2011 Dallas: 57 win team, SWEPT def champs w Kobe; 4-1 on Durant, Harden, WB...

[Nb1]

I've been reading alot of posts where it seems that people don't know any basketball history and think the Mavericks back in 2011 were some kind of today's version of Rockets who got lucky or something...

They won 57 games, would have actually been over 60 if they didn't rest in many games!

They literally SWEPT and humiliated the Lakers who were the back to back champs and made Kobe look like some G-league rookie that never saw a basketball before.

Then proceeded to humiliate OKC with KD, Harden, WB (not this shell version of him) and an all around great team.

And then logically ran through the Heat who had never played a season tght before.

That Mavs roster was an amazing fit and was destroying everyone out there, they fully deserve to win it all. All the numbers and games showed they were the best team, dismantling the defending champs alone was already unheard of. So how can anyone talk about them as if they were a bunch of rookies?

[Im Still Ballin]

They didn't play well without Dirk. Just how good was that supporting cast? This is a reasonable question that hopefully invites sensible discussion.

[ImKobe]

They didn't play well without Dirk. Just how good was that supporting cast? This is a reasonable question that hopefully invites sensible discussion.

Tyson Chandler was All-NBA & DPOY the following year.. Mavs went from a 57-win team to just 3 over .500 & out in the 1st rd (sweep) without him.

[tpols]

They won with chemistry and motivation and hunger and grit. No easy road.

It was the ultimate antithesis to what had happened with the summers before unseen collusion...

The Universe enforcing its law of Karma and trying to teach us all a lesson not to take the easy way out.

[Foster5k]

Meanwhile, LeBron beat a 73‑9 Warriors team with a headcase like Kyrie as a sidekick.

Bron >>>>>> Dirk and it aint close.

[AlternativeAcc.]

They didn't play well without Dirk. Just how good was that supporting cast? This is a reasonable question that hopefully invites sensible discussion.

They were built around one scoring star so of course they'll struggle with him off the court.

Tha Mavs mixed in high quality bench guys that often times played with Dirk on the court which skew the numbers. They had the best bench in the NBA. Anyone that knows basketball knows that.

The problem with you numbers geeks is you guys don't actually know the game. You use numbers without context to form opinions. Geek analysis doesn't work.

[AlternativeAcc.]

They won with chemistry and motivation and hunger and grit. No easy road.

It was the ultimate antithesis to what had happened with the summers before unseen collusion...

The Universe enforcing its law of Karma and trying to teach us all a lesson not to take the easy way out.

They won with superior skillset and IQ. Grit and hunger? That's just nonsense. They had several guys who could pass, shoot, and defend at a high level and make high level decisions.

That is what every great team in history has. None of them have super scoring 2nd options like many here believe you need to win. It's the opposite.. you need a versatile 2nd option and amazing role players like the Mavs had.

Having a high scoring 2nd option and bad role players is actually the antithesis to winning. All the great teams have absurdly good role players and 20ppg versatile 2nd options.

[DMAVS41]

They were built around one scoring star so of course they'll struggle with him off the court.

Tha Mavs mixed in high quality bench guys that often times played with Dirk on the court which skew the numbers. They had the best bench in the NBA. Anyone that knows basketball knows that.

The problem with you numbers geeks is you guys don't actually know the game. You use numbers without context to form opinions. Geek analysis doesn't work.

You mean to say that they had players that paired well with Dirk.

When a team puts in the bench players and they get roasted without the star in the game...nobody calls it the best bench in the league.

The current Nuggets are somewhat similar...they had a terrible bench all year with Jokic off the court, but do have a high ceiling with their best players and can increase minutes to mitigate some of the issues.


However, as was shown to you yesterday when you asked for it...the 11 Mavs bench also struggled in the playoffs without Dirk on the floor, but also as pointed out to you yesterday...the sample sizes in the playoffs and minutes yield really weird results so it isn't very valuable information.

A great bench is when the star player can be off the court and the non starters come in and have success. Players that come to mind that have had that are Derrick Rose, Duncan, and Durant.

[AlternativeAcc.]

You mean to say that they had players that paired well with Dirk.

When a team puts in the bench players and they get roasted without the star in the game...nobody calls it the best bench in the league.

The current Nuggets are somewhat similar...they had a terrible bench all year with Jokic off the court, but do have a high ceiling with their best players and can increase minutes to mitigate some of the issues.


However, as was shown to you yesterday when you asked for it...the 11 Mavs bench also struggled in the playoffs without Dirk on the floor, but also as pointed out to you yesterday...the sample sizes in the playoffs and minutes yield really weird results so it isn't very valuable information.

They had starter level players with high IQ coming off the bench.. yes. And they did pair well with Dirk. They didn't have a go-to star or anything, but amazing fill ins for starters where they could sub them in and not miss a beat from what their starting unit produced.

