Dallas Mavericks

Western Conference

Dallas
Mavericks

26-56
W1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Anthony Davis
Forward-Center Yr 13 20G (20S)
+16.1
20.4 pts
11.1 reb
2.8 ast
31.3 min

This early-season stretch was defined by sheer physical imposition, where elite rim protection frequently salvaged hideous shooting slumps. On 10/22 vs SAS, Davis chucked up a brutal 7/22 mark from the floor for 22 points. Yet he still generated a +12.4 impact score because his relentless rebounding and paint deterrence completely suffocated the opposition. Sometimes, however, the offensive disappearing acts carried too heavy a cost. During 12/05 vs OKC, he mustered a pathetic 2 points on 1/9 shooting, dragging his impact down to -4.8 because his total lack of scoring gravity erased whatever value his steady defensive positioning provided. But when his touch aligned with his defensive motor, he became an unstoppable two-way force. He utterly dictated the flow on 12/01 vs DEN, converting 13 of 23 shots for 32 points and 13 rebounds to post a massive +25.8 impact score. He remains an erratic offensive engine, but his defensive floor is terrifyingly high.

Cooper Flagg
Forward Yr 0 70G (70S)
+12.7
21.0 pts
6.7 reb
4.5 ast
33.5 min

Cooper Flagg’s midseason stretch was defined by wild, unpredictable swings between unstoppable offensive dominance and frustrating shot-chucking. When he let the game come to him on 01/29 vs CHA, the results were terrifying. He dropped 49 points on an absurd 20/29 shooting, generating a massive +29.0 impact score by ruthlessly exploiting his matchups with peak offensive efficiency. Yet, he frequently fell in love with hero ball. During a brutal outing on 03/06 vs BOS, his insistence on forcing contested drives and shooting a dismal 7/23 from the floor resulted in a staggering -9.8 impact score. Fortunately, Flagg eventually learned to anchor his value on the other end of the floor when his jumper abandoned him. Even on nights where his scoring volume normalized, like his 24-point outing on 03/27 vs POR, he still engineered a stellar +15.8 impact score because his relentless hustle plays and elite defensive metrics completely controlled the pace of the game.

Naji Marshall
Forward Yr 5 74G (47S)
+5.7
15.2 pts
4.7 reb
3.3 ast
29.5 min

Naji Marshall's midseason stretch was defined by a maddening Jekyll-and-Hyde inconsistency, oscillating wildly between surgical scoring outbursts and self-sabotaging isolation habits. When he played within the flow of the offense, he looked unstoppable, peaking on 01/22 vs GSW with 30 points and a stellar +11.5 impact score fueled by flawless shot selection and precise drives. However, that discipline frequently vanished in favor of hero ball. Just two days later on 01/24 vs LAL, Marshall dropped 21 points but posted a negative -2.8 impact score because his poor spacing decisions and stubborn isolation drives into traffic resulted in costly empty possessions. The floor completely fell out on 01/31 vs HOU, where those same forced drives cratered his efficiency en route to an 8-point dud and a brutal -11.6 impact. He remains a potent offensive weapon when attacking mismatches, but his stubborn refusal to abandon contested looks constantly drags down his overall value on the court.

P.J. Washington
Forward Yr 6 56G (53S)
+4.6
14.2 pts
7.0 reb
1.8 ast
31.0 min

Maddening inconsistency defined this mid-season stretch for P.J. Washington, as a volatile tug-of-war between defensive brilliance and offensive passivity dictated his nightly value. When he engaged on the less glamorous end of the floor, his worth skyrocketed. Look no further than 01/22 vs GSW. Despite scoring a modest 10 points, he generated a massive +9.4 impact score by anchoring a stellar defensive rating and relentlessly disrupting passing lanes. Conversely, empty-calorie volume frequently dragged his numbers into the red. During the 01/28 vs MIN matchup, Washington poured in 21 points but still registered a -2.4 impact because his interior production was entirely offset by a disastrous 0-for-4 showing from beyond the arc. He finally found the right offensive balance on 02/22 vs IND, tallying 23 points and a robust +7.5 impact score by attacking the rim aggressively instead of settling for outside jumpers.

