RealGM

SportsGuru08 wrote: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.

Yeah, I mean I don't consider them an ATG team. They were very good, though, and a worthy title squad. But mostly ATG teams do something incredible in the RS and/or contend over time, neither of which did that Dallas team manage. Still, a wonderful season to watch. Very storybook stuff.

No, but their playoff run might be the best ever from a narrative standpoint.

12-5 in the playoffs is pretty good. The team was experienced but not ancient.

Dirk, Kidd, Terry, Marion, Chandler, Stojaković, Barea, Stevenson is a really deep rotation. I prefer this well-rounded sort of team over top heavy "superteams" that perhaps focus too much on isolation scoring.

SportsGuru08 wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

SportsGuru08 wrote:
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.

Sample sizes are small. But Dallas played Miami 8 times that year and won 75% of the games. Lebron struggled in the RS too. At some point you probably have to grudgingly accept Dallas had a plan and the veteran players to execute it.

No they were not. Sansterre had them at 41, so idk I guess it depends on your definition of All-Time Great but I wouldn't consider them on that level.

Yeah to answer the OP its all about your definitions. They are a champion. So that alone defaults you at worst to a top 100 team. They aren't the worst champion by a long stretch and so now you are locked into top 50. Considering we are up to 30 teams every year, that puts them in the elite of the elite by most reasonable definitions.

But if you are looking at super exclusive, well they aren't as good as the best Pippen Bulls team or the best Curry Warriors team or the best Shaq Lakers team etc.... So if you only have the top 10 or so teams as all-time greats, the little Mavs fall short.

But I am always amused at those who work so hard at narratives to discredit them. Or discredit any champion really. They were the best. Not a one of those series was remotely a fluke and they dominated the West which was once again a brutally tough conference. When Dirk played in the regular season they were a 60+ win team, they ended multiple double digit winning streaks that year which meant when playing the best teams at the peak of their seasons, Dallas handled them.

The issue some people have is they just see Dirk and mostly a team of past their prime vets. The names while big, aren't in their best years, so people who are too lazy to evaluate the team just dismiss them for lack of star power. But if you ignore the names and just look at their resume, it stacks up. It's championship quality.

Texas Chuck wrote:Yeah to answer the OP its all about your definitions. They are a champion. So that alone defaults you at worst to a top 100 team. They aren't the worst champion by a long stretch and so now you are locked into top 50. Considering we are up to 30 teams every year, that puts them in the elite of the elite by most reasonable definitions.

But if you are looking at super exclusive, well they aren't as good as the best Pippen Bulls team or the best Curry Warriors team or the best Shaq Lakers team etc.... So if you only have the top 10 or so teams as all-time greats, the little Mavs fall short.

But I am always amused at those who work so hard at narratives to discredit them. Or discredit any champion really. They were the best. Not a one of those series was remotely a fluke and they dominated the West which was once again a brutally tough conference. When Dirk played in the regular season they were a 60+ win team, they ended multiple double digit winning streaks that year which meant when playing the best teams at the peak of their seasons, Dallas handled them.

The issue some people have is they just see Dirk and mostly a team of past their prime vets. The names while big, aren't in their best years, so people who are too lazy to evaluate the team just dismiss them for lack of star power. But if you ignore the names and just look at their resume, it stacks up. It's championship quality.

That's pretty good bait right there.

Texas Chuck wrote:

SportsGuru08 wrote:

OhayoKD wrote: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.

Sample sizes are small. But Dallas played Miami 8 times that year and won 75% of the games. Lebron struggled in the RS too. At some point you probably have to grudgingly accept Dallas had a plan and the veteran players to execute it.

The only thing I have to accept is that Dallas winning the Finals was far too dependant on a generational talent in his prime performing a disappearing act for the ages. Hence why I call them a fluke.

But I don't base it solely on that. It's also the fact that their recent postseason history leading up to 2011 was less than impressive to say the least: three first round exits (two of them as a Top 2 seed) and a second round loss in which they were gentleman swept. And after winning in 2011, they never won another playoff series in the Dirk era.

So yeah, the 2011 Mavs are definitely a fluke

One_and_Done wrote:'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.

I would argue the last three champions supporting cast are not really that stacked. If you let the Lakers make some adjustments like starting Odom and Gasol I think they're fine competing with them.

Dr Positivity wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:'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 teamers back then, but would be a 2nd round out today in most years.

