After Game 1, I questioned the Mavs' mental toughness. It seemed that they had a little "choke" in them after not being able to put the Spurs away in a very winnable game. Last night, in a Game 4 that the Mavs should have lost, the Spurs were the ones doing the choking, and the Mavs took full advantage down the stretch. Sure, there were some scary moments, including Devin Harris' consecutive turnovers in overtime. At the time, my friend, Luke, commented, "We just fumble our momentum time after time after time." But they didn't fumble as bad as the Spurs. With the Spurs down 123-118 in overtime, Tony Parker was at the free-throw line with half a minute left in the game. Two makes by the Spurs' star, and all the Spurs would have needed was a defensive stop to put them in position to tie the game. Amidst the storm of boos, Michael Finley had to have been licking his chops as he prepared for a crowd-silencing three-pointer that would send the game to double overtime. Maybe it was the giant Eva Longoria poster being waved by Mavs' fans in the background, but Parker was distracted by something as he clanged both free-throw attempts off the iron. And then the Spurs gave up, as they didn't even try extend the game by forcing the Mavs' to the free-throw line in the final seconds. After the game, TNT analyst Kenny Smith commented that the Spurs have to be thinking, "We can win Game 6 in Dallas." I've got news for you Kenny: After choking away a winnable game, the Spurs' minds need to be on Game 5, and only Game 5. If they're even thinking about Game 6 in Dallas, then there's going to be an ugly blowout in San Antonio, with the Mavs celebrating afterwards on the Riverwalk. After all, wasn't Game 4 touted as a must-win game for the Spurs? With their backs against the wall and everything to play for, the Spurs caught the Mavs at their lackadaisical worst in the first quarter. Yet, the Mavs held strong, preventing the Spurs from escaping Dallas with a win. The Spurs have had problems bouncing back from short rest periods all year, so they're going to have major problems harnessing the same energy for Game 5, especially knowing that it wasn't enough to beat the Mavs last night. And the Mavs, who played a subpar defensive game, will be in high gear as they try to clinch the series with a dominating (dare I say, "championship caliber") performance. Notes: - Devin Harris might be the quickest player in the NBA. When he took an outlet pass from Dirk after the Spurs missed their first shot in overtime, he drove up the court so quickly that the TNT camera couldn't keep up with him. By the time the camera was focused at the other end, Harris had already scored to put the Mavs up by 4. Later in the period, with the Mavs clinging to a 119-116 lead, Harris' quick-driving moves were too much for Duncan in the low post, as he converted a phenomenal layup around the 7-footer. - My friend and co-worker, Jeff, came into my office this morning, and asked, "Where was Dirk in the 4th quarter and OT?" Jeff's right that Dirk's sore ankle kept him from being the driving force that he was in the 4th quarter of Game 3. But his presence and ability to knock down jumpshots forced the Spurs to continue double-teaming him, which opened up lanes for Devin Harris and Marquis Daniels early in the fourth quarter. The Spurs have to account for Dirk, and that makes the whole team better. - Josh Howard saved the game for the Mavs late in the fourth quarter. With the Mavs down 107-108, Dirk missed a jump shot, and it bounced towards Bruce Bowen and Tim Duncan. As both players reached for the ball, Howard's long arms disrupted their rebound attempt, and the ball popped out to Harris, who dished to Jason Terry for the clutch go-ahead jumpshot. - Gregg Popovich criticized Mavs' fans for booing Finley. Popovich is correct that Finley was a class act during his 8.5 years with the Mavs' organization. But when the Mavs let him go, he signed with their chief rival. I don't blame Finley for seeking a championship, but his choice of teams was no accident. Finley would love to spite his former team by helping the Spurs beat the Mavs in this series. And the Mavs' fans have every right to boo him for that choice. It would be completely different if Finley had chosen an Eastern Conference team that the Mavs met in the NBA Finals. I'm not blaming Finley -- I'm just saying that he's reaping what he sowed.