Marvin Bagley III
Forward Yr 7 22G (4S)
+3.0
11.0 pts
6.8 reb
1.3 ast
21.4 min

This stretch was defined by a chaotic pendulum swing, with Marvin Bagley III oscillating between overwhelming interior dominance and baffling defensive invisibility. His start on Feb 26 vs SAC perfectly captured the frustrating downside of his game. Despite shooting a near-perfect 5-for-6 from the floor for 10 points, costly defensive lapses completely sank his value and yielded a brutal -14.0 impact score. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute without demanding the ball, posting a +6.3 impact score on Mar 12 vs MEM despite scoring just 6 points. He thrived in that matchup by accepting a low-usage, high-energy role, generating real value through excellent hustle (+4.2) and defensive effort (+5.8) rather than forcing offensive touches. When his offensive aggression actually aligned with his physical tools, the results were staggering. During a massive eruption on Mar 28 vs POR, Bagley poured in 26 points on 11-of-14 shooting, riding unprecedented three-level efficiency to a massive +21.9 impact score. He remains a tantalizing but deeply flawed frontcourt weapon who can single-handedly win a bench-unit matchup or completely bleed away points on the weak side.

Daniel Gafford
Forward-Center Yr 6 55G (44S)
+2.1
9.5 pts
6.9 reb
1.1 ast
21.7 min

A volatile mix of absolute interior dominance and sudden offensive disappearing acts defined this midseason stretch for Daniel Gafford. When opponents successfully neutralized him as a lob threat, his overall value plummeted. This was glaringly obvious on 01/08 vs UTA, where he attempted zero shots and posted a catastrophic -15.9 impact score. Yet, when engaged and fed high-percentage drop-offs, he was a two-way terror. Look no further than his 16-point, 10-rebound performance on 02/05 vs SAS. During that contest, explosive shot-blocking and masterful drop coverage generated a massive +15.5 impact. Even on nights where his offensive touches vanished entirely, he could still swing a game through sheer defensive intimidation. Despite scoring just two points on 01/24 vs LAL, he salvaged a +6.2 impact by acting as a total rim deterrent and completely altering the opponent's shot profile in the paint.

Max Christie
Guard Yr 3 77G (68S)
+0.1
12.3 pts
3.2 reb
2.0 ast
29.1 min

Max Christie’s mid-season stretch was defined by a catastrophic shooting slump that routinely sabotaged his team's offensive flow. The nightmare began on 01/25 vs MIL, where a ghastly 1-for-12 shooting performance from the floor yielded a brutal -16.6 impact score. Even when his scoring totals looked respectable, underlying flaws heavily dragged him down. During a 16-point outing on 02/22 vs IND, his overall impact plummeted to -8.7 because hidden negatives completely erased his baseline offensive contributions. He occasionally found his rhythm, generating a rare +2.1 impact score on 02/07 vs SAS by fueling a massive offensive surge with aggressive perimeter shooting. But those flashes were painfully fleeting. On 03/08 vs TOR, Christie hit rock bottom with a disastrous 0-for-7 night from beyond the arc, producing a team-worst -20.2 impact score. When a starting wing repeatedly settles for low-quality looks and fails to pressure the rim, the resulting offensive stagnation completely outweighs any marginal defensive hustle he brings to the floor.

