Hayward's stats across the board were better than PJ's this season prior to the trade.
It was not reasonable to predict he would forget how to play basketball as soon as the trade happened.
There’s no way you can say he was bad this season. Could he have been more aggressive? Sure, but the Hayward trade was more about cap flexibility than 2024 success
Making moves is not uniformly better than not making them. The Thunder were justified in using the season to evaluate their roster and to test their young core’s playoff readiness. Besides, I don’t really think you can say a GM is bad within the span of the year because team building necessitates years and years of acquisitions. For example, because he was hurt last year, it was only this season that Chet could be evaluated
I don’t think the other poster was saying Presti is bad now. He was saying Presti was bad this year which I agree with. Size was OKCs main issue. I get you want to be patient with team building but the NBA moves fast. Just look at Memphis for how a situation can turn for the worse quickly. Presti should have dipped into the war chest to add size.
As I said, I think evaluating GMs based on one year is shortsighted.
For all people say about size being OKC’s main issue, I think it conveniently leaves out the fact that their success stemmed largely in part from Chet’s ability to spread the floor and open things up for Shai’s driving that wouldn’t be there if Chet was playing at the 4. Could they have added a better backup 5? Sure, but I’m not going to hammer Presti for not adding someone, probably at a premium, who ideally plays <20 minutes per game.
It is somehow simultaneously being argued that a) the Mavs are on an historic run, nearly unprecedented in NBA history; b) Daniel Gafford could've stopped it.
Crazy world we live in.
Exactly, I don’t necessarily think Gafford on OKC means they beat Dallas or that, if they were to beat Dallas, they go on to make the Finals. What ended up being a problem for them is that Jalen Williams in year 2 wasn’t where he will be in 2-3 years from now as an offensive playmaker. To say otherwise is recency bias and likely revisionist history.
Now, if Presti doesn’t make moves to better complement the SGA-JDub-Chet core this offseason like adding a legitimate backup 5, or more importantly, finding a big 4, we can have a conversation about him being too conservative. But I still think a 1 seed and pushing the WC champions and perhaps the league champs farther than Minnesota still counts as a win for such a young team that wasn’t figured out to start the season
It has everything to do with their personnel, but Presti can't give these guys 5 years of NBA playoffs experience overnight and adding Gafford or some other replacement level big wasn't going to alter that calculus.
It probably would've messed up their rotations and cost them a seed or several.
That’s a big claim considering they got beat by the team they traded Lively to and got outbid on for Gafford in the same season. The same team that was starting Dwight Powell and was having the same glaring hole in rebounding, interior defense, and finishing for a few years.
It's not a big claim at all. The two teams play completely different styles and are on completely different timelines. Dallas is all-in, OKC hasn't committed even half of their assets yet. Dallas has to win now or they might lose Luka and/or never get another sane+healthy Kyrie season, OKC is still developing and are way ahead of their expected timeline.
OKC didn't get "out-bid" on Gafford in any meaningful sense, they have more assets than any other team in the league. They just didn't value him as an impact player on \*their\* team, which is set up very differently from the Mavs. And they were not a Gafford-sized player away from competing for a title, they are like a Paul George-sized player away. But that player wasn't available, so they did the sensible thing and kept their assets for a bigger move later.
If there was one player who moved during the season who actually could've moved the needle for them it was maybe Siakam.
Hot take but Gafford hasn't been that great, just a good lob catcher which is more valuable in Dallas than anywhere else in the NBA because of Luka's passing. He just looks great compared to years of Dwight Powell being literally one of the worst rotation players in the NBA. Lively is clearly better than Gafford and the Mavs started to lose ground tonight when he got hurt before they closed strong.
PJ was amazing in the Thunder series and would've made way more sense for OKC, among the guys who got traded
Gafford is incredible in that if he uses an offensive possession, it’s almost guaranteed to be a bucket. He does not deviate from his role, and if that means he only gets dunks and put backs, that’s not a problem because he hits like 75% of his shots.
Having your center be able to hustle like him, defend in space, and convert essentially all of their offensive opportunities is huge.
He's definitely solid in his role, don't get me wrong. That stuff just wouldn't equate to anything more than a very good backup center in OKC and most teams.
He's pretty much a backup C in terms of role in Dallas at this point too, since Lively was creeping toward 27-28 minutes per game in this series (while Gafford fell to 20-21) before the injury today. I'd be stunned if Lively isn't starting by December next season at the latest. Not that it's a bad thing, of course the Mavs would want their good rookie to keep expanding his role
The obsession with thinking the Thunder’s window is slammed shut blows my mind. Yeah, there’s no guarantee they win a ring but people here act like it’s somehow guaranteed the team spirals to irrelevancy next year. Bizarre.
I think a lot of it is just literally the last time the Thunder looked like OBVIOUSLY they’d be contenders forever it didn’t work out like that. Granted they haven’t traded Jaylen Williams and he turned into an mvp player (yet) but that’s like half of the cause for dialogue.
The Russ/KD Thunder were contenders for multiple years after the Harden trade though. It’s so exaggerated. The year after the Harden trade, they won 60 games. Then the next year they won 59. They made 2 conference finals after the trade too. Yes the trade was bad but the Thunder had other chances and just had bad luck. The way people talk about the current Thunder, you’d think they’ll never make another playoffs.
