RealGM

I went down a stat rabbit hole and looked at this season. The 2010-11 Mavs absolutely destroyed some great teams in the playoffs.

4-0 the defending champ Lakers with an average margin of victory of 14 points per game. That Lakers team was stacked, with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Artest

4-1 the OKC Thunder with KD, Russ, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Thabo.

4-2 victory against the Heatles of course. Held the Heat to 92 ppg.

They ran through multiple great teams like it was nothing. When you look at the roster, it isn't OVERLY impressive given the age of a lot of players. But they were flat out dominant in the playoffs.

ScrantonBulls wrote:I went down a stat rabbit hole and looked at this season. The 2010-11 Mavs absolutely destroyed some great teams in the playoffs.

4-0 the defending champ Lakers with an average margin of victory of 14 points per game. That Lakers team was stacked, with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Artest

4-1 the OKC Thunder with KD, Russ, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Thabo.

4-2 victory against the Heatles of course. Held the Heat to 92 ppg.

They ran through multiple great teams like it was nothing. When you look at the roster, it isn't OVERLY impressive given the age of a lot of players. But they were flat out dominant in the playoffs.

In terms of raw relative performance? Yeah:

Round 1: Portland Trail Blazers (+1.9), won 4-2, by +5.1 points a game (+7.0 SRS eq)
Round 2: Los Angeles Lakers (+7.9), won 4-0, by +14.0 points a game (+21.9 SRS eq)
Round 3: Oklahoma City Thunder (+5.6), won 4-1, by +4.0 points a game (+9.6 SRS eq)
Round 4: Miami Heat (+8.1), won 4-2, by +2.4 points a game (+10.5 SRS eq)

Questions can be raised regarding translation, their inablity to replicate(i put that to roster decisions), sustainability, but with a descriptive lens putting up an arguable(at least statistically) top 40ish postseason performance against stiff competition including the healthiest variant of a soon to be 2 time champion and the reiging champion in an era of non-expansion is very impressive.

ScrantonBulls wrote:I went down a stat rabbit hole and looked at this season. The 2010-11 Mavs absolutely destroyed some great teams in the playoffs.

4-0 the defending champ Lakers with an average margin of victory of 14 points per game. That Lakers team was stacked, with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Artest

4-1 the OKC Thunder with KD, Russ, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Thabo.

4-2 victory against the Heatles of course. Held the Heat to 92 ppg.

They ran through multiple great teams like it was nothing. When you look at the roster, it isn't OVERLY impressive given the age of a lot of players. But they were flat out dominant in the playoffs.

I would have to say no. The Lakers were on their last legs and the Thunder were green horns.

As for the Finals, Miami lost that series more than Dallas won it. The Mavericks were a 4th quarter collapse (Game 2) and LeBron 8-point performance (Game 4) from losing that series in a sweep.

No. They were the beginning of a new evolution in the game. Ahead of their time, but soon supplanted. They would have beaten many champs in the previous 10 years, but few if any.in the following decade.

Even though he was deluded about free agents, in a way Cuban was right to break the team up. It was obvious they weren't winning again. They caught the Heatles in year 1, before they'd figured out how to play. After that it was over. They taught the Heat to just play Bosh at the 5 and surround Lebron with shooters and switchable players.

SportsGuru08 wrote:

ScrantonBulls wrote:I went down a stat rabbit hole and looked at this season. The 2010-11 Mavs absolutely destroyed some great teams in the playoffs.

4-0 the defending champ Lakers with an average margin of victory of 14 points per game. That Lakers team was stacked, with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Artest

4-1 the OKC Thunder with KD, Russ, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Thabo.

4-2 victory against the Heatles of course. Held the Heat to 92 ppg.

They ran through multiple great teams like it was nothing. When you look at the roster, it isn't OVERLY impressive given the age of a lot of players. But they were flat out dominant in the playoffs.

I would have to say no. The Lakers were on their last legs and the Thunder were green horns.

As for the Finals, Miami lost that series more than Dallas won it. The Mavericks were a 4th quarter collapse (Game 2) and LeBron 8-point performance (Game 4) from losing that series in a sweep.

The Lakers were on their last legs, yet were healthier than the 2010 version which won a championship. The Lakers were big favorites over Dallas [-370] going into the series.