Brandon Williams
Guard Yr 3 66G (15S)
0.0
13.0 pts
2.9 reb
3.9 ast
22.2 min

An erratic pendulum swing between brilliant offensive orchestration and fatal defensive lapses defined Brandon Williams's midseason stretch. When fully engaged, he looked like a masterful floor general. He carved up the defense flawlessly on 02/24 vs BKN, racking up 19 points and 10 assists to earn a +3.1 impact score. He even found ways to generate value without scoring, utilizing relentless energy and hustle to post a +2.3 impact despite putting up zero points in five minutes on 03/16 vs NOP. However, his maddening habit of forcing the issue frequently punished his team. During a rough outing on 02/10 vs PHX, Williams drove blindly into heavy traffic, dragging his impact down to a brutal -7.7. Even when his shots fell, as seen in his 16-point performance on 02/26 vs SAC, glaring defensive vulnerabilities completely erased his offensive rhythm and saddled him with a -4.4 impact. He clearly possesses the offensive toolkit to thrive, but he must stop bleeding value on the defensive end to become a truly reliable rotation fixture.

Klay Thompson
Guard Yr 14 69G (8S)
-2.0
11.7 pts
2.1 reb
1.4 ast
21.7 min

A frustrating blend of forced shots and defensive limitations defined Klay Thompson's mid-season stint as a bench gunner. His shot selection hit rock bottom on 01/31 vs HOU, where he settled for heavily contested jumpers that stalled the offense and dragged his impact score down to a brutal -13.6. Time and again, an inability to separate from tight coverage or generate secondary actions short-circuited possessions. He still flashed vintage brilliance, catching fire on 03/05 vs ORL to hit seven triples for 24 points, generating a +4.9 impact by ruthlessly punishing defensive under-reactions. Yet even when the jumper fell flawlessly, hidden costs routinely sabotaged his overall value. On 03/21 vs LAC, Thompson drilled all four of his three-point attempts for 12 points, but glaring defensive liabilities entirely overshadowed his spacing, resulting in a -5.0 impact score. Relying solely on perimeter gravity without off-ball hustle simply cannot sustain winning basketball.

John Poulakidas
Guard Yr 0 13G
-2.3
8.8 pts
2.3 reb
0.8 ast
19.5 min
Moussa Cisse
Center Yr 0 38G (1S)
-2.4
4.5 pts
5.7 reb
0.2 ast
13.9 min

Moussa Cisse’s early season was defined by extreme volatility as a low-minute energy big, swinging wildly between game-wrecking interior dominance and chaotic defensive lapses. He frequently generated massive value without even looking at the basket. On 11/22 vs MEM, he logged zero points in nine minutes but still posted a +5.6 impact score simply by anchoring the paint with aggressive defensive deterrence. When his motor was fully engaged, he was an absolute terror on the glass. During the 01/10 vs CHI matchup, Cisse dominated the interior through pure hustle and rim protection, pulling down 10 rebounds to drive a staggering +12.9 impact score despite scoring only five points. However, his situational awareness often betrayed him in shorter stints. During a brief five-minute run on 11/24 vs MIA, missed rotations and terrible screen navigation severely damaged the team, resulting in a brutal -4.0 impact mark. Cisse remains a raw, highly situational weapon who can completely alter the geometry of the paint, provided he avoids beating himself with poor positioning.

D'Angelo Russell
Guard Yr 10 26G (3S)
-4.1
10.2 pts
2.3 reb
4.0 ast
19.0 min

D'Angelo Russell's opening stretch was a chaotic rollercoaster defined by erratic shot selection and empty-calorie volume that routinely derailed his team's offensive flow. His performance on 11/14 vs LAC perfectly illustrated this frustrating dynamic. Despite pouring in 28 points, he logged a -5.3 impact score because a barrage of missed deep looks consistently killed offensive momentum. Conversely, he found ways to contribute without filling up the scoring column on 11/10 vs MIL. He managed just 7 points in that contest, but generated a +2.8 impact through surprisingly stout perimeter defense and active hands in the passing lanes. When he actually controlled the pace and picked his spots, as seen during a masterful +10.0 impact performance on 11/19 vs NYK, he looked like an elite pick-and-roll orchestrator. Unfortunately, those disciplined outings were rare exceptions for a guard who too often paralyzed the half-court offense with heavily contested, early-clock jumpers.

