Underrated post?
It's a nonsensical one.
Luka's defense, or this perceived lack thereof, wasn't the reason why the Mavs lost the Finals. Anyone that's trying to claim so doesn't understand hoops. It's low-hanging fruit, when in reality, it doesn't even register on the radar on why Boston beat them. You think that if you perceived his defense to be even average that it would've changed anything in that series? It would've meant Kyrie didn't go MIA on offense? That all the other role players actually provided consistent offense?
The Celtics' defense drowned the life out of the Mavs offense, so much so, that Luka was the only one to keep his head above the surface. I can't possibly fathom why anyone would single out his defense as the reason for why they lost that series, especially when the Celtics only averaged 101 points. It's not as if Boston completely overwhelmed the Mavs with dominant offensive play (their best player couldn't even get it going on the side of the floor). It's that the Mavs offense shyt the bed and couldn't deal with the defense that the Celtics threw at them.
Why put the spotlight on Luka's defense when it was the Mavs lack of offensive production which ended up being their demise?
You even made it worse by saying that it's the same problem you had with Dirk, when he literally ended up winning a title as a centerpiece. And let's be honest here, without that generational whistle that DWade had in the 2006 Finals, this wouldn't even be a talking point.