Speaker 1: Welcome to the Best of the Week for What's Right
Speaker 1: with Nick Right the best takes and moments from this
Speaker 1: week on the show Enjoy. You said the Pacers had
Speaker 1: to win this game, and they went out there and
Speaker 1: win it.
Speaker 2: Their role players showed up.
Speaker 3: Okay, C's role players did little for them, shave and
Speaker 3: kind of underwhelmed a little bit. Do you think that
Speaker 3: that performance is replicable for the Pacers?
Speaker 1: Well, what I think is this. I think we have
Speaker 1: something now that I never thought we were going to have,
Speaker 1: which is a real series that could go either way.
Speaker 1: And I I'm shocked Indy won that game, and I
Speaker 1: know I shouldn't be, because again, five and a half
Speaker 1: point underdogs win all the time. It's not like and
Speaker 1: they were at home.
Speaker 2: They're at home.
Speaker 1: And I understand all of that, I really do. And
Speaker 1: if I the only solid I have, I suppose from
Speaker 1: a personal perspective, in all you know my terrible poker
Speaker 1: results from last week in Vegas's. Had I not had
Speaker 1: terrible poker results last week in Vegas, I almost assuredly
Speaker 1: would have fired considerably on the thunder to win this
Speaker 1: basketball game. Because I have bought in. I have bought
Speaker 1: in that the twenty twenty five Oklahoma City Thunder as
Speaker 1: far as singular seasons are an all time team that
Speaker 1: Indiana did not have an answer for Shay And as
Speaker 1: we talked about I think pretty intelligently on Tuesday, it
Speaker 1: is just so hard unless you have the best defense
Speaker 1: in basketball to win a championship, if your best players
Speaker 1: a pass first guy, if he's not a just go
Speaker 1: get you a bucket guy. And we talked about it
Speaker 1: on Tuesday that the greatest point guards we've seen in
Speaker 1: the history of this league, aside from Magic Johnson, we're
Speaker 1: not able to crack that code if they were Listen,
Speaker 1: Steph did it. Obviously he's not a pass first guy.
Speaker 1: Zeke did it. He could have scored more, but also
Speaker 1: had the best defense in basketball. But Jason Kidd or
Speaker 1: Chris Paul or hell Oscar Robertson before he had a
Speaker 1: Keeam or Bob Coosey before he had Russell, Steve Nash,
Speaker 1: those guys, It's just so hard because you are going
Speaker 1: to come again across a team who's best guy can
Speaker 1: go get a bucket whenever he wants And how do
Speaker 1: you answer that? And again, I'm not acting as if
Speaker 1: the Pacers have won the series. I am acting as if, however,
Speaker 1: we now have a series, and now, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the Pacers have a game to play with the Pacers
Speaker 1: demands go into Game four, and I'm sure they won't
Speaker 1: view it this way, but it's a house money game.
Speaker 1: They go into Game four saying, all right, if we win,
Speaker 1: we have a vice script on this series. And if
Speaker 1: we lose, we already know we can win in Oklahoma City.
Speaker 1: And unlike Game one, which you give the Pacers credit
Speaker 1: for their heart and their grit and all of that,
Speaker 1: Game one, however, let's be honest, felt fluky. It felt like, okay,
Speaker 1: Oklahoma City took their eye off the ball for just
Speaker 1: a minute, and the Pacers stormed through that door.
Speaker 2: We say it felt fluky.
Speaker 3: If this is what they do, then they get they
Speaker 3: get in those late game situations and they can over coming.
Speaker 2: I think they just did it again.
Speaker 1: So but well, that's not what they did here, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: in this is not in this game. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: Game one.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah.