Khris Middleton
Forward Yr 13 29G (16S)
-4.5
10.0 pts
3.3 reb
2.2 ast
21.1 min

A brutal shooting slump and a mid-season demotion to the bench defined this miserable stretch for Khris Middleton. Even when he found an efficient scoring rhythm, like his 17-point outing Feb 26 vs SAC, his -4.8 impact score revealed a player bleeding points during his minutes on the floor. His overall utility frequently vanished entirely, highlighted by a disastrous Mar 01 vs OKC performance where forced shots and poor defensive execution dragged him to a staggering -14.9 impact. He simply lacked the burst to separate from primary defenders anymore. This glaring inability to create space led to stagnant isolation attempts that routinely stalled half-court sets. Yet, out of nowhere, he summoned a vintage performance Mar 12 vs MEM. Exploding for 35 points off the bench, he generated a massive +26.8 impact by single-handedly breaking the opponent's defensive scheme with an absolute masterclass in perimeter shot-making. Unfortunately, that brilliant flash was a total mirage in a desert of lethargic rotations and defensive apathy.

Tyler Smith
Forward Yr 1 12G
-4.6
4.7 pts
2.8 reb
0.4 ast
13.8 min
Dereck Lively II
Center Yr 2 7G (4S)
-4.7
4.3 pts
5.3 reb
1.9 ast
16.5 min
Jeremiah Robinson-Earl
Forward Yr 4 5G
-4.7
4.4 pts
3.0 reb
0.6 ast
12.2 min

Jeremiah Robinson-Earl spent the first twenty games of the season mired in a frustrating slump, struggling to carve out a reliable role as his erratic perimeter shooting actively hindered his team. Even when he chipped in offensively, hidden costs frequently dragged him into the red. Despite scoring seven points in 30 minutes on 11/15 vs TOR, he posted a disastrous -15.9 impact score because his poor floor spacing and failure to secure defensive rebounds crippled the lineup. He occasionally flipped the script by relying purely on hustle. During a massive +10.4 impact performance on 11/05 vs BKN, Robinson-Earl scored just eight points but completely controlled the glass with 15 rebounds while anchoring the interior defense. Unfortunately, those gritty flashes were too often erased by lazy efforts on the perimeter. On 11/08 vs DEN, lackadaisical closeouts and an inability to secure contested long rebounds resulted in a brutal -10.4 impact score. Unless he learns to maintain defensive discipline and hit open jumpers, he will remain a liability masquerading as a stretch big.

Dwight Powell
Forward-Center Yr 11 63G (12S)
-6.3
3.3 pts
4.1 reb
1.1 ast
14.4 min

Dwight Powell’s late-season stretch was defined by a jarring Jekyll-and-Hyde act where his value hinged entirely on his willingness to engage physically. When he actively hunted contact, the veteran big man was a revelation. Look at his Mar 13 vs CLE performance, where he racked up 11 points and 11 rebounds to post a massive +12.6 impact score. That towering metric was fueled by elite screen-setting and dominant rebounding positioning rather than just his scoring output. He even found ways to thrive without shooting, logging a +10.1 impact on Mar 30 vs MIN by masterfully manipulating the whistle to score 9 points on zero field goal attempts. Yet, when Powell slipped into passive habits, his presence became actively detrimental. During an Apr 03 vs ORL tilt, he logged 24 minutes but finished with zero points and a brutal -7.3 impact. By completely refusing to look at the rim, he operated as a total offensive zero and crippled the team's spacing by allowing defenders to entirely ignore him.

Ryan Nembhard
Guard Yr 0 60G (27S)
-7.1
6.6 pts
2.2 reb
5.3 ast
19.5 min

A brutal slump defined this stretch for Ryan Nembhard, as his inability to score efficiently and crippling hidden costs completely derailed his playmaking. Look no further than Apr 12 vs CHI, where he racked up 15 points and an incredible 23 assists, yet still posted a -7.3 impact score. A disastrous turnover penalty completely erased the value of that masterful floor-general performance. Earlier on Mar 16 vs NOP, his offensive rhythm collapsed into a -14.0 impact abyss because he forced drives and chucked heavily contested floaters to finish with just 2 points. The bottom fell out entirely on Apr 10 vs SAS. Despite logging 13 points and 7 assists in that start, his inefficient shot selection and a porous point-of-attack defense resulted in a catastrophic -17.1 impact. When a guard cannot threaten the rim or protect the perimeter without turning the ball over, passing volume simply becomes empty calories.