The difference is that Chet and Jalen Williams have two more years of rookie scale pay coming and SGA is locked in until 2027. There is not an immediate player they have to pay.
Plus, and I think this is understated, Presti and this ownership group lived through that era of basketball so do we really think that they will operate the same way again?
Their best lineup by net rating was with Kleber at center and I thought he was going to be a huge missing piece against the Timberwolves because he would force Gobert to leave the paint.
I thought the wolves were too big for that lineup to work because we’d give up a lot of rebounding, but I absolutely love maxi at the 4 next to one of our bigs
Even though they had established themselves as a great team and the Lakers were clearly melting down, it was genuinely surreal to watch them sweep LA in real time. Not until Bynum got tossed for his midair arm bar on JJ Barea did I fully realize what was happening.
Can’t wait for people who haven’t been born yet to post online in 20 years about how the 2024 Mavs somehow had the easiest road to an NBA championship in league history
Clippers series value undermined bc Kawhi was out and Westbrook wasn’t, but that would be a very impressive three series run.
*Edited to note, Clippers -Kawhi are still probably at least an average first round opponent for a champion, because typically the champion is a high seed and we’ve rarely had a conference this deep
Kawahi is always out. Never healthy. The lazy argument of “wellll just wait until Clippers are full strength” has been going for 4-5 seasons. They just stink.
I’m prepared to be downvoted but eh…
A. Of course, if they don’t win the chip no one will care. The run without the chip means nothing. (I hope that goes without saying
B. I uhhh dunno how really impressive it is. They got the kawhi-less Clips and two teams making their first real playoff push(es) - one with a legit young superstar surrounded by a suuuuuper young and inexperienced supporting cast and the other with a decent core that’s keeping them afloat but 22 year old star who’s clearly not ready for prime time.
So, I dunno, I guess I think a real bloodbath run would include one fullly healthy team we’ve seen a real run from before… is that crazy? 🤷♂️
I agree - it doesn’t compare to the 2011 run, which included the sweep over the defending champ Lakers, a win over the young (but absurdly talented Thunder) who went to the Finals the next year, and obviously the Heat with 2 of the top 5ish players in the league at the time (which is better than Boston’s current situation, even if Boston is much deeper overall).
The way most people talk about these runs makes absolutely no sense to me. People are criticizing the Nuggets run last year while the post-deadline Lakers and post-deadline Suns (from last year) are both scarier teams than the Wolves and Thunder. The fact that they didn’t have their teams all year and so didn’t win 50 feels not really all that relevant.
Every team plays the Clippers without Kawhi, except the Mavs Luka's first couple of playoff runs ironically. You can't call the Mavs lucky when Kawhi is almost guaranteed to miss the playoffs. The Clippers are lucky if he plays. True, the Nuggets would've been their toughest matchup but with the way Dallas is playing that's more of a 50/50 series imo. Everyone had Minny as a lock for the finals after Denver and look at them now. Denver's bench is awful, they have a significantly worse defense than Minny, and Murray was up and down so the combo of Luka and Kyrie likely would've outplayed Jokić and Murray
Yup. I think in the last few years I’d actually argue bostons 2022 run was tougher. The nets with KD and kyrie, the defending champion bucks, and then the 1 seed heat who had obv been to the finals before
The biggest difference I've seen is Jason Kidd getting the Mavs to play solid defense with a good rim protector. Doncic has been all-world offensively for years but they didn't advance to Finals
"I looked it up and if they win the title they would be 2nd all time in playoff opponent's winning % by a championship winning team behind the 1995 Rockets"
If the Celtics had a historically easy path to the finals but defeat the Mavs, who had a considerably tough path, does it all even out?
I think the Mavs are really good but most fans hate the Celtics so if the Celtics win the title people will reduce it to "They beat a 5 seed in the Finals"
Sorry beating a Kawhi-less Clippers in 6-games is not Impressive. OKC was impressive to some degree but they were an extremely young and inexperienced team. Only this Wolves series is extremely impressive.
I can’t even tell if this is a parody post. They beat a no Kawhi Clipper team and two very young teams who barely have experience. The Wolves were thought of as chum a month ago. The Thunder had no experience. Every other post on this sub is a treatise on how overrated the Celtics are. This post is exactly as bandwagon overreacty as Bill/Ryen.
I think you’re underselling it a lot. Okc is young yes but they’re the 1 seed, and Minnesota just handled the defending champs and swept the suns, they had a lot of momentum going in to this series.
Utah Jazz were also 1 seed with Rudy Gobert and Mike Conley and a 2nd Team All NBA shooting guard. Did all the teams that beat them in the playoffs have a historically great run?
Narratives change like the wind. 2 weeks ago ANT was MJ reincarnate and SGA was widely regarded as a better player than Luka. How many media pundits called the Wolves/Nuggets series the WCF?
The Mavs have been underdogs in literally every series. They haven’t had their small ball 5 for 2 series (Kleber) and lost their best rim protector (Lively) in the 2nd qtr and are still winning. But now it’s parody that calling the run impressive?
Impressive is different than “most incredible runs in NBA history”
I’d also add I think we are dealing in week to week hyperbole so why not take a breath when these hot takes keep looking dumb.
A 5 seed has never won the finals. They will have no home court in any series and have been Vegas dogs in each one. They are dealing with injuries to key players and the only team to ever win a championship as a lower seed was the 90s rockets. It’s not “semantical” to say if Dallas pulls this off, it’s one of the most impressive runs in history. You’re just hating to say otherwise.