In the aftermath of the Mavs' thrilling victory on Saturday night, Tim Duncan's post-game comments displayed his true colors as he blamed the officials for knocking him out of the game with his sixth personal foul in the final minutes of the fourth quarter: "[Dirk Nowitzki] might have fallen, but I didn't touch him," Duncan said. "He tried to draw contact. I moved out of his way. If he stepped on my foot, he stepped on my foot, but there was zero contact." Kind of anomolous to say "zero contact" in the same sentence where you admit that Dirk Nowitzki stepped on your foot, isn't it, Timmy? Under the NBA's rules, when a defensive player contacts an offensive player in the act of shooting, it's a foul unless the defensive player established his position prior to the contact. Duncan's foot was moving, and Nowitzki drew contact. Seemed like a fair call to me. Regardless, in order for Duncan to complain about the officiating, he had to turn a blind eye to the horrendous calls that benefitted the Spurs earlier in the game. Midway through the fourth quarter, Mavs' center Desagana Diop cleanly knocked the ball out of Duncan's hands as Duncan held the ball at waist level. It wasn't surprising that the officials called Diop for contact, as they've been giving Duncan the benefit of the doubt all series. What was surprising was the fact that the officials called it a shooting foul. They knew that Duncan was eventually going to shoot the ball, as he's been the Spurs' most prolific offensive weapon in the Lone Star Showdown. But I always thought that you had to actually be in the act of shooting in order to get to the free-throw line when the other team hasn't committed five fouls yet. And with the game tied at 98-98 with 1:24 left, the officials saw more phantom contact when Josh Howard cleanly blocked Manu Ginobili from behind on a Ginobili mid-range shot attempt. Ginobili split his free throws to put the Spurs up by one. So, if Duncan's going to cry about the foul call on Nowitzki that occurred 20 seconds later, maybe somebody should remind him about the other calls that favored the Spurs. The Spurs haven't gone down 2-1 to the Mavs because the NBA officials have a grudge against San Antonio. If anything, the calls should be going the Spurs way because Mark Cuban's consistent criticism gives the officials reason to be spiteful towards the Mavs. But the officials are an easy scapegoat, and the discombobulated Spurs don't have a ready answer for why the Mavs have outplayed them so far. Even the Spurs' fans, who aren't used to trailing in playoff series, decided to blame referee Steve Javie for the blowout loss in Game 2, as they chanted "Javie sucks" during the second half. Popovich, who blamed no one while giving all the credit to the Mavs, remains a class act. On the other hand, his city and top player are bringing the Spurs to new lows. It's easy to act gracious and sportsmanlike when you win an NBA championship. But it's your reactions to tough losses that show your true character. So far, Duncan's showing that he's a bit of sore loser. If the Spurs want to even the series, he's going to need to forget about the past, while letting Popovich's adjustments dictate the Spurs' performance. But if the Mavs are holding a large lead in the second half of Game 4, expect tempers to flare as Duncan and the Spurs will blame everyone but themselves for their dire predicament. A former "class act" is showing his true colors, as the team and the city are on the verge of making a classless exit from the playoffs.

My friend Matt sent me this e-mail yesterday, and it reveals why Buck Showalter shouldn't be making roster or lineup decisions: "I agree with your assessment of the DeRosa situation however the scuttlebutt here [in Dallas] is that since DeRosa is one of Buck's "guys" in addition to the hot start that Ian Kinsler will ride the bench when he arrives back next week and will spot start like a Bill Hall. It's unbelievable how immature Buck is, he loves to play guys that work hard and do everything he tells them but lack talent over guys that deserve to play based purely on talent, see Gerald Laird." The e-mail brings up a valid point if Buck is serious about not reinserting Kinsler into the starting lineup upon his return from the disabled list. A recent Buck quote indicates that this is the case: "Everybody is adamant about making sure we bring [Kinsler] back to where he was, mentally and physically," Buck said. "He was doing well, so is Mark [DeRosa]. We're not going to not play him and not play Mark, either. I'll try to keep Mark in the flow." And Star-Telegram writer Jan Hubbard had this to say: "But with Mark DeRosa batting .381, it is doubtful that Kinsler will be a full-time starter at second base." Sometimes, I want to break things when I watch the Rangers blow a late lead. That