And yes, 150 minutes or so without real context doesn't tell us anything reliable or important. But for some reason you guys keep bringing it up... almost like u desperately want it to matter. It doesn't though.

[DMAVS41]

They had starter level players with high IQ coming off the bench.. yes. And they did pair well with Dirk. They didn't have a go-to star or anything, but amazing fill ins for starters where they could sub them in and not miss a best from what their starting unit produced.

And yes, 150 minutes or so without real context doesn't tell us anything reliable or important. But for some reason you guys keep bringing it up... almost like u desperately want it to matter. It doesn't though.

What?

You just made my point for me. They didn't have a good bench...as the only success they ever had in both the regular season and playoffs was when Dirk was on the court. Again, please educate yourself as you legit have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.

Again, what? You asked for the playoff numbers after you told me the regular season numbers don't matter. I told you the playoff shit is almost always misleading because of limited minutes and blowouts...etc.

However, the regular season numbers matter...whether you like the results or not.

The Mavs bench was not good all year and they also had a 2-7 record without Dirk.

Giannis this year had a good bench...his team had a winning record without him and a positive scoring differential without him.

That doesn't mean the Mavs supporting cast was bad...it was just more reliant on Dirk for success than the Bucks, for example, are reliant on Giannis...in terms of on or off court.

Need anything else explained?

****ing clown.

[red1]

team of destiny that year


they were a team of hungry veterans who executed to perfection.


hardest run ever. every single player was a vet.

[AlternativeAcc.]

What?

You just made my point for me. They didn't have a good bench...as the only success they ever had in both the regular season and playoffs was when Dirk was on the court. Again, please educate yourself as you legit have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.

Again, what? You asked for the playoff numbers after you told me the regular season numbers don't matter.

****ing clown.

Meltdown.

You're just an idiot. Having a good bench means more than being able to produce without your star on the court, especially teams built around 1 stars. The point is that they could replace starters and not miss a beat whereas other teams bench players couldn't.

You actually just don't know anything about basketball. You're a fukking geek. You literally just said the numbers aren't important because of limited minutes and no context. So the info isn't reliable but you keep harping on it. Baffling levels of incompetence.

[DMAVS41]

Meltdown.

You're just an idiot. Having a good bench means more than being able to produce without your star on the court, especially teams built around 1 stars. The point is that they could replace starters and not miss a beat whereas other teams bench players couldn't.

You actually just don't know anything about basketball. You're a fukking geek.

What the **** are you talking about?

I never said that the only measure is producing without your star...I'm simply trying to educate you that people don't say things like..."the Nuggets need to survive the minutes the bench lineup is in"...and imply that they can do it when Jokic is on the court.

Which is why I have tried to tell you that what you are referring to is the supporting cast overall...not just the ****ing bench.

Which, by the way...I want everyone to understand this unreal bench he keeps referencing...It was...

Jason Terry
JJ Barea
Peja
Haywood
Ian

Tell us more how that was so historically good.

And even that is inflated as Terry played starter minutes and it was really Stevenson that was the bench player as he only played like 17 mpg iirc as a "starter". Ian hardly played at all...not sure that matters, but probably isn't worth listing.

The team in the playoffs barely went 9 deep...

[AlternativeAcc.]

What the **** are you talking about?

I never said that the only measure is producing without your star...I'm simply trying to educate you that people don't say things like..."the Nuggets need to survive the minutes the bench lineup is in"...and imply that they can do it when Jokic is on the court.

Which is why I have tried to tell you that what you are referring to is the supporting cast overall...not just the ****ing bench.

Which, by the way...I want everyone to understand this unreal bench he keeps referencing...It was...

Jason Terry
JJ Barea
Peja
Haywood
Ian

Tell us more how that was so historically good.

It was the best bench in the NBA. Jason Terry 20ppg spaces the floor and played extremely clutch basketball. Barea provided incredibly impactful minutes on both ends. Peja and haywood provided huge minutes.

Best bench in the NBA. Their insanely clutch 2nd option came off the bench... You're proving my point. You really don't know the game. You keep citing numbers that you've already admitted are unreliable. It's a bad look.

[DMAVS41]

It was the best bench in the NBA. Jason Terry 20ppg spaces the floor and played extremely clutch basketball. Barea provided incredibly impactful minutes on both ends. Peja and haywood provided huge minutes.

Best bench in the NBA. Their insanely clutch 2nd option came off the bench... You're proving my point. You really don't know the game.

Hahahahahahahah.

So, just to be clear...it is the expectation that a player like Dirk has to win without a 2nd star scoring 20 plus...and he needs to win with a bench worse than Terry/Peja/Barea/Haywood...to prove to you that he's a great player.

And, of course, as you know...Terry really wasn't a bench player in reality...he played starter minutes and it was Stevenson that was really the bench guy in practice.

But, regardless...I know you don't care about reality...Do I have that correct? Dirk needed to win with essentially nothing to matter...right?