Jaden Hardy
Guard Yr 3 34G (4S)
-7.2
6.9 pts
1.4 reb
0.9 ast
12.6 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by chronic tunnel vision and empty calories, as Jaden Hardy’s relentless shot-hunting frequently sabotaged his team. His performance on 01/15 vs UTA perfectly encapsulated this frustrating habit. Despite scoring 19 points, Hardy posted a dismal -5.0 impact score because he hijacked the offense to repeatedly jack up ill-advised shots. The hidden costs of his scoring were even more glaring on 02/26 vs ATL, where he managed 14 points but bled value with a catastrophic -14.5 impact score fueled by a brutal, selfish shooting display. Even when his raw numbers looked decent, terrible transition defense and an outright refusal to pass to open corner shooters dragged down his overall effectiveness. Conversely, a restrained approach yielded immediate dividends on 12/27 vs SAC. By taking high-quality looks and actually competing on the defensive end, he generated a robust +3.8 impact score despite contributing just 5 points. If Hardy wants to be a reliable rotation piece, he must realize that stalling possessions for contested isolation jumpers is a losing formula.

AJ Johnson
Guard Yr 1 23G
-7.4
3.9 pts
1.0 reb
1.1 ast
10.4 min

This erratic stretch of the season was defined by brutal shot selection and a complete lack of offensive discipline. Even when Johnson found the bottom of the net, as he did on 02/01 vs SAC, his team suffered. He poured in 17 points in 27 minutes that night, yet posted a disastrous -13.4 impact score because his scoring outburst completely masked deep structural breakdowns during his shifts. The coaching staff inexplicably gave him an absolute green light on 02/27 vs MEM, and it backfired spectacularly. He hoisted an abysmal 1-for-8 from beyond the arc to finish with 12 points, generating a terrible -12.7 impact score that cratered the offense. Ironically, his most helpful minutes came when he stopped hunting his own shot. On 03/18 vs ATL, Johnson managed just 3 points but still earned a +1.4 impact score. By abandoning wild perimeter attempts and instead applying relentless full-court defensive pressure, he finally provided genuine value to the rotation.

Caleb Martin
Forward Yr 6 58G (12S)
-7.7
3.9 pts
2.5 reb
1.4 ast
14.8 min

Caleb Martin's midseason stretch was defined by a jarring transition from an invisible bench afterthought to a highly volatile starter whose offensive engagement dictated his entire value. He flashed his absolute ceiling on 01/14 vs DEN, erupting for 15 points and a massive +14.9 impact score driven by devastating baseline cuts and elite two-way energy. Yet, when his scoring vanished, his presence became actively harmful. Look no further than his start on 01/22 vs GSW. A scoreless outing resulted in a horrific -13.8 impact rating because his total passivity allowed defenders to blatantly ignore him and aggressively double primary ball-handlers. Even when he tried to overcompensate, the results were messy. On 01/28 vs MIN, he posted a -4.7 impact rating despite strong defensive metrics, dragging down his overall value through poor shot selection and offensive inefficiency. Martin is a classic rotational piece who needs the ball moving to survive; when he floats on the perimeter, his gritty hustle simply cannot mask the glaring holes in his half-court game.

