WEBVTT - NBA Awards Bets | 2026

0:00:00.590 --> 0:00:04.150
<v Speaker 1>What these young bloods have to understand, that this game

0:00:04.990 --> 0:00:09.970
<v Speaker 1>has always been and will always be about buckets. Just

0:00:10.070 --> 0:00:19.640
<v Speaker 1>attack the basket. Stop it! Stop it! Do not do

0:00:19.720 --> 0:00:24.250
<v Speaker 1>it like that! With no regard for human life!

0:00:24.350 --> 0:00:28.430
<v Speaker 2>I cannot believe you've done it again! Are you kidding me?

0:00:30.050 --> 0:00:33.870
<v Speaker 2>Welcome to Buckets! My name's Matt Moore. This is your

0:00:34.010 --> 0:00:37.810
<v Speaker 2>NBA Awards show, wrapping up the other awards across the NBA.

0:00:37.850 --> 0:00:40.690
<v Speaker 2>We are going to hit all the awards except MVP.

0:00:40.790 --> 0:00:43.730
<v Speaker 2>You will find the MVP episode with Brandon Kravitz in

0:00:44.290 --> 0:00:46.770
<v Speaker 2>your feeds right now, so go check that out. You

0:00:46.810 --> 0:00:48.550
<v Speaker 2>can go listen to the full breakdown on where I'm

0:00:48.570 --> 0:00:50.830
<v Speaker 2>at on the MVP market, as well as BK's thoughts

0:00:50.890 --> 0:00:53.730
<v Speaker 2>on it. Go check that out right now. But, or

0:00:54.090 --> 0:00:56.290
<v Speaker 2>later after the show, that's fine too. There's not real,

0:00:56.490 --> 0:00:58.830
<v Speaker 2>it's not like it's a sequential order. We're not doing

0:00:59.210 --> 0:01:03.020
<v Speaker 2>lanterns here. Uh, joining me, Jim Turvey from Roto grinders

0:01:03.320 --> 0:01:06.500
<v Speaker 2>at Turvey bets on Twitter and in the action network app,

0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:09.399
<v Speaker 2>host of the WNBA buckets podcast. We're going to go

0:01:09.459 --> 0:01:11.410
<v Speaker 2>through coach of the year and rookie of the year

0:01:11.750 --> 0:01:15.169
<v Speaker 2>and defensive player of the year and most improved player

0:01:15.709 --> 0:01:18.230
<v Speaker 2>and comeback player of the year, even though that's not

0:01:18.250 --> 0:01:21.150
<v Speaker 2>a thing and a clutch player of the year because

0:01:21.270 --> 0:01:23.209
<v Speaker 2>Jim's obsessed with it and all sorts of things on

0:01:23.230 --> 0:01:25.169
<v Speaker 2>today's show. I do want to let you know that

0:01:25.190 --> 0:01:28.780
<v Speaker 2>before we get started, uh, If you missed the MVP episode,

0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:30.530
<v Speaker 2>you can find that, like I said, in your feeds.

0:01:30.870 --> 0:01:33.010
<v Speaker 2>And you can find shows on who were bullish on

0:01:33.430 --> 0:01:37.850
<v Speaker 2>and bearish on this season from a team win totals perspective.

0:01:37.870 --> 0:01:39.390
<v Speaker 2>Had a lot of fun with Jim and Joe on

0:01:39.410 --> 0:01:42.590
<v Speaker 2>the first one. Great stuff coming to you on both

0:01:42.650 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 2>teams to fade and teams to back this season. Before

0:01:44.900 --> 0:01:48.180
<v Speaker 2>we get started, don't forget to download the free award-winning

0:01:48.300 --> 0:01:50.260
<v Speaker 2>Action Network app. And if you want to take it

0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:52.780
<v Speaker 2>a step further, sign up for Action Pro. If you

0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:56.690
<v Speaker 2>use code POD20, you get $ 20 off an annual subscription today.

0:01:57.260 --> 0:01:59.720
<v Speaker 2>of action pro you get Brandon Anderson's futures. The second

0:01:59.740 --> 0:02:03.620
<v Speaker 2>he logs them, you get Sean Kerner's bets on over

0:02:03.620 --> 0:02:07.910
<v Speaker 2>0.5 tight fourth tight end receiving yards before the market

0:02:07.950 --> 0:02:10.190
<v Speaker 2>makes it minus 400. You get all sorts of great

0:02:10.210 --> 0:02:12.450
<v Speaker 2>stuff from our quant, our quant team, all sorts of

0:02:12.470 --> 0:02:15.590
<v Speaker 2>cool stuff. Cypher action pro in the action network app.

0:02:15.690 --> 0:02:18.700
<v Speaker 2>Plus bet sync is back in the action app. Now

0:02:18.780 --> 0:02:22.299
<v Speaker 2>you can automatically track your activity across 15 plus sports

0:02:22.340 --> 0:02:25.040
<v Speaker 2>books and prediction markets all in one place. Connect your

0:02:25.060 --> 0:02:27.990
<v Speaker 2>accounts once, and your bets and trades will automatically appear

0:02:28.169 --> 0:02:30.709
<v Speaker 2>as soon as you place them. No manual tracking required.

0:02:31.010 --> 0:02:33.370
<v Speaker 2>You just open the Action app, you head to My Accounts,

0:02:33.870 --> 0:02:36.209
<v Speaker 2>and you connect your sportsbook or prediction market, and you're

0:02:36.250 --> 0:02:41.149
<v Speaker 2>ready to go. Okay. This will be a little lightning round, Jim,

0:02:41.350 --> 0:02:43.070
<v Speaker 2>because we have to get through a lot of awards

0:02:43.630 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 2>in not a lot of time. So we're going to

0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:47.180
<v Speaker 2>go ahead and we're going to keep this one snappy

0:02:47.260 --> 0:02:48.220
<v Speaker 2>is what we're going to do. We're going to start

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:50.480
<v Speaker 2>off with six man of the year. It's got your

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 2>favorite bets. It's got the ones that you love the most.

0:02:53.419 --> 0:02:54.720
<v Speaker 2>We will give you our best bets at the end

0:02:54.760 --> 0:02:57.030
<v Speaker 2>of the episode to recap. But let's start off here.

0:02:57.130 --> 0:03:01.889
<v Speaker 2>Sixth man of the year was a tough market last year.

0:03:02.010 --> 0:03:05.210
<v Speaker 2>This was a tough market to crack last season. Typically,

0:03:05.250 --> 0:03:06.770
<v Speaker 2>we kind of know what this looks like, right? We

0:03:06.810 --> 0:03:09.410
<v Speaker 2>know that it's typically scoring guards that come off the

0:03:09.450 --> 0:03:12.210
<v Speaker 2>bench for the majority of the season. There's usually some

0:03:12.389 --> 0:03:15.850
<v Speaker 2>age kind of qualifiers, but not always. You don't need

0:03:15.870 --> 0:03:17.630
<v Speaker 2>to be an impact player. You don't need to be

0:03:17.669 --> 0:03:21.359
<v Speaker 2>a defender. Advanced metrics only really help you if you fail,

0:03:21.720 --> 0:03:24.840
<v Speaker 2>if nobody crosses like the default 18 plus scoring line.

0:03:25.330 --> 0:03:28.510
<v Speaker 2>differential coming off the bench uh i am very curious

0:03:28.530 --> 0:03:29.529
<v Speaker 2>to know where you want to go with this because

0:03:29.550 --> 0:03:31.190
<v Speaker 2>i know that you have three bets that you're looking

0:03:31.250 --> 0:03:32.650
<v Speaker 2>at for six man of the year.

0:03:32.530 --> 0:03:35.029
<v Speaker 1>Yeah it's pretty funny you set it up that way

0:03:35.070 --> 0:03:36.470
<v Speaker 1>because i i don't know about you but i went

0:03:36.490 --> 0:03:39.070
<v Speaker 1>back and looked at brandon's articles he wrote and those

0:03:39.130 --> 0:03:41.010
<v Speaker 1>are four years ago now and they've got those kind

0:03:41.030 --> 0:03:42.750
<v Speaker 1>of rules that we all know about the and you

0:03:42.790 --> 0:03:45.760
<v Speaker 1>laid them out this award's a little bit different the

0:03:45.780 --> 0:03:47.620
<v Speaker 1>last four years and i can't tell if it's a

0:03:47.660 --> 0:03:49.600
<v Speaker 1>blip i can't tell if it's the games played thing

0:03:49.660 --> 0:03:52.710
<v Speaker 1>i can't tell if it's just a you know, or

0:03:52.730 --> 0:03:55.050
<v Speaker 1>if it's a new trend. So the last four years,

0:03:55.230 --> 0:03:57.350
<v Speaker 1>no one has even gotten to 15 points a game.

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.100
<v Speaker 1>When Brandon did his write-up, you had to be 16

0:04:00.100 --> 0:04:02.060
<v Speaker 1>to 18 points a game. You kind of talked about

0:04:02.100 --> 0:04:04.420
<v Speaker 1>how you don't really have to be that high impact.

0:04:04.460 --> 0:04:07.240
<v Speaker 1>The last four years, the advanced stats have actually gotten

0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>better for these players. It's been a little bit less

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:13.660
<v Speaker 1>of the empty stats, guys. So that's, I think it

0:04:13.690 --> 0:04:15.670
<v Speaker 1>would be very easy to look at this award and say, okay,

0:04:15.930 --> 0:04:18.330
<v Speaker 1>maybe there's a natural pivot. We're looking for, you know,

0:04:19.350 --> 0:04:22.150
<v Speaker 1>really good bench players like that this is a smarter

0:04:22.190 --> 0:04:26.859
<v Speaker 1>market i think that this year this award actually is

0:04:26.880 --> 0:04:28.760
<v Speaker 1>going to kind of like combine the two and it's

0:04:28.779 --> 0:04:30.380
<v Speaker 1>going to be it's not really going to matter all

0:04:30.400 --> 0:04:33.240
<v Speaker 1>that much to me this is the market where you're

0:04:33.260 --> 0:04:36.240
<v Speaker 1>sometimes and this isn't often the award usually it's mvp

0:04:36.279 --> 0:04:38.719
<v Speaker 1>and rookie of the year where the the two favorites

0:04:39.000 --> 0:04:41.360
<v Speaker 1>or the three favorites whatever you pick from that top

0:04:41.380 --> 0:04:43.440
<v Speaker 1>tier and that's kind of what happens for the whole

0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:47.150
<v Speaker 1>year At least to my eye, there are two phenomenal

0:04:47.210 --> 0:04:49.900
<v Speaker 1>candidates at the top that I want action on for both.

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:51.880
<v Speaker 1>And I might just kind of set it and forget

0:04:51.900 --> 0:04:54.440
<v Speaker 1>it for the full year because Dylan Harper and AJ

0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:58.690
<v Speaker 1>Mitchell are both really good players. They're both going to

0:04:58.750 --> 0:05:01.170
<v Speaker 1>get a lot of minutes, score a lot. They both

0:05:01.230 --> 0:05:04.150
<v Speaker 1>are honestly decent, most improved candidates. We'll talk about that

0:05:04.190 --> 0:05:06.550
<v Speaker 1>later on. And they're going to be on the two

0:05:06.589 --> 0:05:08.669
<v Speaker 1>best teams in the West, if not in the league.

0:05:09.860 --> 0:05:12.700
<v Speaker 1>To me, this is a very strange market, but a

0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:15.460
<v Speaker 1>really nice opportunity, I think, to set it and forget it.

0:05:15.460 --> 0:05:17.020
<v Speaker 1>Like if you're a set it and forget it better,

0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:22.830
<v Speaker 1>I think this is the best market for you this year. Okay.

0:05:23.790 --> 0:05:27.030
<v Speaker 2>So I will ask you right off the bat. First

0:05:27.050 --> 0:05:31.050
<v Speaker 2>question is, are you absolutely sure you're going to get

0:05:31.089 --> 0:05:34.370
<v Speaker 2>to enough bench games played for AJ Mitchell and Dylan Harper?

0:05:35.070 --> 0:05:39.730
<v Speaker 1>Harper, I feel quite good about. I think that the

0:05:39.790 --> 0:05:42.589
<v Speaker 1>conversation going on over there, it sounds like he might

0:05:42.650 --> 0:05:44.310
<v Speaker 1>not really want to be on the bench, but I

0:05:44.360 --> 0:05:48.039
<v Speaker 1>think for a second-year player with De'Aaron Fox there, I'm

0:05:48.150 --> 0:05:49.900
<v Speaker 1>pretty sure they are going to keep him on the

0:05:49.920 --> 0:05:53.640
<v Speaker 1>bench to start. I think both will fill in spots

0:05:53.740 --> 0:05:57.580
<v Speaker 1>here and there, but both these franchises are franchises that

0:05:57.620 --> 0:06:02.520
<v Speaker 1>look at things in centuries, not minutes. They're not going

0:06:02.540 --> 0:06:06.350
<v Speaker 1>to overreact to a young player who theoretically could is

0:06:06.470 --> 0:06:08.310
<v Speaker 1>one of their three or four best players. I think

0:06:08.330 --> 0:06:11.570
<v Speaker 1>they both realize the importance of having that player off

0:06:11.589 --> 0:06:13.650
<v Speaker 1>the bench. I mean, look at the Spurs franchise. There's

0:06:13.710 --> 0:06:16.979
<v Speaker 1>no franchise and no player that, you know, embodied that

0:06:17.000 --> 0:06:20.300
<v Speaker 1>more than Manu Ginobili during their championship seasons. I don't

0:06:20.320 --> 0:06:21.860
<v Speaker 1>think Dylan Harper is going to stay on the bench

0:06:21.900 --> 0:06:23.660
<v Speaker 1>for his whole career, but I think as a second

0:06:23.680 --> 0:06:25.920
<v Speaker 1>year player, it's very fair to ask him to stay

0:06:25.980 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 1>on the bench. I think they both will slot in

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:31.700
<v Speaker 1>whenever players miss time. I actually think that's really good.

0:06:31.880 --> 0:06:35.370
<v Speaker 1>Like that's a sneaky good sauce to have here. is

0:06:35.790 --> 0:06:39.010
<v Speaker 1>the person who slips in and gets a couple starts

0:06:39.130 --> 0:06:43.960
<v Speaker 1>when those marquee regular starters go out. So I think

0:06:44.000 --> 0:06:46.680
<v Speaker 1>you'll see 10 to 15 games started for these guys,

0:06:46.720 --> 0:06:48.800
<v Speaker 1>but I don't think either is going to crack that

0:06:48.820 --> 0:06:51.160
<v Speaker 1>40-game mark where you start to get real sweaty. But

0:06:51.180 --> 0:06:53.050
<v Speaker 1>we'll say one thing I noticed as I was looking

0:06:53.060 --> 0:06:56.849
<v Speaker 1>at the recent seasons, it seems like games played are

0:06:56.890 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 1>pretty key. We don't have a ton of history on

0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:02.900
<v Speaker 1>Dylan Harper health, obviously only one season. AJ Mitchell has

0:07:02.920 --> 0:07:05.640
<v Speaker 1>had a little bit of health stuff, especially last season.

0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:10.170
<v Speaker 1>AJ Mitchell is the shorter odds of the two. And

0:07:10.190 --> 0:07:12.090
<v Speaker 1>I actually think there's, you know, we'll talk about another

0:07:12.110 --> 0:07:15.050
<v Speaker 1>award with him. I think Harper is my favorite. You

0:07:15.070 --> 0:07:18.230
<v Speaker 1>get a little bit longer number. I think, I actually

0:07:18.250 --> 0:07:20.809
<v Speaker 1>think AJ is probably, I think AJ is a lock

0:07:20.990 --> 0:07:23.960
<v Speaker 1>to be off the bench. I think Harper is like 90%.

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:26.220
<v Speaker 1>And there is the possibility of like a Fox move

0:07:26.340 --> 0:07:28.580
<v Speaker 1>or something, but I really don't see them shaking things

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:30.900
<v Speaker 1>up this year. I think these two guys are the

0:07:30.940 --> 0:07:33.960
<v Speaker 1>primitive favorites. The market agrees. These guys are both about

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:36.600
<v Speaker 1>10 to one as of a few weeks ago, what

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:38.300
<v Speaker 1>posted in the app, they're down to seven 50 and

0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:40.840
<v Speaker 1>plus 600, but I still don't mind it. I really

0:07:40.860 --> 0:07:43.420
<v Speaker 1>don't mind locking these two guys in. And, you know,

0:07:43.460 --> 0:07:45.320
<v Speaker 1>I've got one more dart for you down the board.

