The MYTH that Dirk had no help throughout his career

[noosaman]

this.

building around Dirk took more than a decade to finally get over the championship hump.

Duncan won playing next to centers like Rasho, Nazr Mohammed, Fabricio Oberto.... guys who definitely are not that much better Damp (if at all)

Dirk was pretty soft for much of his career, hovered around the perimeter alot, a jump shooter through and through.... no doubt building a championship team around him was not-as-easy than a more conventional big like Duncan or SF like Bird.

The Mavs becoming a defensive team required outside elements (Avery's influence in 05-06, Chandler joining the team, etc) that Dirk himself couldn't provide.

It's not that building around him was impossible (obviously) ... it just wasn't easy and required the perfect storm of depth, talent, and veteran experience.

Your homerism knows no bounds. Amazing.

Give Dirk the league's 2nd best swingman, a top 7 pt guard and the best perimeter defender and he EASILY wins 2-4 rings.

[brain drain]

this.

building around Dirk took more than a decade to finally get over the championship hump.

Duncan won playing next to centers like Rasho, Nazr Mohammed, Fabricio Oberto.... guys who definitely are not that much better Damp (if at all)

Dirk was pretty soft for much of his career, hovered around the perimeter alot, a jump shooter through and through.... no doubt building a championship team around him was not-as-easy than a more conventional big like Duncan or SF like Bird.

The Mavs becoming a defensive team required outside elements (Avery's influence in 05-06, Chandler joining the team, etc) that Dirk himself couldn't provide.

It's not that building around him was impossible (obviously) ... it just wasn't easy and required the perfect storm of depth, talent, and veteran experience.

On the other hand, Duncan played for an absolute top coach (Pop) from day 1, played with DRob from Day one and later had the luck to that his organization was able to draft two players (Parker and Ginobili) who absolutely should've been top 5 picks in their drafts with very low picks. Plus very good role players like Bruce Bowen, Horry, Kerr etc.

Dirk had Don Nelson (who wasn't interested in D at all) and Avery (who was completely unable to make any adjustments whatsoever) as his first two coaches.
And he had an organization that was willing to spend money and made some nice moves but was never as good and / or lucky personnel-wise (see: letting Steve Nash go, letting Chandler go, picking up disaster Odom). For how long did Dirk have #2 and #3 options as good as DRob, Parker or Ginobili?

And Dirk still got close to championships (2003, 2006), in spite of that.

Can't say he's that hard to build around.

[noosaman]

On the other hand, Duncan played for an absolute top coach (Pop) from day 1, played with DRob from Day one and later had the luck to that his organization was able to draft two players (Parker and Ginobili) who absolutely should've been top 5 picks in their drafts with very low picks. Plus very good role players like Bruce Bowen, Horry, Kerr etc.

Dirk had Don Nelson (who wasn't interested in D at all) and Avery (who was completely unable to make any adjustments whatsoever) as his first two coaches.
And he had an organization that was willing to spend money and made some nice moves but was never as good and / or lucky personnel-wise (see: letting Steve Nash go, letting Chandler go, picking up disaster Odom). For how long did Dirk have #2 and #3 options as good as DRob, Parker or Ginobili?

And Dirk still got close to championships (2003, 2006), in spite of that.

Can't say he's that hard to build around.

We're talking about a guy who won 55 games and made the WCF semis with a starting 5 of 36 year old jason kidd, antoine freaaking wright, erick dampier, and josh howard.

Yeah, he's EXTREMELY difficult to build around!

[SCdac]

On the other hand, Duncan played for an absolute top coach (Pop) from day 1, played with DRob from Day one and later had the luck to that his organization was able to draft two players (Parker and Ginobili) who absolutely should've been top 5 picks in their drafts with very low picks. Plus very good role players like Bruce Bowen, Horry, Kerr etc.

Should have been top 5 picks?

Parker and Ginobili averaged 9 ppg and 8 ppg in their rookie seasons, neither of them made an AS game till at least their third season (Parker in his fifth season). Many people here think Ginobili isn't close to being a Top 100 player.

When Duncan won his second championship, Parker had a unreliable jumper (was getting benched for Speedy Claxton at the end of games late in the playoffs), and Ginobili was a rookie, still adjusting to the game, playing a limited role.

Not saying they're not great players, but lets put it in context.

Can't say he's that hard to build around.

If making the playoffs is the objective, and on average the second round, sure, I'd agree with you.

Considering a team that won it's sole championship in pretty convincing fashion was preceded and followed by equally convincing first round exits, I'd say Dirk is hard to build around. from what I can tell it's been a tedious, unending process for Cuban and Nelson of rotating star talent/up and coming players/veterans around Dirk. Cuban has gone over the salary cap multiple times in seasons in which they didn't make the WCF... I think Dirk has had plenty of talent, it just took a perfect combination of things for the Mavs to win it all - Dirk matured his game and played desperate to win, had a really deep team, DPOY type center, catching the opponents at the right time, lebron historically choking, TD/Shaq/KG almost or already retired.