Miles Kelly
Guard Yr 0 14G
-7.9
3.1 pts
1.7 reb
0.9 ast
9.6 min
Tyus Jones
Guard Yr 10 8G (2S)
-9.2
3.9 pts
1.1 reb
3.8 ast
16.6 min

Complete offensive passivity and glaring defensive liabilities defined a brutal midseason stretch for Tyus Jones. Even when he racked up nine assists off the bench on 01/28 vs MIA, his distinct lack of size created issues on the other end of the floor, dragging his overall impact down to a -4.2. The bottom completely fell out on 03/06 vs NYK. He posted an abysmal -10.1 impact score that night because his uncharacteristic inability to organize the offense resulted in stagnant, late-clock possessions. He briefly flipped the script during a spot start on 02/20 vs MIN. Masterful orchestration and an aggressive 6-for-10 shooting night yielded 13 points and a positive +0.8 impact score. Unfortunately, that spark was a total anomaly. For the vast majority of these matchups, opposing defenders simply sagged off his non-existent scoring threat to clog passing lanes, rendering him a massive on-court liability.

GAME LOG

W
CHI CHI 128
149 DAL DAL
Apr 12 Analysis available
+21
L
DAL DAL 120
139 SAS SAS
Apr 10 Analysis available
-19
L
DAL DAL 107
112 PHX PHX
Apr 8 Analysis available
-5
L
DAL DAL 103
116 LAC LAC
Apr 7 Analysis available
-13
W
LAL LAL 128
134 DAL DAL
Apr 5 Analysis available
+6
L
ORL ORL 138
127 DAL DAL
Apr 3 Analysis available
-11
L
MIN MIN 124
94 DAL DAL
Mar 30 Analysis available
-30
W
DAL DAL 100
93 POR POR
Mar 28 Analysis available
+7
L
DAL DAL 135
142 DEN DEN
Mar 25 Analysis available
-7
L
GSW GSW 137
131 DAL DAL
Mar 23 Analysis available
-6
L
LAC LAC 138
131 DAL DAL
Mar 21 Analysis available
-7
L
ATL ATL 135
120 DAL DAL
Mar 18 Analysis available
-15
L
DAL DAL 111
129 NOP NOP
Mar 16 Analysis available
-18
W
DAL DAL 130
120 CLE CLE
Mar 15 Analysis available
+10
L
CLE CLE 138
105 DAL DAL
Mar 13 Analysis available
-33
W
DAL DAL 120
112 MEM MEM
Mar 12 Analysis available
+8
L
DAL DAL 112
124 ATL ATL
Mar 10 Analysis available
-12
L
DAL DAL 92
122 TOR TOR
Mar 8 Analysis available
-30
L
DAL DAL 100
120 BOS BOS
Mar 6 Analysis available
-20
L
DAL DAL 114
115 ORL ORL
Mar 5 Analysis available
-1
L
DAL DAL 90
117 CHA CHA
Mar 3 Analysis available
-27
L
OKC OKC 100
87 DAL DAL
Mar 1 Analysis available
-13
L
MEM MEM 124
105 DAL DAL
Feb 27 Analysis available
-19
L
SAC SAC 130
121 DAL DAL
Feb 26 Analysis available
-9
W
DAL DAL 123
114 BKN BKN
Feb 24 Analysis available
+9
W
DAL DAL 134
130 IND IND
Feb 22 Analysis available
+4
L
DAL DAL 111
122 MIN MIN
Feb 20 Analysis available
-11
L
DAL DAL 104
124 LAL LAL
Feb 12 Analysis available
-20
L
DAL DAL 111
120 PHX PHX
Feb 10 Analysis available
-9
L
DAL DAL 125
138 SAS SAS
Feb 7 Analysis available
-13
L
SAS SAS 135
123 DAL DAL
Feb 5 Analysis available
-12
L
BOS BOS 110