0:07:45.340 --> 0:07:47.780
<v Speaker 1>But overall, I think that these two guys are, it's

0:07:47.800 --> 0:07:49.580
<v Speaker 1>going to be really hard to, for a long shot

0:07:49.600 --> 0:07:52.760
<v Speaker 1>to crack because you have two guys who, if either

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:56.420
<v Speaker 1>of them, stay as a healthy bench player all season,

0:07:56.460 --> 0:08:00.020
<v Speaker 1>which I think I am based on your face, making

0:08:00.380 --> 0:08:03.410
<v Speaker 1>a much more likely chance than you think both of them,

0:08:03.470 --> 0:08:05.750
<v Speaker 1>I would say over three quarters, likely to be healthy

0:08:06.190 --> 0:08:08.670
<v Speaker 1>and to stay on the bench. Then you get two

0:08:08.690 --> 0:08:11.989
<v Speaker 1>of those guys. I, it looks like a 50, 50

0:08:11.990 --> 0:08:13.810
<v Speaker 1>in my mind for, for one of them to scoop

0:08:13.850 --> 0:08:15.130
<v Speaker 1>up this award. Yeah, no.

0:08:15.150 --> 0:08:17.170
<v Speaker 2>So I like this because I always think that podcasting,

0:08:17.210 --> 0:08:19.390
<v Speaker 2>especially about betting is better when there's debt, when we disagree,

0:08:19.410 --> 0:08:22.900
<v Speaker 2>I think that it's just better for the content. So yeah, Look,

0:08:23.440 --> 0:08:26.550
<v Speaker 2>I'm not like, this is a terrible bet. It's a

0:08:26.870 --> 0:08:28.930
<v Speaker 2>futures market, and I definitely see where you're coming from.

0:08:29.510 --> 0:08:32.670
<v Speaker 2>This morning on the Hoop Collective, Tim McMahon made mention

0:08:32.690 --> 0:08:34.850
<v Speaker 2>that there's a very strong possibility that the Spurs might

0:08:34.910 --> 0:08:37.520
<v Speaker 2>start all three. This is the best solve for them

0:08:37.620 --> 0:08:40.520
<v Speaker 2>from all perspectives. It's just you start all three of them.

0:08:40.620 --> 0:08:43.780
<v Speaker 2>These are your three best players, and you just start

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:47.640
<v Speaker 2>Stephon Castle, De'Aaron Fox, and Dylan Harper. They have size.

0:08:47.660 --> 0:08:50.619
<v Speaker 2>They have athleticism. They have the best rim protector in

0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:52.560
<v Speaker 2>the universe backing them up, so you're not too worried

0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:56.120
<v Speaker 2>about them giving ground from a strength perspective. It solves

0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:58.250
<v Speaker 2>a lot of their problems, and I personally don't think

0:08:58.290 --> 0:09:02.650
<v Speaker 2>that Devin Vassell is worth keeping in the... Vassell is

0:09:02.690 --> 0:09:04.470
<v Speaker 2>the one guy on the Spurs that I'm always kind

0:09:04.490 --> 0:09:10.470
<v Speaker 2>of like, eh, it's fine. Eh. He is a perfectly

0:09:11.270 --> 0:09:17.559
<v Speaker 2>serviceable replacement level starting three, and that's it. Versus like, hey,

0:09:17.600 --> 0:09:19.479
<v Speaker 2>if your problem is Dylan Harper wants to start and

0:09:19.500 --> 0:09:21.560
<v Speaker 2>Stephon Castle wants to start and De'Aaron Fox is your

0:09:21.620 --> 0:09:23.440
<v Speaker 2>leader who you really do believe in, and they do,

0:09:24.460 --> 0:09:26.179
<v Speaker 2>the solution here is you just start all three of them.

0:09:26.320 --> 0:09:28.640
<v Speaker 2>And then you start Tobias Harris at the four and

0:09:28.660 --> 0:09:32.030
<v Speaker 2>Wemby at the five. And that gives you four ball handlers,

0:09:32.230 --> 0:09:36.449
<v Speaker 2>five counting Wemby. It gives you strength with Tobias Harris

0:09:36.470 --> 0:09:39.790
<v Speaker 2>and his rebounding ability alongside Wemba and Yama. It gives

0:09:39.809 --> 0:09:43.609
<v Speaker 2>you Castle's athleticism alongside Harper. Like there's just room there

0:09:43.650 --> 0:09:46.960
<v Speaker 2>for all three of them. Mitchell, similarly, the other thing

0:09:47.000 --> 0:09:48.990
<v Speaker 2>I would kind of pump the brakes on is just like, look,

0:09:49.330 --> 0:09:51.070
<v Speaker 2>I think as long as the age as the case

0:09:51.110 --> 0:09:54.030
<v Speaker 2>in Wallace extension issue is unsettled, I'm going to be

0:09:54.050 --> 0:09:56.689
<v Speaker 2>a little bit nervous about that just because it's like

0:09:57.010 --> 0:09:58.870
<v Speaker 2>there was reports this morning from Brett Siegel over clutch

0:09:58.910 --> 0:10:01.540
<v Speaker 2>that clutch points that. you know, he was like that

0:10:01.580 --> 0:10:03.100
<v Speaker 2>there are two teams that are willing to offer him

0:10:03.100 --> 0:10:05.140
<v Speaker 2>30 million a year. And like, I could tell you,

0:10:05.200 --> 0:10:08.540
<v Speaker 2>OKC is like concerned about the market for case in Wallace.

0:10:08.679 --> 0:10:10.280
<v Speaker 2>They are pretty worried that they're going to get priced

0:10:10.330 --> 0:10:13.290
<v Speaker 2>out of this thing. And Presti has no choice if

0:10:13.330 --> 0:10:15.410
<v Speaker 2>he gets priced out to get ahead of that. And

0:10:15.450 --> 0:10:17.449
<v Speaker 2>if he gets traded, he's likely getting traded into a

0:10:17.470 --> 0:10:20.400
<v Speaker 2>starting spot. these aren't reasons not to bet it, Jim.

0:10:21.000 --> 0:10:22.780
<v Speaker 2>I'm not saying that it's not reasons to bet it,

0:10:22.860 --> 0:10:25.160
<v Speaker 2>but like, this might be a reason for people to

0:10:25.220 --> 0:10:28.059
<v Speaker 2>wait until opening night. Not even like before that, like

0:10:28.100 --> 0:10:30.600
<v Speaker 2>before the game start is just like, wait till opening night,

0:10:31.059 --> 0:10:33.380
<v Speaker 2>see what the rosters, what the starting lineups are announced

0:10:33.490 --> 0:10:35.410
<v Speaker 2>as that morning. Cause they'll have it on the injury report.

0:10:35.910 --> 0:10:37.630
<v Speaker 2>Like see what the starting lineups are projected to be.

0:10:38.410 --> 0:10:39.970
<v Speaker 2>And then go from there. You'll still get the same price.

0:10:40.010 --> 0:10:42.290
<v Speaker 2>I can't, they're not going to move drastically in this

0:10:42.350 --> 0:10:42.950
<v Speaker 2>market before that.

0:10:43.620 --> 0:10:45.500
<v Speaker 1>That that's a, that's a fair point. I'll say that

0:10:45.540 --> 0:10:47.400
<v Speaker 1>we are in kind of a weird window where, like

0:10:47.460 --> 0:10:49.360
<v Speaker 1>I said, like two or three weeks ago, these were

0:10:49.400 --> 0:10:51.140
<v Speaker 1>longer numbers. I agree with you that I don't think

0:10:51.160 --> 0:10:54.760
<v Speaker 1>they'll move a ton by opening night, but I could

0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:57.680
<v Speaker 1>see like it when, when they, if they officially named starters,

0:10:57.750 --> 0:10:59.110
<v Speaker 1>I could see it moving a little bit off of

0:10:59.130 --> 0:11:01.090
<v Speaker 1>that because I do think that the, these guys are

0:11:01.210 --> 0:11:03.070
<v Speaker 1>such good looks if they are coming off the bench

0:11:03.150 --> 0:11:05.050
<v Speaker 1>that I think those numbers could even be shorter. It's

0:11:05.110 --> 0:11:06.829
<v Speaker 1>part of the reason I like the value of the bet.

0:11:07.250 --> 0:11:09.050
<v Speaker 1>I will say on the case and Wallace thing, if

0:11:09.070 --> 0:11:10.929
<v Speaker 1>you're going to try to keep his numbers down, when

0:11:10.990 --> 0:11:13.350
<v Speaker 1>it makes way more sense to start him, and have

0:11:13.380 --> 0:11:15.490
<v Speaker 1>him in the starting lineup with Shea where there's tons

0:11:15.530 --> 0:11:17.770
<v Speaker 1>of usage. Part of why I like A.J. Mitchell is

0:11:17.809 --> 0:11:19.949
<v Speaker 1>I think he'll be the bench guy that creates and

0:11:20.030 --> 0:11:22.069
<v Speaker 1>actually has a lot of usage off of the bench.

0:11:22.530 --> 0:11:24.970
<v Speaker 1>I think Kaysen Wallace would get more stats as a

0:11:25.050 --> 0:11:28.230
<v Speaker 1>bench player. Now, maybe minutes-wise, but coaches these days don't

0:11:28.270 --> 0:11:30.390
<v Speaker 1>really run. You can have a starter who goes 20

0:11:30.390 --> 0:11:32.730
<v Speaker 1>minutes and a bench player who goes 30. That's not

0:11:32.750 --> 0:11:34.470
<v Speaker 1>really as defined as it has been in the past.

0:11:34.490 --> 0:11:36.010
<v Speaker 1>So I think I would push back on that on

0:11:36.030 --> 0:11:40.290
<v Speaker 1>the Kaysen point. Now, maybe there's still starter value as

0:11:40.350 --> 0:11:42.489
<v Speaker 1>a thing in the league. if you are defined as

0:11:42.570 --> 0:11:45.550
<v Speaker 1>a starter, gets your value up. If I were trying

0:11:45.570 --> 0:11:47.100
<v Speaker 1>to keep his stats on, I would keep him on

0:11:47.130 --> 0:11:49.579
<v Speaker 1>the court with Shea as much as possible and not

0:11:49.620 --> 0:11:51.860
<v Speaker 1>give him kind of the ability to run stuff off

0:11:51.880 --> 0:11:52.200
<v Speaker 1>the bench.

0:11:53.520 --> 0:11:56.000
<v Speaker 2>How much did AJ start last year? Let's answer that question.

0:11:58.700 --> 0:12:03.860
<v Speaker 2>AJ started 16 games last season. So you're well under

0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:06.689
<v Speaker 2>the number that you needed. I'm a little bit concerned

0:12:06.710 --> 0:12:12.250
<v Speaker 2>because he did get it felt like later in the year,

0:12:12.340 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 2>they really went to, Hey, we're going to start AJ

0:12:15.880 --> 0:12:18.980
<v Speaker 2>with Shay. And this team seems a lot more offensively

0:12:19.480 --> 0:12:21.720
<v Speaker 2>minded than the previous Thunder teams. It seems like they're

0:12:21.740 --> 0:12:23.740
<v Speaker 2>shifting to more of an offensive set with AJ Mitchell

0:12:23.860 --> 0:12:28.080
<v Speaker 2>and Jerry McCain. We'll see. I look, I think that

0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 2>they're perfectly valid. Like AJ Mitchell's really good. Dylan Harper's

0:12:30.900 --> 0:12:33.140
<v Speaker 2>really good. So it makes a lot of sense to

0:12:33.160 --> 0:12:34.800
<v Speaker 2>get on these guys, set it and forget it. And

0:12:35.230 --> 0:12:37.030
<v Speaker 2>I can understand that. Go ahead and give me your

0:12:37.070 --> 0:12:38.510
<v Speaker 2>long shot on this award that you want to tack

0:12:38.570 --> 0:12:38.929
<v Speaker 2>on as well.

0:12:39.540 --> 0:12:43.380
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, absolutely. The last name I have here is kind

0:12:43.460 --> 0:12:47.790
<v Speaker 1>of a legacy award here. Drew Holiday, 66-1. I can

0:12:47.809 --> 0:12:50.530
<v Speaker 1>see a really nice narrative coming around to get him

0:12:50.550 --> 0:12:53.150
<v Speaker 1>some silverware. He doesn't have any awards in his career

0:12:53.210 --> 0:12:55.559
<v Speaker 1>for a guy who I think is certainly one of

0:12:55.580 --> 0:12:57.540
<v Speaker 1>the most beloved players in the league. I think a

0:12:57.580 --> 0:13:01.830
<v Speaker 1>guy who is incredibly highly respected as well. I think

0:13:01.850 --> 0:13:05.050
<v Speaker 1>it's insane personally to start Ja and Dame together, but

0:13:05.190 --> 0:13:06.989
<v Speaker 1>it seems like they kind of want to do that.

0:13:07.070 --> 0:13:09.250
<v Speaker 1>Now there were the quotes from Ja saying he'd be fine,

0:13:09.270 --> 0:13:12.579
<v Speaker 1>you know, in whatever role, but I think it seems

0:13:12.660 --> 0:13:14.179
<v Speaker 1>like to start the season, it's going to be Ja

0:13:14.220 --> 0:13:17.460
<v Speaker 1>and Dame starting with Kamara at the three, Denny at

0:13:17.480 --> 0:13:20.580
<v Speaker 1>the four. I think that we could very well see

0:13:20.679 --> 0:13:23.349
<v Speaker 1>Ja and Dame start together. And then like very quickly,

0:13:23.530 --> 0:13:26.490
<v Speaker 1>Drew comes on and they kind of split the minutes

0:13:26.510 --> 0:13:28.270
<v Speaker 1>of those guys until like the closing of the game.

0:13:28.309 --> 0:13:31.750
<v Speaker 1>And you get Drew getting 30 minutes a game, but

0:13:31.830 --> 0:13:35.250
<v Speaker 1>paired with one of those guys at all times. I'm

0:13:35.270 --> 0:13:37.870
<v Speaker 1>not really high on the trailblazers in general. I'm not

0:13:37.910 --> 0:13:41.380
<v Speaker 1>hopping on the podcast with, with you guys doing the

0:13:41.400 --> 0:13:43.099
<v Speaker 1>teams you don't like, but the blazers are one of

0:13:43.120 --> 0:13:44.619
<v Speaker 1>the teams I don't like. This is kind of one

0:13:44.640 --> 0:13:46.339
<v Speaker 1>of those things where it's like, if you know, like

0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:48.240
<v Speaker 1>the brand name, if I'm wrong on this team, this

0:13:48.300 --> 0:13:49.990
<v Speaker 1>is how I'm wrong. I could see this being an

0:13:50.020 --> 0:13:53.030
<v Speaker 1>award that they do scoop up. I do think Klingon

0:13:53.090 --> 0:13:55.010
<v Speaker 1>is really good. I think Mike Inori is a good coach.

0:13:55.030 --> 0:13:57.090
<v Speaker 1>I don't love the setup, obviously with him, you know,

0:13:57.110 --> 0:13:59.610
<v Speaker 1>basically like coaching for his life at all times with that.

0:14:00.090 --> 0:14:03.230
<v Speaker 1>that ownership group there. But I think narratively he, this,

0:14:03.410 --> 0:14:05.110
<v Speaker 1>this is the one that could kind of snowball a

0:14:05.130 --> 0:14:07.130
<v Speaker 1>little bit, especially it would be like if he is

0:14:07.230 --> 0:14:09.390
<v Speaker 1>paired with, if he's the guy who kind of does

0:14:09.630 --> 0:14:13.340
<v Speaker 1>all the grunt work for jaw and Dame, his stats

0:14:13.380 --> 0:14:15.660
<v Speaker 1>might not be incredible, but again, we've seen the last

0:14:15.700 --> 0:14:19.160
<v Speaker 1>four years guys sub 15 points a game, get this award.

0:14:19.180 --> 0:14:21.240
<v Speaker 1>The average 16 a game last year in a, in

0:14:21.260 --> 0:14:23.320
<v Speaker 1>a much different setup. I could see him getting to

0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:26.739
<v Speaker 1>that 13, 14 points a game range that has been

0:14:26.780 --> 0:14:29.540
<v Speaker 1>viable for this award of late. And kind of getting

0:14:29.580 --> 0:14:31.960
<v Speaker 1>the narrative push of like, let's get this guy an

0:14:32.000 --> 0:14:35.930
<v Speaker 1>award on his mantle before before he hangs him up.