I would argue the last three champions supporting cast are not really that stacked. If you let the Lakers make some adjustments like starting Odom and Gasol I think they're fine competing with them.

Last year was a relatively weak year for top end contenders given it's 2023. That said no. The Lakers would be destroyed by the Nuggets, Warriors and Bucks.

Even starting Odom & Pau, they have poor 3pt shooting for the modern game, poor spacing, and relatively poor defenders for defending modern offense. We saw what a liability an older Pau was against modern offenses, and 09-11 Pau wasn't that much quicker. He'd still be a liability.

Not one of their starters would be above average at shooting for their position. They would also be starting two to three guys who are bad 3pt shooters (Pau/Odom & Metta). I shudder to think how Kobe's play style would adapt today. Teams would cook him on D often because of his inability to loaf, and he would do as much harm as good on offense in many ways. Those teams would sweep them if they played seriously.

One_and_Done wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:'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 teamers back then, but would be a 2nd round out today in most years.

I would argue the last three champions supporting cast are not really that stacked. If you let the Lakers make some adjustments like starting Odom and Gasol I think they're fine competing with them.

Last year was a relatively weak year for top end contenders given it's 2023. That said no. The Lakers would be destroyed by the Nuggets, Warriors and Bucks.

Even starting Odom & Pau, they have poor 3pt shooting for the modern game, poor spacing, and relatively poor defenders for defending modern offense. We saw what a liability an older Pau was against modern offenses, and 09-11 Pau wasn't that much quicker. He'd still be a liability.

Not one of their starters would be above average at shooting for their position. They would also be starting two to three guys who are bad 3pt shooters (Pau/Odom & Metta). I shudder to think how Kobe's play style would adapt today. Teams would cook him on D often because of his inability to loaf, and he would do as much harm as good on offense in many ways. Those teams would sweep them if they played seriously.

You are vastly underrating that 2009 Lakers team if we presume they could go through a season of today's NBA to acclimate themselves.

There's no shot the 2023 Warriors are sweeping that team when they were a bang average team by every metric possible. They went like 11-30 on the road.

I don't think the 2009 Lakers would beat the 2023 Nuggets, but I don't think it'd be a massive blow-out. The Bucks are tough to evaluate because of their poor showing vs the Heat.

These days teams treat the regular season differently. You can't look at a team that turned it on in the playoffs like the 22 Warriors based on their raw RS numbers.

I don't think those Lakers teams get crushed, I know they do. They have no real 3pt shooting and can't guard the high PnR. They wouldn't even make the finals. It would be painful to watch them get dissected.

One_and_Done wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:'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 teamers back then, but would be a 2nd round out today in most years.

I would argue the last three champions supporting cast are not really that stacked. If you let the Lakers make some adjustments like starting Odom and Gasol I think they're fine competing with them.

Last year was a relatively weak year for top end contenders given it's 2023. That said no. The Lakers would be destroyed by the Nuggets, Warriors and Bucks.

Even starting Odom & Pau, they have poor 3pt shooting for the modern game, poor spacing, and relatively poor defenders for defending modern offense. We saw what a liability an older Pau was against modern offenses, and 09-11 Pau wasn't that much quicker. He'd still be a liability.

Not one of their starters would be above average at shooting for their position. They would also be starting two to three guys who are bad 3pt shooters (Pau/Odom & Metta). I shudder to think how Kobe's play style would adapt today. Teams would cook him on D often because of his inability to loaf, and he would do as much harm as good on offense in many ways. Those teams would sweep them if they played seriously.

Kobe's 3P% looks a little low for what it feel like his outside shooting talent was at the time. He definitely felt like a more natural shooter than Lebron despite the numbers not totally reflecting it. In modern era if taking some of his all time work ethic and spending more hours on 3s than midrange I think he'd be at least as good as Doncic at it.

Fisher is a great spot up shooter. At SF young Ariza and old MWP were solid, and off the bench they could adjust some minutes like giving VladRad and Vujacic more. While Odom and Gasol are not 3pt shooters they are both solid midrange threats. In terms of Pau's defense at center he's capable of playing defense at playoffs 2023 Jokic level. I don't think he could cut it at PF on defense anymore but he's unlikely to play there.

