Warriors Rout Mavericks in Western Conference Finals Opener
The Golden State Warriors outshot and outrebounded the Dallas Mavericks while smothering Luka Doncic en route to a 112-87 win in game one of the Western Conference Finals. Stephen Curry led the Warriors in both scoring (21 points) and rebounding (12 rebounds). He did not have a great shooting game (7-16 from the field--including 3-9 from three point range--and 4-7 on free throws) but in a game in which both teams went with small lineups he dominated the boards while also contributing four assists. Jordan Poole and Andrew Wiggins scored 19 points each. Wiggins also had the primary responsibility of guarding Doncic. Klay Thompson had a solid, if not spectacular, performance (15 points, five rebounds, four assists). Kevon Looney dominated early in the game--TNT's Stan Van Gundy deemed him "the first quarter MVP"--and Looney finished with 10 points on 5-5 field goal shooting plus five rebounds, four assists, and two blocked shots. Although no Warrior had an outstanding game, collectively the Warriors performed very well, shooting .561 from the field and outrebounding the Mavericks 51-35.
Doncic led the Mavericks with 20 points and seven rebounds, but he shot just 6-18 from the field and he committed seven turnovers. Spencer Dinwiddie scored 17 points off of the bench, but Jalen Brunson only had 14 points on 6-16 field goal shooting, and Reggie Bullock was the only other Dallas player who scored in double figures (14 points, 4-12 field goal shooting). The Mavericks rely heavily on three point shooting, but they shot just 11-48 (.229) from beyond the arc while looking nothing like the team that dominated the number one seeded Phoenix Suns in game seven at Phoenix last Sunday.
As is often the case in the NBA, the first quarter told the story. The Warriors outscored the Mavericks 28-18 in the first quarter, shooting .632 from the field while holding the Mavericks to .269 field goal shooting. The Mavericks attempted a stunning 19 three point field goals in the first 12 minutes, while making just three. The Warriors shot 10-11 from two point range, and they outrebounded the Mavericks 16-9. Those early trends--poor three point shooting by the Mavericks, excellent two point shooting by the Warriors, rebounding dominance by the Warriors--continued throughout the game.
The Warriors led 54-45 at halftime, and then they blew the game open with a 10-2 run to start the third quarter. The Mavericks never mounted a serious threat the rest of the way.
The Mavericks lost the first two games in Phoenix before taking four of the next five contests to knock out the Suns, so it is obviously too soon to count out the Mavericks--but the Mavericks must perform a lot better at both ends of the court. They will have to play harder and smarter on defense, starting with providing much more resistance in the paint; the Warriors not only outscored the Mavericks 44-32 in the paint but the Warriors shot 22-32 (.688) on their field goal attempts in the paint.
Labels: Andrew Wiggins, Dallas Mavericks, Golden State Warriors, Kevon Looney, Klay Thompson, Luka Doncic, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 1:12 AM
15 Comments:
For me, Wiggins was the key to this game with his defensive intensity and aggressiveness on offense. If he can guard Luka without requiring help, this will be a tough series for Dallas.
Mavs will shoot better in future games but so will the Warriors.
Our lack of rim protection is a real problem especially with us trapping and doubling Curry so often. Maxi is the only guy we have that even kind of protects the rim so him having fouls tonight hurt but I think if he has to play clean-up like that foul trouble will be the norm. Need a better plan to keep them out of the paint in the first place.
On the up side we got some decent looks that just didn't go down but even if we made an extra six of them or whatever to bump our shooting percentage up to respectable levels we'd still have lost pretty cleanly.
It's weird to say about a game where we got killed but it feels like we let one get away by not capitalizing on a night when neither Splash Brother totally had it going. There might be one or two more games where they're both cold but there probably won't be four so the hill might actually get steeper. Wiggins hopefully will cool off at least.
Speaking of Wiggins he held up well against Luka but that worries me less. He will figure him out within a game or two probably. Brunson might need more help from the coaching staff to get going though he had no luck at all tonight and does not have Luka's beautiful tactical basketball computer brain.
there are some great players in these games (in no particular order, Giannis, Luka, Curry), but how do you see these teams stacking up against past-era great teams? I somehow don't see any of these teams as on quite the level of the Durant Warriors and most prior title teams
--J
J:
We don't yet know which team will win the 2022 NBA title or how that team will win it, so it is premature to compare this year's "Final Four" teams to teams that won championships. For example, the 2016 Warriors won 73 regular season games but--in my estimation--that team does not rank highly on the greatest teams ever list because that team did not win the championship.
