nbrans
All-Star
It seems to be conventional wisdom on this board that the Mavericks are the quintessential example of a team loaded with talent who did not win because they were too soft, didn't play enough defense, etc. etc.
Before I launch into this discussion, I'd like to say that Dirk Nowitzki is probably the softest interior defender in the league and the worst help defender period. He did not help their cause on defense at all.
But I'd like to propose an alternative theory: rather than being too talented with the wrong players, the Mavericks were never talented ENOUGH. They always had role playing defenders, but I would argue that the primary reason they were unable to make it to the Conference Finals was due to the fact that they have never had a coherent starting 5.
2004-2005:
Terry, Finley, Howard, Nowitzki, Dampier
At the end of this year, the Mavericks accepted the prevailing conventional wisdom that they needed to get tougher and better on defense. Ergo, they signed Erick Dampier to a monster contract, and yes, their defensive percentages got better..... and they still ended up with the same result. Most savvy people will point to the loss of Steve Nash and the decline of Michael Finely as the main reason the Mavs failed to move forward despite their newfound defense. That's exactly the point of my argument. The defense was adequate. It was the overall talent that wasn't enough. This was just about always the case.
2001-2002
Nash, Finley, Committee, Nowitzki, LaFrentz
Let's go back in time to 2001-2002, the year the Kings destroyed the Mavs with a dazzling array of layups and interior play. The Mavs won 57 games that year, but if you look closer they were struggling to fill out their starting five. They executed a midseason trade with Denver, and incorporated Raef LaFrentz and Nick Van Exel into the fold. Meanwhile, they lost Juwan Howard, who was a superior player than LaFrentz turned out to be for the Mavs.
Aside from their atrocious interior defense in 2001-2002, which clearly played to the Kings' benefit in the playoffs, I'd argue that the Mavs were not quite as talented as everyone thinks they were. They had the big three of Nash, Finley and Nowitzki, but they really struggled to fill the SF and C spots. At SF alone, they started Adrian Griffin, Eduardo Najera, Greg Buckner, Johnny Newman and Danny Manning. Some defensive role players in there, but not exactly starting caliber players. Meanwhile, Shawn Bradley and Raef LaFrentz were holding down the middle. They had no coherent lineup from 1 to 5, and the Kings killed them on a talent level at every position except perhaps SG.
2002-2003
Nash, Finley, Committee, Nowitzki, LaFrentz
Fast forward to 2002-2003, you'll see the same problem. Raef LaFrentz was a disaster, only pulling down 4.8 boards and only scoring 9.7 points while trying to hold down the middle. Meanwhile, they still didn't have a SF, using the same old medicore defensive-minded platoon (Najera, Adrian Griffin, Raja Bell). They only BARELY beat the Kings in the playoffs, and we all know that they wouldn't have had a chance without Webber's injury. Again, I'd argue that they weren't talented enough. They even had defensive roleplayers (Najera, Bell, Lafrentz), something people on this board constantly advocate and they had a very respectable point differential (103 to 95), but it still wasn't enough.
2003-2004
Nash, Committee, Finley, Walker, Nowitzki
2003-2004, the year of playing Nowitzki out of position. This was the year that the Mavs tried to simply load up as much talent as possible and most accurately fits the stereotype that the Mavs were too talented without defense. But they had talent at the wrong positions. They essentially had three star power forwards (Nowitzki, Walker, Jamison), two point guards (Nash, Van Exel), no center and no real small forward. They still didn't have a starting five. The Kings killed them.
My main point is that the Mavs have had plenty of defensive role players over the years, including the areas the people on this board love and advocate: Danny Fortson (rebounding), Raef LaFrentz (shotblocking), Eduardo Najera (toughness), Raja Bell (perimiter), Dampier (interior toughness). But these role players did not push them over the edge or inspire them to play team defense. Why? #1: they didn't get adequate defense from their stars. But a close #2: their overall talent level was not commensurate with the teams that beat them. Defensive role players got them nowhere, and they simply weren't as talented as the top teams.
This is why I'm always an advocate of adding to the overall talent level at every position rather than focusing on role players. Role players have their place when teams have superstars, a la Tim Duncan or Michael Jordan or Shaq/Kobe, but they do not really benefit teams without one. Role players did not push the Mavs over the edge. The Mavs don't have a superstar, they needed to win with overall talent. Had they had more talent and the right kind of talent they may have gone farther.