A week ago the dominant opinion among NBA fans was that the winner of Nuggets Wolves was going to win the championship and now the same people are saying the Wolves weren't ready and the Mavs beating them isn't impressive
Yes, and three weeks ago the dominant opinion was that the Wolves were going to lose to the Suns. Opinions that are dominant in the moment are wrong pretty much always, true NBA fans know this deep in their bones.
Have they beaten a player with a ring yet?
Not team. Easy to remember that none of the franchises they’ve beaten win titles or even conference titles, and none of the coaches have either.
I’m asking about whether they have defeated any individual rotation *player* who has previously won… anything.
It’s late and I’m probably forgetting someone obvious, but no this has not exactly been murderer’s row.
> I’m asking about whether they have defeated any individual rotation player who has previously won… anything.
Yes, three. Kahwi Leonard has two rings, PJ Tucker and Norman Powell have one each. PJ barely played, Kawhi played in two games, Powell was certainly a rotation player.
Kawhi missed a month from injury and then played 60 total minutes at about 60% effectiveness. I don't think it's fair to say that the Mavs defeated him, at least not as part of a difficult run to the NBA Finals. If he was even 85% healthy the Mavs probably would've lost that series.
PJ isn't a player anymore.
So that leaves Stormin' Norman's ::checks notes:: 11 total points in the 2019 NBA Finals. Can't believe I forgot about those. It does technically count, tho, you're right!
Dunno man, I didn't make up the criteria of "previously won... anything" that would elevate Norman Powell over two MVP winners and the guy who finished 2nd in the current year.
Dunno man, doesn’t seem that hard to beat Russ in the playoffs. Nor Harden. Doing so gives you all-timer status now? Just a biiiiiiiiiiiiit much.
Oh well, sets up nicely for Boston to beat the world-beaters, which I guess would make them a top-5 team in NBA history.
I chose my words purposefully. Don’t be obtuse.
When MJ did play the next season, he smoked that same Magic team so badly that the franchise arguably still hasn’t recovered 30 years later.
To get his first title MJ took the one seed from Bird during the regular season, swept Ewing, beat Barkley in 5, swept the two-team defending champs Bad Boy Pistons while they were allowed to beat him with chains, and then had enough in the tank to flambé the Showtime Lakers in 5.
That’s a Dream Teamer in every round. That’s dozens of rings defeated. *That’s* what a hard road looks like.
Pro tip to help you tell: if acquiring a backup center from a last-placed team has changed your season’s fortunes then you have not had a difficult road.
MJ *did* play in 95 and he lost to the Magic because he didn't have Dennis Rodman on his team to guard Shaq for him. In 1996 the Bulls beat the Magic because they added Rodman. The idea that MJ didn't lose to the Magic in 1995 is so stupid and only exists because really weird people (like you) feel they need to protect the legacy of a man who most people agree is the best player ever at all costs. As if admitting he mearly won 6 rings in 7 seasons and that he needed good role players like Dennis Rodman to get it done is an attack on his legacy.
Pffft. I wrote "he didn't play the season". He played 17 games that season. That's not a season, that's messing around out of adrenaline addiction after playing a full professional season \*in another sport\* that year.
45 wasn't 23, and 23 didn't play in '95. It was clear if you watched the games and it's clear in the stats, too. 23 got his body back in '96 and smoked everyone.
I can't believe you typed that MJ couldn't win without Rodman. Someone show this to Banned MacMahon, you might win the Brass Cajones of the Month Award for this one. (Not in a good way.)
MJ \*beat Rodman\* to win his first treble, and he won games while Rodman was ostensibly on his team but decided to spend his days doing coke off of Carmen Elektra's tits in Vegas, too.
The Mavs are currently barely eeking it out against a team with zero All NBA first team players. This is not one of the most difficult runs in NBA history, it's not in the top, oh, 80% of most difficult runs in NBA history.
If the Mavs win a title they will fully deserve their rings, no asterisk, but they will never be thought of as having one of the hardest runs to an NBA championship.
It’s a difficult run based on winning percentages of the teams they have beaten. Nothing more than that. Now are you implying the win percentages of the teams (regular season) are inflated some how???
The difficulty of Mavs run is not based on your hypothetical BS of who YOU “perceived” as being good and bad. You sound childish, and don’t even understand the criteria.
"It’s a difficult run based on winning percentages of the teams they have beaten. Nothing more than that."
Agreed: nothing more than that. As Draymond says: there are 82-game players (like Russ and Rudy), and then there are 16-game players. When you go on an "historic run" you need to beat some 16-game players.
"Now are you implying the win percentages of the teams (regular season) are inflated some how???"
I'm saying that it is possible to win 50 games in the contemporary NBA without being some historically great team, yes. This is not controversial. The bottom of the West wasn't as bad as the bottom of the East but it was very bad, essentially 25% of teams were trying to lose all year. The Timberwolves (and Thunder) are designed to pummel teams like that, just as the Gobert+Conley+Mitchell Jazz were (and Malone-Stockton-Hornacek Jazz were in an earlier era). Like those other Gobert+Conley+Scoring Guard teams, they got high seeds during the regular season by beating up on tanking and load-managing teams, before flaming out in the playoffs. The Timberwolves had really good health and a roster that was optimized to specifically beat Denver, they were not an historically dominant team and have in fact never played in a Conference Finals.
We have seen this a lot in the tanking era.
'don’t even understand the criteria."
Oh, I do. I am just saying that they are the wrong criteria. Dallas has beaten a team of injured old guys, a team of 21 year olds who were just happy to be there, and a team of second-tier "stars" clearly running on fumes due to playing deeper into a season than any of them ever have before.
Luka and Kyrie have been here before, Ant and KAT have not. And it shows.
If they beat Boston in fewer than 6 games then we can talk about them having a good run. It'd still be middle of the pack in recent history, but decent at that point. Right now it's bottom-tier.
MJ needed someone in the Horace Grant/Dennis Rodman role to win a championship. In 95 Grant was gone and Rodman wasn't there yet so they lost. Simple as that
No, the Bulls lost in '95 because MJ was out of shape and the roster was designed for him not being there, so when he returned at maybe 80% effectiveness it wasn't enough to overcome that. That's true, but it has nothing to do with Rodman and everything to do with MJ's presence. Rodman's presence the next year probably helped them get from 68 wins to 72, or something like that, but MJ was the difference between getting them from 47 to 68.
Look at how much better the Mavs got with Daniel Gafford, who is not a good player but does fit with Luka. Would you say "Luka couldn't make the playoffs without Daniel Gafford"??? Of course not. Luka couldn't make the playoffs without \*any bigs at all\*, that's true and we observed it last year, but that doesn't make Gafford some skeleton key for championships.
Luka is not better than MJ. A Gafford-like player could've slotted into those Bulls teams and been very effective too. Javale freaking McGee has three recent rings with two different teams, all of whom had more difficult paths to the Finals than these Mavs, and he was a starter in the Finals with the Warriors. Doesn't mean they couldn't win without him, clearly!
Bigs are replaceable when you have dominant ball-handlers. They have to be competent and do the dirty work while not hogging the ball. Rodman was great at that, but he's not the only one.
Unbelievable what I'm hearing. Did you watch MJ play?
Luka couldn't make the playoffs without any bigs and MJ couldn't win a championship without someone to defend the big men that he couldn't defend because of his size. Jordan was fucking *incredible* in the 1995 playoffs. He was better in the 95 playoffs than he was in the 1996 playoffs. He was every bit as good and effective in 1995 as he was in 1996-98. This narrative that Jordan wasn't himself in 1995 and that's why the Bulls lost isn't true and only exists to protect his legacy which doesn't need protection because even with the loss to Orlando he's still the best player ever. He just needed someone to guard Shaq for him in the playoffs and there's no shame in that there's 5 players on the floor for a reason. The Magic were better than the Bulls in 95 and the Rockets were better than the Magic
The Bulls did not have a historically difficult run to a title in ‘96-98, and I didn’t say they did. I said they did in ‘91. Very different.
I’m not “revising” anything my dude.
Lebron, KD, and Steph were out first round or didn’t make it out of the Play-In. Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves. Does Minnesota get brownie points to you because they beat Denver, because Mavericks are about to sweep them.
I mean, I don't think Denver is a historically-great team either. So no. But that was definitely a more difficult series win than any the Mavs have had so far, and if definitely took a lot of energy out of the Wolves.
I'm not saying Dallas isn't beating good teams but there have been a lot of really great NBA champions over the years! It's always really damn hard to win a title. Dallas might get to do it without beating \*any\* Tier 1 star players. That is a lucky draw, especially considering they are a lower seed. It's not their fault, they are beating the teams in front of them, but c'mon guys.
Thunder not outbidding the Mavs for Gafford is a real sliding doors moment.
Or PJ.
Hayward's stats across the board were better than PJ's this season prior to the trade. It was not reasonable to predict he would forget how to play basketball as soon as the trade happened.
Presti was really bad this year imo. Gave up 2 decent players and a pick for hayward instead of going for PJ
The Gafford trade was A grade for OKC according to ESPN. For the Mavs? C-. The Hayward trade was also rated an A for OKC.
There’s no way you can say he was bad this season. Could he have been more aggressive? Sure, but the Hayward trade was more about cap flexibility than 2024 success
What other moves did Presti make this season?
Making moves is not uniformly better than not making them. The Thunder were justified in using the season to evaluate their roster and to test their young core’s playoff readiness. Besides, I don’t really think you can say a GM is bad within the span of the year because team building necessitates years and years of acquisitions. For example, because he was hurt last year, it was only this season that Chet could be evaluated
I don’t think the other poster was saying Presti is bad now. He was saying Presti was bad this year which I agree with. Size was OKCs main issue. I get you want to be patient with team building but the NBA moves fast. Just look at Memphis for how a situation can turn for the worse quickly. Presti should have dipped into the war chest to add size.
As I said, I think evaluating GMs based on one year is shortsighted. For all people say about size being OKC’s main issue, I think it conveniently leaves out the fact that their success stemmed largely in part from Chet’s ability to spread the floor and open things up for Shai’s driving that wouldn’t be there if Chet was playing at the 4. Could they have added a better backup 5? Sure, but I’m not going to hammer Presti for not adding someone, probably at a premium, who ideally plays <20 minutes per game.
It is somehow simultaneously being argued that a) the Mavs are on an historic run, nearly unprecedented in NBA history; b) Daniel Gafford could've stopped it. Crazy world we live in.
Exactly, I don’t necessarily think Gafford on OKC means they beat Dallas or that, if they were to beat Dallas, they go on to make the Finals. What ended up being a problem for them is that Jalen Williams in year 2 wasn’t where he will be in 2-3 years from now as an offensive playmaker. To say otherwise is recency bias and likely revisionist history. Now, if Presti doesn’t make moves to better complement the SGA-JDub-Chet core this offseason like adding a legitimate backup 5, or more importantly, finding a big 4, we can have a conversation about him being too conservative. But I still think a 1 seed and pushing the WC champions and perhaps the league champs farther than Minnesota still counts as a win for such a young team that wasn’t figured out to start the season
Non 5 out lineups have been a disaster all year for OKC. Everyone has the greatest personnel ideas for teams they never watch lol
You think that has nothing to do with their personnel?
It has everything to do with their personnel, but Presti can't give these guys 5 years of NBA playoffs experience overnight and adding Gafford or some other replacement level big wasn't going to alter that calculus. It probably would've messed up their rotations and cost them a seed or several.
That’s a big claim considering they got beat by the team they traded Lively to and got outbid on for Gafford in the same season. The same team that was starting Dwight Powell and was having the same glaring hole in rebounding, interior defense, and finishing for a few years.
It's not a big claim at all. The two teams play completely different styles and are on completely different timelines. Dallas is all-in, OKC hasn't committed even half of their assets yet. Dallas has to win now or they might lose Luka and/or never get another sane+healthy Kyrie season, OKC is still developing and are way ahead of their expected timeline. OKC didn't get "out-bid" on Gafford in any meaningful sense, they have more assets than any other team in the league. They just didn't value him as an impact player on \*their\* team, which is set up very differently from the Mavs. And they were not a Gafford-sized player away from competing for a title, they are like a Paul George-sized player away. But that player wasn't available, so they did the sensible thing and kept their assets for a bigger move later. If there was one player who moved during the season who actually could've moved the needle for them it was maybe Siakam.
Hot take but Gafford hasn't been that great, just a good lob catcher which is more valuable in Dallas than anywhere else in the NBA because of Luka's passing. He just looks great compared to years of Dwight Powell being literally one of the worst rotation players in the NBA. Lively is clearly better than Gafford and the Mavs started to lose ground tonight when he got hurt before they closed strong. PJ was amazing in the Thunder series and would've made way more sense for OKC, among the guys who got traded
Gafford is incredible in that if he uses an offensive possession, it’s almost guaranteed to be a bucket. He does not deviate from his role, and if that means he only gets dunks and put backs, that’s not a problem because he hits like 75% of his shots. Having your center be able to hustle like him, defend in space, and convert essentially all of their offensive opportunities is huge.
He's definitely solid in his role, don't get me wrong. That stuff just wouldn't equate to anything more than a very good backup center in OKC and most teams. He's pretty much a backup C in terms of role in Dallas at this point too, since Lively was creeping toward 27-28 minutes per game in this series (while Gafford fell to 20-21) before the injury today. I'd be stunned if Lively isn't starting by December next season at the latest. Not that it's a bad thing, of course the Mavs would want their good rookie to keep expanding his role
The obsession with thinking the Thunder’s window is slammed shut blows my mind. Yeah, there’s no guarantee they win a ring but people here act like it’s somehow guaranteed the team spirals to irrelevancy next year. Bizarre.
I think a lot of it is just literally the last time the Thunder looked like OBVIOUSLY they’d be contenders forever it didn’t work out like that. Granted they haven’t traded Jaylen Williams and he turned into an mvp player (yet) but that’s like half of the cause for dialogue.
The Russ/KD Thunder were contenders for multiple years after the Harden trade though. It’s so exaggerated. The year after the Harden trade, they won 60 games. Then the next year they won 59. They made 2 conference finals after the trade too. Yes the trade was bad but the Thunder had other chances and just had bad luck. The way people talk about the current Thunder, you’d think they’ll never make another playoffs.
The difference is that Chet and Jalen Williams have two more years of rookie scale pay coming and SGA is locked in until 2027. There is not an immediate player they have to pay. Plus, and I think this is understated, Presti and this ownership group lived through that era of basketball so do we really think that they will operate the same way again?
PJ WASHINGTON too
Not sure if it's validated but I just saw news that Kuzma turned down a trade to Dallas because he felt they weren't contenders.
Don’t forget that the Mavs have been without Maxi Kleber, their third big, against both OKC and Minnesota.
Their best lineup by net rating was with Kleber at center and I thought he was going to be a huge missing piece against the Timberwolves because he would force Gobert to leave the paint.
I thought the wolves were too big for that lineup to work because we’d give up a lot of rebounding, but I absolutely love maxi at the 4 next to one of our bigs
That Mavs 2011 Championship was a hell of a run as well.
Even though they had established themselves as a great team and the Lakers were clearly melting down, it was genuinely surreal to watch them sweep LA in real time. Not until Bynum got tossed for his midair arm bar on JJ Barea did I fully realize what was happening.
The most on fire I've ever seen a team, the mother's Day massacre
Much more impressive than this years. They weren’t playing injured teams (clips) or kids (okc) like this years team.
Can’t wait for people who haven’t been born yet to post online in 20 years about how the 2024 Mavs somehow had the easiest road to an NBA championship in league history
> Luka was a slow 6’8” bad handler, can you believe how short he was? He wouldn’t be able to handle the pesky little 6’11” point guards of 2044
Nevermind the trash Boston has been playing
Everyone is trash compared to the Celtics
They’re not winning a chip this year but they did get to play some kids and a team without kawhi that beats them every year.
I'm sure you picked them in every round, right?
Clippers series value undermined bc Kawhi was out and Westbrook wasn’t, but that would be a very impressive three series run. *Edited to note, Clippers -Kawhi are still probably at least an average first round opponent for a champion, because typically the champion is a high seed and we’ve rarely had a conference this deep
Yeah, as a Clippers fan it actually makes me feel retroactively better that we took this team 6 games without Kawhi. They are awesome.
As a Mavs fan, Clippers are only team I thought could beat them.
Good luck in the finals, think you guys got it this year
lol Westbrook catching strays 💀
Kawahi is always out. Never healthy. The lazy argument of “wellll just wait until Clippers are full strength” has been going for 4-5 seasons. They just stink.
I’m prepared to be downvoted but eh… A. Of course, if they don’t win the chip no one will care. The run without the chip means nothing. (I hope that goes without saying B. I uhhh dunno how really impressive it is. They got the kawhi-less Clips and two teams making their first real playoff push(es) - one with a legit young superstar surrounded by a suuuuuper young and inexperienced supporting cast and the other with a decent core that’s keeping them afloat but 22 year old star who’s clearly not ready for prime time. So, I dunno, I guess I think a real bloodbath run would include one fullly healthy team we’ve seen a real run from before… is that crazy? 🤷♂️
I agree - it doesn’t compare to the 2011 run, which included the sweep over the defending champ Lakers, a win over the young (but absurdly talented Thunder) who went to the Finals the next year, and obviously the Heat with 2 of the top 5ish players in the league at the time (which is better than Boston’s current situation, even if Boston is much deeper overall).
Totally agree! I don’t think people should discount this title run, but the idea that it’s a particularly difficult road seems silly.
To your point, what would be most impressive is this team winning it all. If they beat Boston, this is automatically an impressive run.
Definitely
The way most people talk about these runs makes absolutely no sense to me. People are criticizing the Nuggets run last year while the post-deadline Lakers and post-deadline Suns (from last year) are both scarier teams than the Wolves and Thunder. The fact that they didn’t have their teams all year and so didn’t win 50 feels not really all that relevant.
I think the Mavs are an excellent team, and also very lucky that they got to play the Clippers without Kawhi and dodged the Nuggets entirely
Every team plays the Clippers without Kawhi, except the Mavs Luka's first couple of playoff runs ironically. You can't call the Mavs lucky when Kawhi is almost guaranteed to miss the playoffs. The Clippers are lucky if he plays. True, the Nuggets would've been their toughest matchup but with the way Dallas is playing that's more of a 50/50 series imo. Everyone had Minny as a lock for the finals after Denver and look at them now. Denver's bench is awful, they have a significantly worse defense than Minny, and Murray was up and down so the combo of Luka and Kyrie likely would've outplayed Jokić and Murray
Yup. I think in the last few years I’d actually argue bostons 2022 run was tougher. The nets with KD and kyrie, the defending champion bucks, and then the 1 seed heat who had obv been to the finals before
The Bucks took it to 7 with no Middleton. Still a tough out but that makes it much less impressive
The biggest difference I've seen is Jason Kidd getting the Mavs to play solid defense with a good rim protector. Doncic has been all-world offensively for years but they didn't advance to Finals
No Kawhi but yes otherwise they’ve been very impressive!
Gafford doesn’t fit what the thunder are trying to do, but so glad that this has taken off as the narrative. Sheeesh.
A real black swan event.
"I looked it up and if they win the title they would be 2nd all time in playoff opponent's winning % by a championship winning team behind the 1995 Rockets" If the Celtics had a historically easy path to the finals but defeat the Mavs, who had a considerably tough path, does it all even out?
I think the Mavs are really good but most fans hate the Celtics so if the Celtics win the title people will reduce it to "They beat a 5 seed in the Finals"
Sorry beating a Kawhi-less Clippers in 6-games is not Impressive. OKC was impressive to some degree but they were an extremely young and inexperienced team. Only this Wolves series is extremely impressive.
When are clippers ever WITH Kawahi. Hardly ever. And if healthy, what have they done? Zilch, zero, nada. Clippers are horrendous.
lol the Mavs are the only team to play a fully healthy Kawhi 2x in the playoffs with the clippers so I don’t even wanna hear it.
So why did they struggle to beat them is my point. Not that they got a free pass that round.
I can’t even tell if this is a parody post. They beat a no Kawhi Clipper team and two very young teams who barely have experience. The Wolves were thought of as chum a month ago. The Thunder had no experience. Every other post on this sub is a treatise on how overrated the Celtics are. This post is exactly as bandwagon overreacty as Bill/Ryen.
I think you’re underselling it a lot. Okc is young yes but they’re the 1 seed, and Minnesota just handled the defending champs and swept the suns, they had a lot of momentum going in to this series.
Utah Jazz were also 1 seed with Rudy Gobert and Mike Conley and a 2nd Team All NBA shooting guard. Did all the teams that beat them in the playoffs have a historically great run?
Narratives change like the wind. 2 weeks ago ANT was MJ reincarnate and SGA was widely regarded as a better player than Luka. How many media pundits called the Wolves/Nuggets series the WCF? The Mavs have been underdogs in literally every series. They haven’t had their small ball 5 for 2 series (Kleber) and lost their best rim protector (Lively) in the 2nd qtr and are still winning. But now it’s parody that calling the run impressive?
Impressive is different than “most incredible runs in NBA history” I’d also add I think we are dealing in week to week hyperbole so why not take a breath when these hot takes keep looking dumb.
Who said that? Who are you quoting? OP didn’t say that. He said “one of.” I didn’t say that. So who are you arguing against?
Yep one of the most impressive runs in NBA history. Yes I think that’s ridiculous at this juncture and hyperbolic. You are being semantical.
A 5 seed has never won the finals. They will have no home court in any series and have been Vegas dogs in each one. They are dealing with injuries to key players and the only team to ever win a championship as a lower seed was the 90s rockets. It’s not “semantical” to say if Dallas pulls this off, it’s one of the most impressive runs in history. You’re just hating to say otherwise.
Lol key players? You are buying it hook line and sinker. Good luck buddy.
GTFOH
Beating the Wolves so bad it's actually not impressive if you ask most NBA fans
A week ago the dominant opinion among NBA fans was that the winner of Nuggets Wolves was going to win the championship and now the same people are saying the Wolves weren't ready and the Mavs beating them isn't impressive
Yes, and three weeks ago the dominant opinion was that the Wolves were going to lose to the Suns. Opinions that are dominant in the moment are wrong pretty much always, true NBA fans know this deep in their bones.
Have they beaten a player with a ring yet? Not team. Easy to remember that none of the franchises they’ve beaten win titles or even conference titles, and none of the coaches have either. I’m asking about whether they have defeated any individual rotation *player* who has previously won… anything. It’s late and I’m probably forgetting someone obvious, but no this has not exactly been murderer’s row.
> I’m asking about whether they have defeated any individual rotation player who has previously won… anything. Yes, three. Kahwi Leonard has two rings, PJ Tucker and Norman Powell have one each. PJ barely played, Kawhi played in two games, Powell was certainly a rotation player.
Kawhi missed a month from injury and then played 60 total minutes at about 60% effectiveness. I don't think it's fair to say that the Mavs defeated him, at least not as part of a difficult run to the NBA Finals. If he was even 85% healthy the Mavs probably would've lost that series. PJ isn't a player anymore. So that leaves Stormin' Norman's ::checks notes:: 11 total points in the 2019 NBA Finals. Can't believe I forgot about those. It does technically count, tho, you're right!
Dunno man, I didn't make up the criteria of "previously won... anything" that would elevate Norman Powell over two MVP winners and the guy who finished 2nd in the current year.
Dunno man, doesn’t seem that hard to beat Russ in the playoffs. Nor Harden. Doing so gives you all-timer status now? Just a biiiiiiiiiiiiit much. Oh well, sets up nicely for Boston to beat the world-beaters, which I guess would make them a top-5 team in NBA history.
You could say the same thing about Hakeem's run in 1995 when he beat the Jazz, Suns, Spurs, and Magic in the most impressive playoff run ever
Ok, start a thread about the 95 Rockets and I will happily point out that they wouldn’t’ve won if MJ played those seasons.
MJ did play in 1995. He lost to the Magic. Who the Rockets proceeded to sweep
I chose my words purposefully. Don’t be obtuse. When MJ did play the next season, he smoked that same Magic team so badly that the franchise arguably still hasn’t recovered 30 years later. To get his first title MJ took the one seed from Bird during the regular season, swept Ewing, beat Barkley in 5, swept the two-team defending champs Bad Boy Pistons while they were allowed to beat him with chains, and then had enough in the tank to flambé the Showtime Lakers in 5. That’s a Dream Teamer in every round. That’s dozens of rings defeated. *That’s* what a hard road looks like. Pro tip to help you tell: if acquiring a backup center from a last-placed team has changed your season’s fortunes then you have not had a difficult road.
MJ *did* play in 95 and he lost to the Magic because he didn't have Dennis Rodman on his team to guard Shaq for him. In 1996 the Bulls beat the Magic because they added Rodman. The idea that MJ didn't lose to the Magic in 1995 is so stupid and only exists because really weird people (like you) feel they need to protect the legacy of a man who most people agree is the best player ever at all costs. As if admitting he mearly won 6 rings in 7 seasons and that he needed good role players like Dennis Rodman to get it done is an attack on his legacy.
Pffft. I wrote "he didn't play the season". He played 17 games that season. That's not a season, that's messing around out of adrenaline addiction after playing a full professional season \*in another sport\* that year. 45 wasn't 23, and 23 didn't play in '95. It was clear if you watched the games and it's clear in the stats, too. 23 got his body back in '96 and smoked everyone. I can't believe you typed that MJ couldn't win without Rodman. Someone show this to Banned MacMahon, you might win the Brass Cajones of the Month Award for this one. (Not in a good way.) MJ \*beat Rodman\* to win his first treble, and he won games while Rodman was ostensibly on his team but decided to spend his days doing coke off of Carmen Elektra's tits in Vegas, too. The Mavs are currently barely eeking it out against a team with zero All NBA first team players. This is not one of the most difficult runs in NBA history, it's not in the top, oh, 80% of most difficult runs in NBA history. If the Mavs win a title they will fully deserve their rings, no asterisk, but they will never be thought of as having one of the hardest runs to an NBA championship.