One_and_Done wrote:No. They were the beginning of a new evolution in the game. Ahead of their time, but soon supplanted. They would have beaten many champs in the previous 10 years, but few if any.in the following decade.

Even though he was deluded about free agents, in a way Cuban was right to break the team up. It was obvious they weren't winning again. They caught the Heatles in year 1, before they'd figured out how to play. After that it was over. They taught the Heat to just play Bosh at the 5 and surround Lebron with shooters and switchable players.

The heat figured out how to play but still got taken to 7 a bunch thanks to injuries the next two years.

A hypothetically healthy version of the heat might dominate(which is what happened in 2012 with wade and bosh in the lineup and the 2013 regular-season), but the actual real Heatles were always vulnerable.

If Lebron doesn't have a off-year in 2011, that version of the team is probably goes down as the most dominant, warts and all

No. The bar to be an all-time-great team is to be a top 30 strongest team of all time That's pretty high and I don't think the 2010-11 Mavs clear that bar. Definitely an underrated team for sure though

Colbinii wrote:

SportsGuru08 wrote:

ScrantonBulls wrote:I went down a stat rabbit hole and looked at this season. The 2010-11 Mavs absolutely destroyed some great teams in the playoffs.

4-0 the defending champ Lakers with an average margin of victory of 14 points per game. That Lakers team was stacked, with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Artest

4-1 the OKC Thunder with KD, Russ, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Thabo.

4-2 victory against the Heatles of course. Held the Heat to 92 ppg.

They ran through multiple great teams like it was nothing. When you look at the roster, it isn't OVERLY impressive given the age of a lot of players. But they were flat out dominant in the playoffs.

I would have to say no. The Lakers were on their last legs and the Thunder were green horns.

As for the Finals, Miami lost that series more than Dallas won it. The Mavericks were a 4th quarter collapse (Game 2) and LeBron 8-point performance (Game 4) from losing that series in a sweep.

The Lakers were on their last legs, yet were healthier than the 2010 version which won a championship. The Lakers were big favorites over Dallas [-370] going into the series.

It's always funny to me how people selectively remember context and minutae regarding teams depending on their angle. The Spurs were up big on the 2017 warriors before their best player got hurt yet we call them the best ever. The Pistons performed alot worse entering the 91 ecf than the lakers performed entering the 2nd round. And the 01 Lakers got a philly side whose best players were all struggling with various injuries during the playoffs.

But the Mavericks face not one, not two, not three, but four 55-win teams including 2 whose cores shared 4 championships between them(in a 5-year span) with near perfect health, and now it's apparently not legitimate. Cool

OhayoKD wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

SportsGuru08 wrote:
I would have to say no. The Lakers were on their last legs and the Thunder were green horns.

As for the Finals, Miami lost that series more than Dallas won it. The Mavericks were a 4th quarter collapse (Game 2) and LeBron 8-point performance (Game 4) from losing that series in a sweep.

The Lakers were on their last legs, yet were healthier than the 2010 version which won a championship. The Lakers were big favorites over Dallas [-370] going into the series.

It's always funny to me how people selectively remember context and minutae regarding teams depending on their angle. The Spurs were up big on the 2017 warriors before their best player got hurt yet we call them the best ever. The Pistons performed alot worse entering the 91 ecf than the lakers performed entering the 2nd round. And the 01 Lakers got a philly side whose best players were all struggling with various injuries during the playoffs.

But the Mavericks face not one, not two, not three, but four 55-win teams including 2 whose cores shared 4 championships between them(in a 5-year span) with near perfect health, and now it's apparently not legitimate. Cool

A Dirk-led Mavericks team also took the 2014 Spurs to 7 games.

But the Mavericks face not one, not two, not three, but four 55-win teams including 2 whose cores shared 4 championships between them(in a 5-year span) with near perfect health, and now it's apparently not legitimate. Cool

Okay, so when are we gonna start calling the 1995 Rockets an All-time great team?

SportsGuru08 wrote:

But the Mavericks face not one, not two, not three, but four 55-win teams including 2 whose cores shared 4 championships between them(in a 5-year span) with near perfect health, and now it's apparently not legitimate. Cool

Okay, so when are we gonna start calling the 1995 Rockets an All-time great team?

