi

[Gopher]

And Gopher, my point about out-playing their seed only holding so much water simply points out that I think their team was good enough on paper that, maybe they shouldn't have been as low as #5 or #6 as often as they were. That, IMO, Dallas had some very good teams with plenty of talent around Dirk for a long time. And rationalizing that they did well because they kept outlasting their seed in the play-offs is a pretty thin argument. Do you think that's the goal at the beginning of the season, do outplay your seed?

Of course not. I think that, in any given year, there hasn't been much difference between seeds 2-6 (in the West), with a few exceptions. Some years, you could say the same about seeds 4-8, 3-7, or whatever... the bottom line is that there are usually a bunch of teams that are neck-and-neck, and separated by a game or two in the standings. So, in that sense, yeah... They (Dallas) may have been better than the 6th-best team, when they were a 6-seed. They may also have been worse than the 3rd-best team, when they were the 3-seed... who knows. It's hard to say, but just like in a lot of other sports, seeds are sometimes skewed by divisional schedules, etc.

 

Either way, their ultimate goal is to win it all, obviously, regardless of what seed they are... as long as that's a realistic goal. I don't think that's always the case, though... OKC, for example, would probably be happy getting to the conference finals. They won't admit it, but that might be a pretty good achievement, all things considered. Likewise, a younger Dallas team (8-9 years ago) might have been happy just to win a playoff series. As a Wolves fan, I can certainly say that there were plenty of years where I would have taken that, as the team's "ultimate" goal, knowing there was no way they were going to win a championship.

 

I'm not saying that where they finished (what round), in comparison to their seed, is the greatest measure of a team's success. But, at least it's SOMETHING measurable, which is more than anybody on the other side of the argument has provided (which is essentially nothing concrete).

[Azazello1313]

michael jordan

bill rusell

wilt chamberlain

oscar robertson

magic johnson

shaq o'neal

kareem abdu jabbar

tim duncan

larry bird

kobe bryant

jerry west

elgin baylor

hakeem olojuwan

 

ok, that is 13 players. doesn't even count players like malone (moses or karl), barkley, stockton, havlicek, david robinson, etc. you tell me which four out of the list above dirk is better than to get into the top 10.

[Gopher]

michael jordan

bill rusell

wilt chamberlain

oscar robertson

magic johnson

shaq o'neal

kareem abdu jabbar

tim duncan

larry bird

kobe bryant

jerry west

elgin baylor

hakeem olojuwan

 

ok, that is 13 players. doesn't even count players like malone (moses or karl), barkley, stockton, havlicek, david robinson, etc. you tell me which four out of the list above dirk is better than to get into the top 10.

I didn't realize Rick Carlisle was a Huddler.

[detlef]

I'm just going to say this one last time:

 

The argument that Dirk was ever held back by his surrounding cast is simply not a valid one. He's been a consistently great player, but he's also had the kind of pieces around him that should or could have been enough to go all the way. Yet, overall, they haven't really accomplished all that much. They made one final and one other conference final before this year. Add to that the fact that they had a monumental collapse one of those years.

 

And it wasn't because it was Dirk and a bunch of chumps. These were teams that, on paper, were on par with the other elite teams. But they kept falling short.

 

That's really it. I haven't been bashing Dirk. I'm simply not prepared to take anyone seriously who tries to make the above excuse for Dirk not having a championship. Because it is a horrible argument. He has had other good players on his team. Plenty of them. Nearly every year he's been in the league.