The Starting Line

Posted by Rob Mahoney on October 16, 2009 under Commentary |

Drew Gooden is many things. Scholar. Gentleman. Jayhawk. Connoisseur of fine facial hair. And at least “co-starting” center for your Dallas Mavericks.

It’s going to take some getting used to. For me and Erick Dampier, both.

Say what you will about Damp, but he’s a serviceable starting center. Right around average, as far as I’m concerned. He can’t be counted on as a reliable scoring threat, he’s not the fastest guy in his defensive rotations, and he could never, under any circumstances, be called a dominant force, but the Mavs could do much worse.

Which is why it’s a bit surprising that the training camp ribbon had been cut, Donnie Nelson and Rick Carlisle were already whispering of Gooden as the Mavs’ starter at the 5. No big, really, considering the number of truly terrifying centers that go bump in the night are few and far between, and Gooden’s propensity to float on defense probably isn’t any worse than Damp’s heavy feet.

Of course, there’s a bit of an unexpected wrinkle in all of this: should the Mavs be more worried about maximizing the talent that they have, or manipulating the match-ups to fit their competition? Or essentially, if Erick Dampier performs better as a starter than he does as a reserve, is it worth it to grant him the title on face in exchange for his marginally better production?

It’s about as fine as lines come. Luckily for us, we have a small sample size that should give us a bit of a window into Damp’s potential production as a back-up. In the good ol’ days of 2005-2006, Dampier was relegated to the bench in favor of DeSagana Diop. Damp’s minutes didn’t change much, but his production was a bit different. Roll the ticker tape.

First up, let’s see how Dampier’s collective averages in seasons as a Mavs’ starter (2004-2005, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009) compare to his 2005-2006 numbers:

All statistics from Basketball-Reference.com.

Supposing that the one season sample isn’t misleading or flukey, there’s plenty to talk about here. Unfortunately for our purposes, plenty doesn’t necessarily mean conclusive.

• For whatever reason, Dampier has been a much more effective scorer as a starter. His straight up scoring numbers are superior, but where Starter Damp really shines is in the percentages (FG% of .617  vs .493, TS% of .663 vs .531). It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what went wrong in 2005-2006. Maybe it was just an off year for Damp, or maybe he really does have trouble getting into the rhythm of the game off the bench.
• The latter of those hypotheses is damaged by a critical note: Bench Dampier is a notably better rebounder. His per game numbers, per 36 numbers, and possession-based percentages were all better in 2005-2006 during the rest of his tenure in Dallas. So even though Dampier did score at a less efficient rate, he also created more possessions via markedly superior offensive rebounding numbers. Those numbers run opposed to the notion that Damp comes off the bench in a funk, as a “pure effort” stat like offensive boards would at least hint that his head was in the game.
• Regardless of his status, Dampier maintained a consistent number of shot attempts/minute.

It’s hard to predict based on just one season if Dampier is due for a drop in offensive effectiveness. But if benching psychology really was a factor in Damp’s 2005-2006 drop-off, it’s reasonable to believe that a “co-starting” gig may hedge the losses. Having Jason Kidd as your point guard certainly couldn’t hurt, either.

I guess what I’m supposing is the keeping of an open mind going forward. If Dampier somehow falls off a cliff when Gooden takes the reins, then perhaps he should be the starter, if in name only. Starter doesn’t have to mean finisher, and it doesn’t come with minute commitments. But some people need that comfort to know that they begin the game for their team, even if the nod is but a token. Damp’s a sensitive guy, and if stroking his ego helps to prevent his field goal percentage from sandbagging, then let him rack up the starts. Obviously the same applies for Gooden as well, which finally brings me back around to my point: the distinction between the starters and the bench will be blurrier than ever. Some games will inevitably end with at least one starter riding the pine, and Jason Terry comes off the bench despite being the Mavs’ second scorer. So be wary of putting too much weight in starting lineup analysis, regardless of how strong (or weak, if you’re one of those) you believe Kidd-Howard-Marion-Nowitzki-Gooden to be on paper.