While Lakers and Celtics finals are fairly old school, it's not like the Lakers didn't have to play other teams with more modern styles. The Suns in 2010 were pure PNR+Shooters, and with Frye lineups pure Nash and shooters. The Magic were ahead of their time with the 4 out around Howard, the Jazz were PNR team with stretch 5 in Okur, etc.

We can only give guys the skills they actually showed. People use the same reasoning to argue Demar could be a good 3pt shooter for example. How could he not, with such great form and FT/Midrange percentages? The history of the league is littered with guys who 'look like' they 'should' have developed another skill, but who never could in reality despite the demand for it.

In actuality Kobe's 3pt shooting would not hold up to today's guard standard, and the Lakers are basically below average at every position for shooting.

The Suns in 2010 were a shadow of what they were in 05 or 07, and even those teams would be bad by today's offensive standards. You are vastly underestimating the improvement of the league, especially on offense.

TheGOATRises007 wrote:


That's pretty good bait right there.

Yeah in retrospect that was bad.

I really wasn't intending Jordan slander though. I'm just a huge Scottie Pippen guy.

SportsGuru08 wrote:But I don't base it solely on that. It's also the fact that their recent postseason history leading up to 2011 was less than impressive to say the least: three first round exits (two of them as a Top 2 seed) and a second round loss in which they were gentleman swept. And after winning in 2011, they never won another playoff series in the Dirk era.

Obviously they are a one-off. Tyson Chandler was the missing piece and he leaves for NY after the season(and other key members of that team depart as well, plus the older guys who stay are all a year older).

Those other years aren't relevant to that team though.

And I agree that if Lebron plays great, the Heat win. That's duh. The question is how much credit should Dallas get? You have concluded none. If it wasn't for the regular season Lebron struggles I'd be inclined to agree with you. Guy was under immense pressure to deliver that title, more pressure probably than any player ever. But the Mavs had a really smart scheme for defending him on a team that lacked enough quality shooting and a rim threatener and had 3 pretty solid options to assign as his primary defender meaning they always had a fresh guy to throw at him.

Mavs and Dwayne Casey definitely deserve some credit.

They had a great run, but 2011 was a weird year. Pau's GF situation sunk the Lakers, and the Heat were immature and gave away the Finals. I don't think the 2011 Mavs go far in a NBA Champions tournament

An Unbiased Fan wrote:They had a great run, but 2011 was a weird year. Pau's GF situation sunk the Lakers, and the Heat were immature and gave away the Finals. I don't think the 2011 Mavs go far in a NBA Champions tournament

Blaming Pau's GF for Kobe getting spanked by Dirk is a new slant. Did she make Kobe play like crap that series?

One_and_Done wrote:

An Unbiased Fan wrote:They had a great run, but 2011 was a weird year. Pau's GF situation sunk the Lakers, and the Heat were immature and gave away the Finals. I don't think the 2011 Mavs go far in a NBA Champions tournament

Blaming Pau's GF for Kobe getting spanked by Dirk is a new slant. Did she make Kobe play like crap that series?

Kobe played like crap but I think that team just didn't care anymore. 3 finals in a row usually does any team in in terms of competitiveness and will to go out and win. MJ was done after 3 in a row too. Pistons folded after 3. I think Kobe's teammates had also grown sort of tired of him as well. So ya I more or less agree with you but I think the Lakers as a team were done.

And I agree that if Lebron plays great, the Heat win. That's duh.

Well that's the thing; LeBron didn't even need to play great by his standards for Miami to win. Game 2 and Game 4 were the most crucial games. Despite LeBron playing poorly in both -and especially the latter- the Mavericks won those games by a total of five points. So all Bron had to do was play slightly less terrible and Miami sweeps Dallas.

The question is how much credit should Dallas get? You have concluded none.

I wouldn't say zero credit, but I do believe it was more on LeBron than anything Dallas did.

Wade played against this same defense and averaged 27 on 55% shooting. Like LeBron, Wade had a shaky jumpshot and was heavily reliant on slashing to the basket.

So no, I don't buy this notion that Dallas had some legendarily suffocating defense.

Guy was under immense pressure to deliver that title, more pressure probably than any player ever.

Pressure that he brought entirely on himself.

But the Mavs had a really smart scheme for defending him on a team that lacked enough quality shooting and a rim threatener and had3 pretty solid options to assign as his primary defender meaning they always had a fresh guy to throw at him.

Mavs and Dwayne Casey definitely deserve some credit.

Two of those guys were past their prime.