12/31 | G36: Dallas Mavericks at Oklahoma City Thunder - 7PM CST

[DoubleJ13]

Maybe if they hadn't treated DeAndre Jordan like he was going to kill them last night & attacked like they did tonight they could have won both games.

[getrichordie]

When I look back over his performances for the month of December I would like to se several consistent performances and a lot fewer 4-17 or 5-15 performances. He’s was good tonight. Much better than even Phoenix game in my opinion.

Great players don't just become terrible players. They generally become a mix of good and great. The problem is Russ has always been good, great and terrible. What we are seeing this year is a significant increase in the terrible and some average with a lot less great. It is decline. It will get worse. He will still have great nights. All of those statements can be true without contradicting, although some people seem to have a hard time grasping that decline just means less than what he was, top 10 and arguably top 5. Decline does not mean he is suddenly not an NBA player. It does mean he is not a consistent superstar like he has been in the past.

+1

this was really well written and thought out.

kudos

[Old Man Game]

When I look back over his performances for the month of December I would like to se several consistent performances and a lot fewer 4-17 or 5-15 performances. He’s was good tonight. Much better than even Phoenix game in my opinion.

Great players don't just become terrible players. They generally become a mix of good and great. The problem is Russ has always been good, great and terrible. What we are seeing this year is a significant increase in the terrible and some average with a lot less great. It is decline. It will get worse. He will still have great nights. All of those statements can be true without contradicting, although some people seem to have a hard time grasping that decline just means less than what he was, top 10 and arguably top 5. Decline does not mean he is suddenly not an NBA player. It does mean he is not a consistent superstar like he has been in the past.

Also Russ is so reliant on athleticism to be the player he was/is (barreling to the rim in traffic, dunking, grabbing rebounds over bigs, etc.) that I believe he could be especially susceptible to even a slight drop off in explosiveness resulting in a big drop off in results. He's like a family living paycheck to paycheck in a wealthy neighborhood. So long as those checks keep coming in it looks fine, but any unexpected expense will be felt immediately.

[Dn4sty]

When I look back over his performances for the month of December I would like to se several consistent performances and a lot fewer 4-17 or 5-15 performances. He’s was good tonight. Much better than even Phoenix game in my opinion.

Great players don't just become terrible players. They generally become a mix of good and great. The problem is Russ has always been good, great and terrible. What we are seeing this year is a significant increase in the terrible and some average with a lot less great. It is decline. It will get worse. He will still have great nights. All of those statements can be true without contradicting, although some people seem to have a hard time grasping that decline just means less than what he was, top 10 and arguably top 5. Decline does not mean he is suddenly not an NBA player. It does mean he is not a consistent superstar like he has been in the past.

At what point do you think that the sample size is big enough to make this true? I’m guessing you (and others) think it’s more than enough at this point.

[getrichordie]

When I look back over his performances for the month of December I would like to se several consistent performances and a lot fewer 4-17 or 5-15 performances. He’s was good tonight. Much better than even Phoenix game in my opinion.

Great players don't just become terrible players. They generally become a mix of good and great. The problem is Russ has always been good, great and terrible. What we are seeing this year is a significant increase in the terrible and some average with a lot less great. It is decline. It will get worse. He will still have great nights. All of those statements can be true without contradicting, although some people seem to have a hard time grasping that decline just means less than what he was, top 10 and arguably top 5. Decline does not mean he is suddenly not an NBA player. It does mean he is not a consistent superstar like he has been in the past.

At what point do you think that the sample size is big enough to make this true? I’m guessing you (and others) think it’s more than enough at this point.

There’s no magic #. It’s purely based on one’s own interpretation/perception of the game.

For me, it’s based on the amount of evidence that supports this bit of analysis. Others need more convincing while others are already convinced. That’s the beauty of discussion.

For what it’s worth, just because others and/or I believe that Russ is declining, it doesn’t mean that he’s not going to be able to ramp it up and return to old Russ at times. I’m sure we will see a way better version of Russ in the playoffs and in key games later in the season.

Because Russ is declining, he’s less willing to wildly throw himself into the lane and try to “out-athlete” everyone and force a layup. This is a big deal because that’s a huge chunk of what makes Westbrook effective. And if his legs/knees aren’t what they used to be, we are in for a weird ride.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[anthony00]

Russ has a good night it gets slept under the rug as usual

[Mattv]

Great players don't just become terrible players. They generally become a mix of good and great. The problem is Russ has always been good, great and terrible. What we are seeing this year is a significant increase in the terrible and some average with a lot less great. It is decline. It will get worse. He will still have great nights. All of those statements can be true without contradicting, although some people seem to have a hard time grasping that decline just means less than what he was, top 10 and arguably top 5. Decline does not mean he is suddenly not an NBA player. It does mean he is not a consistent superstar like he has been in the past.