0:14:36.020 --> 0:14:39.380
<v Speaker 2>I will respectfully push back here as well. So my

0:14:39.420 --> 0:14:41.410
<v Speaker 2>pushback on this one is let's let's look at the

0:14:41.490 --> 0:14:43.450
<v Speaker 2>options here. OK, with this four guard glut that they've

0:14:43.470 --> 0:14:45.890
<v Speaker 2>got going on. Report this morning that they were offered

0:14:45.930 --> 0:14:48.030
<v Speaker 2>they had multiple offers for Scoot Henderson and turn them

0:14:48.070 --> 0:14:49.510
<v Speaker 2>down because they think he could be a core piece

0:14:49.550 --> 0:14:53.470
<v Speaker 2>of their future. OK. So no scoot. Henderson's not going anywhere.

0:14:53.710 --> 0:14:55.630
<v Speaker 2>Jaws not going anywhere. Cause you can't move the contract.

0:14:55.670 --> 0:14:56.930
<v Speaker 2>They're not going to trade Dame. All right. So you

0:14:56.950 --> 0:14:58.610
<v Speaker 2>got three guys locked in. So the only guy that

0:14:58.650 --> 0:15:00.910
<v Speaker 2>they could possibly get moved and move potentially into a

0:15:00.930 --> 0:15:05.050
<v Speaker 2>starting position, which kills this bet is drew holiday. There's

0:15:05.070 --> 0:15:08.980
<v Speaker 2>two outcomes here. One, John Dame worked so well and

0:15:09.000 --> 0:15:11.000
<v Speaker 2>they have so much success with it. The drew holiday

0:15:11.030 --> 0:15:15.660
<v Speaker 2>becomes expendable. And at that point, also given Dundon, I'm

0:15:15.700 --> 0:15:18.220
<v Speaker 2>always looking for, how are they going to cut salary

0:15:18.240 --> 0:15:20.020
<v Speaker 2>so they can get closer to the floor with this

0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:24.940
<v Speaker 2>cheap son of a bitch. So, with that being said,

0:15:27.620 --> 0:15:31.140
<v Speaker 2>Drew's likely to get traded in that scenario. Okay. Okay.

0:15:31.940 --> 0:15:34.340
<v Speaker 2>Let's say that doesn't happen. Let's say that the Ja

0:15:34.780 --> 0:15:40.620
<v Speaker 2>and Dame combination doesn't work. As Nori has already indicated

0:15:40.960 --> 0:15:45.460
<v Speaker 2>that he is skeptical of it being, what happens? Ja

0:15:45.500 --> 0:15:48.250
<v Speaker 2>gets benched and Drew goes into the starting unit and

0:15:48.280 --> 0:15:52.050
<v Speaker 2>you lose the bet. Like, there are There is one

0:15:52.110 --> 0:15:55.590
<v Speaker 2>scenario in a very Doctor Strange way here that you're

0:15:55.650 --> 0:15:58.270
<v Speaker 2>able to get home here. And it is the balance

0:15:58.330 --> 0:16:02.430
<v Speaker 2>is perfect with Ja and Dame starting together and Drew

0:16:02.490 --> 0:16:06.720
<v Speaker 2>coming off the bench and Scoot still finding time and

0:16:06.860 --> 0:16:10.560
<v Speaker 2>rainbows and unicorns are dancing in a prairie while Denny

0:16:10.660 --> 0:16:14.080
<v Speaker 2>Avdia shoots 700 free throws. That's the way this works out.

0:16:14.660 --> 0:16:17.680
<v Speaker 1>Any of those three incredibly injury prone guys goes down

0:16:17.700 --> 0:16:19.820
<v Speaker 1>and they slot the other one in and Drew still

0:16:19.860 --> 0:16:20.440
<v Speaker 1>is the sixth man.

0:16:22.540 --> 0:16:23.360
<v Speaker 2>How would that happen?

0:16:24.440 --> 0:16:25.880
<v Speaker 1>How would any of those three guys get hurt?

0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:28.140
<v Speaker 2>How would any of those three guys get hurt and

0:16:28.180 --> 0:16:29.000
<v Speaker 2>Drew doesn't start?

0:16:29.990 --> 0:16:32.510
<v Speaker 1>You just said that they really want Scoot to be defeated.

0:16:33.750 --> 0:16:35.530
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that there's a must for him to

0:16:35.570 --> 0:16:38.790
<v Speaker 1>start and you pair him with those, you cycle them through.

0:16:38.850 --> 0:16:41.130
<v Speaker 1>It's Drew like the adult in the room at all times.

0:16:42.350 --> 0:16:45.570
<v Speaker 2>If Ja Morant is out, Drew Holiday is starting. If

0:16:45.590 --> 0:16:47.850
<v Speaker 2>Damian Lillard is out, Drew Holiday is starting. I feel

0:16:47.950 --> 0:16:52.290
<v Speaker 2>very confident on that point. But, If you like Jim's cap,

0:16:52.370 --> 0:16:54.690
<v Speaker 2>which I think is perfectly reasonable, I think it's good

0:16:54.710 --> 0:16:59.890
<v Speaker 2>to have a disagreement. He likes Drew Holiday as well.

0:17:00.370 --> 0:17:02.350
<v Speaker 2>I could also see Drew getting traded somewhere pretty early

0:17:02.370 --> 0:17:05.270
<v Speaker 2>in the season and honestly having a six-man-of-the-year mark with

0:17:05.430 --> 0:17:07.250
<v Speaker 2>another team. It's not guaranteed that if he gets traded for,

0:17:07.290 --> 0:17:08.990
<v Speaker 2>he doesn't come off the bench there and have a

0:17:08.990 --> 0:17:12.210
<v Speaker 2>stellar season. I could see that happening too. I have

0:17:12.350 --> 0:17:14.870
<v Speaker 2>one bet on this market, and I will go through

0:17:14.890 --> 0:17:16.670
<v Speaker 2>it real quickly because it's just a little bit of

0:17:16.690 --> 0:17:19.949
<v Speaker 2>a long shot. I'm aiming for mostly longer numbers. Ace Bailey,

0:17:19.950 --> 0:17:25.150
<v Speaker 2>30 to one. I love, love, love Bailey at this point.

0:17:25.590 --> 0:17:27.710
<v Speaker 2>I was so skeptical of him coming out of college

0:17:27.750 --> 0:17:29.449
<v Speaker 2>because of the attitude and the stuff about, I don't

0:17:29.470 --> 0:17:31.490
<v Speaker 2>want to go to Utah. And like, I am always like,

0:17:31.670 --> 0:17:33.270
<v Speaker 2>I don't know, man, you don't want to deal with

0:17:33.290 --> 0:17:36.310
<v Speaker 2>those headaches. But like he landed in Utah and guess what?

0:17:36.390 --> 0:17:38.590
<v Speaker 2>Kid kept his head down last year. He just sat

0:17:38.630 --> 0:17:40.950
<v Speaker 2>down and did the work. He didn't start, came off

0:17:41.010 --> 0:17:43.310
<v Speaker 2>the bench. Team was tanking its face off and he

0:17:43.330 --> 0:17:45.530
<v Speaker 2>just like kind of sat there and got better. And

0:17:45.550 --> 0:17:46.750
<v Speaker 2>by the end of the year, when I saw him

0:17:46.810 --> 0:17:50.940
<v Speaker 2>in Denver, I was like, God, he's huge. Like he,

0:17:51.020 --> 0:17:53.659
<v Speaker 2>it looked, it felt, felt this way to me that

0:17:53.680 --> 0:17:55.810
<v Speaker 2>like he had gotten hit with gamma radiation, like the

0:17:55.850 --> 0:17:58.570
<v Speaker 2>Hulk and grown two sizes by the time that we got,

0:17:58.609 --> 0:18:00.790
<v Speaker 2>we got there in March from, I.

0:18:01.530 --> 0:18:03.910
<v Speaker 1>Like you clarified. It looked like that, that he hadn't

0:18:04.119 --> 0:18:05.740
<v Speaker 1>actually gotten hit by gamma rays.

0:18:06.100 --> 0:18:10.510
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Um, it felt that way. Cause I think some

0:18:10.530 --> 0:18:12.290
<v Speaker 2>people would be like, he's always been that big. And

0:18:12.310 --> 0:18:13.770
<v Speaker 2>I'd be like, it just didn't look like it to me.

0:18:14.109 --> 0:18:16.790
<v Speaker 2>So anyway, November, I feel like he was much bigger,

0:18:16.890 --> 0:18:18.450
<v Speaker 2>much stronger. And then I just saw him the other

0:18:18.490 --> 0:18:21.090
<v Speaker 2>night in Boulder up close and personal. And God, the

0:18:21.130 --> 0:18:23.710
<v Speaker 2>kid is just in fantastic shape. He's got the ability

0:18:23.760 --> 0:18:26.540
<v Speaker 2>to do things like grab an offensive contested rebound and

0:18:26.560 --> 0:18:28.280
<v Speaker 2>then turn around and hit a fadeaway jumper. And the

0:18:28.340 --> 0:18:30.040
<v Speaker 2>number of guys in this league that can reliably do

0:18:30.080 --> 0:18:32.380
<v Speaker 2>that with that kind of, that have the green light

0:18:32.600 --> 0:18:35.340
<v Speaker 2>confidence and ability to do that is very small. I

0:18:35.380 --> 0:18:38.390
<v Speaker 2>think it's possible that Bailey actually does wind up hitting 18,

0:18:38.390 --> 0:18:40.520
<v Speaker 2>19 points per game off the bench. And one of

0:18:40.540 --> 0:18:42.139
<v Speaker 2>the reasons I think that we've kind of seen the,

0:18:42.220 --> 0:18:45.280
<v Speaker 2>the evaporation of these types of scores, Jim is, I

0:18:45.320 --> 0:18:47.570
<v Speaker 2>think we've seen that the teams that have these types

0:18:47.630 --> 0:18:50.010
<v Speaker 2>of guys don't win a lot of games and you

0:18:50.050 --> 0:18:51.949
<v Speaker 2>need to win games. The teams that are winning are

0:18:51.990 --> 0:18:54.250
<v Speaker 2>more of like our bench unit plays together. And like,

0:18:54.350 --> 0:18:57.070
<v Speaker 2>everybody does like contributes and everybody shoots a little like

0:18:57.090 --> 0:18:59.230
<v Speaker 2>Keldon Johnson last year was like hit a lot of

0:18:59.260 --> 0:19:01.560
<v Speaker 2>threes for a really good bench unit. Like that's how

0:19:01.600 --> 0:19:05.040
<v Speaker 2>he won this award. Um, I think Ace Bailey is

0:19:05.080 --> 0:19:07.020
<v Speaker 2>more of a traditional, like, man, he was just awesome.

0:19:07.040 --> 0:19:09.000
<v Speaker 2>Like he was so good, but they started Darren the

0:19:09.040 --> 0:19:14.000
<v Speaker 2>entire year and Ace was just like better than everybody else.

0:19:14.460 --> 0:19:16.780
<v Speaker 2>Ace Bailey has that level of talent. He is that

0:19:16.859 --> 0:19:19.560
<v Speaker 2>caliber of a prospect coming off the bench with this

0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:22.619
<v Speaker 2>size and athleticism for a team that I think is

0:19:22.640 --> 0:19:25.169
<v Speaker 2>going to be a playoff contender. So 30 to one

0:19:25.210 --> 0:19:28.050
<v Speaker 2>for Ace Bailey in his second season is going to

0:19:28.070 --> 0:19:30.150
<v Speaker 2>be my best bet for six man of the year.

0:19:30.310 --> 0:19:33.159
<v Speaker 1>Thoughts? Yeah, I mean, you don't have to pitch me

0:19:33.200 --> 0:19:35.600
<v Speaker 1>too hard on a jazz bet. I did have him

0:19:35.640 --> 0:19:38.709
<v Speaker 1>on my long list for a lot of reasons you mentioned,

0:19:38.770 --> 0:19:40.910
<v Speaker 1>and I don't mind the bet. The only thing that

0:19:40.930 --> 0:19:44.470
<v Speaker 1>scared me off there, there's, you know, speaking of unsettled starters,

0:19:44.510 --> 0:19:46.709
<v Speaker 1>there's like the possibility, A, there's a possibility he starts,

0:19:46.790 --> 0:19:48.750
<v Speaker 1>although I don't think that's super likely. There's also the

0:19:48.770 --> 0:19:52.859
<v Speaker 1>possibility that... Sfimaholic starts and then Darren Peterson is the

0:19:52.920 --> 0:19:55.219
<v Speaker 1>backup too. And Ace Bailey is kind of relegated to

0:19:55.240 --> 0:19:57.660
<v Speaker 1>like a 20 minute night roll. He got to have

0:19:57.940 --> 0:20:00.260
<v Speaker 1>all the usage last year with, you know, as they

0:20:00.300 --> 0:20:04.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of rolled out their goofy, goofy squad there. I'm

0:20:04.060 --> 0:20:06.980
<v Speaker 1>not sure if he'll, his usage may plateau even, even

0:20:07.040 --> 0:20:09.340
<v Speaker 1>if he gets better, just there's a lot more guys

0:20:09.380 --> 0:20:12.810
<v Speaker 1>who want the basketball there. And then I, I did

0:20:12.850 --> 0:20:16.430
<v Speaker 1>note that their, their pace was down in the, you know, the, the,

0:20:16.690 --> 0:20:18.690
<v Speaker 1>the stats they put up last year were pretty absurd

0:20:18.730 --> 0:20:20.850
<v Speaker 1>that the totals that they, they would get up to

0:20:21.490 --> 0:20:23.350
<v Speaker 1>the pace was down a little bit in the preseason

0:20:23.390 --> 0:20:25.570
<v Speaker 1>so far. So that might just be a, you know,

0:20:25.730 --> 0:20:28.310
<v Speaker 1>a preseason thing, a mini sample size thing, but if

0:20:28.330 --> 0:20:30.030
<v Speaker 1>they're trying to, you know, slow things down a little

0:20:30.050 --> 0:20:33.020
<v Speaker 1>bit to help their defense and, I I'd be curious

0:20:33.100 --> 0:20:36.240
<v Speaker 1>if their, their team point totals, the individual player point

0:20:36.260 --> 0:20:38.340
<v Speaker 1>totals come down a little bit as a result of that.

0:20:38.840 --> 0:20:41.660
<v Speaker 2>Okay. Your favorite award to bet on every single year

0:20:41.720 --> 0:20:44.660
<v Speaker 2>is clutch player of the year. I actually found three

0:20:44.700 --> 0:20:46.270
<v Speaker 2>candidates that I want. I'm going to go through mine

0:20:46.290 --> 0:20:49.050
<v Speaker 2>really quickly. Clutch player of the year. In case you

0:20:49.070 --> 0:20:52.350
<v Speaker 2>don't know, it's who winds up scoring the most points.

0:20:52.750 --> 0:20:53.550
<v Speaker 1>It really is.

0:20:54.230 --> 0:20:54.470
<v Speaker 2>That's it.

0:20:55.980 --> 0:20:59.900
<v Speaker 1>So your three or four years is literally who is led,

0:20:59.960 --> 0:21:02.300
<v Speaker 1>and then we're one Jalen Brunson bucket away. He finished

0:21:02.380 --> 0:21:05.180
<v Speaker 1>one point behind Anthony Edwards the one year and somehow

0:21:05.220 --> 0:21:08.150
<v Speaker 1>won it over him. So it literally is just sort

0:21:09.270 --> 0:21:10.010
<v Speaker 1>the leaderboard.

0:21:10.590 --> 0:21:13.830
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. So I went through this scientifically to build mine,

0:21:13.850 --> 0:21:15.790
<v Speaker 2>which is kind of boring, but this is the best

0:21:15.830 --> 0:21:19.399
<v Speaker 2>way I could kind of figure out what I wanted.

0:21:19.420 --> 0:21:19.500
<v Speaker 1>Okay.

0:21:19.830 --> 0:21:21.909
<v Speaker 2>So I obviously like I have a power rating and

0:21:21.930 --> 0:21:24.550
<v Speaker 2>I'm able to look at the schedule and, and extract

0:21:24.590 --> 0:21:26.630
<v Speaker 2>a win percentage based off of that. So I looked

0:21:26.730 --> 0:21:29.070
<v Speaker 2>at what players have the, what teams have the most

0:21:29.130 --> 0:21:31.810
<v Speaker 2>games I project to be within 40 and 60% chance

0:21:31.830 --> 0:21:35.630
<v Speaker 2>of winning. So which teams are basically a coin flip, right? 40, 60, 60, 40,

0:21:35.630 --> 0:21:39.980
<v Speaker 2>or anywhere in between there, 55, 52, et cetera. And

0:21:40.020 --> 0:21:41.340
<v Speaker 2>so the teams that came out at the top were

0:21:41.359 --> 0:21:44.120
<v Speaker 2>the Philadelphia 76ers and the New York Knicks. No surprise.

