← Team Metrics
Latest

Dallas Mavericks

2024-25
2016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26
Latest available releaseEvidence released Aug 22, 2026, 8:30 PM UTCLive database

What were the Dallas Mavericks in 2024-25, and what needed front-office attention?

DAL 2024-25: the clearest roster problems were Rebounding, Defensive event creation, Screening. No supported strength was identified. The main rotation-player dependency cases were Spencer Dinwiddie, Daniel Gafford, Dereck Lively II. Structural basketball need, injuries, replacement lineups, and financial constraints are reported separately.

CoveragePartial9 supported · 2 withheld
Cap positionTax to first apron on selected player charges
Next decision dateNo calendar release at this as-of time

What can be trusted

Supported strengths — production, who carries it, and what money is already committed.

No supported team strengths for this season — team picture available; function-level salary mapping incomplete.

What needs attention

The clearest roster problems the evidence supports.
Rebounding
8th percentile
P.J. Washington carries 37.0%
Availability: Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

DAL 2024-25 Rebounding: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 8.3 league percentile. P.J. Washington supplied 37.0% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences made the problem worse in 10 of the final 10 covered games. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

Defensive event creation
17th percentile
P.J. Washington carries 30.9%
Availability: Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

DAL 2024-25 Defensive event creation: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 16.7 league percentile. P.J. Washington supplied 30.9% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences made the problem worse in 10 of the final 10 covered games. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

Screening
19th percentile
Daniel Gafford carries 34.9%
Availability: Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

DAL 2024-25 Screening: this was a real roster weakness; production ranked at the 18.8 league percentile. Daniel Gafford supplied 34.9% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences made the problem worse in 6 of the final 10 covered games. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

Every covered basketball function (11)
FunctionReadingLeague percentileLargest contributorRecent availabilitySalary commitment
CreationSupportedMiddle of the league29th percentileSpencer Dinwiddie · 32.1%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Defensive event creationSupportedCritical team problem17th percentileP.J. Washington · 30.9%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Interior finishingSupportedMiddle of the league54th percentileDaniel Gafford · 18.6%Absences repeatedly created a problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Passing connectivitySupportedStructural team problem21st percentileSpencer Dinwiddie · 33.1%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Point-of-attack defense proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldKyrie IrvingRecent availability conclusion withheldSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
ReboundingSupportedCritical team problem8th percentileP.J. Washington · 37.0%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Rim pressureSupportedStructural team problem25th percentileNaji Marshall · 23.2%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Rim protectionSupportedMiddle of the league42nd percentileP.J. Washington · 26.4%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
ScreeningSupportedStructural team problem19th percentileDaniel Gafford · 34.9%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Shooting and spacingSupportedMiddle of the league29th percentileKyrie Irving · 29.0%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Switch coverage proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldKyrie IrvingRecent availability conclusion withheldSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low

Who the team depends on

What disappears when a player is removed — and whether an observed replacement five exists.
Spencer Dinwiddie
Single-skill dependence

DAL did not have strong functional backup for Spencer Dinwiddie in passing; removing him cost about 33.1% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Kyrie Irving.

rotation 53%loses 33.1% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Spencer Dinwiddie

Kyrie Irving · Klay Thompson · P.J. Washington · Luka Doncic · Dereck Lively II

shrunk net 6.808 over 222 possessions — small sample

on floor 3,909 possessions · off floor 3,506 possessions

Daniel Gafford
Lineup performance dependence

DAL lineups performed 3.3 points per 100 possessions better with Daniel Gafford than without him. The best supported alternative was [Kyrie Irving, Klay Thompson, P.J. Washington, Luka Doncic, Dereck Lively II] over 222 possessions.

rotation 31%loses 18.6% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Daniel Gafford

Kyrie Irving · Klay Thompson · P.J. Washington · Luka Doncic · Dereck Lively II

shrunk net 6.808 over 222 possessions — small sample

on floor 2,306 possessions · off floor 5,111 possessions

Dereck Lively II
Lineup performance dependence

DAL lineups performed 9.3 points per 100 possessions better with Dereck Lively II than without him. The best supported alternative was [Kyrie Irving, Klay Thompson, P.J. Washington, Luka Doncic, Daniel Gafford] over 174 possessions.

rotation 21%loses 14.5% of rim protection
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Dereck Lively II

Kyrie Irving · Klay Thompson · P.J. Washington · Luka Doncic · Daniel Gafford

shrunk net -3.279 over 174 possessions — small sample

on floor 1,590 possessions · off floor 5,822 possessions

Function loss, lineup performance, and replacement-lineup evidence remain separate; none is causal player value.

What injuries change

Recent absences and the basketball needs they created or worsened.
Creation

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Spencer Dinwiddie

Defensive event creation

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly P.J. Washington

Interior finishing

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Daniel Gafford

Passing connectivity

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Spencer Dinwiddie

Rebounding

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly P.J. Washington

Rim pressure

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Daniel Gafford

Shooting and spacing

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Kyrie Irving

Rim protection

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 6 of the final 10 covered games — mainly P.J. Washington

Screening

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 6 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Daniel Gafford

Where money is tied up

Cap position and salary allocation — shown beside the basketball picture, never blended into it.
SupportedThe team was in the tax but below the first apron on selected player charges.
Selected player charges
$175.7M
Share of cap
125%
Tax line
$4.90M over
First apron
$2.42M under
Second apron
$13.2M under

Most salary is mapped to interior finishing; the highest-need area is defensive event creation. Salary-to-function mapping covers 65% of charges.

Exact figures
Salary cap: $140,588,000Luxury tax line: $170,814,000First apron: $178,132,000Second apron: $188,931,000Selected player charges: $175,713,151Source-reported payroll: $177,812,859 (source-named payroll total; not relabeled as cash or cap)

Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence.

What the evidence cannot answer

Deliberate abstentions — where the database refuses a conclusion rather than guessing.
PartialTeam picture available; function-level salary mapping incomplete9 of 11 functions supported
  • Point-of-attack defense proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Switch coverage proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld

Exact transaction legality: Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence

Team-season situation report. Structural basketball quality, recent availability, player dependence, replacement lineups, and financial position remain separate. No acquisition recommendation, transaction grade, coaching grade, outcome claim, or causal value is inferred.