Can I ask how high do the 2011 Mavericks rank? I'm pretty biased since they're my favorite team but I do think it's pretty pretty impressive that they beat Kobe, Durant, and Lebron all in a row.
Anonymous:
The 2011 Mavericks had a great title run, but when you talk about beating Kobe, Durant, and LeBron keep in mind that you are talking about a Lakers team at the end of their run (they had made the Finals three years in a row, and very few teams have made it four years in a row), Durant before his prime, and LeBron before he figured out how to not quit when things get tough.
Off the top of my head, my non-exhaustive list of greatest championship teams (single season; looking at dynasties is a different question) in the post-shot clock era would include (in chronological order) (1) 1965 Celtics (you could pick several of Russell's teams), (2) 1967 76ers, (3) 1972 Lakers, (4) 1982 Lakers, (5) 1983 76ers, (6) 1986 Celtics, (7) 1987 Lakers, (8) 1996 Bulls (you could pick several of Jordan's teams), (9) 2000 Lakers, (10) 2008 Celtics, (11) 2012 Heat, (12) 2014 Spurs, (13) 2018 Spurs. There are some other teams that could be added, and there are multiple iterations of certain teams that could be added, but that is a good list with which to start.
re your response to Anonymous (Mavs): in saying "(13) 2018 Spurs", I assume you mean 2018 Warriors?
--J
By 2018 Spurs is it safe to assume you meant 2018 Warriors? If so, may I ask why you prefer them to the 2017 version? I'd always felt they were much stronger that year, and certainly more defensively engaged.
Agreed that the Mavericks don't quite cut the mustard, but I'd be hesitant on principle to deduct points for beating the defending champs just because they'd recently made a few runs. If you apply the same logic it punishes the 91 Bulls for beating the Bad Boys, the Bad Boys for beating the Celtics and Lakers, and so on. Beating the top dog ought to count for something, no matter how long they've been barking.
J and Jazz Man:
The 13th team listed should have been 2017 Warriors.
Point well taken that beating the reigning champion is commendable regardless of how long that team had been on top. My larger point is that beating those particular versions of Kobe, Durant, and LeBron may sound more impressive on paper than it was in reality in 2011. Kobe's peak was a bit earlier, while LeBron and Durant peaked a bit later.
I can't go with 2008 Celtics, because their postseason was 7-7-6-6 games (far cry from Moses Malone's "fo-fo-fo"), and Celts' early-round opponents were not unusually difficult. Even in the Finals, Lakers sort of collapsed in G5, I believe, blowing a big lead. Celts had immense talent, but hadn't played together before so maybe chemistry not great; whatever the cause, their playoff performance doesn't measure up to all-time standards.
Ahead of them, I'd place the 1994 or 1995 Rockets. Bulls with MJ didn't make the '95 Finals, but that's not Rockets' fault. Swept '95 finals. Stacked roster: Dream, Glide, Cassell, Horry, etc. Or just have a shorter list by excluding those Celts.
--J
J:
The 1995 Rockets went 47-35 and lost seven playoff games, so I cannot see taking them ahead of a 66-16 2008 Boston team that won playoff series against (among others) prime Kobe and prime LeBron.
The Celtics destroyed the Hawks in their 4s Ws (by a margin of around 25 points), they just lost some close games. Outside of those first 2 rounds (where Ray Allen was uncharacteristically not himself) they were a very dominant ball club that season
I do believe a healthy Lakers beats them but not necessarily because they were a better more talented club, I just think Kobe was enough of an edge if Bynum was available and Ariza wasn't limited to beat them
Cyber:
I agree with both points: the 2008 Celtics were a dominant team, and the Lakers could have beaten them if they had been just a bit healthier to supplement Kobe's greatness.
I see your point about Rockets, but how do you leave out 1989 Pistons (63-19 record):
playoffs,
3-0 over Celts (Bird, McH, Parrish, Lewis, etc)
4-0 over bucks (Moncrief, Cummings)
4-2 over bulls (a couple of decent players on the roster)
4-0 Lakers (Magic was hurt, but still a great team)
... overall 15-2 record, same as 96 Bulls
Isaiah, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, Vinnie, Aguirre
(and 1990 edition wasn't far behind)
Anonymous:
The 1989 Pistons have a valid claim to be included on the list. As I indicated, I made that list off the top of my head for this comment section, so it is neither in order nor is it exhaustive.
Post a Comment
<< Home