0:21:44.140 --> 0:21:46.940
<v Speaker 2>They play in a hyper competitive division. That's going to

0:21:47.040 --> 0:21:50.680
<v Speaker 2>add in a lot of these, um, there's a number

0:21:50.700 --> 0:21:52.280
<v Speaker 2>of factors that lead into that, but I've got the

0:21:52.340 --> 0:21:54.220
<v Speaker 2>Sixers and the Knicks as actually the teams with the

0:21:54.300 --> 0:21:58.810
<v Speaker 2>highest percentage of games that are likely to be within 60%

0:21:58.810 --> 0:22:02.270
<v Speaker 2>to 40% win probability. So if that's the case, I

0:22:02.310 --> 0:22:04.810
<v Speaker 2>want Jalen Brunson again at 7-1. I just think there's

0:22:04.830 --> 0:22:07.530
<v Speaker 2>a good possibility that we talked about, like, I'm going to,

0:22:07.869 --> 0:22:09.730
<v Speaker 2>we haven't recorded it yet. You're listening to this before

0:22:09.750 --> 0:22:12.310
<v Speaker 2>we've recorded it. When I do the fade episode, I'm

0:22:12.670 --> 0:22:15.120
<v Speaker 2>fading the Knicks game. a bunch. And I just think

0:22:15.130 --> 0:22:17.420
<v Speaker 2>that there's a, they're due for regression. The vibes are bad.

0:22:17.460 --> 0:22:18.679
<v Speaker 2>And I don't think the team is as good as

0:22:18.700 --> 0:22:21.419
<v Speaker 2>it looked the last four months of the season. If

0:22:21.480 --> 0:22:24.140
<v Speaker 2>I'm wrong, it's because Brunson did this where it's like

0:22:24.200 --> 0:22:26.200
<v Speaker 2>the Knicks are not that good, but they just keep

0:22:26.340 --> 0:22:30.230
<v Speaker 2>sliding out single digit wins because Jalen Brunson is a

0:22:30.350 --> 0:22:32.390
<v Speaker 2>monster in clutch time. There's just nobody better at getting

0:22:32.410 --> 0:22:34.910
<v Speaker 2>to a spot, man. He's just incredible at being able

0:22:34.930 --> 0:22:37.389
<v Speaker 2>to patiently get to his spot. He knows exactly where

0:22:37.410 --> 0:22:39.300
<v Speaker 2>he wants to get to. No team builds a wall

0:22:39.320 --> 0:22:40.959
<v Speaker 2>to stop him. They don't know how to keep him

0:22:40.980 --> 0:22:43.060
<v Speaker 2>from getting there. They can't help off because of the

0:22:43.100 --> 0:22:44.639
<v Speaker 2>number of weapons that he has. And he is a

0:22:44.660 --> 0:22:47.109
<v Speaker 2>good enough passer to make him pay. So I want

0:22:47.150 --> 0:22:50.750
<v Speaker 2>Brunson plus 700. And so that's the number two team.

0:22:50.790 --> 0:22:52.409
<v Speaker 2>The number one, though, I have is the Sixers. I

0:22:52.430 --> 0:22:54.690
<v Speaker 2>think it's entirely likely that the Sixers, with a clunky

0:22:54.750 --> 0:22:56.909
<v Speaker 2>system that they're trying to figure out with all these

0:22:56.950 --> 0:22:59.840
<v Speaker 2>different guys, are making wild comebacks at the end of

0:22:59.880 --> 0:23:02.859
<v Speaker 2>games based off of their talent. That it's like, yeah, no,

0:23:02.880 --> 0:23:05.580
<v Speaker 2>they didn't really defend well. And the offense was garbage.

0:23:05.800 --> 0:23:09.280
<v Speaker 2>And their shooting was really inconsistent. They didn't hit enough threes. Oh,

0:23:09.300 --> 0:23:11.320
<v Speaker 2>but then Tyrese Maxey scored 15 points in the last

0:23:11.340 --> 0:23:14.600
<v Speaker 2>five minutes of the game and they won. Jalen Brown

0:23:14.640 --> 0:23:19.500
<v Speaker 2>is 80 to one for a guy that is, that

0:23:19.560 --> 0:23:22.080
<v Speaker 2>is something that I can see them slotting him into that.

0:23:22.140 --> 0:23:25.859
<v Speaker 2>Maxey brings the ball up. They use and be in

0:23:25.900 --> 0:23:29.010
<v Speaker 2>certain scenarios, but he clears out and Jalen Brown goes

0:23:29.050 --> 0:23:31.530
<v Speaker 2>to work. Jalen Brown has the ball in his hands

0:23:31.609 --> 0:23:35.530
<v Speaker 2>late 80 to one on Jalen Brown. Tyrese Maxey is

0:23:35.530 --> 0:23:37.090
<v Speaker 2>35 to one. Maxey was very good in the clutch

0:23:37.130 --> 0:23:40.159
<v Speaker 2>last season. These guys were 45% and 46% from the

0:23:40.220 --> 0:23:42.919
<v Speaker 2>field respectively in clutch time. So they do have the

0:23:42.960 --> 0:23:46.100
<v Speaker 2>bona fides likely one of them, or they might take

0:23:46.160 --> 0:23:48.820
<v Speaker 2>away from each other where they split this workload up.

0:23:49.520 --> 0:23:51.479
<v Speaker 2>I don't find that to usually be the case. It's

0:23:51.580 --> 0:23:53.480
<v Speaker 2>usually one guy is like the guy that they go

0:23:53.500 --> 0:23:55.720
<v Speaker 2>to in these situations. I think it'll be either one

0:23:55.740 --> 0:23:58.310
<v Speaker 2>of these guys. So I'll have Jalen Brown, 80 to

0:23:58.480 --> 0:24:03.270
<v Speaker 2>one Tyrese maxi 35 to one and Jalen Brunson plus

0:24:03.270 --> 0:24:05.250
<v Speaker 2>700 for my clutch players of the year. I give

0:24:05.290 --> 0:24:06.709
<v Speaker 2>you the floor for your favorite award, sir.

0:24:07.690 --> 0:24:09.750
<v Speaker 1>Well, I'll say I quite like that. I quite like

0:24:09.790 --> 0:24:11.750
<v Speaker 1>both of the Philly ones. I'm actually doing something similar,

0:24:11.930 --> 0:24:13.750
<v Speaker 1>which I'll get to in a second. But you definitely

0:24:13.790 --> 0:24:16.310
<v Speaker 1>can have teammates with both having a lot of field

0:24:16.330 --> 0:24:19.190
<v Speaker 1>goal attempts in the in the clutch. If you just

0:24:19.230 --> 0:24:21.580
<v Speaker 1>look at last year, Jokic and Murray were three and

0:24:21.630 --> 0:24:24.300
<v Speaker 1>four in field goal attempts in clutch time. So if

0:24:24.359 --> 0:24:26.820
<v Speaker 1>you especially I know Philly, there's maybe four guys you

0:24:26.859 --> 0:24:28.859
<v Speaker 1>want to go to, but we already are getting LeBron news.

0:24:28.980 --> 0:24:31.199
<v Speaker 1>Embiid is never going to be playing all that many games.

0:24:31.859 --> 0:24:33.820
<v Speaker 1>I think splitting between Maxie and Brown is actually quite

0:24:33.840 --> 0:24:36.629
<v Speaker 1>a good look. Maxie was one. who last year was

0:24:36.670 --> 0:24:38.790
<v Speaker 1>second in field goal attempts in the clutch last year.

0:24:38.850 --> 0:24:40.930
<v Speaker 1>So he definitely has kind of those clutch bona fides.

0:24:42.690 --> 0:24:45.450
<v Speaker 1>This is an award that you can a little bit

0:24:45.790 --> 0:24:47.730
<v Speaker 1>get during the season. It's the only award I would

0:24:47.770 --> 0:24:50.930
<v Speaker 1>say that the market or the books, whatever it may be,

0:24:50.990 --> 0:24:53.290
<v Speaker 1>kind of sleep on it. And if you just kind

0:24:53.380 --> 0:24:56.659
<v Speaker 1>of are checking out the leaderboard with regularity, you can

0:24:56.700 --> 0:24:59.000
<v Speaker 1>kind of see who's getting the attempts, who gets out

0:24:59.020 --> 0:25:00.840
<v Speaker 1>to a crazy fast start. Last year it was Shea

0:25:01.260 --> 0:25:04.540
<v Speaker 1>got off to just a ridiculous start in the clutch instantly.

0:25:04.940 --> 0:25:07.050
<v Speaker 1>pop that number. And then he, he, he held on

0:25:07.090 --> 0:25:09.770
<v Speaker 1>in the end for that award because I wanted to

0:25:09.810 --> 0:25:12.130
<v Speaker 1>see if, you know, how often the leader at Christmas

0:25:12.210 --> 0:25:14.340
<v Speaker 1>is the same at the end of the season. Again,

0:25:14.359 --> 0:25:16.840
<v Speaker 1>we're doing like a four year sample here. So it's very,

0:25:17.040 --> 0:25:18.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, small sample two years.

0:25:18.560 --> 0:25:18.780
<v Speaker 2>Yes.

0:25:18.840 --> 0:25:21.100
<v Speaker 1>Two years now. So I don't think that that's necessarily

0:25:21.140 --> 0:25:24.639
<v Speaker 1>like a lock or anything. Um, obviously field goal attempts are,

0:25:24.930 --> 0:25:26.650
<v Speaker 1>you can kind of look for regression there. If someone's

0:25:26.710 --> 0:25:28.639
<v Speaker 1>getting the ball a lot in the clutch, especially if

0:25:28.670 --> 0:25:31.000
<v Speaker 1>they kind of get to run the team, but they're

0:25:31.040 --> 0:25:32.840
<v Speaker 1>not doing well. And it's a play you trust. Like

0:25:32.880 --> 0:25:35.020
<v Speaker 1>Kate Cunningham was a great example. Last year, he kept

0:25:35.040 --> 0:25:36.880
<v Speaker 1>getting the ball in the clutch and then second half,

0:25:36.900 --> 0:25:38.880
<v Speaker 1>he kind of made the push as he really started

0:25:38.900 --> 0:25:40.600
<v Speaker 1>to do pretty well in the clutch. It came up

0:25:40.640 --> 0:25:43.179
<v Speaker 1>just short, but, um, my two, I'm going to just

0:25:43.200 --> 0:25:45.379
<v Speaker 1>do two really long shots because I think this is

0:25:45.440 --> 0:25:48.580
<v Speaker 1>approachable during the regular season. Uh, we're going to run

0:25:48.619 --> 0:25:51.650
<v Speaker 1>back some more jazz bets. Keontae George and Laurie Markkinen.

0:25:51.730 --> 0:25:56.050
<v Speaker 1>Keontae's at 75-1. Laurie's at 100-1. I think they're going

0:25:56.070 --> 0:25:58.760
<v Speaker 1>to be in a lot of close games. Mentioned how

0:25:58.800 --> 0:26:00.740
<v Speaker 1>the pace a little bit down those scores could come

0:26:00.760 --> 0:26:02.320
<v Speaker 1>down a little bit, which would help them get into

0:26:02.440 --> 0:26:05.720
<v Speaker 1>even more close games. Keontae kind of fits the mold

0:26:05.780 --> 0:26:09.720
<v Speaker 1>of the clutch guard who gets the ball in those

0:26:10.160 --> 0:26:12.790
<v Speaker 1>late and tight moments. Laurie Markkinen has a history of

0:26:12.810 --> 0:26:14.370
<v Speaker 1>this too. If you remember a couple of seasons ago,

0:26:14.410 --> 0:26:16.630
<v Speaker 1>he had a lot of clutch moments. He's had those

0:26:16.670 --> 0:26:20.000
<v Speaker 1>both for Utah and Chicago actually. Keontae was eighth in

0:26:20.060 --> 0:26:24.109
<v Speaker 1>field goal attempts per game in the clutch last season. Obviously,

0:26:24.119 --> 0:26:26.850
<v Speaker 1>there were a lot less weapons. Lurie was only a

0:26:26.869 --> 0:26:30.210
<v Speaker 1>few spots below him. So again, I'm going with teammates here. A,

0:26:30.690 --> 0:26:33.030
<v Speaker 1>we just saw last year with Jokic and Murray, you

0:26:33.230 --> 0:26:34.940
<v Speaker 1>can have two teammates get a lot of field goal attempts.

0:26:35.340 --> 0:26:38.480
<v Speaker 1>And B, if you take this shot on both of them,

0:26:38.560 --> 0:26:40.280
<v Speaker 1>they'd end up just going with one. These are long

0:26:40.320 --> 0:26:43.899
<v Speaker 1>enough numbers with Maxie, Brown, Keontae and Laurie, if one

0:26:43.920 --> 0:26:46.290
<v Speaker 1>of them becomes like kind of the go-to guy, it

0:26:47.150 --> 0:26:49.350
<v Speaker 1>really isn't in the world for a team that you,

0:26:49.570 --> 0:26:51.450
<v Speaker 1>you might want to target in the clutch. I think

0:26:51.490 --> 0:26:53.850
<v Speaker 1>Will Hardy is a really good coach. I think coaching

0:26:53.869 --> 0:26:55.790
<v Speaker 1>in the clutch is really nice to have, you know,

0:26:55.810 --> 0:26:59.010
<v Speaker 1>someone drawing up those plays, obviously Keontae and Laurie are

0:26:59.050 --> 0:27:01.909
<v Speaker 1>talented guys, but if you get a good coach drawn up,

0:27:01.930 --> 0:27:04.409
<v Speaker 1>so good stuff for you. Just another way to be

0:27:04.520 --> 0:27:06.859
<v Speaker 1>on the jazz this season as, as I'm quite high

0:27:06.920 --> 0:27:09.399
<v Speaker 1>on them in general. Okay.

0:27:09.440 --> 0:27:12.280
<v Speaker 2>Interesting selection with we both got two teammates. I like that. We're,

0:27:12.550 --> 0:27:14.500
<v Speaker 2>We're like focusing on the team side of this, but

0:27:14.520 --> 0:27:16.760
<v Speaker 2>there will be opportunities and you can catch Jim giving

0:27:16.800 --> 0:27:18.859
<v Speaker 2>out clutch player of the year throughout the season on

0:27:18.920 --> 0:27:22.160
<v Speaker 2>buckets on the future Jays. Let's move on to coach

0:27:22.300 --> 0:27:24.460
<v Speaker 2>of the year who you're leading off with.

0:27:25.750 --> 0:27:29.630
<v Speaker 1>Guess what? Yeah, we might as well keep it going here.

0:27:30.290 --> 0:27:32.990
<v Speaker 1>Jazz train rolls on Will Hardy. He's one of the

0:27:33.030 --> 0:27:35.100
<v Speaker 1>shorter names in the market. You can find a 12

0:27:35.100 --> 0:27:37.510
<v Speaker 1>to one still out there right now. You know, this

0:27:37.570 --> 0:27:39.790
<v Speaker 1>is a pretty simple award that I think is priced

0:27:39.869 --> 0:27:41.629
<v Speaker 1>horribly at the start of every season. So I've got

0:27:41.730 --> 0:27:44.550
<v Speaker 1>four names here because I think this is just an

0:27:44.590 --> 0:27:47.190
<v Speaker 1>award that the market doesn't really understand, seem to understand

0:27:47.230 --> 0:27:50.189
<v Speaker 1>in the preseason. Basically, you need to win more than

0:27:50.230 --> 0:27:52.490
<v Speaker 1>your preseason expectation. You need to win more than last

0:27:52.530 --> 0:27:55.330
<v Speaker 1>year and you need to win a fair amount. Will

0:27:55.350 --> 0:27:58.450
<v Speaker 1>Hardy would probably come down on the low end of this.

0:27:58.470 --> 0:28:01.570
<v Speaker 1>You know, we talked on the previous pod with you

0:28:01.590 --> 0:28:03.649
<v Speaker 1>and Joe about how I'm betting Jazz to get the

0:28:03.650 --> 0:28:06.229
<v Speaker 1>45 wins. I think that's probably the baseline. If they

0:28:06.250 --> 0:28:08.850
<v Speaker 1>get to 45, they really wouldn't have, they'd really have

0:28:08.869 --> 0:28:11.020
<v Speaker 1>to be like no other coach out there. Cause that'd

0:28:11.060 --> 0:28:14.080
<v Speaker 1>only be like seven games over their preseason win expectation.