doesn't even compare to the way I feel when I watch the "manager" completely bungle the lineup. In a recent blog post, I gave Buck the perfect solution to his problem: use DeRosa as a utiltiy man to give the other regulars a day of rest each week. DeRosa can float around the lineup, starting in every position except centerfield and catcher. This method allows Kinsler to remain the everyday second-baseman, which would fuel his development. On the other hand, if DeRosa remains the starter, Kinsler will languish on the bench, as Buck has recently declared that Kinsler's going to be on the 25-man roster as soon as he returns from the DL. If I were Jon Daniels, I'd have a quick conversation with Buck about this topic. It would go something like this: Daniels: "Hey, Buck, wanna keep your job?" Buck: "Yeah." Daniels: "Then, when I bring Kinsler off the DL, he's going into the lineup as the starting second baseman. Otherwise, I'll find another manager who will make that happen." It's absurd to think that a young prospect like Kinsler, who needs at bats to continue his development, would ride the pine instead of playing everyday. He'd be better off in the minors than sitting on the Rangers' bench. But this isn't surprising considering Buck's track record. Buck loves the underdog. After all, he was a career minor leaguer who managed to convince some bigwig that he knows enough about baseball to manage a team. That's questionable considering many of Buck's in-game decisions, but I could live with the mistakes if he at least managed his roster correctly. DeRosa is a career utiltiyman, and Buck could utilize his strengths by using him the way the Brewers use Bill Hall. This would allow Kinsler to continue his development, and the Rangers' regulars would get regular rest. Instead, we hear Buck praise DeRosa's hard work, and since DeRosa's already over 30-years-old, Buck's going to use his managerial position to give the guy one last chance at being a starter. Buck sees himself as being more similar to a hard-worker like DeRosa than a talented future star like Kinsler. In a way, Buck seems to be living vicariously through these hardworking players that no one else wanted. It's a strange way to manage a team. And the Rod Barajas-Gerald Laird situation is almost exactly the same. Even though Laird is younger, hits better, and has the potential to be the Rangers' catcher of the future, Buck sticks with Barajas, the hardworker who no one else wanted. Barajas has been serviceable and apparently handles pitchers well, but handling pitchers is overrated. There's no statistic to determine a catcher's handling of pitchers except for the pitchers' ERA while a certain catcher is playing. But isn't that taking credit away from the guy who's actually pitching? And the difference between the pitchers' ERAs while Barajas and Laird are catching is a negligible 0.40 earned runs per game (with Barajas having the slightly better numbers). Of more importance, Barajas is batting a mere .207 in 92 at bats, while Laird has been hitting .325 in 40 at bats. Barajas' slight edge in pitchers' ERA does not nearly compensate for the drastic hole that he creates in the bottom of the lineup, especially when Laird could easily make this lineup spot productive. Speaking of the lineup, why is Phil Nevin batting cleanup? The guy's hitting .235 with an OPS of less than .800. For those not versed in the significance of OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage), a good cleanup hitter has an OPS over .900. Also, Nevin's so slow that every time he hits a ground ball with a man on first, the Rangers become double-play victims. Nevin had two great years in 2000 and 2001, and he was serviceable in 2004. So, with Nevin now 35-years-old and coming off one of his worst seasons, has Buck really deluded himself into thinking that the Rangers will catch lightning in a bottle? Daniels is just as at fault on this one for letting Buck convince him that Nevin can be a productive cleanup hitter. There is an alternative, and his name is Jason Botts. Botts is hitting .298 with 6 HRs in AAA Oklahoma City, and his OPS is close to .900. Last year at the AAA level, he belted 25 HRs and 31 doubles. His .286 average was serviceable, but I like his ability to take walks, as he had a .375 on-base percentage. Plus, he's nine years younger than Nevin and actually has the potential to improve with experience. That's something that can't be said about Nevin. Now that I've ranted enough, here's the revised everyday batting order that the Rangers should use (note: I don't have Michael Young in the two-hole because line-drive hitters get induced into far too many inning-killing double plays from this spot; rather than setting the table, Young should be in position to drive in runners): 1. Gary Matthews, Jr, CF 2. Ian Kinsler, 2B (2 K's in 21 ABs show that he can make the necessary contact to move runners) 3. Michael Young, SS (the best overall hitter in the three spot -- a novel idea) 4. Mark Teixeira, 1B (the best power hitter in the cleanup spot -- another novel idea) 5. Hank Blalock, 3B 6. Kevin Mench, RF 7. Brad Wilkerson, LF 8. Jason Botts, DH 9. Gerald Laird, C Roving Utility Man: Mark DeRosa