At what point do you think that the sample size is big enough to make this true? I’m guessing you (and others) think it’s more than enough at this point.

There’s no magic #. It’s purely based on one’s own interpretation/perception of the game.

For me, it’s based on the amount of evidence that supports this bit of analysis. Others need more convincing while others are already convinced. That’s the beauty of discussion.

For what it’s worth, just because others and/or I believe that Russ is declining, it doesn’t mean that he’s not going to be able to ramp it up and return to old Russ at times. I’m sure we will see a way better version of Russ in the playoffs and in key games later in the season.

Because Russ is declining, he’s less willing to wildly throw himself into the lane and try to “out-athlete” everyone and force a layup. This is a big deal because that’s a huge chunk of what makes Westbrook effective. And if his legs/knees aren’t what they used to be, we are in for a weird ride.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Pg struggled last year adapting to his new role. I believe alot of Russ problem is he trying to change and not be so much of a 1 man show like he was in the past.He looks like he is too indecisive whether to shoot or pass but I do belive it will click and all come together.He does look like he has lost a step which will happen after a few knee surgeries.Maybe he is not completely healthy or maybe he is slowing down but he is still plenty fast enough to get by any defender that I can think of. Am I the only one that has noticed the last few game that he has been grabing his right hand?

Sent from my SM-G930T using RealGM mobile app

[Kizz Fastfists]

At what point do you think that the sample size is big enough to make this true? I’m guessing you (and others) think it’s more than enough at this point.

For me there was enough evidence last year. I said that through the off-season. For others as long as Russ is averaging a triple double they don't care how inefficient he is or how bad other areas drop off, i.e. FT and jump shooting, they will refuse to admit Russ is declining until he completely falls off a cliff.

I had someone argue that Russ wasn't in decline because OKC is still better with him on the court than off it. I pointed out that LAL was better with Kobe on the court in his final season than off it so by their criteria Kobe never declined. They dismissed that by saying everyone knew Kobe was done in his farewell tour. The problem is that if we are waiting for Russ to become Perry Jones before we accept he is in decline then we are just showing that we don't see what is going on in the games and no ability to evaluate talent or players. If you don't see the decline until it is so obvious that everyone has already seen it then I assume you just watching for entertainment and not to evaluate the team. There is nothing wrong with that as we all love our teams in different ways and there are all types of fans. If you aren't seeing and evaluating and just expecting the same thing to continue forever as players age then you'll end up very disappointed eventually as all players decline at some point.

[Pillendreher]

Man Adams has sucked tonight.

He's been pretty below average for the last couple weeks tbh.

I think he wears down throughout the season every year.

How about not playing him this many minutes every game then? I just don't understand what Donovan is doing lately. There was no need for our main guys to be on the court with 3 minutes left in the game.

Remove turnovers and we'd be the ones down fifteen. Good/bad? IDK.

Well, for one thing forcing turnovers is something we're very good at defensively speaking. And in addition to that, the only thing that kept the Mavericks remotely close was Harrison "If not for the Warriors, I'd be making Patterson money right now" Barnes suddenly not being able to miss a 3 and the refs not missing out on any opportunities to send them to the FT line all game long. I know we shot an equal amount of FTs, but we also took 30 more shots than them. The Mavericks shot a FT for every 2nd shot they took.

[ThunderBolt]

When I look back over his performances for the month of December I would like to se several consistent performances and a lot fewer 4-17 or 5-15 performances. He’s was good tonight. Much better than even Phoenix game in my opinion.

Great players don't just become terrible players. They generally become a mix of good and great. The problem is Russ has always been good, great and terrible. What we are seeing this year is a significant increase in the terrible and some average with a lot less great. It is decline. It will get worse. He will still have great nights. All of those statements can be true without contradicting, although some people seem to have a hard time grasping that decline just means less than what he was, top 10 and arguably top 5. Decline does not mean he is suddenly not an NBA player. It does mean he is not a consistent superstar like he has been in the past.

At what point do you think that the sample size is big enough to make this true? I’m guessing you (and others) think it’s more than enough at this point.

Truthfully we will only know for sure in hindsight. Anything other than that is speculation.

[ThunderBolt]

He's been pretty below average for the last couple weeks tbh.

I think he wears down throughout the season every year.

How about not playing him this many minutes ever game then? I just don't understand what Donovan is doing lately. There was no need for our main guys to be on the court with 3 minutes left in the game.

Remove turnovers and we'd be the ones down fifteen. Good/bad? IDK.

Well, for one thing forcing turnovers is something we're very good at defensively speaking. And in addition to that, the only thing that kept the Mavericks remotely close was Harrison "If not for the Warriors, I'd be making Patterson money right now" Barnes suddenly not being able to miss a 3 and the refs not missing out on any opportunities to send them to the FT line all game long. I know we shot an equal amount of FTs, but we also took 30 more shots than them. The Mavericks shot a FT for every 2nd shot they took.