Speaker 1: So here, here's why I'm saying it didn't feel fluky
Speaker 1: that they it hit you know, that Haliburton hit the
Speaker 1: game winner. That didn't feel fluky. What felt fluky was
Speaker 1: the fact that Oklahoma City led seconds into the game,
Speaker 1: the Pacers never closed the gap, that it was a
Speaker 1: fourteen point game in the fourth quarter and it was
Speaker 1: I and all of a sudden, the Pacers have a
Speaker 1: chance to steal it that and you're right, that was
Speaker 1: the fourth time they've done that in these playoffs. I
Speaker 1: get that. So maybe fluky is the wrong word, Jeeves,
Speaker 1: but not They weren't going to win four games that way.
Speaker 1: They were not going to win games where Oklahoma City
Speaker 1: dominates the game and then they come roaring back like
Speaker 1: they've won one game a series that way, and then
Speaker 1: game two, when Oklahoma City dominated from start to finish,
Speaker 1: that felt to me much more indicative of the game.
Speaker 1: We were going to get where the Pacers are good
Speaker 1: but Oklahoma City's great, and instead, everything you wanted to
Speaker 1: see from Indiana they did. They did bother shay More
Speaker 1: Halliburton was more aggressive, Siakam was more efficient, and the
Speaker 1: star of the game Benedict Mathern, who has had such
Speaker 1: an interesting playoffs. So Matherin who the Pacers beat Demonse
Speaker 1: because they never tank, don't have a lot of of
Speaker 1: super high draft picks on their team, and in fact,
Speaker 1: I think like, I don't know if it's franchise history
Speaker 1: like the last thirty years or something, but there's only
Speaker 1: two guys that they have drafted in the top nine
Speaker 1: or something. I'm gonna get that those details a little wrong,
Speaker 1: but it's about that Mathern and a kid who's hurt,
Speaker 1: and Matherin was kind of it looked like, oh wait,
Speaker 1: is he gonna be odd man out? When in the
Speaker 1: Cleveland series Game four he basically gets a DMP coaches decision.
Speaker 1: Game five he only plays eleven minutes. Then against the
Speaker 1: Knicks Game two, eleven minutes, zero points, Game three, eight minutes,
Speaker 1: two points, and it looked like Carlisle was souring on it.
Speaker 1: And then Mathern has had in the last six games
Speaker 1: three just unbelievable stat lines off the bench Game four
Speaker 1: against the Knicks twelve minutes, twenty points, Game five against
Speaker 1: the Knicks twenty five minutes, twenty three points, and then
Speaker 1: last night Game three against the Thunder twenty two minutes,
Speaker 1: twenty seven points. And I'm gonna pull it up so
Speaker 1: we have it exactly. But since he was basically it
Speaker 1: looked like, oh man, is Carlisle done with him. In
Speaker 1: the six games since then, Benedict Mathern has played one
Speaker 1: hundred and six minutes and scored ninety three points. The
Speaker 1: guy is basically a point a minute over his last
Speaker 1: six games. None more important or no worthy than last
Speaker 1: night when nobody had an answer for him, when he
Speaker 1: just he was the X factor off the bench for them,
Speaker 1: and all I'm just so yes, listen, TJ McConnell did
Speaker 1: TJ McConnell things. And he loves getting those steals in
Speaker 1: the back court. You know, he's just a white man's
Speaker 1: Jose Alvarado, like I'm gonna play this scrappy style, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna annoy you. He doesn't. He doesn't go out of
Speaker 1: bounds and and trick people like that. But he's a pest.
Speaker 1: And one of his steals, the one where he just
Speaker 1: caught the inbound pass and laid it up, was one
Speaker 1: of the dopest things. That was one of the coolest
Speaker 1: many highlights of the season. He just jumps up and.
Speaker 2: A couple times with that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so he had he made three baskets, I
Speaker 1: feel like they were and he had five steals. So
Speaker 1: TJ McConnell off the bench, five steals, Obi Toppin off
Speaker 1: the bench four of five from two and some big rebounds,
Speaker 1: and Ben matherin man nine of twelve, got to the
Speaker 1: free throw line eight times, which is another thing he
Speaker 1: did against the Knicks. He drew fouls and got to
Speaker 1: the line. He's plus sixteen and twenty two minutes.