0:28:14.100 --> 0:28:16.320
<v Speaker 1>But if we, if they get to like that high forties,

0:28:16.320 --> 0:28:18.879
<v Speaker 1>48 wins, I think they really could do that. I

0:28:18.900 --> 0:28:21.090
<v Speaker 1>think he would then be a very good candidate for

0:28:21.130 --> 0:28:24.670
<v Speaker 1>this award. Big jump from last year, notable jump from

0:28:24.690 --> 0:28:27.530
<v Speaker 1>the preseason and winning enough in the West. Like if

0:28:27.570 --> 0:28:30.920
<v Speaker 1>they get into those in that five, six range, Um, again,

0:28:30.940 --> 0:28:32.340
<v Speaker 1>I think all these wind tolls are gonna be a

0:28:32.359 --> 0:28:35.020
<v Speaker 1>little deflated. So, um, I think, I think, uh, a

0:28:35.160 --> 0:28:37.800
<v Speaker 1>window below 50 could win it this year for Will Hardy,

0:28:37.820 --> 0:28:40.950
<v Speaker 1>a guy who feels like someone who voted to be

0:28:40.990 --> 0:28:42.810
<v Speaker 1>chomping at the bit to, to kind of reward. He's

0:28:42.850 --> 0:28:46.030
<v Speaker 1>kind of a buzzy, you know, hipster, great coach in,

0:28:46.150 --> 0:28:48.550
<v Speaker 1>in the waiting there in Utah. Um, should I go

0:28:48.570 --> 0:28:50.340
<v Speaker 1>through other guys or do you want to comment one

0:28:50.380 --> 0:28:51.360
<v Speaker 1>on one by one on these?

0:28:53.080 --> 0:28:56.510
<v Speaker 2>Um, I'm just a little bit surprised. You want to

0:28:56.550 --> 0:28:58.550
<v Speaker 2>go back to six-man and pick out a jazz player?

0:29:00.690 --> 0:29:03.850
<v Speaker 1>You've got the jazz covered there for us. We literally

0:29:03.890 --> 0:29:07.710
<v Speaker 1>might have it. No, there's not. It's close, though, to

0:29:07.790 --> 0:29:09.730
<v Speaker 1>jazz in every section here.

0:29:09.930 --> 0:29:12.730
<v Speaker 2>I will actually go back to six-man and note that

0:29:12.890 --> 0:29:15.630
<v Speaker 2>every winner of the last four years has averaged two

0:29:15.670 --> 0:29:18.110
<v Speaker 2>made threes per game coming off the bench. Guess who

0:29:18.150 --> 0:29:19.850
<v Speaker 2>averaged two made threes per game coming off the bench

0:29:19.890 --> 0:29:21.330
<v Speaker 2>last year? Bryce Sensabaugh.

0:29:21.670 --> 0:29:23.610
<v Speaker 1>Oh, Bryce Sintz. Oh, yeah. I do like Bryce Sintz.

0:29:23.910 --> 0:29:26.020
<v Speaker 2>All right. Give me the rest of your coach of

0:29:26.040 --> 0:29:26.880
<v Speaker 2>the year candidates that you like.

0:29:27.560 --> 0:29:29.440
<v Speaker 1>For sure. I'll go Quinn Snyder next. I'll keep this

0:29:29.480 --> 0:29:32.470
<v Speaker 1>relatively brief. Talked about the Hawks on the podcast at

0:29:32.470 --> 0:29:35.690
<v Speaker 1>the Venn. That's kind of the honorable mentions. I I

0:29:35.730 --> 0:29:38.530
<v Speaker 1>like them in that, that, um, that division there, it's

0:29:38.550 --> 0:29:40.850
<v Speaker 1>kind of the team that kind of break out, get

0:29:40.870 --> 0:29:43.830
<v Speaker 1>to the low fifties are being slept on a little bit. Um,

0:29:44.010 --> 0:29:46.730
<v Speaker 1>talked about how, uh, at the end of last year, that,

0:29:46.850 --> 0:29:49.190
<v Speaker 1>that five man unit really, really did well. And then

0:29:49.230 --> 0:29:50.670
<v Speaker 1>they kind of got the, you know, they got the

0:29:50.710 --> 0:29:54.520
<v Speaker 1>bump from, from OKC petty level, Sam Presti, sending them

0:29:54.540 --> 0:29:56.980
<v Speaker 1>a couple of good players to make sure Spurs don't

0:29:57.040 --> 0:29:59.060
<v Speaker 1>get any good picks from them there. That was, uh,

0:29:59.610 --> 0:30:02.250
<v Speaker 1>There's some good Palace intrigue there. But yeah, Quinn Snyder,

0:30:02.330 --> 0:30:05.760
<v Speaker 1>another well-respected coach. You can get over 20-1 on this.

0:30:05.820 --> 0:30:08.240
<v Speaker 1>They probably need in the low 50s. I think it's

0:30:08.600 --> 0:30:10.860
<v Speaker 1>quite viable for them. Again, they were the team that

0:30:10.880 --> 0:30:14.320
<v Speaker 1>kind of pressed the Knicks most in the postseason. And

0:30:14.400 --> 0:30:17.820
<v Speaker 1>if they're able to get into the three seed in

0:30:17.840 --> 0:30:19.760
<v Speaker 1>the East, I think he'll have a very good case.

0:30:20.780 --> 0:30:24.140
<v Speaker 1>No surprise here, Emei Adoko, probably my favorite of these

0:30:24.200 --> 0:30:27.190
<v Speaker 1>bets here. Um, I'm just going by the, the shortest,

0:30:27.210 --> 0:30:29.180
<v Speaker 1>the longest odds, but it made my favorite of the,

0:30:29.240 --> 0:30:31.820
<v Speaker 1>of the bunch 25 to one out there. We talked

0:30:31.860 --> 0:30:33.360
<v Speaker 1>about the rockets. It was, it was my pick. It

0:30:33.380 --> 0:30:35.739
<v Speaker 1>was Joe's pick. You said it might have been your pick, um,

0:30:35.780 --> 0:30:38.380
<v Speaker 1>for team that we're most on. If, if, uh, you

0:30:38.420 --> 0:30:40.180
<v Speaker 1>didn't want to mix it up a little bit and have, uh,

0:30:40.200 --> 0:30:43.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, some decent podcasting, not all three of us just, uh,

0:30:43.520 --> 0:30:45.930
<v Speaker 1>stroking the rockets, but. They probably need to get to

0:30:45.970 --> 0:30:49.410
<v Speaker 1>about 55 wins in part because they did win a

0:30:49.430 --> 0:30:51.730
<v Speaker 1>lot last year. So that's probably the biggest hurdle here

0:30:51.850 --> 0:30:55.570
<v Speaker 1>for the Rockets. But because of these, again, I've said

0:30:55.570 --> 0:30:58.430
<v Speaker 1>400 times on these podcasts, but these deflated win totals potentially,

0:30:58.810 --> 0:31:02.110
<v Speaker 1>if they are like popping as the third seed, like

0:31:02.130 --> 0:31:05.970
<v Speaker 1>a distinct third seed with mid-50s wins, I think that

0:31:06.030 --> 0:31:09.170
<v Speaker 1>can get the job done for Ime, another coach who's well-respected.

0:31:09.190 --> 0:31:13.080
<v Speaker 1>And then finally, Another overlap with the podcast that we

0:31:13.100 --> 0:31:15.720
<v Speaker 1>did yesterday, another team that I am high on, J.J. Redick,

0:31:16.180 --> 0:31:20.350
<v Speaker 1>well-respected coach. You get 28-1 out there. I think they'd

0:31:20.380 --> 0:31:22.570
<v Speaker 1>have to be in the mid-50s as well, but I

0:31:22.610 --> 0:31:25.250
<v Speaker 1>don't mind that as a landing spot for them. Again,

0:31:25.310 --> 0:31:27.090
<v Speaker 1>the biggest hurdle for them is that they won games

0:31:27.130 --> 0:31:31.160
<v Speaker 1>last year, but the preseason totals dropped because of the

0:31:31.180 --> 0:31:35.400
<v Speaker 1>anti-tanking and because of the shifting of the roster overall.

0:31:35.670 --> 0:31:38.630
<v Speaker 1>which kind of lowered expectations for this team theoretically. So,

0:31:39.490 --> 0:31:41.410
<v Speaker 1>you know, you lower the expectations, you get to clear

0:31:41.430 --> 0:31:43.750
<v Speaker 1>the bar. I think around 55, we'll get it done

0:31:43.770 --> 0:31:45.170
<v Speaker 1>for them. So those are my four coach of the

0:31:45.190 --> 0:31:45.550
<v Speaker 1>year bets.

0:31:47.450 --> 0:31:51.250
<v Speaker 2>Hardy 12 to one, EMA 25 to one, Snyder 21

0:31:51.250 --> 0:31:53.810
<v Speaker 2>to one and Reddick 28 to one. If the Lakers

0:31:53.850 --> 0:31:55.950
<v Speaker 2>win 55 games, Luke is winning MVP and getting all

0:31:55.970 --> 0:31:56.230
<v Speaker 2>the credit.

0:31:57.550 --> 0:32:00.110
<v Speaker 1>Well, I'm not on the MVP pod, but that is

0:32:00.150 --> 0:32:01.990
<v Speaker 1>the only MVP bet I'm giving out this year is

0:32:02.010 --> 0:32:03.490
<v Speaker 1>Luka MVP. Yeah, that's fine.

0:32:03.690 --> 0:32:06.110
<v Speaker 2>But you don't need to bet Reddit because he's not

0:32:06.130 --> 0:32:07.590
<v Speaker 2>going to get any credit for it. It's just going

0:32:07.610 --> 0:32:08.990
<v Speaker 2>to be like Luka Dodgers and why they won.

0:32:09.550 --> 0:32:13.670
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, unless Luka misses 16 games and then they still

0:32:13.690 --> 0:32:14.150
<v Speaker 1>get it done.

0:32:15.090 --> 0:32:17.930
<v Speaker 2>I don't mind Hardy. Imei's tough just because I feel

0:32:17.970 --> 0:32:19.520
<v Speaker 2>like the offense is going to have to look so

0:32:19.560 --> 0:32:22.520
<v Speaker 2>much better from a structural standpoint. And I still think

0:32:22.540 --> 0:32:24.280
<v Speaker 2>that everybody's going to kind of be caught last year

0:32:24.320 --> 0:32:27.360
<v Speaker 2>with like, I don't know, man. Yeah. He throws his

0:32:27.380 --> 0:32:30.830
<v Speaker 2>guys under the bus a lot. Snyder, I don't mind.

0:32:30.870 --> 0:32:32.910
<v Speaker 2>I just don't have him high enough. So what I

0:32:32.930 --> 0:32:35.469
<v Speaker 2>looked at for this was we know that teams that

0:32:35.490 --> 0:32:38.430
<v Speaker 2>go way over their win total is how coaches wind

0:32:38.470 --> 0:32:39.890
<v Speaker 2>up winning this a lot of the time. There's a

0:32:39.930 --> 0:32:42.830
<v Speaker 2>huge gap between the win total, the actual win results

0:32:42.890 --> 0:32:45.690
<v Speaker 2>and the win total preseason. It's not that the voters

0:32:45.730 --> 0:32:47.990
<v Speaker 2>are looking at that. It's that's correlated with like the

0:32:48.030 --> 0:32:50.130
<v Speaker 2>market sets an expectation for how good a team should be.

0:32:50.520 --> 0:32:53.240
<v Speaker 2>If you way overdo that, like the market's just never

0:32:53.260 --> 0:32:57.040
<v Speaker 2>going to be significantly higher or lower than public than

0:32:57.160 --> 0:33:00.510
<v Speaker 2>analyst consensus, right? It's not going to be like ESPN

0:33:02.050 --> 0:33:04.390
<v Speaker 2>has a coach, thinks a team is going to win

0:33:04.390 --> 0:33:07.230
<v Speaker 2>40 games and the market is like 20. You're just

0:33:07.250 --> 0:33:11.650
<v Speaker 2>not going to see that. So I was thinking, okay,

0:33:12.050 --> 0:33:13.730
<v Speaker 2>what is a guy that will get all the credit

0:33:13.830 --> 0:33:18.400
<v Speaker 2>if they are better than expected? This is not a

0:33:18.420 --> 0:33:20.460
<v Speaker 2>team that I'm going to put a win total play

0:33:20.600 --> 0:33:23.760
<v Speaker 2>on because Jim and I have been going back and

0:33:23.800 --> 0:33:27.660
<v Speaker 2>forth on this team all offseason. this is the right

0:33:27.700 --> 0:33:29.300
<v Speaker 2>way to play this team. And this is actually, I

0:33:29.340 --> 0:33:32.080
<v Speaker 2>would advocate, do not play the wind total, the division,

0:33:32.480 --> 0:33:34.459
<v Speaker 2>anything on this team, except that like, this is the

0:33:34.520 --> 0:33:36.580
<v Speaker 2>bet I think for this team. And it's the Charlotte Hornets.

0:33:37.320 --> 0:33:40.340
<v Speaker 2>Charles Lee is 30 to one to win coach of

0:33:40.400 --> 0:33:44.250
<v Speaker 2>the year. If the Hornets are good, there is no

0:33:44.510 --> 0:33:48.430
<v Speaker 2>other direction you can go. I Brandon Miller's not going

0:33:48.450 --> 0:33:50.210
<v Speaker 2>to put up the numbers that are necessary for him

0:33:50.230 --> 0:33:52.650
<v Speaker 2>to be in an MVP conversation, nor will they win

0:33:52.690 --> 0:33:56.350
<v Speaker 2>that many. conca nipples, same kind of deal. Kobe white,

0:33:56.490 --> 0:34:00.790
<v Speaker 2>no way. Nas read. No way it is. They traded

0:34:00.890 --> 0:34:06.620
<v Speaker 2>LaMelo ball and they still made the playoffs. Holy crap.

0:34:06.680 --> 0:34:10.420
<v Speaker 2>Charles Lee. That's like the, that is the resultant answer.

0:34:11.020 --> 0:34:13.100
<v Speaker 2>I still have them projected to be a playoff team

0:34:13.180 --> 0:34:17.270
<v Speaker 2>because they were so good last year. I can't remove

0:34:17.350 --> 0:34:20.950
<v Speaker 2>LaMelo ball. and get them to where they're going to

0:34:20.989 --> 0:34:23.830
<v Speaker 2>be bad because the aggregate of what they added is

0:34:23.890 --> 0:34:27.010
<v Speaker 2>still good. Like they still wound up being like, okay,

0:34:27.670 --> 0:34:31.970
<v Speaker 2>you get two points of internal development with conk nipple,

0:34:32.090 --> 0:34:37.009
<v Speaker 2>Brandon Miller, Musa Diabate, Ryan Kalkbrenner. Okay. Two points of

0:34:37.050 --> 0:34:39.129
<v Speaker 2>adjustment there. Let's say little Mel is worth six points

0:34:39.150 --> 0:34:41.549
<v Speaker 2>to the spread. That's a lot. He's not, but let's

0:34:41.570 --> 0:34:45.810
<v Speaker 2>say that he is. That's two. Then you've got the

0:34:45.850 --> 0:34:48.779
<v Speaker 2>value of Nas Reed, Kobe White for a full season.

0:34:49.010 --> 0:34:50.980
<v Speaker 2>He's banged up, but he's coming in for a full season.

0:34:51.000 --> 0:34:52.840
<v Speaker 2>Should be available, I think, for the first week of

0:34:52.880 --> 0:34:56.900
<v Speaker 2>the season. And you have what they added in the draft.

0:34:57.120 --> 0:34:58.779
<v Speaker 2>You have all these mechanisms to be able to look

0:34:58.800 --> 0:35:02.140
<v Speaker 2>at them and then say, okay, what is the combined

0:35:02.160 --> 0:35:03.940
<v Speaker 2>value of that? Let's say that's a point and a half.

0:35:04.520 --> 0:35:04.880
<v Speaker 1>All right.

0:35:05.200 --> 0:35:06.820
<v Speaker 2>So now we're at three and a half versus a

0:35:06.880 --> 0:35:08.680
<v Speaker 2>six line. Let's actually drop it down to five because

0:35:08.700 --> 0:35:11.319
<v Speaker 2>it's more reasonable for Lomelo. Okay. We're now a point

0:35:11.340 --> 0:35:14.540
<v Speaker 2>and a half off of the differential. That is not enough.

0:35:15.510 --> 0:35:18.590
<v Speaker 2>or how good they were the last five months of

0:35:18.630 --> 0:35:21.469
<v Speaker 2>the season to make that kind of a difference. And

0:35:21.510 --> 0:35:23.250
<v Speaker 2>I understand the idea, which is like, yeah, but Matt,

0:35:23.270 --> 0:35:26.140
<v Speaker 2>they were that good because of LaMelo. I get it.