Especially on a night where nerlens was playing well. Billy is making a mistake.

[spearsy23]

Remove turnovers and we'd be the ones down fifteen. Good/bad? IDK.

Well, for one thing forcing turnovers is something we're very good at defensively speaking. And in addition to that, the only thing that kept the Mavericks remotely close was Harrison "If not for the Warriors, I'd be making Patterson money right now" Barnes suddenly not being able to miss a 3 and the refs not missing out on any opportunities to send them to the FT line all game long. I know we shot an equal amount of FTs, but we also took 30 more shots than them. The Mavericks shot a FT for every 2nd shot they took.

The question is if that's a sustainable formula in the playoffs? Can a team really rely on out-possessioning other teams for full seven game series, especially when they aren't great at taking care of the ball themselves?

[spearsy23]

dennis schroder is an unholy amalgamation of dion waiters and enes kanter.

I'm pretty disappointed, I thought a guy who could emulate Russ would really help the bench, but he's been a guy who emulates the worst ideas of Russ. To be fair to him you have to question if it's even worth giving abrines/Patterson the ball at this point, but it seems early in the year the ball was moving in bench units and they were having some success until he just stopped passing. Chicken and egg scenario.

[Pillendreher]

Remove turnovers and we'd be the ones down fifteen. Good/bad? IDK.

Well, for one thing forcing turnovers is something we're very good at defensively speaking. And in addition to that, the only thing that kept the Mavericks remotely close was Harrison "If not for the Warriors, I'd be making Patterson money right now" Barnes suddenly not being able to miss a 3 and the refs not missing out on any opportunities to send them to the FT line all game long. I know we shot an equal amount of FTs, but we also took 30 more shots than them. The Mavericks shot a FT for every 2nd shot they took.

The question is if that's a sustainable formula in the playoffs? Can a team really rely on out-possessioning other teams for full seven game series, especially when they aren't great at taking care of the ball themselves?

Well, it's not like we suck at all the other things defensively. Per stats.nba.com, we're 9th in opp eFG%, 15th in opp FTr (that's an issue), 1st in opp TOV% and 7th in opp ORB%. If you combine the difference between league average and the team's own performance for each of the four stats, we're outperforming the rest of the team league by 5.8 combined points. The Pacers are 4.4 points better, the Bucks and the Jazz 4.0 and the Celtics 3.5.

But yeah, as long as we have our two point guards at 50 TS% or so no with very little reliable outside shooting, we'll have to rely on out-possessioning the opponent. 36 games in we're 16-4 when we outscore the other team by at least 5 combined points in points off turnovers and 2nd chance points and 7-9 when that doesn't happen. It's not a coincidence, but it sure would be nice if we could just find some guys to hit shots so we don't have to rely on turning teams over and grabbing offensive rebounds so much.

[slick_watts]

Remove turnovers and we'd be the ones down fifteen. Good/bad? IDK.

Well, for one thing forcing turnovers is something we're very good at defensively speaking. And in addition to that, the only thing that kept the Mavericks remotely close was Harrison "If not for the Warriors, I'd be making Patterson money right now" Barnes suddenly not being able to miss a 3 and the refs not missing out on any opportunities to send them to the FT line all game long. I know we shot an equal amount of FTs, but we also took 30 more shots than them. The Mavericks shot a FT for every 2nd shot they took.

The question is if that's a sustainable formula in the playoffs? Can a team really rely on out-possessioning other teams for full seven game series, especially when they aren't great at taking care of the ball themselves?

sustainable to what end? we can win a series i guess. but it's hard to win games against good teams when you shoot worse. our efg differential is only barely positive, and has been negative for a lot of the season. there isn't really a precedent for teams like ours at a factor level having great playoff success.

[spearsy23]

Well, for one thing forcing turnovers is something we're very good at defensively speaking. And in addition to that, the only thing that kept the Mavericks remotely close was Harrison "If not for the Warriors, I'd be making Patterson money right now" Barnes suddenly not being able to miss a 3 and the refs not missing out on any opportunities to send them to the FT line all game long. I know we shot an equal amount of FTs, but we also took 30 more shots than them. The Mavericks shot a FT for every 2nd shot they took.

The question is if that's a sustainable formula in the playoffs? Can a team really rely on out-possessioning other teams for full seven game series, especially when they aren't great at taking care of the ball themselves?

sustainable to what end? we can win a series i guess. but it's hard to win games against good teams when you shoot worse. our efg differential is only barely positive, and has been negative for a lot of the season. there isn't really a precedent for teams like ours at a factor level having great playoff success.