Speaker 2: He's okay. See, another thing to have to worry about.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent and credit where it's due to Halliburton,
Speaker 1: because Halliburton the point that I made. Now, let me
Speaker 1: just be clear here. My playoff bracket and my playoff
Speaker 1: predictions are in shambles. I have been wrong about three
Speaker 1: series picks, more this playoffs than any playoffs I can remember.
Speaker 1: And better of the year, which we'll get to later,
Speaker 1: is on life support. It's truly on life support. My
Speaker 1: in series analysis has been far better. And one of
Speaker 1: the points that I'm excuse me, I apologize. One of
Speaker 1: the points I made after game two was the Pacers
Speaker 1: need to recognize you are not playing a good shot,
Speaker 1: good shot, great shot team. You are playing a bad shot,
Speaker 1: decent shot. Take the shot. And it felt like Halliburton
Speaker 1: understood that. That Haliburton, when his teammates go five of
Speaker 1: twenty one from three, when aside from Mathern, nobody hits
Speaker 1: more than one three, When aside from Siakam, none of
Speaker 1: the other starters really seem like they have it offensively,
Speaker 1: he understood, I've got to be a little more aggressive
Speaker 1: looking for my own shot, and he did. Now he's
Speaker 1: still the ball was still popping and moving, and he's
Speaker 1: still had his eleven assists, and he was a rebound
Speaker 1: shy of a triple dobbel. But he was a little
Speaker 1: more aggressive offensively. And here's the other thing the Pacers do, man,
Speaker 1: they wear your ass out where they are. And the
Speaker 1: part of this is because Carlisle trusts the bench like
Speaker 1: it is remarkable demonse that in a basketball game. That
Speaker 1: keep in mind, I thought the thunder kind of stole
Speaker 1: the game a sneaky what could have been a sneaky
Speaker 1: huge moment was the very end of the third quarter
Speaker 1: when the Pacers are up one with thirty five seconds
Speaker 1: left and Check gets a dunk and one. Now they're
Speaker 1: up too. McConnell misses, you know, like a five footer,
Speaker 1: and then j Dubb hits a three basically at the
Speaker 1: quarter buzzer, and it went from oh, the Pacers are
Speaker 1: gonna have the lead going into the fourth to the
Speaker 1: Pacers are down five going into the fourth, and then
Speaker 1: it didn't you know, they crushed him in the fourth
Speaker 1: thirty two to eighteen. But the fact that Halliburton in
Speaker 1: what I felt was a gotta have it, must win
Speaker 1: game that was nip and tuck really throughout. He only
Speaker 1: played thirty six minutes. Like Halliburton has not played forty
Speaker 1: minutes in a regulation playoff game this year, which is
Speaker 1: maybe one of the reasons he's so good at the end.
Speaker 1: But a de testament to the Pacers that they're able
Speaker 1: to do that have their best player on the bench
Speaker 1: and not get blown out and the thunder at the
Speaker 1: end of this game, we're the tired team. What a performance.
Speaker 1: And it is not lost on me that I said
Speaker 1: this was to me the most shocking singular Finals game
Speaker 1: for me since Game five twenty eleven MAVs heat. And
Speaker 1: the coach of the team that pulled off that upset
Speaker 1: and the coach of the team that pulled off this
Speaker 1: upset are the same guy, Rick Carlisle, who I imagine
Speaker 1: once the Finals are over, the Knicks are going to say, hey,
Speaker 1: can we interview him? So demonimia.
Speaker 3: One of the questions from the chat, Oh yeah, so,
Speaker 3: anonymous three to five four says Nick, what do you
Speaker 3: think has been the issue with a lot of pundits
Speaker 3: getting behind the Pacers as a good team an autymous
Speaker 3: three five four.
Speaker 1: I've been there with you, but go ahead, so listen.