At the post-game press conference, a humbled Gregg Popovich gave all the credit to the Mavs for their 113-91 victory over the Spurs in Game 2 of the Western Conference semi-finals. "Everybody together, say it: the Mavs played great and deserve credit," Popovich said. "There are no excuses, no way around it. If I didn't think they played well, I'd say it. They kicked ass." Lots of sportswriters are going to credit Josh Howard for his 27 points, as Howard helped shoulder an offensive burden that's been unexpectedly lifted from Dirk Nowitzki's broad shoulders. But the real reason the Mavs won this game by such a margin was the play of guard Devin Harris. Technically, Harris replaced swingman Adrian Griffin in the starting lineup, but he actually replaced Jason Terry as the starting point guard, with Terry moving to his more natural shooting-guard position. The Mavs lost in Game 1 because they couldn't penetrate the Spurs' interior defense, and with Dirk in a serious funk, the Mavs relied on Jerry Stackhouse to create his own shots off the dribble. Stackhouse's strengths are his ability to make off-the-ball slashing moves to the basket and take the open jumpshot on a catch-and-shoot. But he'll never be a point guard, so when the Mavs relied on him to create their offense, the Mavs' possessions turned into one-on-one basketball, which resulted in a slow pace that favored the tired Spurs. In the first half of Game 2, the lightning-quick Harris turned the Mavs' plodding Game 1 tempo into a distant memory. Harris exposed the injured Tony Parker's inability to slow his drives to the basket, as Harris landed three layups in the first half and got to the free-throw line twice more. The consistent penetration allowed the Mavs to play to Stackhouse's strengths, as the Spurs' defense was often drawn into the lane, leaving Stackhouse alone for three-pointers in the corner. During a possession near the end of the third quarter, Harris demonstrated why Avery Johnson can become furious at the second-year player for rookie mistakes while also marveling at his ability to create. After Dirk stole the ball from Michael Finley, Harris took an outlet pass and sprinted up the court. Harris tried to drive to the hoop, but the Spurs' interior defense forced him to reverse directions and return to the top of the key (we saw a lot of that in Game 1). Harris was then met by a trapping double team, and after nearly losing his handle on the ball, he spun around and flew towards the hoop. As Harris leaped, the Spurs big men appeared to gain position for a block, but Harris spotted a wide open Josh Howard on the perimeter. In mid-air, Harris threw the ball out to Howard, who landed the three-pointer, putting the Mavs ahead 84-64. I'm sure that Avery wasn't happy with Harris' initial decision-making or ball handling on the possession, but in the end, Harris showed the creativity of an elite NBA point guard (a supersonic Steve Nash on this particular drive). But Harris' most important contribution was his ability to close out the Spurs in the 4th quarter. With 7:30 left in the game, Brent Barry had just hit a three-pointer to bring the Spurs within 14 points at 94-80. The Spurs were on a 6-0 run, and if the Mavs didn't score on the next possession, the fading AT&T Center crowd could have gotten right back into the game. Instead, Harris answered with a driving layup to put the Mavs back up by 16. Following a Spurs' miss, Harris again penetrated the lane and was fouled on his layup attempt. Harris calmy nailed both free throws. The Spurs converted their next possession, but Harris deadened any comeback hopes as he hit a mid-range, pull-up shot that was set up by the threat of his penetrating ability. After another Spurs' miss, Harris again demonstrated his creative prowess, as he used his penetration to draw in the Spurs' defense before calmy dishing out to a wide-open Stackhouse on the perimeter. Stackhouse missed the shot, but it didn't matter as the Mavs were up 100-82 with five minutes remaining. Harris' influence on this game must have seemed like deja vu to the Spurs, who had seen this act before in the first regular season game on November 5, 2005. In the 4th quarter of that game, Harris entered with the Mavs clinging to a 7-point lead. Harris then took over the game as he scored 20 of his 22 points in the final frame through sprinting drives to the hoop that consistently broke down the Spurs' vaunted defense. At the time, I claimed