Dallas Mavericks 105, Spurs 97

Posted by Rob Mahoney on April 19, 2009 under Recaps | 2 Comments to Read

Photo by AP Photo/Darren Abate.

Box ScorePlay-By-PlayShot ChartGameFlow

“Surprise is the greatest gift which life can grant us.
-Boris Pasternak

The fires of the fourth quarter may forge championship mettle, but the finale was hardly the most important frame in Saturday’s Spurs-Mavs showdown.  What Dallas was able to do in the fourth is remarkable and noteworthy in its own right, but we’d be looking at a very different outcome if not for a fantastic display of Maverick resiliency to finish the first half.

With almost nine minutes remaining in the second quarter, Dirk Nowitzki picked up his third foul, and immediately subbed out.  The Mavs trailed by nine, and things were going from bad to worse.  But a decidedly Dirk-less lineup didn’t seem to mind; Brandon Bass, Josh Howard, Erick Dampier, and Jason Terry managed to not only jack up Dallas’ defensive intensity, but actually trim the lead against the likes of Tim Duncan and Tony Parker.  The Mavericks forcibly removed the Spurs’ boot from their throats, rose to their feet, and started swinging.  Every punch didn’t connect, but the fact that the Mavs sans Dirk were able to stand their ground and then some against a clicking San Antonio squad is very indicative of how this Maverick team has evolved.  A few months ago, maybe the Mavs folded in that second quarter.  Maybe the sight of their own shots clanging off the rim would discourage them from bringing the appropriate defensive focus, and the Spurs would go hog wild on a team crippled by the loss of its star due to foul trouble.  That nine minute stretch would be the kiss of death.

Yet here we are, and here the Mavs are, standing tall on their 1-0 series lead.  That second quarter (and, in turn, what it represents) doesn’t mean everything, but it certainly means something.

It’s way too early to judge what will work and what won’t work over the course of this series, but there is one thing I feel very comfortably saying: J.J. Barea defends Tony Parker (24 points, 9-22 FG, 8 assists) more competently than I ever could have imagined.  We know that Barea has the quicks.  The man runs around like his shorts are on fire.  On offense, that typically translates into creative drives and open looks, and on defense, that typically translates into…well, not all that much.  Barea has been a bit of an irritant as a defender, but I don’t know that we’ve seen him truly inhibit a legitimate scoring threat in a meaningful way.  After last night, I can say that no more; Barea didn’t lock down Tony Parker as much as he got under his skin, staying with him step for step, getting all up in his business, and putting those amateur acting lessons with Carl Weathers to work by putting on a one-man show for the zebras.  Does Barea flop?  Oh, most definitely.  He exaggerates the contact, and he does what he has to to sell the call and compensate for his height.  But to angrily classify J.J. as a ‘flopper’ is to ignore the effectiveness of his defense.  He’s not creating contact where there is none, he’s simply putting a flashing neon sign on his back that says “OFF ARM PUSH-OFF!” or “LOOK, A LOWERED SHOULDER!”.

On top of it all, Barea (13 points, 3 assists) came up big on the offensive end.  He was so effective in fact, that he stole fourth quarter minutes away from Jason Kidd and Josh Howard.  As far as I’m concerned, every second was well deserved.  J.J.’s shortcomings were practically invisible, and he confidently drove to the basket at will.  He finished his drives well, but those plays dwarfed in comparison to Barea’s decision making and creation for his teammates.  By the time Barea was more than a blip on the Spurs’ radar, he was taking advantage of all the extra attention by setting up Antoine Wright in the corner or Brandon Bass at the free throw line.  Just beautiful, beautiful basketball.

I don’t expect Barea to hinder Parker consistently, and I don’t expect his bag of tricks to always come up roses.  Parker will bounce back, and with help from the tape and his coaches, he probably won’t fall into the same traps.  But J.J. was able to make Tony overdribble and indecisive, and that tickles me a bit.  Maybe it won’t work every night, but on a night where Dirk and JET aren’t scorching, it was exactly what the Mavs needed.

Brandon Bass (14 points, 7-9 FG, 4 rebounds) was nearly as brilliant, but succeeded without drawing too much attention.  His defense and rebounding were exactly what we’ve come to expect from Bass, and his offense anchored an important stretch for the Mavs in the second quarter.  He played foil to the Spurs’ Drew Gooden, and I’d say that he succeeded greatly in that regard, despite Gooden’s contributions.

Dirk (19 points, 8 rebounds) was good, but was unexpectedly limited.  Some of that credit goes to the Spurs’ defensive pressure, some of it goes to Dirk’s random off half, and the remainder can be chalked up to shot selection.  All kinds of Spurs lined up against #41, and Bruce Bowen and Drew Gooden each had some success.  Like Parker, I wouldn’t necessarily count on Dirk being limited to these numbers again.  But it’s good to know that the Mavs are no longer damsels in distress, waiting for Dirk to put on his cape and save them from the cold, cruel world.

Erick Dampier (10 points, 11 rebounds) showed exactly how valuable he can be in a series against a player of Tim Duncan’s skill set.  Duncan’s line was far from shabby (27 points, 13-24 FG, 9 rebounds), but Damp bothered Duncan just enough to cause a few of those misses, and his aggressive board-work earned him more than a few buckets and earned his team a few possessions.  On some nights it’s hard to appreciate Dampier, and on others he is completely infuriating.  But he usually shows up to play against the biggest of the big, and though the box score may not agree, Dampier was very effective against Duncan and co. last night.

I’ll end it with one more player note: Josh Howard (25 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists) has officially found himself.  Some of his shots were hunted and a few jumpers were clearly forced.  Still, Josh took over the third quarter (in case you didn’t get the memo, the third quarter is the new first quarter) offensively and displayed his wonderfully high activity level on defense.  The “X-Factor” was exquisite, and Josh’s ankle troubles seemed a distant memory.  Just to make sure, Josh took an early seat on the bench, sitting for the entire fourth quarter.

More to come later today on the surprising (Barea’s defense) and disturbing (Spurs’ three pointers) trends from Game 1.

Closing thoughts:

  • Michael Finley was unbelievable.  He finished with 19 points on 5-5 shooting from three, and several of those attempts were from well beyond the line.  Fortunately for the Mavs, Fin seems destined to fall back down to Earth.  It’s just the way he is.  But, it’s more symptomatic of the real problem: the Mavs simply were not sticking to the Spurs’ shooters.  That could be a problem.
  • Jason Terry turned in a subpar night with just 12 points.  I think it’s safe to say that he has Gregg Popovich’s attention, because all kinds of Spurs were playing denial D on Terry all night long.
  • One game down, and still no sign of George Hill, the Spur who has the best chance of limiting Barea.  If Pop continues his hard stance on not playing Hill and the Spurs lose the series, he could be facing a summer of annoying, repetitive questions.

GOLD STAR OF THE NIGHT: The Gold Star of the Night goes to…come on, man, it’s J.J.  He was a stud in the fourth quarter, and was actually the most effective point guard on the offensive end.  That’s right, better than Kidd.  Barea’s willingness to set up his teammates made the game easy, and his ability to finish in the lane with fakes and floaters kept the defense on their toes.  Keeping my fingers crossed that this is only the beginning.

Heard It Through the Grapevine

Posted by Rob Mahoney on April 17, 2009 under The Grapevine | 3 Comments to Read

  • Mavs-Spurs: “one of the best current rivalries in sports.”  (Relive a bit of the rivalry here.)I’m sure fans of college sports would have a few things to say about that, but this is about competing cores, not competing colors.  Who cares what shade of blue you wear?  The Mavs and the Spurs are a great rivalry because they play each other well, they play each other evenly, and they’ve met in the playoffs a handful of times.  This is players vs. players, not school vs. school; that makes all the difference.
  • Hint - if you want to really catch my attention and then have your basketball opinions flippantly disregarded until the end of time, all you have to do is say one sentence: Dirk Nowitzki is not good in the playoffs.
  • Breaking down the Mavs’ offense with X’s and O’s of Basketball, including this pretty bold statement: “With the added benefit of not having to travel a far distance, and knowing the Spurs intimately (this goes both ways though), I think one could make the argument that it would be an upset if the Spurs won this series.”  I don’t know that there’s any true upset in this series either way, but that’s definitely an interesting thought.
  • Art Garcia’s preview.
  • Check out my predictions, and the predictions of all kinds of bloggers on the Blogger Smackdown.  For the record: Lakers in 5, Nuggets in 6, Mavs in 6, Blazers in 7.  Cavs in 4, Celtics in 6, Hawks in 6, Magic in 6.
  • Missed this one after the Rockets game.  Ron Artest, via Jonathan Feigen of the Houston Chronicle: “When I was with him, I had a lot of problems…He really showed a lot of genuine care for me… He always came over and made sure I was OK, talked to me, made sure my family was OK. … He knew I was an emotional kid. He always took time out to make sure I was all right. It was just unfortunate I wasn’t really listening…He taught me a lot. He taught me how to play intelligent basketball, taught me a lot about defense.”
  • Everything seems to indicate that George Hill will not see much, if any, playoff action for the Spurs.  I tend to side with Skeets’ comments on The Basketball Jones: Hill could be a valuable defensive piece against Jason Terry.  He’s quick enough to keep pace, and as a rookie he’s still very malleable to Pop’s “don’t ever leave your man, ever” commands.  I feel bad for you, George, but I’m kinda glad you’ve got a comfy seat on the pine.
  • Tom Ziller talks Mavs-Spurs at FanHouse: “To me, it’s a tug-of-war between Duncan’s constant power and Dirk’s fireworks. Each have won old battles — these are hardened soldiers who have done this before and just might do it again. But in the end, I can’t ignore the clip-on-loop of Parker dribbling by Kidd. If any opponent made Kidd a liability on defense … well, that’d be New Orleans. (See: last year.) But if there’s a No. 2, it’s San Antonio. Parker is too fast, too smart, too good for Kidd, and I think the next couple weeks will bear that out.”  It’s a bit tough to argue against that kind of logic.
  • Marc Stein of ESPN.com, on what he likes about the Mavs’ chances: “What’s even better than the history that tells us the Mavericks are one of just two teams this decade to win a playoff series against the Spurs when Duncan is playing? The strong finish. It’s been awhile since we’ve seen one from the Mavs. ‘I think the last two years,’ Mavs sixth man Jason Terry says, ‘we kind of lost steam going into the playoffs.’”
  • Mario Elie thinks the Mavs are like the ‘95 champion Rockets.  Umm…right.
  • David Moore of the Dallas Morning News: “No one will say it out loud. Even if you lured a player into an inflammatory quote, he would quickly deny it. But don’t be fooled. This matchup with San Antonio is what the Mavericks wanted.”  Glad to hear we’re all on the same page.

No Game Is an Island: The Long and Winding Road

Posted by Rob Mahoney on February 24, 2009 under Previews | 6 Comments to Read

The Dallas Mavericks visit the San Antonio Spurs
7:30 CST

I’m not sure what to make of Mavs-Spurs anymore.

The 2006 playoff series remains my favorite that I have ever witnessed.  The history between these two teams over the last decade is undeniable, even if the Spurs have always acted like they have an older brother complex with the Mavs.  The games this year between the two have been incredibly entertaining.  But where are the sparks?

This could be an incredible case of imposing my own view of the “rivalry” onto the teams, but I just don’t pick up the same vibe.  The energy is there, but it’s on a completely different wavelength.  As the Spurs have aged slowly and now find themselves trying to sneak into the backdoor of championship contention, and as the Mavs have dropped off greatly from the 2006 days, has the matchup lost its mystique?

Tim Duncan used to be the enemy.  Now, while I still hate the palms-up “Who, ME?!” foul reactions, I respect him as the greatest power forward to ever play the game.  Tony Parker is still there, but for some reason I find him much less irritating.  Manu Ginobili is still there (although he’s injured for tonight’s game), is sometimes sickeningly good, and…yeah, I still hate him.

It could be any number of factors, really.  I’ve liked Roger Mason since last season and the dude has ice water in his veins.  His work ethic is amazing, and in classic “root for the underdog” fashion, I can appreciate how far he’s come to get to SanAn.  I would have preferred if Michael Finley hadn’t gone to our division rivals after the Mavs cut him loose, but I’ll never forget his work as a pillar of this franchise’s legitimacy.  George Hill is a likable rookie from a small-time school that’s actually two schools sharing one campus.  I would never say that I like the Spurs, but I’m just not sure that I hate them anymore.

With most of the headliners static and a few new faces, there is one name that is conspicuously absent from the Spurs’ success this season: Bruce Bowen.  The vicegrip that Bowen once had on the wings of the league has loosened considerably, as a function of his reduced role and reduced abilities.  He can still hit the corner three that makes your head sink into your hands and your shoulders slump, but his relative fall into irrelevance is both cause for the Spurs’ defensive fall-off and my growing indifference towards the franchise.

What was it that characterized the Spurs as the NBA’s evil and necessarily juxtaposed them opposite of the white knight Mavericks?  And, more importantly, why has the dynamic changed?  Is it the fall of a dynastic titan or the gradual disappearance of villanous basketball’s poster boy?