Depends on your bar for all-time but adding what resembled a superstar to a champion and then sweeping a healthy penny, grant and shaq is pretty good.

That said, the rockets didn't beat a b2b defending champion, a soon to be b2b champion, and their opponent ratings(and their own) were bolstered by expansion in a manner the 2011 Mavericks were not, and were also not leading the league in srs during the regular-season.

You can factor surrounding years and "talent" to argue otherwise, but I think in a single-year performance focused comparison, the maverics were clearly better.

OhayoKD wrote:

SportsGuru08 wrote:

But the Mavericks face not one, not two, not three, but four 55-win teams including 2 whose cores shared 4 championships between them(in a 5-year span) with near perfect health, and now it's apparently not legitimate. Cool

Okay, so when are we gonna start calling the 1995 Rockets an All-time great team?

Depends on your bar for all-time but adding what resembled a superstar to a champion and then sweeping a healthy penny, grant and shaq is pretty good.

That said, the rockets didn't beat a b2b defending champion, a soon to be b2b champion, and their opponent ratings(and their own) were bolstered by expansion in a manner the 2011 Mavericks were not, and were also not leading the league in srs during the regular-season.

You can factor surrounding years and "talent" to argue otherwise, but I think in a single-year performance focused comparison, the maverics were clearly better.

Well neither team is in my All-Time. The Mavericks championship was a fluke due to Games 2 and 4 of the Finals. Miami lost more than Dallas won.

Depends on what one means, for instance how much one weights RS versus playoffs.

Clearly not a dominant RS team on average, 4.41 SRS.
If you're just looking "healthy" then I've heard the without Dirk spell is a bit of an anchor on that number (and this makes sense, he's +16 on-off for the RS).

The playoffs ... they beat a lot of good RS teams. They dominated one of them. The question then how one judges opponents in a consistent manner with judging the team in question. If one is willing to take opponents strength entirely on RS performance ... and then why is this team different? It's tricky of course, because different teams will have different samples.

In terms of what-ifs around health the team was mostly without Caron Butler (including the entirety of the playoffs).
Listings tend to have him as SF, Stevenson at SG.
But if he could/did squeeze Stevenson's minutes (and Stevenson's minutes do spike up when Butler goes out) ... I think that would help them.
And Stevenson is, as throughout his career a low productivity (depending somewhat on metric of choice, BPM finds him passable for this year), negative impact player for RS and playoffs.

They were an all time TEAM in the figurative sense in terms of chemistry, but not an all time team in terms of caliber of play, as they just weren't talented enough compared to the ones with multiple superstars

While the regular season results are as good as 2010, the Lakers felt like the 2023 Warriors in terms of how big a threat they were going in (not a total insult, a Warriors repeat was to be taken seriously last year) I guess it was just a vibe that you could feel that they were tired after 3x finals, and Pau was closer to being their best player than before. The 6 game 1st round series against Hornets felt labored. They ran into bad matchup as the Mavs were amazing at passing to 3pt shooters off Dirk attention and the Lakers were just too big and slow.

The Thunder weren't their full selves yet as Harden broke out in 2012, and had tough 7 round series with Grizzlies. The Heat were close to going up 2-0 and 3-1. The Blazers gave them a decent enough series.

Nope and they would’ve lost if Lebron played normally

I would agree that they faced as tough a murderer's row as any team in history and came out on top. It was a great year for them, even if they don't have the sheer powerhouse of top end talent outside of Dirk.

'All-time murderers row' is incompatible with '2011' because it's 2011. The best teams of all-time were not playing in 2011, teams in more recent years are considerably stronger on average and at the top. The 2009-11 Lakers were a super team back then, but would be a 2nd round out today in most years.

If Lebron didn't get fat the Mavs likely get swept, so no probably not.

They were very much an echo of the 94 Rockets: a team with a singular star and a bunch of roleplayers who clicked in a single playoff run at all the right times. Beautiful narrative across that whole season.

tsherkin wrote:They were very much an echo of the 94 Rockets: a team with a singular star and a bunch of roleplayers who clicked in a single playoff run at all the right times. Beautiful narrative across that whole season.

Which is why I say the 2011 Mavs are more of a fluke than an all-time great team. Championship teams who are constructed like this are aberrations.