[noosaman]

Should have been top 5 picks?

Parker and Ginobili averaged 9 ppg and 8 ppg in their rookie seasons, neither of them made an AS game till at least their third season (Parker in his fifth season). Many people here think Ginobili isn't close to being a Top 100 player.

When Duncan won his second championship, Parker had a unreliable jumper (was getting benched for Speedy Claxton at the end of games late in the playoffs), and Ginobili was a rookie, still adjusting to the game, playing a limited role.

Not saying they're not great players, but lets put it in context.



If making the playoffs is the objective, and on average the second round, sure, I'd agree with you.

Considering a team that won it's sole championship in pretty convincing fashion was preceded and followed by equally convincing first round exits, I'd say Dirk is hard to build around. from what I can tell it's been a tedious, unending process for Cuban and Nelson of rotating star talent/up and coming players/veterans around Dirk. Cuban has gone over the salary cap multiple times in seasons in which they didn't make the WCF... I think Dirk has had plenty of talent, it just took a perfect combination of things for the Mavs to win it all - Dirk matured his game and played desperate to win, had a really deep team, DPOY type center, catching the opponents at the right time, lebron historically choking, TD/Shaq/KG almost or already retired.

Your trolling got exposed badly in this post.

Duncan only won in 02-03 because Dirk got hurt, by the way.

[Cone]

We're talking about a guy who won 55 games and made the WCF semis with a starting 5 of 36 year old jason kidd, antoine freaaking wright, erick dampier, and josh howard.

Yeah, he's EXTREMELY difficult to build around!

Unreal.

KG wouldn't have even made the playoffs with that squad.

[Alan Shore]

dirk took a looong time to develop. the key flaw was that he never developed a game that made others around him better. and the reason for that was he didn't develop a legitimate post game, drawing double teams, and making the correct pass out of double teams. this lack of development caused him to be labeled soft. charles barkley knocked him for years for this, and i agreed with him. frankly this deprived him of another title.

can you imagine if dirk developed a post game by his third or fourth season? in a very odd way there are echoes of patrick ewing in dirk's career: not really great teammates during their tenure with the mavs but then he was not a complete player-- until the last two years ago, that is. and that is what distinguishes him from ewing, that and the obvious inferiority on the defensive end.

[guy]

Kind of a flawed analysis in my opinion. Duncan and Bird were better players, but that really doesn't mean it is easier to put better players around them. Would Duncan have won more with the likes of what Dirk played with? Sure, but that has more to do with his style of play and him being better. Would Bird have? Not so sure about that at all.

Duncan being "easier to build around" did not make Parker and Manu better players than pretty much everyone Dirk has ever played with. Pop being a far better coach than any coach Dirk had had virtually nothing to do with Duncan. If the 06 Mavs had Pop instead of Avery...a title would have been a lock.

These are the exact comments I'm talking about. It would make a lot more sense if Dirk had the all nba type players pretty much needed for winning titles. But he didn't. He never got that...and saying that Dirk didn't have all nba help throughout his career was his fault is silly.

Here is an example. Shaq getting to play with Kobe and Wade. It had nothing to do with Shaq. It had everything to do with the situations he found himself in throughout his career. Dirk not getting to play with a Kobe or Wade or even a Ray Allen or Paul Pierce type player was not his fault. He found himself rebuilding one of the worst franchises in sports and for some reason his owner/gm could never get a 2nd star in during Dirk's prime. If Dirk happened to play on the Lakers....none of this would have been a problem and if you put a guy like KG or someone on the Mavs instead of Dirk...you'd be sitting here saying that Dirk was "easier to build around"...etc. Just not the way it went down at all.

Duncan being better then Dirk means he's easier to build around. The fact that you can acknowledge that he'd be more successful with Dirk's teams despite the fact that those were built with Dirk in mind and they both are significantly different players further proves my point. And I think Bird would've done better. Not necessarily more championships, but at least more successful. The fact is he can basically do everything Dirk can do at pretty much the same level or better, while being a much better passer/playmaker. He just simply adds more to the team.

I'm not saying its his fault. Its ultimately a GM/owner's responsibility and I'm not saying it has 100% to do with the quality of the star player. Of course it has alot to do with the organization and some luck. But certain star players do make it easier then others.

Ginobili and Parker's standing has become overrated due to the fact that they are on the Spurs winning championships. They're great players, but if they were on the Bucks the whole time, they wouldn't be anywhere near as regarded. They were not significantly better players then Nash, Finley, Jamison, Terry, Howard and maybe even Kidd were in certain years they played with Dirk. Arguably not even better then Nash at all.