0:35:26.460 --> 0:35:28.300
<v Speaker 2>But there's no way if you start doing any of

0:35:28.340 --> 0:35:30.520
<v Speaker 2>this structurally that you wind up with a situation where

0:35:30.540 --> 0:35:33.779
<v Speaker 2>you're like, a player is worth, like you have to

0:35:33.800 --> 0:35:35.980
<v Speaker 2>be Nicola Jokic to be worth that much to the spread.

0:35:36.360 --> 0:35:39.260
<v Speaker 2>And LaMelo Ball is not Nicola Jokic. So I can't

0:35:39.280 --> 0:35:43.090
<v Speaker 2>get there. But that said, I understand the argument of

0:35:43.150 --> 0:35:44.950
<v Speaker 2>you just took away one of the best playmakers and

0:35:45.010 --> 0:35:47.670
<v Speaker 2>engines in the league. Regardless of what you think about him,

0:35:47.890 --> 0:35:49.149
<v Speaker 2>his impact is that big.

0:35:50.110 --> 0:35:50.310
<v Speaker 1>Okay?

0:35:51.250 --> 0:35:52.570
<v Speaker 2>So I don't want to go in on the win total.

0:35:52.850 --> 0:35:54.730
<v Speaker 2>I don't want to go into the division. But if

0:35:54.770 --> 0:35:57.300
<v Speaker 2>they're good, it's because of Charles Lee. So Charles Lee,

0:35:57.320 --> 0:35:58.580
<v Speaker 2>30-1 is my coach of the year bet, Jim.

0:35:59.180 --> 0:36:01.880
<v Speaker 1>You know, and I apologize because I was kind of,

0:36:01.920 --> 0:36:03.219
<v Speaker 1>you could see I was scanning here. What I was

0:36:03.239 --> 0:36:05.120
<v Speaker 1>trying to do was look real quick and see if,

0:36:06.100 --> 0:36:08.719
<v Speaker 1>it's a good or a bad thing to be in

0:36:08.760 --> 0:36:11.359
<v Speaker 1>the running for coach of the year the previous year

0:36:11.480 --> 0:36:13.739
<v Speaker 1>and then kind of run back because charles lee uh

0:36:13.840 --> 0:36:16.080
<v Speaker 1>was he finished fourth last year and definitely had like

0:36:16.120 --> 0:36:17.779
<v Speaker 1>a moment there where it looked like oh my god

0:36:17.840 --> 0:36:21.420
<v Speaker 1>is charles lee gonna win this award um i couldn't

0:36:21.440 --> 0:36:24.180
<v Speaker 1>get like a i scanned maybe five or six years

0:36:24.460 --> 0:36:27.299
<v Speaker 1>there is a case monty williams was a runner up

0:36:27.420 --> 0:36:29.180
<v Speaker 1>one year and then won the next year so i

0:36:29.180 --> 0:36:30.900
<v Speaker 1>don't think it's i don't think it writes you off

0:36:31.200 --> 0:36:33.620
<v Speaker 1>um I will say most of the other candidates it

0:36:33.660 --> 0:36:35.739
<v Speaker 1>looked like had not been in the running last year.

0:36:35.980 --> 0:36:37.340
<v Speaker 2>Because your bar raises.

0:36:37.980 --> 0:36:40.660
<v Speaker 1>Exactly. And now he gets the benefit of the bar

0:36:40.680 --> 0:36:44.750
<v Speaker 1>being dropped because Lomelo's out of town. So, yeah, I mean,

0:36:44.770 --> 0:36:46.310
<v Speaker 1>I love Charles. I think he's a very good coach.

0:36:46.469 --> 0:36:48.930
<v Speaker 1>I just am more skeptical of the Hornets. But as

0:36:48.950 --> 0:36:50.810
<v Speaker 1>you said, that's kind of been a back and forth

0:36:50.930 --> 0:36:54.130
<v Speaker 1>between us. And almost because I'm like more, there's teams

0:36:54.190 --> 0:36:57.160
<v Speaker 1>I'll just write off. The Hornets, I'm like, should I write?

0:36:57.180 --> 0:37:01.370
<v Speaker 1>Because I'm like, The numbers there, they truly were incredible.

0:37:01.950 --> 0:37:05.890
<v Speaker 1>And LaMelo, while important, one player is never going to

0:37:05.950 --> 0:37:09.540
<v Speaker 1>be 14 points of net rate. If you look at

0:37:09.580 --> 0:37:11.219
<v Speaker 1>the numbers part of it, it's hard to make a

0:37:11.260 --> 0:37:14.000
<v Speaker 1>case for them dropping as significantly as I kind of

0:37:14.040 --> 0:37:17.540
<v Speaker 1>have dropped them in my power rating, so to speak.

0:37:18.340 --> 0:37:19.819
<v Speaker 1>So that's why I've been going back and forth. I

0:37:19.900 --> 0:37:21.660
<v Speaker 1>agree with you that it's a great way to play

0:37:21.680 --> 0:37:23.459
<v Speaker 1>the Hornets if you're on that side of things.

0:37:24.500 --> 0:37:26.320
<v Speaker 2>Rookie of the year. This class is going to be phenomenal.

0:37:26.410 --> 0:37:28.670
<v Speaker 2>I can't wait to watch these guys. I think it's

0:37:28.690 --> 0:37:31.370
<v Speaker 2>just going to be sensational to watch. I am so excited.

0:37:31.390 --> 0:37:34.730
<v Speaker 2>I watched the first preseason game of the Memphis Grizzlies

0:37:34.770 --> 0:37:37.770
<v Speaker 2>this morning, and I am ready to build a blood

0:37:37.890 --> 0:37:41.390
<v Speaker 2>altar to Cameron Boozer and worship him every single night

0:37:41.430 --> 0:37:44.410
<v Speaker 2>by offering, by cutting my own thumb and giving him

0:37:44.430 --> 0:37:47.030
<v Speaker 2>blood every night. Blood for the blood God, Cameron Boozer.

0:37:48.140 --> 0:37:49.840
<v Speaker 2>I am all the way in and I'm all the

0:37:49.860 --> 0:37:52.380
<v Speaker 2>way in on this Grizzlies team. I won't be following

0:37:52.400 --> 0:37:54.739
<v Speaker 2>Jim in the, in the betting direction just because I'm like,

0:37:54.760 --> 0:37:57.900
<v Speaker 2>they're young, young teams usually lose. Let's be patient. Let's

0:37:57.920 --> 0:37:59.279
<v Speaker 2>see what they're going to do, but God, there's so

0:37:59.320 --> 0:38:02.480
<v Speaker 2>much fun. I'm just so excited about this team. Both

0:38:02.520 --> 0:38:05.779
<v Speaker 2>you and I like Cameron Boozer plus three 25. He's

0:38:05.840 --> 0:38:08.850
<v Speaker 2>just the most ready-made product, man. Like AJ DeBonce is

0:38:08.870 --> 0:38:11.170
<v Speaker 2>going to have shot variants and Darren Peterson's going to

0:38:11.210 --> 0:38:13.109
<v Speaker 2>have shot variants and Cameron Boozer is going to have

0:38:13.190 --> 0:38:16.450
<v Speaker 2>nights where he shoots a five of 13 from the field.

0:38:16.550 --> 0:38:18.490
<v Speaker 2>And it's still the most impactful player on the floor

0:38:18.510 --> 0:38:22.290
<v Speaker 2>because of his ability to be the hub of the offense,

0:38:22.410 --> 0:38:25.930
<v Speaker 2>generate assists, rebound the ball. He's lighter now, which I

0:38:25.950 --> 0:38:29.069
<v Speaker 2>think allows him to guard threes, which is phenomenal. There

0:38:29.090 --> 0:38:30.970
<v Speaker 2>was a set last night for me to wax for

0:38:30.989 --> 0:38:33.520
<v Speaker 2>a second. One of the first things that they did

0:38:33.600 --> 0:38:36.340
<v Speaker 2>was they ran, he brought the ball up like a

0:38:36.420 --> 0:38:40.500
<v Speaker 2>point guard through it to tie Jerome and who then

0:38:40.600 --> 0:38:43.480
<v Speaker 2>came off of a DHO off of his own screen,

0:38:43.920 --> 0:38:47.190
<v Speaker 2>gave it back to him. Then they ran a DHO

0:38:47.590 --> 0:38:49.790
<v Speaker 2>fake off of that. And he found the cutter for

0:38:49.830 --> 0:38:53.430
<v Speaker 2>a bucket and I just exploded into Skittles. It was incredible.

0:38:53.830 --> 0:38:57.470
<v Speaker 2>Like it was just amazing. So I cannot be higher

0:38:57.670 --> 0:39:01.450
<v Speaker 2>on Cameron Boozer. I just think he's, if you're going

0:39:01.469 --> 0:39:02.820
<v Speaker 2>to bet this market, I do think you need to

0:39:02.860 --> 0:39:04.899
<v Speaker 2>have some sort of position on Cameron Boozer. We always

0:39:04.940 --> 0:39:07.810
<v Speaker 2>like taking like longer shots on the show. The top

0:39:07.910 --> 0:39:11.680
<v Speaker 2>three picks are typically who wins this award. So Cameron

0:39:11.719 --> 0:39:14.180
<v Speaker 2>Boozer is absolutely– I'm going to bet him for rookie

0:39:14.200 --> 0:39:14.500
<v Speaker 2>of the year.

0:39:15.080 --> 0:39:19.180
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, you laid it out. 64 of the 66 winners

0:39:19.219 --> 0:39:20.900
<v Speaker 1>of this are top 11 picks. So you definitely don't

0:39:20.940 --> 0:39:24.100
<v Speaker 1>go much– you don't go lower than that. Since 1990,

0:39:24.100 --> 0:39:26.390
<v Speaker 1>26 of 30 have been top three, like you said.

0:39:26.410 --> 0:39:28.930
<v Speaker 1>Doesn't help us a ton this season because there's four

0:39:29.030 --> 0:39:31.259
<v Speaker 1>really good candidates and they're the top four picks so

0:39:31.280 --> 0:39:33.540
<v Speaker 1>like you said this is not the year to go

0:39:33.620 --> 0:39:36.920
<v Speaker 1>to go deep diving um Debonza I think because of

0:39:36.980 --> 0:39:39.420
<v Speaker 1>Trey Young and Anthony Davis there in terms of usage

0:39:39.920 --> 0:39:42.620
<v Speaker 1>is the fourth longest odds which makes sense Peterson we

0:39:42.660 --> 0:39:46.239
<v Speaker 1>talked about him potentially coming off the bench um Or

0:39:46.300 --> 0:39:48.850
<v Speaker 1>if he's not, he's also in a lineup with a

0:39:48.910 --> 0:39:52.210
<v Speaker 1>lot of other dudes getting the ball. Memphis, Boozer is

0:39:52.250 --> 0:39:53.910
<v Speaker 1>going to have a lot of stuff run through him

0:39:53.989 --> 0:39:55.710
<v Speaker 1>and should get a fair amount of usage. For a

0:39:55.710 --> 0:39:58.410
<v Speaker 1>guy who isn't even all that high usage of a guy,

0:39:58.430 --> 0:40:00.810
<v Speaker 1>I think he'll just contribute and he'll check off every

0:40:00.830 --> 0:40:02.920
<v Speaker 1>part of the box score. Gil Wilson's kind of the

0:40:02.960 --> 0:40:07.279
<v Speaker 1>high flyer pick. I think it's right that he's priced second. Listen,

0:40:07.320 --> 0:40:09.700
<v Speaker 1>I like the Cam Boozer. We give out a lot

0:40:09.780 --> 0:40:13.170
<v Speaker 1>of bets here. I like the Cameron Boozer, and it's

0:40:13.210 --> 0:40:15.469
<v Speaker 1>also kind of a set it and forget it. And

0:40:15.489 --> 0:40:17.969
<v Speaker 1>you take your chance. And I think at plus 300,

0:40:17.969 --> 0:40:20.170
<v Speaker 1>that's a good number to take a chance on. The

0:40:20.190 --> 0:40:22.850
<v Speaker 1>only other name that I'll add, I kind of like

0:40:22.870 --> 0:40:26.120
<v Speaker 1>this guy more for first-team all-rookie, which you can get

0:40:26.160 --> 0:40:28.560
<v Speaker 1>at plus 210. It's Darius Acuff. It's just if you

0:40:28.600 --> 0:40:30.819
<v Speaker 1>look at which rookie is going to get the most

0:40:30.960 --> 0:40:33.480
<v Speaker 1>of the ball, the most usage, the most minutes, it's

0:40:33.520 --> 0:40:36.420
<v Speaker 1>going to be Darius Acuff. That Kings team, even if

0:40:36.460 --> 0:40:38.200
<v Speaker 1>you left the roster as is today, I think that

0:40:38.219 --> 0:40:40.610
<v Speaker 1>would be true. And I think they'll be offloading pieces

0:40:40.650 --> 0:40:43.629
<v Speaker 1>throughout the season slash having guys get hurt. I think

0:40:43.710 --> 0:40:47.710
<v Speaker 1>Acuff will probably have the best surface-level stats. I just

0:40:47.730 --> 0:40:51.330
<v Speaker 1>think there's four guys who will contribute significantly at a

0:40:51.430 --> 0:40:54.529
<v Speaker 1>level that is higher and with like people with rookie

0:40:54.550 --> 0:40:55.770
<v Speaker 1>of the year, like to have a little bit of

0:40:55.790 --> 0:40:58.630
<v Speaker 1>an eye to the future and be like, like, do

0:40:58.670 --> 0:41:00.069
<v Speaker 1>we really want to give rookie of the year to

0:41:00.090 --> 0:41:02.950
<v Speaker 1>Darius Acuff over Cameron Boozer or overkill, like over one

0:41:02.969 --> 0:41:05.330
<v Speaker 1>of these guys who could be, you know, a potential,

0:41:05.710 --> 0:41:08.739
<v Speaker 1>if not face of the league, multi-time all-star. So I

0:41:08.760 --> 0:41:11.060
<v Speaker 1>like sprinkling the first team of rookie for Acuff. It

0:41:11.080 --> 0:41:14.580
<v Speaker 1>basically is like, well, can he either stay above Yaxal,

0:41:14.600 --> 0:41:16.299
<v Speaker 1>some of these other names out there, or will one

0:41:16.320 --> 0:41:19.359
<v Speaker 1>of those guys, um, in the four miss enough games or,

0:41:19.469 --> 0:41:20.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, not just not have all that good of

0:41:20.940 --> 0:41:22.960
<v Speaker 1>a season. So I think getting it more than two

0:41:22.980 --> 0:41:24.620
<v Speaker 1>to one on him to be first team, all rookies

0:41:24.700 --> 0:41:26.820
<v Speaker 1>is great. Um, and maybe if you want to sprinkle

0:41:26.980 --> 0:41:28.860
<v Speaker 1>the 15 to one, or there was at least on

0:41:28.880 --> 0:41:30.560
<v Speaker 1>the 12 to one, which makes it even less appealing.

0:41:30.600 --> 0:41:32.740
<v Speaker 1>So honestly, I think, I think the play is boozer,

0:41:33.200 --> 0:41:35.160
<v Speaker 1>a cuff first team, all rookie, and you kind of

0:41:35.180 --> 0:41:37.360
<v Speaker 1>move along. I do want to say real quick. I

0:41:37.380 --> 0:41:39.339
<v Speaker 1>know we have DPO. I real quick. I think we

0:41:39.380 --> 0:41:41.660
<v Speaker 1>have a most improved as well, unless you move the

0:41:42.120 --> 0:41:42.560
<v Speaker 1>order around.

0:41:42.800 --> 0:41:47.379
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. We'll go back to most important. Um, I also

0:41:47.489 --> 0:41:50.880
<v Speaker 2>bet on Caleb Wilson. I'm betting Boozer at 300 and

0:41:50.940 --> 0:41:53.680
<v Speaker 2>Wilson at plus 350. And I get that. It's like,

0:41:53.700 --> 0:41:57.620
<v Speaker 2>these are short numbers again, top 11 picks. That's who

0:41:57.660 --> 0:42:00.250
<v Speaker 2>wins it. And if you want to go Peterson, I like,

0:42:00.489 --> 0:42:02.569
<v Speaker 2>I'm a little concerned after the first preseason game, but

0:42:02.590 --> 0:42:06.490
<v Speaker 2>it's preseasons. Who cares? The Bonsa, it can be awesome.

0:42:06.610 --> 0:42:09.439
<v Speaker 2>Yaxel is going to play a ton and the war,

0:42:09.480 --> 0:42:11.640
<v Speaker 2>like her seems to love him. So I get that idea.

0:42:12.630 --> 0:42:15.830
<v Speaker 1>The thing that terrifies me with rotations in general and

0:42:15.850 --> 0:42:18.069
<v Speaker 1>like that team could get to be a disaster really quick.