that Harris had his "coming out party," but injuries in the middle of the season prevented Harris from realizing his full potential. Last night, Harris finally repeated his November performance, and it came at the most crucial time. A lot has been made of whether the Spurs' lack of rest between the first and second rounds will hurt them in this series against the relatively well-rested Mavs. If the Mavs play the slow tempo game that we saw in Game 1, fatigue will be a nonfactor for the Spurs as they'll control a deliberate, half-court game. On the other hand, if Harris can keep the Mavs running, the Spurs will be hard-pressed to contain the Mavs' offense as the series lengthens. Furthermore, much is being made of Dirk's comments about not being able to score 30-35 points in this series. TNT's Ernie Johnson asked Dirk to clarify his remarks, and Dirk provided a clear answer: if the Spurs are going to take him out of the game, then he's going to do everything in his power to get his other teammates involved, which includes rebounding, defense, and passing out of double teams. It's odd that critics decry the NBA's emphasis on scoring over defense, yet they interpret Dirk's selfless comment as meaning that the Spurs have gotten into his head. To me, it's refreshing that the Mavs' best player understands the Spurs's defensive strategy, and he's willing to do what it takes to beat that strategy. If Dirk was determined to get 30-35 points despite the double teams, then I'd be worried. And now that the Mavs have shown that they can win with other players carrying the offensive load, the Spurs might have to figure out a strategy to contain the man responsible for creating the Mavs' shots -- Devin Harris. Once the defense is forced to concentrate on someone besides Dirk, the German superstar will get his open looks and make the Spurs pay. Thus, whether the Mavs win this series depends on Harris building on this game, rather than making it a one-time thing.

It was the game the Mavs should have won. The Spurs were coming off a Game 6 victory in Sacramento about 36 hours before yesterday's noon start, and the Mavs had a week of rest. The Mavs should have been fresher and more prepared. Instead, the Mavs failed to expose the Spurs' fatigue, as the Mavs consistently played into the Spurs' half-court game. Even when Devin Harris and Jason Terry tried to penetrate the lane, they quickly returned to the top of the key to reset the offense. The plodding style ensured that the Spurs had enough energy to stifle the Mavs' offense in the second half. But energy levels aren't the whole story. While the Spurs deserve credit for their defensive work in Game 1, the Mavs obviously choked in their most pressure-packed game of the season. Two stats defined the Mavs' meltdown: 1. 19-28 from the free-throw line (67.9%) 2. The Mavs scored two points in the final 3:51 of the game The free-throw percentage is very uncharacteristic of a Mavs' team that consistently knocked down its free throws during the regular season (78.3 %) and Grizzlies' series (85.5%). While I understand that Dampier isn't reliable at the free-throw line, it's deflating to watch Dirk Nowitzki clang his tries off the iron. Three more free throws and the Mavs win the game. Was the team feeling the mental pressure of facing the defending champs? The final four minutes of the game epitomized the Mavs' offensive ineptitude in the second half. The team was up by 6 at halftime, and they seemed to play as if they were afraid of losing the lead. Even when they had chances to take a double-digit lead, none of the Mavs had the killer instinct. It seemed like no one wanted to be the player who made a critical mistake down the stretch, and this attitude sapped the Mavs' aggressive edge. When the Mavs' weren't turning the ball over, they were settling for outside jumpshots. Only Jerry Stackhouse seemed to have the jumpshot consistently working, but if Stackhouse is your offensive centerpiece, you're not going to win many NBA Playoff games. The Mavs need to remember that they're the fresher, hungrier team. Meanwhile, the Spurs are aging and vulnerable. But the Mavs aren't going to win many games scoring only 85 points. Dirk must shoulder the burden of putting the team over the century mark in points scored. The defense was there in Game 1, and the Mavs would have taken it if Dirk had brought his "A" game. One other stat of note is the "DNP" next to Darrell Armstrong's play. This team was in dire need of some on-court leadership in Game 1. Armstrong can bring the "no fear" attitude that the team desperately needs. If the Mavs start out sluggish in Game 2, Avery Johnson needs to bring him into the game to attack the Spurs. There's no reason for the Mavs to be playing scared as the Spurs are very beatable. Someone just needs to let the players know.