You're right about the luck factor, but that doesn't mean its just as easy to build around Dirk then it is to build around Shaq. I'm not strictly going off what actually happened. Clearly its easier to build around Shaq.

[guy]

Dirk is far from one-dimensional. He used to be the leading rebounder and scorer for his teams (averaging something like 25 and 12 in the playoffs) for a damn long time. On top of that, he demanded tons of attention which lead to a lot ot open looks for his teammates which is the main reason why his teams had so much success.

I think one of the reasons why Dirk's often rated comparatively low and why people say he doesn't make his teammates better and stuff like that is that one of the main advantages he brings to the table - providing spacing for his team - doesn't show up in stat sheets.

If "spacing provided" was a statistical category, the whole discussion about Dirk would look different. Because it isn't (and because Dirk's other top aspect, total efficiency over 2s 3s and fts as measured in TS% is an advanced stat that most people don't care to look up) people compare him to guys like Garnett who are better at filling up the raw stat sheet and conclude that Garnett must be a much better player who has way more facets to his game, does more for his teammates (because of the assists) etc etc.
Which also leads them to the conclusion that the absolutely only reason why Dirk had as much or more success must have been better teammates.

And which is a completely myopic way of looking at Dirk. Just take a look at those 2005-06 and 2006-07 Dallas teams and ask yourself how on earth these teams were supposed to win 60 and 67 games and make it to the finals once. If Dirk were just another 25ppg scorer with not much more to his game, that simply doesn't happen.

Didn't say he couldn't be built around. Just that its easier with some other players.

[guy]

this.

building around Dirk took more than a decade to finally get over the championship hump.

Duncan won playing next to centers like Rasho, Nazr Mohammed, Fabricio Oberto.... guys who definitely are not that much better Damp (if at all)

Dirk was pretty soft for much of his career, hovered around the perimeter alot, a jump shooter through and through.... no doubt building a championship team around him was not-as-easy than a more conventional big like Duncan or SF like Bird.

The Mavs becoming a defensive team required outside elements (Avery's influence in 05-06, Chandler joining the team, etc) that Dirk himself couldn't provide.

It's not that building around him was impossible (obviously) ... it just wasn't easy and required the perfect storm of depth, talent, and veteran experience.

This. I have huge doubts that if Dirk and Duncan switched places that the Spurs would've won any titles. Dirk/Ginobili/Parker would've been a great offensive trio, but lacking so much defensively. In fact, they probably resemble the Spurs of the last 2 years alot that have had a lot of defensive issues.

[brain drain]

This. I have huge doubts that if Dirk and Duncan switched places that the Spurs would've won any titles. Dirk/Ginobili/Parker would've been a great offensive trio, but lacking so much defensively. In fact, they probably resemble the Spurs of the last 2 years alot that have had a lot of defensive issues.

Oh man, of course you'd build slightly differently around Duncan than around Dirk, after all those two have different playing styles and different strengths.
But finding a decent defensive big like Dampier or Chandler isn't any harder than finding players of Ginobili's and Parker's caliber (which IS hard, especially if you're already a playoff team and don't get lottery picks).

[DMAVS41]

Should have been top 5 picks?

Parker and Ginobili averaged 9 ppg and 8 ppg in their rookie seasons, neither of them made an AS game till at least their third season (Parker in his fifth season). Many people here think Ginobili isn't close to being a Top 100 player.

When Duncan won his second championship, Parker had a unreliable jumper (was getting benched for Speedy Claxton at the end of games late in the playoffs), and Ginobili was a rookie, still adjusting to the game, playing a limited role.

Not saying they're not great players, but lets put it in context.



If making the playoffs is the objective, and on average the second round, sure, I'd agree with you.

Considering a team that won it's sole championship in pretty convincing fashion was preceded and followed by equally convincing first round exits, I'd say Dirk is hard to build around. from what I can tell it's been a tedious, unending process for Cuban and Nelson of rotating star talent/up and coming players/veterans around Dirk. Cuban has gone over the salary cap multiple times in seasons in which they didn't make the WCF... I think Dirk has had plenty of talent, it just took a perfect combination of things for the Mavs to win it all - Dirk matured his game and played desperate to win, had a really deep team, DPOY type center, catching the opponents at the right time, lebron historically choking, TD/Shaq/KG almost or already retired.

You keep confusing things. Duncan is better than Dirk!!!!!!!!!!!! No shit. That doesn't mean it was easier to put better players and a better coach around him. The truth is that both Parker and Manu are better than any player Dirk has played with since Nash left. And Pop is a far better coach than anyone that has ever coached Dirk. That matters. Doesn't mean Dirk is as good as Duncan, but this notion that Duncan made it easier for the Spurs to get good players than Dirk did for the Mavs is absurd. In fact, the Duncan Spurs are really the point. A lot of what leads to success in the NBA is luck. If both Parker and Manu had turned into busts, people would be sitting here saying that Duncan was hard to build around or some nonsense like that.