I guess sustainable to the point where in a normal year you'd have a shot at a championship. To me it feels like if you're an awful shooting team who is going to attempt to beat teams by getting more shots than them you'd place priority on the following in this order to%, dreb%, oreb%, opp-to%. We're doing that backwards, which means a lot of our success is more dependant on what the other team does than what we can control.

[Pillendreher]

The question is if that's a sustainable formula in the playoffs? Can a team really rely on out-possessioning other teams for full seven game series, especially when they aren't great at taking care of the ball themselves?

sustainable to what end? we can win a series i guess. but it's hard to win games against good teams when you shoot worse. our efg differential is only barely positive, and has been negative for a lot of the season. there isn't really a precedent for teams like ours at a factor level having great playoff success.

I guess sustainable to the point where in a normal year you'd have a shot at a championship. To me it feels like if you're an awful shooting team who is going to attempt to beat teams by getting more shots than them you'd place priority on the following in this order to%, dreb%, oreb%, opp-to%. We're doing that backwards, which means a lot of our success is more dependant on what the other team does than what we can control.

We haven't been bad at the other two either. We're currently 15th in TOV% (Russ struggles are not helping with that) and 7th in DRB%. Could be better, but it's good enough that I can live with it.

My issue with the whole approach is that it's just something you can only control to a certain extent. If the other team takes care of the ball, you're not getting as many extra opportunities. If they give effort on the defensive glass, you won't get as many 2nd chances.

So the question is: How do you improve the shooting? The weird thing is this: Per cleaningtheglass, our Westbrook-Schröder-Ferguson-George-Grant-Adams lineups (I'm talking about all combinations of those guys) have been very good shooting wise at 55.0 eFG%. But unfortunately that's just ~40 % of our possessions. The other ~ 60 % of our possessions, our eFG% is 49.1. A big part of that is of course at 47.0 eFG% during 18 % of our possessions. Schröder needs to do a much, much better job of finding his teammates with the bench and our bench shooters just need to be better when getting good shots.

[getrichordie]

It’s funny to see some so honed in on Schroder after he has a bad game. It’s no shocker that it’s even harder to score on 2U with Abrines out. He’s the most important floor-spacer on 2U.

How are you guys not seeing that opposing teams are cutting off Schroder’s passing lanes due to a lack of spacing?

Yes, I get it. It’s easy to defend a 2U where you know Schroder is going to try and score in an ISO situation (Reminds you of Westbrook at times, right?). But what’s the alternative here when the defense is literally collapsing on you and no one is moving on offense? What are you expecting Schroder to do? Pass it to a guy that’s not there? The best course of action is to let Schroder generate his own shot and live and die by his offense on the 2U. Anyone gotta better idea than “Schroder needs to pass?”

Who does a Schroder need to pass to? Please tell me this secret plan you guys have.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ThunderBolt]

It’s funny to see some so honed in on Schroder after he has a bad game. It’s no shocker that it’s even harder to score on 2U with Abrines out. He’s the most important floor-spacer on 2U.

How are you guys not seeing that opposing teams are cutting off Schroder’s passing lanes due to a lack of spacing?

Yes, I get it. It’s easy to defend a 2U where you know Schroder is going to try and score in an ISO situation (Reminds you of Westbrook at times, right?). But what’s the alternative here when the defense is literally collapsing on you and no one is moving on offense? What are you expecting Schroder to do? Pass it to a guy that’s not there? The best course of action is to let Schroder generate his own shot and live and die by his offense on the 2U. Anyone gotta better idea than “Schroder needs to pass?”

Who does a Schroder need to pass to? Please tell me this secret plan you guys have.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

You have defended Schroder for not passing because no one can shoot on the second unit. You have said Abrines shouldn't be on the floor because teams are keying in on his shooting and he can't shoot, despite the fact that we need shooting. Now Schroder has a bad game and its predictable because he didn't have abrines. The circle is complete.

[spearsy23]

sustainable to what end? we can win a series i guess. but it's hard to win games against good teams when you shoot worse. our efg differential is only barely positive, and has been negative for a lot of the season. there isn't really a precedent for teams like ours at a factor level having great playoff success.

I guess sustainable to the point where in a normal year you'd have a shot at a championship. To me it feels like if you're an awful shooting team who is going to attempt to beat teams by getting more shots than them you'd place priority on the following in this order to%, dreb%, oreb%, opp-to%. We're doing that backwards, which means a lot of our success is more dependant on what the other team does than what we can control.

We haven't been bad at the other two either. We're currently 15th in TOV% (Russ struggles are not helping with that) and 7th in DRB%. Could be better, but it's good enough that I can live with it.

My issue with the whole approach is that it's just something you can only control to a certain extent. If the other team takes care of the ball, you're not getting as many extra opportunities. If they give effort on the defensive glass, you won't get as many 2nd chances.

This is what I'm getting at.
1) we're not great in the areas we can control
2) even if we were, is this really a recipe for success vs good+ teams?