0:42:18.090 --> 0:42:20.799
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, for sure. The biggest thing on Wilson, I will

0:42:20.840 --> 0:42:22.739
<v Speaker 2>say this is that his three point shooting in summer

0:42:22.780 --> 0:42:25.460
<v Speaker 2>league was absolutely incredible. And North Carolina just told him

0:42:25.540 --> 0:42:29.339
<v Speaker 2>not to take them. So if he just like comes

0:42:29.460 --> 0:42:31.440
<v Speaker 2>out and is shooting, his numbers are going to be

0:42:31.480 --> 0:42:33.620
<v Speaker 2>better because Boozer is going to have more nights where

0:42:33.660 --> 0:42:35.680
<v Speaker 2>he doesn't have more than 15 points. Like I would

0:42:35.719 --> 0:42:38.390
<v Speaker 2>bet you that almost anything Caleb's scoring average is going

0:42:38.410 --> 0:42:41.430
<v Speaker 2>to be higher than Boozer's. because Boozer's an engine. He's

0:42:41.469 --> 0:42:44.410
<v Speaker 2>an offensive engine of that team. He's multifaceted. That's the

0:42:44.450 --> 0:42:50.640
<v Speaker 2>value of him. Caleb is just like, dunk, dunk, three, dunk, dunk, turnaround, dunk, dunk, three, turnaround.

0:42:50.700 --> 0:42:53.799
<v Speaker 2>And he can have great passing instincts too, but as

0:42:53.820 --> 0:42:55.120
<v Speaker 2>far as what the profile is going to be, and

0:42:55.140 --> 0:42:56.760
<v Speaker 2>that's pretty scary from a rookie of the year standpoint

0:42:56.780 --> 0:42:59.200
<v Speaker 2>because that stuff's hard to get around, Cooper Flagg included.

0:42:59.640 --> 0:43:01.140
<v Speaker 2>I think it's just really hard to get around that because,

0:43:01.260 --> 0:43:05.370
<v Speaker 2>I mean, Wilson's awesome. Again, this class is so good. Okay,

0:43:05.650 --> 0:43:08.469
<v Speaker 2>I want to hit DPOI in 30 seconds. Yeah, yeah.

0:43:10.250 --> 0:43:12.509
<v Speaker 2>It's Victor Wemenyama. Don't waste your time. It's too much

0:43:12.550 --> 0:43:14.170
<v Speaker 2>money based off of the fact that you're going to

0:43:14.190 --> 0:43:15.730
<v Speaker 2>have to pay through the nose. There's no reason to

0:43:15.750 --> 0:43:18.589
<v Speaker 2>bet this award anymore. It sucks. We like talking about

0:43:18.610 --> 0:43:21.310
<v Speaker 2>this award every year. I'm very adamant and very interested

0:43:21.330 --> 0:43:24.670
<v Speaker 2>in defense. Minus 360 is too much to pay for Victor,

0:43:25.270 --> 0:43:30.250
<v Speaker 2>given his injury history. It's also, you cannot bet anyone else.

0:43:30.410 --> 0:43:32.670
<v Speaker 2>If Victor gets injured, we'll talk about this award in

0:43:32.710 --> 0:43:36.390
<v Speaker 2>buckets for the foreseeable future, as long as Victor Wemenyama

0:43:36.510 --> 0:43:39.080
<v Speaker 2>is healthy. The only thing you can do is stay

0:43:39.120 --> 0:43:41.160
<v Speaker 2>away from this award. You can't bet it because of

0:43:41.200 --> 0:43:44.710
<v Speaker 2>the juice. You can't, you can't fade it because of

0:43:44.890 --> 0:43:47.109
<v Speaker 2>his dominance. There's nothing else to be done here. It's

0:43:47.150 --> 0:43:48.330
<v Speaker 2>just one. That's it.

0:43:48.350 --> 0:43:50.460
<v Speaker 1>I was going to say is like, keep, keep an

0:43:50.560 --> 0:43:53.180
<v Speaker 1>eye on, you know, defensive rating, stuff like that. And like,

0:43:53.680 --> 0:43:56.000
<v Speaker 1>be ready if Wemby goes down to bet a big

0:43:56.060 --> 0:43:58.440
<v Speaker 1>who's received votes for, I'll say this. I was scrolling

0:43:58.480 --> 0:44:01.020
<v Speaker 1>through to find like a big who's received votes before

0:44:01.420 --> 0:44:03.500
<v Speaker 1>who's got a top team defense. Like there aren't even

0:44:03.620 --> 0:44:05.960
<v Speaker 1>really good candidates. And Chet obviously is a very good

0:44:05.980 --> 0:44:08.550
<v Speaker 1>candidate and he's priced as the second favorite, but like,

0:44:08.590 --> 0:44:11.050
<v Speaker 1>there's really not all that make good candidates. I assume

0:44:11.969 --> 0:44:13.689
<v Speaker 1>I could twist your arm into like a Scotty Barnes

0:44:13.730 --> 0:44:16.270
<v Speaker 1>or something, but like, we're really reaching if, if it's Scotty,

0:44:16.290 --> 0:44:20.130
<v Speaker 1>but like, I, I, it's really, does Wemby pay play 65%?

0:44:20.130 --> 0:44:22.790
<v Speaker 1>If he doesn't, like you said, we'll have something. We'll

0:44:22.830 --> 0:44:25.859
<v Speaker 1>probably have hit it in the app, and we'll then

0:44:25.920 --> 0:44:29.100
<v Speaker 1>come talk about it on the pod because it's going

0:44:29.120 --> 0:44:31.400
<v Speaker 1>to be one of those things where if he goes down,

0:44:31.420 --> 0:44:33.440
<v Speaker 1>you're going to have to quickly judge time of injury.

0:44:33.660 --> 0:44:36.140
<v Speaker 1>We saw this last year. He went down. We thought

0:44:36.180 --> 0:44:38.319
<v Speaker 1>he was gone, and then he got the NBA Cup

0:44:38.360 --> 0:44:41.110
<v Speaker 1>game too. So there's weird– I want no piece of

0:44:41.130 --> 0:44:43.189
<v Speaker 1>this award. You're right. We can already move along unless

0:44:43.210 --> 0:44:44.070
<v Speaker 1>you've got any foul thoughts.

0:44:44.090 --> 0:44:45.529
<v Speaker 2>The only number I'll say is wrong is Bam on

0:44:45.610 --> 0:44:48.610
<v Speaker 2>a bio at 40-1 is probably wrong. It just probably is.

0:44:48.750 --> 0:44:50.150
<v Speaker 2>I have questions about whether or not the Heat are

0:44:50.170 --> 0:44:51.430
<v Speaker 2>going to be as good as they need to be

0:44:51.489 --> 0:44:54.890
<v Speaker 2>because of their age and injury situations combined with their pace.

0:44:56.210 --> 0:44:58.790
<v Speaker 2>But if they live up to potential, it's Bam Adebayo.

0:44:58.930 --> 0:45:01.759
<v Speaker 2>That's the one that's wrongly priced. But again, there's no

0:45:01.780 --> 0:45:04.319
<v Speaker 2>way he wins it over Victor. Victor's healthy. There's no way.

0:45:05.520 --> 0:45:08.940
<v Speaker 2>Most improved player. The reason I skipped this, I will admit,

0:45:09.080 --> 0:45:12.140
<v Speaker 2>is because you have the same player as you had

0:45:12.300 --> 0:45:14.580
<v Speaker 2>for sixth man of the year at the very top.

0:45:15.500 --> 0:45:17.240
<v Speaker 2>I'm just going to buy you an A.J. Mitchell jersey

0:45:17.280 --> 0:45:19.580
<v Speaker 2>at this point, Jim, because that's your first bet for

0:45:19.600 --> 0:45:20.100
<v Speaker 2>most improved.

0:45:20.800 --> 0:45:24.970
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, A.J. Mitchell is. So this has become a really

0:45:24.989 --> 0:45:29.850
<v Speaker 1>wonky award. It hasn't been going to the preseason favorite.

0:45:30.110 --> 0:45:31.989
<v Speaker 1>We did see Maxie a couple years ago, but even

0:45:32.030 --> 0:45:34.410
<v Speaker 1>that was a longer number. It's one of those where

0:45:34.430 --> 0:45:36.509
<v Speaker 1>I think it's best to kind of build a portfolio

0:45:36.530 --> 0:45:40.300
<v Speaker 1>throughout the season. I believe Joe, I don't know if

0:45:40.320 --> 0:45:43.839
<v Speaker 1>he gave out 101, but it definitely was a long number.

0:45:44.800 --> 0:45:47.109
<v Speaker 1>At one point in the season, you're looking for guys

0:45:47.150 --> 0:45:50.370
<v Speaker 1>around 20 to 25 going into that kind of all

0:45:50.430 --> 0:45:53.690
<v Speaker 1>NBA consideration, theoretically. But then the last two years, you've

0:45:53.710 --> 0:45:55.989
<v Speaker 1>seen guys who weren't even close to all NBA in

0:45:56.110 --> 0:45:59.580
<v Speaker 1>Dyson Daniels and Nikhil Alexander Walker. So this is the

0:45:59.600 --> 0:46:02.640
<v Speaker 1>award that is the wonkiest to me. But I do

0:46:02.680 --> 0:46:04.860
<v Speaker 1>think AJ fits kind of the classic mold. He is,

0:46:06.040 --> 0:46:10.430
<v Speaker 1>you know, in his younger 20s. I forget how to

0:46:10.450 --> 0:46:13.160
<v Speaker 1>talk there. He's in his younger 20s. He had 26

0:46:13.160 --> 0:46:15.260
<v Speaker 1>minutes a game last season, so he has some minutes

0:46:15.480 --> 0:46:19.300
<v Speaker 1>room there. A decent little hedge to if he does start,

0:46:19.920 --> 0:46:21.980
<v Speaker 1>if they put Case into the bench. If he's starting,

0:46:22.160 --> 0:46:24.980
<v Speaker 1>I will really like him for this award. He could

0:46:25.020 --> 0:46:28.960
<v Speaker 1>get up to, you know, like 18-4-4 pretty easily. Could

0:46:28.980 --> 0:46:31.740
<v Speaker 1>get a decent all-star, like borderline all-star case. The advanced

0:46:31.760 --> 0:46:36.760
<v Speaker 1>stats absolutely love him. If Chet or J-Dub miss any time,

0:46:36.840 --> 0:46:38.800
<v Speaker 1>which we've definitely seen a lot of J-Dub missing time,

0:46:38.860 --> 0:46:41.219
<v Speaker 1>he will have a fair amount of the ball. Um,

0:46:41.320 --> 0:46:43.200
<v Speaker 1>he is my, the first listed here because he is

0:46:43.570 --> 0:46:46.029
<v Speaker 1>the shortest on odds. Actually, there's one other guy that

0:46:46.050 --> 0:46:48.630
<v Speaker 1>we had just mentioned briefly, but, uh, I quite like

0:46:48.670 --> 0:46:51.330
<v Speaker 1>the second name here a little bit more. Um, so

0:46:51.350 --> 0:46:52.910
<v Speaker 1>I can talk about him maybe a little bit longer,

0:46:52.930 --> 0:46:54.070
<v Speaker 1>unless you got any AJ thoughts.

0:46:55.450 --> 0:47:00.089
<v Speaker 2>Nope. Um, AJ's probably makes a lot of sense. They

0:47:00.130 --> 0:47:03.189
<v Speaker 2>do have the tendency to reward the guy the year after,

0:47:03.230 --> 0:47:06.230
<v Speaker 2>which annoys me that there's always like this carryover effect.

0:47:06.290 --> 0:47:08.390
<v Speaker 2>And I would be like the jail, but AJ made

0:47:08.410 --> 0:47:10.210
<v Speaker 2>the jump last year. What are you doing? Like, what

0:47:10.230 --> 0:47:12.470
<v Speaker 2>do you, why are we doing this? I don't understand.

0:47:14.190 --> 0:47:16.450
<v Speaker 2>Let's talk real quickly about the second name on your list.

0:47:16.750 --> 0:47:18.100
<v Speaker 2>Let me go ahead and get this out of the way.

0:47:18.130 --> 0:47:20.330
<v Speaker 2>My two are the Thompson twins.

0:47:20.730 --> 0:47:21.350
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:47:21.690 --> 0:47:24.340
<v Speaker 2>Asar 25 to one and a man at 60 to

0:47:24.400 --> 0:47:29.640
<v Speaker 2>one currently drafting sports book. Look, these guys are the,

0:47:30.000 --> 0:47:32.279
<v Speaker 2>are the two of the five most athletic players in

0:47:32.300 --> 0:47:34.259
<v Speaker 2>the league. I personally think a man Thompson, this is

0:47:34.300 --> 0:47:36.930
<v Speaker 2>based off of conversations with scouts and, I asked several

0:47:36.989 --> 0:47:38.549
<v Speaker 2>this summer, I was like, who's the most athletic guy

0:47:38.570 --> 0:47:40.000
<v Speaker 2>in the league? And they were like, it's a men Thompson.

0:47:40.900 --> 0:47:42.920
<v Speaker 2>The most athletic guy in the league is a men Thompson.

0:47:44.080 --> 0:47:48.420
<v Speaker 2>You have that level of natural talent combined with what

0:47:48.460 --> 0:47:52.040
<v Speaker 2>is a pretty sharp mind. Like he's sees the game. Well,

0:47:52.200 --> 0:47:55.830
<v Speaker 2>he just needs skill development. You can fix that. And

0:47:56.050 --> 0:47:58.850
<v Speaker 2>there's every indication from early preseason and training camp reports

0:47:58.870 --> 0:48:01.050
<v Speaker 2>that they have. I got a star. I have a

0:48:01.110 --> 0:48:04.969
<v Speaker 2>men Thompson with chip England as his shooting coach. That's

0:48:05.070 --> 0:48:07.969
<v Speaker 2>all I really need. That's all I really need is

0:48:07.989 --> 0:48:12.989
<v Speaker 2>a men Thompson's physical capability, defense and passing with chip

0:48:13.050 --> 0:48:17.020
<v Speaker 2>England as his shooting coach. That's enough for me. A

0:48:17.060 --> 0:48:19.180
<v Speaker 2>SAR showcase a lot more ball handling last night in

0:48:19.200 --> 0:48:22.440
<v Speaker 2>the Pistons first preseason game. He'll probably be like a

0:48:22.480 --> 0:48:24.259
<v Speaker 2>little bit of a better initiator and that's going to

0:48:24.320 --> 0:48:27.299
<v Speaker 2>make him a better score. A SAR is probably the

0:48:27.340 --> 0:48:29.169
<v Speaker 2>numbers a little short at 20. Like there's no reason

0:48:29.210 --> 0:48:30.730
<v Speaker 2>for him to be this much shorter than a man.

0:48:30.770 --> 0:48:32.770
<v Speaker 2>That's nuts. And it's like, well, yeah, but a man's

0:48:32.790 --> 0:48:35.299
<v Speaker 2>like known to be great. I understand that, but you

0:48:35.340 --> 0:48:38.089
<v Speaker 2>don't really understand what a man's potential is if his

0:48:38.150 --> 0:48:41.510
<v Speaker 2>offensive game comes around. Not having to play primary point

0:48:41.610 --> 0:48:43.390
<v Speaker 2>and have it be Fred Van Vliet is the one

0:48:43.410 --> 0:48:46.170
<v Speaker 2>that brings up the ball, and then when they press him,

0:48:46.570 --> 0:48:50.480
<v Speaker 2>Thompson downhill. That's terrifying. We love the Rockets. We already

0:48:50.540 --> 0:48:53.520
<v Speaker 2>love the Rockets' potential here. The market's already off on him.

0:48:53.840 --> 0:48:57.020
<v Speaker 2>This number's preposterous at 60-1. A man's the best bet.

0:48:57.120 --> 0:48:58.600
<v Speaker 2>I will put some on a SAR based off of

0:48:58.640 --> 0:49:00.740
<v Speaker 2>what I saw in preseason and heard in training camp,

0:49:01.180 --> 0:49:02.840
<v Speaker 2>but to me, it's the Thompson twins. That's where I

0:49:02.890 --> 0:49:03.870
<v Speaker 2>want for most improved player.

0:49:04.570 --> 0:49:07.310
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, with you 100%. Like you said, Asar's number is

0:49:07.330 --> 0:49:09.270
<v Speaker 1>just a little bit short, but let's run this back.