Duncan had more success than Dirk and won with a weak roster in 03 because he's one of the best players ever and a better player than Dirk. That is a valid point. Saying that the Spurs had an easier time getting a top notch coach and better players because of Duncan is not true. They essentially lucked into Manu and Parker....and really actually lucked into Duncan because of the Robinson injury.

And acting like Parker and Manu haven't been elite players since 05 is silly. Again...both Parker and Manu are better than any player Dirk has played with since Nash left. And honestly...I'm not sure 02 and 03 Nash was better than Parker since 05...etc.

There have been 3 years that Dirk had legit championship caliber help in the playoffs. 03...made the WCF and got hurt. Would have been a 50/50 series. 06...made the finals after upsetting the title favored Spurs. 11...won it all.

The problem was not Dirk. It was the Mavs inability to give Dirk the necessary help that is almost always required to win a NBA title.

[Dasher]

I dare you to find any all-time great player that played with just 4 all-stars during his time as an all-star and was able to lead a team to a championship. I'll wait.

Rick Barry

[DMAVS41]

Duncan being better then Dirk means he's easier to build around. The fact that you can acknowledge that he'd be more successful with Dirk's teams despite the fact that those were built with Dirk in mind and they both are significantly different players further proves my point. And I think Bird would've done better. Not necessarily more championships, but at least more successful. The fact is he can basically do everything Dirk can do at pretty much the same level or better, while being a much better passer/playmaker. He just simply adds more to the team.

I'm not saying its his fault. Its ultimately a GM/owner's responsibility and I'm not saying it has 100% to do with the quality of the star player. Of course it has alot to do with the organization and some luck. But certain star players do make it easier then others.

Ginobili and Parker's standing has become overrated due to the fact that they are on the Spurs winning championships. They're great players, but if they were on the Bucks the whole time, they wouldn't be anywhere near as regarded. They were not significantly better players then Nash, Finley, Jamison, Terry, Howard and maybe even Kidd were in certain years they played with Dirk. Arguably not even better then Nash at all.

You're right about the luck factor, but that doesn't mean its just as easy to build around Dirk then it is to build around Shaq. I'm not strictly going off what actually happened. Clearly its easier to build around Shaq.

That is basically just saying that any non pf/c position is harder to build around. Which is fine...even though I don't agree really.

Just be consistent and say that the likes of guys like Bird, Kobe, Magic...any great non pf/c that isn't also an elite defender is hard to build around.

You also seem to be confused on how long Dirk had Nash, Finley...etc. Dirk became an elite player in 02 really. Dirk had Nash for 02, 03, and 04. In 02 the Mavs lost to the Kings....a team that should have won the title. In 03 Dirk got hurt in the WCF. In 04 Nash was hurt of and on all year and Finley had declined. You are honestly looking at a 1 year sample size with a legit chance to win with finley/nash...etc. And Dirk suffered his only injury of his career in the WCF.

If Dirk had played with prime Nash an Finley for years and had no success...then I'd agree. But he didn't even come close to that. He played with worse teams in his prime than most great players do. He's never really had a 2nd guy his entire career.

But these comparisons with Duncan are silly because Duncan is really the only player in history to have the kind of success he did without all nba help year in year out.

But it doesn't mean it was easier to give Duncan better players. It means a team with Duncan is more likely to win because he's better than Dirk. You would think that was just obvious to everyone here.

That would be like saying Shaq is harder to build around because he only won playing with all time great shooting guards in Wade and Kobe. Imagine Dirk getting to play with the caliber of players like that for a decade of his career...etc. It's just different.

And the hard to build around thing is kind of silly honestly. Dirk consistently led teams to 50 plus wins and playoff success for 12 years while doing it with totally different coaches and players. Reality is that...give Dirk a decent squad and you are winning 50 plus no matter what if he's healthy. Give him a really good team and you are going to the WCF, Finals, or winning it all.

And even with all that...we still never got to see prime Dirk play on a team with the likes of a prime Parker or prime Manu. We saw him beat those guys...but not play with players as good.

[guy]

Oh man, of course you'd build slightly differently around Duncan than around Dirk, after all those two have different playing styles and different strengths.
But finding a decent defensive big like Dampier or Chandler isn't any harder than finding players of Ginobili's and Parker's caliber (which IS hard, especially if you're already a playoff team and don't get lottery picks).

Chandler is more then decent. Dampier isn't. And by bringing up this comparison, you illustrate my point. When you have Tim Duncan, how necessary is someone like Tyson Chandler? When you have Dirk, you do need someone like Tyson Chandler. And then in both cases, you still need 2nd option wing scorers like Ginobili, Parker, Terry, etc.