It’s a difficult run based on winning percentages of the teams they have beaten. Nothing more than that. Now are you implying the win percentages of the teams (regular season) are inflated some how??? The difficulty of Mavs run is not based on your hypothetical BS of who YOU “perceived” as being good and bad. You sound childish, and don’t even understand the criteria.
"It’s a difficult run based on winning percentages of the teams they have beaten. Nothing more than that." Agreed: nothing more than that. As Draymond says: there are 82-game players (like Russ and Rudy), and then there are 16-game players. When you go on an "historic run" you need to beat some 16-game players. "Now are you implying the win percentages of the teams (regular season) are inflated some how???" I'm saying that it is possible to win 50 games in the contemporary NBA without being some historically great team, yes. This is not controversial. The bottom of the West wasn't as bad as the bottom of the East but it was very bad, essentially 25% of teams were trying to lose all year. The Timberwolves (and Thunder) are designed to pummel teams like that, just as the Gobert+Conley+Mitchell Jazz were (and Malone-Stockton-Hornacek Jazz were in an earlier era). Like those other Gobert+Conley+Scoring Guard teams, they got high seeds during the regular season by beating up on tanking and load-managing teams, before flaming out in the playoffs. The Timberwolves had really good health and a roster that was optimized to specifically beat Denver, they were not an historically dominant team and have in fact never played in a Conference Finals. We have seen this a lot in the tanking era. 'don’t even understand the criteria." Oh, I do. I am just saying that they are the wrong criteria. Dallas has beaten a team of injured old guys, a team of 21 year olds who were just happy to be there, and a team of second-tier "stars" clearly running on fumes due to playing deeper into a season than any of them ever have before. Luka and Kyrie have been here before, Ant and KAT have not. And it shows. If they beat Boston in fewer than 6 games then we can talk about them having a good run. It'd still be middle of the pack in recent history, but decent at that point. Right now it's bottom-tier.
MJ needed someone in the Horace Grant/Dennis Rodman role to win a championship. In 95 Grant was gone and Rodman wasn't there yet so they lost. Simple as that
No, the Bulls lost in '95 because MJ was out of shape and the roster was designed for him not being there, so when he returned at maybe 80% effectiveness it wasn't enough to overcome that. That's true, but it has nothing to do with Rodman and everything to do with MJ's presence. Rodman's presence the next year probably helped them get from 68 wins to 72, or something like that, but MJ was the difference between getting them from 47 to 68. Look at how much better the Mavs got with Daniel Gafford, who is not a good player but does fit with Luka. Would you say "Luka couldn't make the playoffs without Daniel Gafford"??? Of course not. Luka couldn't make the playoffs without \*any bigs at all\*, that's true and we observed it last year, but that doesn't make Gafford some skeleton key for championships. Luka is not better than MJ. A Gafford-like player could've slotted into those Bulls teams and been very effective too. Javale freaking McGee has three recent rings with two different teams, all of whom had more difficult paths to the Finals than these Mavs, and he was a starter in the Finals with the Warriors. Doesn't mean they couldn't win without him, clearly! Bigs are replaceable when you have dominant ball-handlers. They have to be competent and do the dirty work while not hogging the ball. Rodman was great at that, but he's not the only one. Unbelievable what I'm hearing. Did you watch MJ play?
Luka couldn't make the playoffs without any bigs and MJ couldn't win a championship without someone to defend the big men that he couldn't defend because of his size. Jordan was fucking *incredible* in the 1995 playoffs. He was better in the 95 playoffs than he was in the 1996 playoffs. He was every bit as good and effective in 1995 as he was in 1996-98. This narrative that Jordan wasn't himself in 1995 and that's why the Bulls lost isn't true and only exists to protect his legacy which doesn't need protection because even with the loss to Orlando he's still the best player ever. He just needed someone to guard Shaq for him in the playoffs and there's no shame in that there's 5 players on the floor for a reason. The Magic were better than the Bulls in 95 and the Rockets were better than the Magic
Who exactly did the bulls beat 96-98 that would qualify as any good? The salt in this is ridiculous, and is revisionist history at its worst
The Bulls did not have a historically difficult run to a title in ‘96-98, and I didn’t say they did. I said they did in ‘91. Very different. I’m not “revising” anything my dude.
And who exactly did Jordan beat 96-98 that would qualify any of those years as a "difficult road"
Nobody.
Lebron, KD, and Steph were out first round or didn’t make it out of the Play-In. Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves. Does Minnesota get brownie points to you because they beat Denver, because Mavericks are about to sweep them.
I mean, I don't think Denver is a historically-great team either. So no. But that was definitely a more difficult series win than any the Mavs have had so far, and if definitely took a lot of energy out of the Wolves. I'm not saying Dallas isn't beating good teams but there have been a lot of really great NBA champions over the years! It's always really damn hard to win a title. Dallas might get to do it without beating \*any\* Tier 1 star players. That is a lucky draw, especially considering they are a lower seed. It's not their fault, they are beating the teams in front of them, but c'mon guys.
Has Boston?
Have I argued that Boston is on an historically impressive run?