0:49:09.290 --> 0:49:10.940
<v Speaker 1>I'm pretty sure I gave up both these guys as

0:49:11.219 --> 0:49:14.480
<v Speaker 1>MIP last year, and now we're getting like seven times

0:49:14.520 --> 0:49:18.270
<v Speaker 1>the number for Asar. He definitely made a leap last season,

0:49:18.550 --> 0:49:19.910
<v Speaker 1>but I think the biggest thing to me, as you mentioned,

0:49:20.200 --> 0:49:22.500
<v Speaker 1>having fred van bleet like maybe it cuts into his

0:49:22.520 --> 0:49:24.799
<v Speaker 1>assist he probably won't average over five assists a game

0:49:24.840 --> 0:49:27.360
<v Speaker 1>again um but i think it really could free up

0:49:27.380 --> 0:49:29.610
<v Speaker 1>some scoring for him you know you got the easy

0:49:29.640 --> 0:49:32.430
<v Speaker 1>narrative of being a first-time all-star if the rockets are

0:49:32.450 --> 0:49:35.850
<v Speaker 1>as good as anticipated if they either get two all-stars

0:49:35.890 --> 0:49:38.070
<v Speaker 1>in him and Durant or Shingun, or if either of

0:49:38.090 --> 0:49:41.069
<v Speaker 1>those guys miss time, he could be the lone representative even.

0:49:42.410 --> 0:49:44.259
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of meat on the bone here. Like

0:49:44.530 --> 0:49:46.740
<v Speaker 1>even though he made the jump, his field goal attempts

0:49:46.820 --> 0:49:49.060
<v Speaker 1>per game could go up and his shooting definitely could

0:49:49.080 --> 0:49:52.379
<v Speaker 1>go up. Like we've seen some videos in training camp.

0:49:52.400 --> 0:49:54.400
<v Speaker 1>We always said Ben Simmons is a great shooter in

0:49:54.420 --> 0:49:57.220
<v Speaker 1>training camp. That's not the thing, but you said Chip Anglin. That's, that's,

0:49:57.680 --> 0:49:59.600
<v Speaker 1>that's the key. And getting this at 70 to one,

0:49:59.620 --> 0:50:03.880
<v Speaker 1>it's really nice number for a guy who, again, I

0:50:03.940 --> 0:50:08.660
<v Speaker 1>think is a kind of fan or voter favorite. And

0:50:09.380 --> 0:50:11.540
<v Speaker 1>he will catch the attention. If he makes a leap,

0:50:11.820 --> 0:50:14.460
<v Speaker 1>it will not go unnoticed. So I think that's a

0:50:14.480 --> 0:50:16.940
<v Speaker 1>really great number. I'll just very quickly shout out the

0:50:16.960 --> 0:50:20.879
<v Speaker 1>last one. I talked to you about this and you

0:50:20.900 --> 0:50:23.509
<v Speaker 1>made a good point. I think that scared me off

0:50:23.550 --> 0:50:25.270
<v Speaker 1>enough that I want to mention it here in case

0:50:25.290 --> 0:50:27.589
<v Speaker 1>people are looking for something. It's their team. They want

0:50:27.610 --> 0:50:30.560
<v Speaker 1>to bet an award or something. Walker Kessler, I really,

0:50:30.580 --> 0:50:31.819
<v Speaker 1>you know, I talked about it in the link. I

0:50:31.880 --> 0:50:35.020
<v Speaker 1>love Walker Kessler. He has this like fake little mini

0:50:35.080 --> 0:50:37.540
<v Speaker 1>jump last year. That's really annoying. It didn't like what

0:50:37.540 --> 0:50:39.899
<v Speaker 1>10 or 15 games, but his stat, it may even

0:50:39.920 --> 0:50:42.060
<v Speaker 1>be less than that. Maybe like five games. His stats

0:50:42.180 --> 0:50:44.589
<v Speaker 1>jumped enough that if people just go to his basketball

0:50:44.620 --> 0:50:46.950
<v Speaker 1>reference page, I think they're going to use the baseline

0:50:47.010 --> 0:50:49.790
<v Speaker 1>of his stats from last year. Instead of what really

0:50:49.890 --> 0:50:52.470
<v Speaker 1>is from two years ago, that is actually the baseline

0:50:52.489 --> 0:50:54.609
<v Speaker 1>he's working off of. If they just wiped out that

0:50:54.690 --> 0:50:57.899
<v Speaker 1>line and he could go up to like, 17 and

0:50:57.900 --> 0:50:59.880
<v Speaker 1>13 this year coming off of like 12 and 10

0:50:59.880 --> 0:51:02.080
<v Speaker 1>instead of 15 and 12 i think he'd be a

0:51:02.120 --> 0:51:03.759
<v Speaker 1>really good candidate for this but i don't think i

0:51:04.420 --> 0:51:06.859
<v Speaker 1>i think that that line of of his very few

0:51:06.980 --> 0:51:10.120
<v Speaker 1>games played last year might kill his uh mip can't

0:51:10.140 --> 0:51:12.040
<v Speaker 1>see he is it's 30 to 1 so some folks

0:51:12.080 --> 0:51:14.529
<v Speaker 1>out there think that there's still a chance but um

0:51:14.610 --> 0:51:16.129
<v Speaker 1>i think this is a little bit too short given

0:51:16.170 --> 0:51:18.989
<v Speaker 1>that that that line on his basketball reference page i

0:51:19.010 --> 0:51:20.330
<v Speaker 1>think will uh throw off some.

0:51:20.230 --> 0:51:27.239
<v Speaker 2>Folks yeah i i just um I think we put

0:51:27.480 --> 0:51:34.360
<v Speaker 2>a very large cart before a horse with very bad

0:51:34.420 --> 0:51:36.420
<v Speaker 2>health history with Walker Kessler.

0:51:36.460 --> 0:51:38.540
<v Speaker 1>They have to put that, but that's the health history

0:51:38.600 --> 0:51:40.620
<v Speaker 1>is the jazz saying this guy is too good. We're

0:51:40.640 --> 0:51:41.819
<v Speaker 1>going to shut him down every year.

0:51:41.880 --> 0:51:45.640
<v Speaker 2>No, it's not though. Cause like he's had legitimate injuries.

0:51:46.000 --> 0:51:48.089
<v Speaker 1>Like he's had, I hear the same thing about LaMelo ball.

0:51:48.110 --> 0:51:50.850
<v Speaker 1>And I'm like, I maybe it's right, but I, I

0:51:50.890 --> 0:51:52.430
<v Speaker 1>am not going to count these guys as injury prone

0:51:52.450 --> 0:51:54.010
<v Speaker 1>until I see it on a team that's trying.

0:51:54.230 --> 0:51:56.540
<v Speaker 2>And that's, fine but i also just don't know i

0:51:56.600 --> 0:51:58.360
<v Speaker 2>also think there is the matter of like how do

0:51:58.380 --> 0:52:00.799
<v Speaker 2>you really get so i want to ask you this

0:52:01.130 --> 0:52:04.089
<v Speaker 2>this is a legit question there were rumors that him

0:52:04.130 --> 0:52:07.630
<v Speaker 2>and hardy had tensions kessler then there was like a

0:52:07.690 --> 0:52:09.129
<v Speaker 2>bunch of videos of like them hanging out and being

0:52:09.150 --> 0:52:12.140
<v Speaker 2>buddies and like coach coach relationships were always really complicated

0:52:12.180 --> 0:52:18.799
<v Speaker 2>with players are you surprised at all that the utah

0:52:18.820 --> 0:52:19.420
<v Speaker 2>let him walk.

0:52:21.180 --> 0:52:23.980
<v Speaker 1>I mean, yeah, yeah, I am. Definitely. I think it's

0:52:24.000 --> 0:52:26.680
<v Speaker 1>a very smart organization that seems like he would have

0:52:26.700 --> 0:52:29.779
<v Speaker 1>been a very good fit for them. Yeah, I think

0:52:30.090 --> 0:52:33.799
<v Speaker 1>that probably is the most fair pushback of a point

0:52:33.820 --> 0:52:36.730
<v Speaker 1>because it's like, you know, on the baseball side of things,

0:52:36.790 --> 0:52:38.730
<v Speaker 1>if the Rays let someone go, you're always a little

0:52:38.770 --> 0:52:41.450
<v Speaker 1>bit like, hmm, like maybe I'm not as high on

0:52:41.489 --> 0:52:43.170
<v Speaker 1>that player as I thought I was. So I think

0:52:43.550 --> 0:52:47.529
<v Speaker 1>that's a fair pushback. I think having, he's never had

0:52:47.550 --> 0:52:50.940
<v Speaker 1>a player, you know, within the same universe as Luca

0:52:51.280 --> 0:52:53.140
<v Speaker 1>setting him up offensively. I know he's not like a

0:52:53.280 --> 0:52:57.210
<v Speaker 1>specific role guy. I think just in general, Luca will

0:52:57.230 --> 0:53:01.169
<v Speaker 1>get him offense. Luca just creates offense out of the ether.

0:53:01.210 --> 0:53:03.109
<v Speaker 1>And I think he can pretty easily get to something

0:53:03.150 --> 0:53:06.890
<v Speaker 1>like 17 and 13 on, on that Laker team with, with,

0:53:07.150 --> 0:53:10.840
<v Speaker 1>you know, especially if they go Bible at the four,

0:53:10.940 --> 0:53:13.200
<v Speaker 1>I think then you've got another guy who's not doing

0:53:13.219 --> 0:53:15.419
<v Speaker 1>a ton offensively and Kessler will just kind of bump

0:53:15.460 --> 0:53:16.879
<v Speaker 1>into pretty decent stat lines.

0:53:17.860 --> 0:53:20.960
<v Speaker 2>And we have competing forces here, which is it's the Lakers,

0:53:21.000 --> 0:53:22.859
<v Speaker 2>so they're going to get a bump regardless of what

0:53:22.900 --> 0:53:27.120
<v Speaker 2>people's nonsensical research has said. There's a huge media contingent

0:53:27.300 --> 0:53:30.100
<v Speaker 2>in LA that wants the Lakers to be good versus

0:53:30.340 --> 0:53:33.299
<v Speaker 2>you do run into the, is he just a Luka merchant?

0:53:33.340 --> 0:53:36.660
<v Speaker 2>That will be a question. Going back to England, I

0:53:36.700 --> 0:53:38.880
<v Speaker 2>wanted to note this because I actually looked this up

0:53:38.920 --> 0:53:44.719
<v Speaker 2>over the summer. Starting with 2001 to 2003, This is

0:53:44.780 --> 0:53:49.140
<v Speaker 2>the true shooting average rank for three-year bands of Chip Englund.

0:53:49.160 --> 0:53:49.719
<v Speaker 2>You ready for this?

0:53:50.180 --> 0:53:50.379
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:53:51.580 --> 0:53:54.140
<v Speaker 2>For the Nuggets, they went from a three-year average rank

0:53:54.190 --> 0:53:57.230
<v Speaker 2>of 23rd before Englund got there to 7.5 rank. 7.5th

0:53:57.270 --> 0:54:00.750
<v Speaker 2>best in the league. With the Spurs, it went from

0:54:00.750 --> 0:54:03.529
<v Speaker 2>8.3 average to 6.5. With the Thunder, it went from

0:54:03.550 --> 0:54:15.130
<v Speaker 2>17th average true shooting rank to 3.7, top four best.

0:54:15.590 --> 0:54:15.950
<v Speaker 1>Amen.

0:54:16.790 --> 0:54:20.009
<v Speaker 2>Every single time England shows up, your shooting percentages go

0:54:20.070 --> 0:54:20.810
<v Speaker 2>up across the board.

0:54:21.830 --> 0:54:25.210
<v Speaker 1>A very nice hire for our Rockets.

0:54:25.510 --> 0:54:30.069
<v Speaker 2>Our Rockets and our Amin Thompson. Okay, we've gone through

0:54:30.090 --> 0:54:31.910
<v Speaker 2>the awards. We're going to give you our best bets

0:54:33.310 --> 0:54:37.470
<v Speaker 2>presented by DraftKings Sportsbook. I'm going to give out Amin Thompson,

0:54:37.510 --> 0:54:43.530
<v Speaker 2>most improved player, 60-1. Chip England, Rockets good. increased usage,

0:54:44.530 --> 0:54:48.870
<v Speaker 2>lower pressure from a ball handling perspective, a sharper, better game.

0:54:49.210 --> 0:54:51.370
<v Speaker 2>He gets rewarded for all the criticism that he took

0:54:51.430 --> 0:54:54.430
<v Speaker 2>last year. A men Thompson 60 to one most improved

0:54:54.450 --> 0:54:57.549
<v Speaker 2>player is my best bet. Jim, what's yours?

0:54:58.270 --> 0:55:00.629
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely seconded on that. And then I'll do my two

0:55:00.670 --> 0:55:02.870
<v Speaker 1>six man of the year guys. I know you, you

0:55:02.890 --> 0:55:04.690
<v Speaker 1>weren't quite as in love with these, these picks, but

0:55:05.050 --> 0:55:08.529
<v Speaker 1>Harper at seven 50, AJ at 600 are both best

0:55:08.590 --> 0:55:11.640
<v Speaker 1>priced here at DK and, And I really think this

0:55:11.700 --> 0:55:13.140
<v Speaker 1>is the market if you want to set it and

0:55:13.180 --> 0:55:16.100
<v Speaker 1>forget it. I think both guys are really buzzy. They're

0:55:16.120 --> 0:55:17.660
<v Speaker 1>not going to be flying on the radar on the

0:55:17.700 --> 0:55:21.000
<v Speaker 1>two best teams in basketball. And I think they will

0:55:21.360 --> 0:55:24.299
<v Speaker 1>stay bench players for one more season as young guys here.

0:55:25.000 --> 0:55:26.359
<v Speaker 1>If you want to do a little hedge on either

0:55:26.400 --> 0:55:28.460
<v Speaker 1>of them as MIPs, I think that's not a bad

0:55:28.500 --> 0:55:30.900
<v Speaker 1>idea as well. But I think that sixth man of

0:55:30.920 --> 0:55:33.400
<v Speaker 1>the year market, if you lock down those two guys,

0:55:34.280 --> 0:55:36.500
<v Speaker 1>pretty decent chance one of them is holding the award

0:55:36.540 --> 0:55:37.399
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the season.

0:55:38.110 --> 0:55:40.299
<v Speaker 2>Those are our best bets presented by draft Kings. Don't

0:55:40.320 --> 0:55:43.340
<v Speaker 2>forget to use code buckets when signing up draft Kings,

0:55:43.400 --> 0:55:45.980
<v Speaker 2>giving out profit boost every game day. So you don't

0:55:46.020 --> 0:55:48.840
<v Speaker 2>want to miss it. Download the draft King sports app today.

0:55:48.860 --> 0:55:56.320
<v Speaker 2>The crown is yours. One thing on the, the AJ

0:55:56.340 --> 0:55:58.960
<v Speaker 2>stuff is like, I may just be suffering from thunder fatigue.

0:55:59.520 --> 0:56:02.740
<v Speaker 2>That's like entirely possible. I can't drop them. They're too good.

0:56:03.300 --> 0:56:05.440
<v Speaker 2>And I can't do anything with them. So I might

0:56:05.480 --> 0:56:06.940
<v Speaker 2>just be dealing with like, I don't want to be

0:56:06.980 --> 0:56:09.480
<v Speaker 2>AJ Mitchell. Like, I knew he was a good two

0:56:09.520 --> 0:56:11.219
<v Speaker 2>years ago and he was good last year. He probably

0:56:11.239 --> 0:56:12.520
<v Speaker 2>should have won six. I thought he should have won

0:56:12.540 --> 0:56:15.200
<v Speaker 2>six man last year. So it might just be fatigue

0:56:15.390 --> 0:56:16.750
<v Speaker 2>on my point. That's going to do it here for

0:56:17.230 --> 0:56:19.770
<v Speaker 2>us here on Buckets presented by DraftKings. Thanks to Jim

0:56:19.790 --> 0:56:22.629
<v Speaker 2>Turvey for joining me. We've got more preseason episodes coming

0:56:22.650 --> 0:56:25.210
<v Speaker 2>your way soon. So make sure you're subscribed on YouTube

0:56:25.250 --> 0:56:27.950
<v Speaker 2>at youtube.com slash the action network and wherever you listen

0:56:28.030 --> 0:56:30.209
<v Speaker 2>to podcasts, leave us a like and a five-star rating

0:56:30.230 --> 0:56:32.320
<v Speaker 2>and review. We really appreciate it. See you next time.

0:56:32.340 --> 0:56:46.000
<v Speaker 2>And until then, let's get Buckets. Action Network reminds you,

0:56:46.320 --> 0:56:49.939
<v Speaker 2>please gamble responsibly. If you or someone you care about

0:56:49.980 --> 0:56:52.629
<v Speaker 2>has a gambling problem, help is available 24-7 at 1-800-GAMBLER.