With Howard out, what will the rotation look like?

Setting aside the ugly loss at home last night to Memphis, the more important concern is what playing rotation the Mavs will be able to throw out there until Howard gets back. Donnie Nelson was quoted as saying he would be out three weeks, but I expect that it might be longer. With that in mind, I expect the Mavs to sign a warm body to replace Doug Christie immediately, but I don't have high hopes that whoever it is will be much of a contributor (although there were a few names on the list that could give you 15 mpg in a pinch -- where's Antoine Rigaudeau (sp?) when you need him?). So what will the rotation look like? My two cents:

Dampier 28 - Diop 20
Nowitzki 38 - Powell 10
Van Horn 30 - Daniels 18
Daniels 20 - Harris 28
Terry 34 - Armstrong 14

Although this isn't an ideal rotation defensively on the perimeter, I still think that's a squad that can compete with just about anyone. If/when Stackhouse gets back, the rotation changes like this:

Dampier 28 - Diop 15 - Van Horn 5
Nowitzki 38 - Van Horn 10
Daniels 36 - Van Horn 12
Stackhouse 30 - Harris 18
Terry 34 - Harris 14

That team can definitely compete with anyone, although Howard will still clearly be missed.

Get well soon, Josh.

Where do the Mavericks stand so far? What the stats say...

It's been about seven months, so I figured it was time to shake the dust off the old blog and get into the swing of things with the new season. Here goes...

There were a lot of question marks for the Mavericks heading into this season, and it's fair to say that there are still a number of question marks for this team. Still, a good gauge of the team's success so far is to look at stats which I think best track the team's offensive, defensive, and rebounding play. Those stats are the offensive and defensive efficiency stats (points per 100 possessions) and rebounding differential (or its close cousin, rebounding percentage).

As a brief introduction:

points = points scored
possessions = FGA+(FTA*.44)+TO-Offensive Rebounds

Thus, points per 100 possessions is calculated as follows:

PTS/[(FGA+(FTA*.44)+TO-Offensive Rebounds)*100]

Offensive efficiency = a team's number of points per 100 possessions
Defensive efficiency = the opponent's number of points per 100 possessions

A great place to find these stats (so you don't have to calculate them manually) is the Knickerblogger Stats page.

The other stat is rebounding differential, which is calculated as follows:

(Total Rebounds-Total Opponent Rebounds)/Games Played

This stat can be found many places, including here.

Having laid that groundwork, let's look at where the Mavs stand so far.

Offensive efficiency
1. CLE 111.6
2. PHI 108.7
3. DET 108.0
4. DAL 106.4
5. PHO 106.1
6. WAS 105.4
7. NJN 104.7
8. LAC 104.3
9. MIA 103.9
10. SEA 103.5

Defensive efficiency
1. DEN 93.1
2. GSW 94.6
3. SAS 95.1
4. NYK 95.4
5. HOU 97.7
6. DAL 97.9
7. LAL 97.9
8. MIN 98.0
9. LAC 98.0
10. CHA 98.9

Rebounding differential
1. CLE 10.2
2. NJN 5.6
3. MIL 5.5
4. LAC 4.9
5. UTA 4.6
6. DEN 4.1
7. NYK 3.8
8. SAS 3.5
9. ORL 3.3
10. DAL 2.4

Clearly, it's too early to draw any definitive conclusions from such a small sample size, but the Mavs are currently in the top 10 offensively, defensively, and on the glass. By way of comparison, last year the team ended up 5th in offensive efficiency (107.4), 9th in defensive efficiency (101.0), and 17th in rebounding differential (-0.3 per game). While it's early, the team has experienced a slight drop-off in offensive efficiency but a noticeable improvement in defensive efficiency and rebounding differential.

To give some historical perspective, here are the ratings of the champions for the past 15 years:

2005 San Antonio
Offense: 107.7 (8th)
Defense: 98.6 (1st)
Reb. Diff.: +2.4 (7th)
2004 Detroit
Offense: 99.1 (18th)
Defense: 92.5 (2nd)
Reb. Diff.: +2.1 (5th)
2003 San Antonio
Offense: 103.1 (7th)
Defense: 96.6 (3rd)
Reb. Diff.: +1.8 (12th)
2002 Los Angeles
Offense: 106.5 (2nd)
Defense: 98.7 (7th)
Reb. Diff.: +1.1 (10th)
2001 Los Angeles
Offense: 106.3 (2nd)
Defense: 102.4 (19th)
Reb. Diff.: +3.4 (3rd)
2000 Los Angeles
Offense: 104.6 (4th)
Defense: 95.6 (1st)
Reb. Diff.: +3.9 (2nd)
1999 San Antonio
Offense: 101.3 (10th)
Defense: 92.1 (1st)
Reb. Diff.: +1.9 (8th)
1998 Chicago
Offense: 104.1 (12th)
Defense: 96.7 (3rd)
Reb. Diff.: +5.2 (1st)
1997 Chicago
Offense: 111.1 (1st)
Defense: 99.2 (4th)
Reb. Diff.: +4.9 (1st)
1996 Chicago
Offense: 112.0 (1st)
Defense: 98.6 (1st)
Reb. Diff.: +6.6 (1st)
1995 Houston
Offense: 107.2 (6th)
Defense: 104.0 (12th)
Reb. Diff.: -2.8 (21st)
1994 Houston
Offense: 103.5 (14th)
Defense: 98.3 (4th)
Reb. Diff.: -0.3 (15th)
1993 Chicago
Offense: 109.5 (3rd)
Defense: 103.3 (8th)
Reb. Diff.: +3.3 (3rd)
1992 Chicago
Offense: 112.3 (1st)
Defense: 101.3 (4th)
Reb. Diff.: +4.4 (3rd)
1991 Chicago
Offense: 111.5 (1st)
Defense: 102.1 (6th)
Reb. Diff.: +3.2 (5th)

Only twice in the past 15 years has a champion failed to finish in the top 10 in at least 2 of 3 categories -- Houston, both times. Nine times, the champion finished in the top 10 in all 3 categories. The 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls (the 72 win team) finished first in all three categories.

Again, it's early, but if the Mavs can stay in the top 10 in 2 of the 3 (or even all 3) categories, it will be a great sign that they are contending for the title.


UPDATE:

At the request of u2sarajevo over at dallas-mavs.com, I have compiled the ratings for the champions of the 1980's:

1990 Detroit
Offense: 106.7 (11th)
Defense: 100.1 (1st)
Reb. Diff.: +3.9 (4th)

1989 Detroit
Offense: 107.8 (7th)
Defense: 101.5 (3rd)
Reb. Diff.: +4.6 (1st)

1988 Los Angeles
Offense: 109.9 (2nd)
Defense: 104.1 (11th)
Reb. Diff.: +1.7 (12th)

1987 Los Angeles
Offense: 112.3 (1st)
Defense: 103.2 (6th)
Reb. Diff.: +2.3 (8th)

1986 Boston
Offense: 108.7 (3rd)
Defense: 99.9 (2nd)
Reb. Diff.: +4.9 (1st)

1985 Los Angeles
Offense: 111.3 (1st)
Defense: 104.0 (6th)
Reb. Diff.: +3.5 (4th)

1984 Boston
Offense: 107.5 (6th)
Defense: 101.3 (3rd)
Reb. Diff.: +4.5 (2nd)

1983 Philadelphia
Offense: 106.0 (5th)
Defense: 98.1 (5th)
Reb. Diff.: +4.2 (3rd)

1982 Los Angeles
Offense: 107.5 (2nd)
Defense: 102.6 (9th)
Reb. Diff.: +2.8 (4th)

1981 Boston
Offense: 105.2 (5th)
Defense: 99.4 (4th)
Reb. Diff.: +2.6 (5th)

1980 Los Angeles
Offense: 106.7 (1st)
Defense: 101.1 (9th)
Reb. Diff.: +2.2 (4th)

Only 3 times in the past 26 years has a champion failed to finish in the top 10 in at least 2 of 3 categories -- Houston twice in the 1990's, and the 1988 Lakers. 18 times, the champion finished in the top 10 in all 3 categories.

To answer u2's question about how the 1980's Lakers fared, they finished in the top 10 in all 3 categories 4 of 5 times. The only squad not to do it was the 1988 Lakers squad, which was undoubtedly their weakest team as Kareem entered the twilight of his career.

As an aside, this is a rather interesting way of comparing teams from different eras when the argument comes up about the "greatest team of all time." As an example, the great 1986 Celtics team ranked in the top 3 in all 3 categories. The only team to exceed that feat (during the time period we're examining) was the great 1996 Bulls squad, which was No. 1 in all 3 categories. The 2000 Lakers and 1992 and 1997 Bulls ranked in the top 4 in all 3 categories.


UPDATE (Part Two):

In the interest of clarity, one thing that came to my attention when talking to someone about these numbers is that the historical numbers I cited above use the offensive and defensive efficiency formula developed by Dean Oliver as opposed to the formula I cited above, which is espoused by John Hollinger. Oliver's formula is more complex because he defines possessions differently, but the results should be very similar. The reason I used the data above is because it's available at Basketball Reference.com without having to manually calculate it all. I had to manually (with the aid of a spreadsheet and a lot of nifty cutting and pasting) calculate the rebound differentials for each year, and that was a task in and of itself.