The Mavs Get An 'Ugly Makeover': Dallas 99, Spurs 94 In OT With Numbers Buried In Grit

How can you get outshot by that much, get outrebounded, give up 12 extra points on 3’s and three extra points on free throws … and still win? Part of it, simply, was Dirk: He truly carried the club (again) with 41 points on 15-of-29 shooting, 12 rebs, one block and zero turnovers. In the fourth and OT periods alone Dirk, was 9-of-14 for 23 points, making that dagger 3 and pulling down seven boards. In fact, he personally outscored the entire Spurs team in overtime.

But you already knew all that.

So how did they do it?

"We did a great job of battling, I think," Nowitzki said. "It wasn't pretty again, they kept it a low-scoring game, and we didn't get anything going offensively. But I thought we just kept coming."

Dirk's word are backed up by some numbers that need to be unearthed. Check out these hidden gems:

1. The Mavs outscored the Spurs in the paint, 46-22. (Let that “ugly-makeover’’ fact sink in for a sec.)

 
2. For the entire game, the Mavs only turned over the ball five times - a spectacularly low number. That's evidence of a disciplined team giving the opponent almost nothing.

 Meanwhile their defense forced 19 turnovers by SA.

3. While the overall rebound TOTALS were almost identical, the Spurs pulled down a lot more of the ordinary defensive rebounds because the Mavs were clanking so many of their shots. But on the offensive boards, Dallas pulled down nine more offensive rebounds than the Spurs, giving them that many extra possessions.

4. So how did the Mavs manage to win? As a result of the turnover differential and offensive rebounds, the Mavs had way more possessions and got off 22 more shots than SA. Wow! That is a monumental disparity, representing about the number of possessions/shots a team is likely to get in an entire quarter.

Get that? Dallas attempted so many shots that it’s like the Mavs offense played six periods while SA’s offense played just five.

The Mavs have now won their third game when shooting 40 percent or below, and have won an NBA-best six games when shooting below 42 percent. You will recall that when shooting sub-42 percent, this year’s Mavs quickly rattled off three early-season victories to match last year’s full-season total when shooting that poorly. For the record, it was 3-20 a year ago.

All together the stats tell us that the Mavs on Wednesday were a team that overcame lousy shooting by being better in the paint, attacking the basket, rebounding better, and making far fewer mistakes.

 Meanwhile the Spurs were better shooters from the perimeter but got pounded by a relentless and disciplined Mavs team that won even though they were the proverbial Gang That Can't Shoot Straight, at least in comparison to the Spurs numbers.

Isn't that a complete role reversal compared to team images? SA is supposed to be the team that's feared for dominating in the paint, while Dallas is the slick jump-shooting team that can kill you from downtown. (You know: the one the national announcers think is all about “a 7-footer who shoots nothing but 3-pointers!’’)

But not anymore.

In fact, in the prior meeting between these two teams a week ago, it was much the same story. The Spurs had better shooting percentages, including a wide advantage from behind the arc, while Dallas scored more points in the paint and gained extra possessions from more offensive rebounds and fewer turnovers. But last time those advantages for the Mavs were more modest, while this time they were even more dominant to the degree that they created a hard-fought win.

Dallas won NOT because the shots were falling, but rather because the Mavs were the team using a rugged (ugly?) attacking style to make up for any shortcomings. They attacked on offense to score in the paint, attacked the offensive glass to gain extra possessions, and attacked the other team to force turnovers.

Ladies and gentleman, take notice of the hidden gems, the story underneath the story, and the Ugly Makeover: maybe this is not the same ol' Mavs team you thought you knew.