Before I launch into this discussion, I'd like to say that Dirk Nowitzki is probably the softest interior defender in the league and the worst help defender period. He did not help their cause on defense at all.
But I'd like to propose an alternative theory: rather than being too talented with the wrong players, the Mavericks were never talented ENOUGH. They always had role playing defenders, but I would argue that the primary reason they were unable to make it to the Conference Finals was due to the fact that they have never had a coherent starting 5.
2004-2005:
Terry, Finley, Howard, Nowitzki, Dampier
At the end of this year, the Mavericks accepted the prevailing conventional wisdom that they needed to get tougher and better on defense. Ergo, they signed Erick Dampier to a monster contract, and yes, their defensive percentages got better..... and they still ended up with the same result. Most savvy people will point to the loss of Steve Nash and the decline of Michael Finely as the main reason the Mavs failed to move forward despite their newfound defense. That's exactly the point of my argument. The defense was adequate. It was the overall talent that wasn't enough. This was just about always the case.
2001-2002
Nash, Finley, Committee, Nowitzki, LaFrentz
Let's go back in time to 2001-2002, the year the Kings destroyed the Mavs with a dazzling array of layups and interior play. The Mavs won 57 games that year, but if you look closer they were struggling to fill out their starting five. They executed a midseason trade with Denver, and incorporated Raef LaFrentz and Nick Van Exel into the fold. Meanwhile, they lost Juwan Howard, who was a superior player than LaFrentz turned out to be for the Mavs.
Aside from their atrocious interior defense in 2001-2002, which clearly played to the Kings' benefit in the playoffs, I'd argue that the Mavs were not quite as talented as everyone thinks they were. They had the big three of Nash, Finley and Nowitzki, but they really struggled to fill the SF and C spots. At SF alone, they started Adrian Griffin, Eduardo Najera, Greg Buckner, Johnny Newman and Danny Manning. Some defensive role players in there, but not exactly starting caliber players. Meanwhile, Shawn Bradley and Raef LaFrentz were holding down the middle. They had no coherent lineup from 1 to 5, and the Kings killed them on a talent level at every position except perhaps SG.
2002-2003
Nash, Finley, Committee, Nowitzki, LaFrentz
Fast forward to 2002-2003, you'll see the same problem. Raef LaFrentz was a disaster, only pulling down 4.8 boards and only scoring 9.7 points while trying to hold down the middle. Meanwhile, they still didn't have a SF, using the same old medicore defensive-minded platoon (Najera, Adrian Griffin, Raja Bell). They only BARELY beat the Kings in the playoffs, and we all know that they wouldn't have had a chance without Webber's injury. Again, I'd argue that they weren't talented enough. They even had defensive roleplayers (Najera, Bell, Lafrentz), something people on this board constantly advocate and they had a very respectable point differential (103 to 95), but it still wasn't enough.
2003-2004
Nash, Committee, Finley, Walker, Nowitzki
2003-2004, the year of playing Nowitzki out of position. This was the year that the Mavs tried to simply load up as much talent as possible and most accurately fits the stereotype that the Mavs were too talented without defense. But they had talent at the wrong positions. They essentially had three star power forwards (Nowitzki, Walker, Jamison), two point guards (Nash, Van Exel), no center and no real small forward. They still didn't have a starting five. The Kings killed them.
My main point is that the Mavs have had plenty of defensive role players over the years, including the areas the people on this board love and advocate: Danny Fortson (rebounding), Raef LaFrentz (shotblocking), Eduardo Najera (toughness), Raja Bell (perimiter), Dampier (interior toughness). But these role players did not push them over the edge or inspire them to play team defense. Why? #1: they didn't get adequate defense from their stars. But a close #2: their overall talent level was not commensurate with the teams that beat them. Defensive role players got them nowhere, and they simply weren't as talented as the top teams.
This is why I'm always an advocate of adding to the overall talent level at every position rather than focusing on role players. Role players have their place when teams have superstars, a la Tim Duncan or Michael Jordan or Shaq/Kobe, but they do not really benefit teams without one. Role players did not push the Mavs over the edge. The Mavs don't have a superstar, they needed to win with overall talent. Had they had more talent and the right kind of talent they may have gone farther.
Last edited:
