# DLord: Mavs vs. Spurs



## StackAttack (Mar 15, 2006)

The Critics Still Love The Spurs, But. ...
GIVE US DALLAS!
By David Lord -- DallasBasketball.com

The Dallas Mavericks are opening training camp this week. As the pre-season begins, the predictions are beginning as well, and in spite of their success last season, the early trendy pick as the Western Conference favorite this year is not Dallas but rather the San Antonio Spurs.

Regarding the Mavs' chances, the latest to opine is ESPN analyst John Hollinger who writes, "Dallas will be among the league's elite. Nowitzki is one of a handful of players with a realistic shot at winning the MVP award, while Harris could be a breakout player and the deep bench should let the team shrug off any bumps in the road during the regular season.''

"The team's age is a bit of a concern, but again the depth should alleviate any problems. All in all, they have to be considered one of the two or three teams with the best shot at winning a championship. But if I had to put my chips on one side in the West, it would be the Spurs, not Dallas.''

There are lots of glowing words in there to latch onto. Nevertheless, many Mavs fans want to know why, given their sterling season last year, this Dallas team is getting such a lack of respect in regards to being the FAVORITE. Why, they ask, are the Mavs merely "among the elite,'' as Hollinger words it, and not at the top? And what is so special about San Antonio? For example, we were asked by "Eaglewealth'' of the DB.com Boards, "Who did SA pick up to make them such a threat? They lost their top two centers and replaced them with bench players as best I can see. What am I missing?''

Here's how we see it:

We like Dallas better. But we can understand the case for San Antonio. And we do agree with Hollinger's opinion that the Spurs should be the most formidable obstacle to the Mavs.

So what's so special about the Spurs? Who did they add that makes them much better? While that's a valid question, I suspect they could be saying the same thing right now about Dallas. The answer is simply this: they were already an elite team, and didn't do anything to mess that up.

Keep in mind that the Spurs had their best regular season ever last year, and snagged the top seed. They were a hair from a WC title. They were a super-strong team and a single added lucky bounce of the ball could have gotten them past Dallas.

In the offseason they did like Dallas - they worked hard to tweak without messing up their strengths. Both teams kept the core intact, and then replaced players in the bottom half of the roster in hopes of getting more reliable contributions there. It's not splashy, but it's effective if you are already at the top.

Some like Eaglewealth note that the Spurs lost their top two centers. What is overlooked is that they did so intentionally! Neither player provided any reliable help whatsoever last year, and ultimately they were so ineffective that in the key series vs Dallas, neither center was really used. The Spurs didn't want either player anymore.

Will they be better with the centers they added? Who knows. From their point of view, they can't be worse. I suspect their thinking is that if either one of them makes a contribution (and either one could, who knows), they will be giddy. If not, how can they be worse, since they had ZERO guys they liked last year at that spot.

How else could the Spurs be better? Besides getting possible help at center, their other best possibility lies in Parker building on the year he had last year. He is still young enough to improve - and last year, he was so good that he was mentioned as an MVP candidate for much of the season.

Matt Bonner is our candidate to be their darkhorse addition that is currently unnoticed but that could provide the biggest impact for them. He will be asked to be a younger version of Horry, helping to save Horry's legs for another playoff run, and he has some skills for that role.

We don't buy the commonly shared idea that Duncan played super-hurt all year and will be healthier thus inevitably making them better. He played almost every game last year (unlike the two prior years), and played well. He's just a victim of a lot of miles on that frame and at times his game sags. His injuries aren't the kind that heal with time. We think their best hope is that he is the same player as last year.

What is the biggest challenge facing the Spurs? Time is their enemy. They have a lot of guys with tons of "experience.'' At a certain point, those old legs begin to run and jump like they are in sand. With those aging vets, the best they can hope for is the status quo - and at some point, they won't get it.

Oddly, the usually accurate Hollinger makes "age'' an issue with the Mavs not the Spurs, but he's just flat wrong there. The Mavs actually are well balanced when it comes to age vs youth on the roster. Dallas' core of 7-8 players includes 3-4 youngsters (Harris, Howard, Diop, and perhaps MBenga) who play key roles. Add in two cornerstone players who are still in their 20s (Dirk, Terry) and two key contributors who are just over 30 (both Dampier and Stackhouse are 31). That is not an "old'' roster. All those core Mavs guys are same guys as they were 3 months ago, and it was regarded as a youngish team last year.

In addition, in remaking their bench in the offseason, the Mavs additions are generally younger than their bench last year (not older).

PF ... Croshere (31) replaced Van Horn (31) ...same age
PG ... AJohnson (32) replaced Armstrong (38) ...much younger
SG/SF ... combo of Buckner (30) - George (29) replaced Griffin (32) - Daniels (25) .... a wash
3 kids .... Ager, Pops, and Player X replaced Pavel, Powell, Marshall .... same

Ultimately the Mavs' minutes this season may end up even younger, in fact. The key determination will lie in how much playing time Devin Harris earns, and how good Ager is. Both could show enough to force their way onto the floor more than expected instead of older players.

But whether they do or don't, in no way can the Mavs having 5 players on their roster in the 30-32 range be construed as an old team. It's really relatively young for a team that's a serious contender, and makes them amazingly well positioned to remain a contender for several years.

But age is indeed a serious danger when it comes to SA. Look at this roster of over-30's on the Spurs: Barry 35, Bowen 35, Duncan 30, Elson 30, Finley 33, Horry 36, Oberto 31, Vaughn 31, EWilliams 34. In the NBA, that's about as close to an old-folk's home as it gets.

Eventually, with all that age, that team is going to just wilt into mediocrity. But in our opinion it's not going to happen this year. They were just too good last year to expect them to be in danger of taking that fall.

So how do the Mavs' improvements stack up against the Spurs? We think Dallas did a little bit better job in the summer than SA at upgrading their roster. The Mavs added 1st-rounder Ager who eventually could become a core player for them at SG. They also added veteran SG Buckner, and backup PG Johnson (who when needed should provide a more effective backup option than the departed Armstrong). They balanced their roster a bit better than it had been at the SF-SG positions. Also of note, they were able to maintain the continuity of their core by re-signing core free agents Terry and Mbenga and extending Nowitzki.

But the key issue for Dallas' chances this upcoming year will not be the additions - it will center on how much internal improvement they get from the young part of the existing core (Harris, Howard, Diop, and maybe Mbenga). There is still plenty of growth potential in that set of young players, and young 1st rounder Ager also could contribute. If there is significant growth among any of those players, this team will be incredibly hard to beat. If it happens with several of them, it could be a special team.

The Mavs also could end up with an improved record with better health. In his analysis, Hollinger reminds us of the incredible number of injuries the Mavs were forced to overcome last year with his note that last year the Mavs' top eight players played only 13 games together all season. Two key players who spent far too many stints on the Mavs' injured list (Van Horn and Daniels) will not return, which offers a rational reason for hope for better overall health.

On the downside, the team could slip if they lose some of their focus and intensity during the regular season. They can't play for a title for another 9 months, and they could get impatient or careless. SA has been through that challenge (of having to go through the grind after playing for a title) but the Mavs never have. The superior depth this year - and the fight for minutes - might provide a means to help get past that challenge.

If we condense our analysis to a nutshell, SA's biggest upside this year comes if they have found a center or two that helps. Dallas' biggest upside comes if Harris takes a significant leap upward.

Right now in picking a favorite it looks like a toss-up to us, so we don't see any disrespect from those who make the Spurs their continued favorite. But we think the times they are a-changin' - so give us Dallas.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

No question in my mind that Dallas has the upper hand; when Lord compiled the age of the Spurs' roster, it immediately jumped at me how vulnerable they are to 1) injury and 2) dirty play. 

If the body is slowing down, it's human nature to compensate by reaching and grabbing. I guess I never really noticed Bowen's in his mid-thirties, but yeah it makes sense. 

The injury factor is one I can see the Mavs overcoming (once again). Deeper is better - always.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

bray1967 said:


> 2)If the body is slowing down, it's human nature to compensate by reaching and grabbing. I guess I never really noticed Bowen's in his mid-thirties, but yeah it makes sense.


 :rofl:


----------