100 DAL DAL
Feb 3 Analysis available
-10
L
DAL DAL 107
111 HOU HOU
Jan 31 Analysis available
-4
L
CHA CHA 123
121 DAL DAL
Jan 29 Analysis available
-2
L
MIN MIN 118
105 DAL DAL
Jan 28 Analysis available
-13
L
LAL LAL 116
110 DAL DAL
Jan 25 Analysis available
-6
L
DAL DAL 99
123 MIL MIL
Jan 25 Analysis available
-24
W
GSW GSW 115
123 DAL DAL
Jan 23 Analysis available
+8
W
DAL DAL 114
97 NYK NYK
Jan 19 Analysis available
+17
W
UTA UTA 120
138 DAL DAL
Jan 17 Analysis available
+18
W
UTA UTA 122
144 DAL DAL
Jan 16 Analysis available
+22
L
DEN DEN 118
109 DAL DAL
Jan 15 Analysis available
-9
W
BKN BKN 105
113 DAL DAL
Jan 13 Analysis available
+8
L
DAL DAL 107
125 CHI CHI
Jan 11 Analysis available
-18
L
DAL DAL 114
116 UTA UTA
Jan 9 Analysis available
-2
W
DAL DAL 100
98 SAC SAC
Jan 7 Analysis available
+2
W
HOU HOU 104
110 DAL DAL
Jan 4 Analysis available
+6
L
PHI PHI 123
108 DAL DAL
Jan 2 Analysis available
-15
L
DAL DAL 122
125 POR POR
Dec 30 Analysis available
-3
L
DAL DAL 107
113 SAC SAC
Dec 27 Analysis available
-6
L
DAL DAL 116
126 GSW GSW
Dec 25 Analysis available
-10
W
DEN DEN 130
131 DAL DAL
Dec 24 Analysis available
+1
L
DAL DAL 113
119 NOP NOP
Dec 23 Analysis available
-6
L
DAL DAL 114
121 PHI PHI
Dec 21 Analysis available
-7
W
DET DET 114
116 DAL DAL
Dec 19 Analysis available
+2
L
DAL DAL 133
140 UTA UTA
Dec 16 Analysis available
-7
W
BKN BKN 111
119 DAL DAL
Dec 13 Analysis available
+8
W
HOU HOU 109
122 DAL DAL
Dec 7 Analysis available
+13
L
DAL DAL 111
132 OKC OKC
Dec 6 Analysis available
-21
W
MIA MIA 108
118 DAL DAL
Dec 4 Analysis available
+10
W
DAL DAL 131
121 DEN DEN
Dec 2 Analysis available
+10
W
DAL DAL 114
110 LAC LAC
Nov 30 Analysis available
+4
L
DAL DAL 119
129 LAL LAL
Nov 29 Analysis available
-10
L
DAL DAL 102
106 MIA MIA
Nov 25 Analysis available
-4
L
MEM MEM 102
96 DAL DAL
Nov 23 Analysis available
-6
W
NOP NOP 115
118 DAL DAL
Nov 22 Analysis available
+3
L
NYK NYK 113
111 DAL DAL
Nov 20 Analysis available
-2
L
DAL DAL 96
120 MIN MIN
Nov 18 Analysis available
-24
W
POR POR 133
138 DAL DAL
Nov 17 Analysis available
+5
L
LAC LAC 133
127 DAL DAL
Nov 15 Analysis available
-6
L
PHX PHX 123
114 DAL DAL
Nov 13 Analysis available
-9
L
MIL MIL 116
114 DAL DAL
Nov 11 Analysis available
-2
W
DAL DAL 111
105 WAS WAS
Nov 9 Analysis available
+6
L
DAL DAL 104
118 MEM MEM
Nov 8 Analysis available
-14
L
NOP NOP 101
99 DAL DAL
Nov 6 Analysis available
-2
L
DAL DAL 102
110 HOU HOU
Nov 4 Analysis available
-8
L
DAL DAL 110
122 DET DET
Nov 2 Analysis available
-12
W
IND IND 105
107 DAL DAL
Oct 30 Analysis available
+2
L
OKC OKC 101
94 DAL DAL
Oct 27 Analysis available
-7
W
TOR TOR 129
139 DAL DAL
Oct 26 Analysis available
+10
L
WAS WAS 117
107 DAL DAL
Oct 24 Analysis available
-10
L
SAS SAS 125
92 DAL DAL
Oct 22 Analysis available
-33