Speaker 1: I don't think people have denied that the Pacers are
Speaker 1: a good team. I do think people have. I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to say people have not acted as if
Speaker 1: the fact that they have the second best record in
Speaker 1: basketball since and I don't think have lost consecutive games
Speaker 1: since January one. I think that people have dismissed that,
Speaker 1: maybe a little more than they should have. But I
Speaker 1: think this was less about a dismissal of Indiana and
Speaker 1: more about a reverence for OKAC, who, if we're being honest,
Speaker 1: through to games controlled ninety six percent of this series,
Speaker 1: ninety six minutes played. OKC led for ninety one, was
Speaker 1: tied for two and a half, and trailed for two
Speaker 1: like that's but yesterday was not that? Who do you
Speaker 1: have winning it all? Put your hoops expertise to the
Speaker 1: test all season long. DraftKings has been the go to
Speaker 1: spot for NBA player props and that doesn't stop. Now,
Speaker 1: who's going to carry their team to the chip? Try
Speaker 1: placing a bet on your personal MVP to drop thirty forty,
Speaker 1: maybe over fifty. We talked about it. Nobody's dropped fifty
Speaker 1: in a finals game since the Games sent six clincher
Speaker 1: by Jannis Janis.
Speaker 2: All over today's show.
Speaker 1: Ready to place your first bet, download the DraftKings Sportsbook app.
Speaker 1: Now lock in your bets, finish the season as a winner.
Speaker 1: Something special for first timers. New DraftKings customers bet five
Speaker 1: dollars to get three hundred dollars in bonus bets. If
Speaker 1: you're betwins. Don't miss your last chance to bet on
Speaker 1: the NBA this season. Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app. Use
Speaker 1: code right code right WRIGHD that's code right for new
Speaker 1: customers to get three hundred dollars in bonus bets if
Speaker 1: your bet wins. When you bet five bucks only on DraftKings,
Speaker 1: the Crown is yours.
Speaker 4: Gambling problem called one eight hundred gambler in New York
Speaker 4: called eight seven seven eight open wire text ope and
Speaker 4: wy AT four six seven three six nine. In Connecticut.
Speaker 4: Help is available for a problem gambling called eight eight eight,
Speaker 4: seven eight nine seven to seven seven seven or visit
Speaker 4: CCPG dot org. Please play responsibly on behalf of Boothillki
Speaker 4: Cina win resorting Kansas twenty one on over agent Eligibility
Speaker 4: varies by jurisdiction Voyd and Ontario. Bet must win to
Speaker 4: receive reward minimum minus five hundred odds required. Bonus bets
Speaker 4: expire one hundred and sixty eight hours after issueins four.
Speaker 4: Additional terms and responsible gaming resources see DKNG dot co
Speaker 4: slash audio.
Speaker 3: Yannas shut down any trade rumors that there are a
Speaker 3: circulating sin that he would like to be in Milwaukee
Speaker 3: next year and win a championship.
Speaker 1: So that makes the kate Ea sweepstakes much more interesting.
Speaker 3: In Sham's reported that Houston's San Antotio, Miami, Minnesota, and
Speaker 3: the Knicks are all interested.
Speaker 2: Which team would you see Katie suiting up for?
Speaker 3: Jianna is just waiting for Katie, but pick a team,
Speaker 3: so see where he should go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I'm not ready to say the y honest
Speaker 1: thing's done. I don't think the honest thing is guaranteed
Speaker 1: that he's asking for a trade, but I certainly don't
Speaker 1: think it's guaranteed that he's staying in Milwaukee, but the
Speaker 1: Yannis trade is going to be more complicated and two
Speaker 1: thirds of the league are going to be interested. There
Speaker 1: seems to be a lot of smoke surrounding Durant and
Speaker 1: the Spurs. That's a fun one that I'm interested in,
Speaker 1: But I do not think that team can win a championship.
Speaker 1: I just don't think Wimby is ready yet.
Speaker 2: To be Kevin Durant's goal. What a question.
Speaker 1: Do you not think it is?
Speaker 3: I mean, he wants to go play in San Antonio,
Speaker 3: it doesn't necessarily seem like it is. I don't think
Speaker 3: that he thinks that he's the missing piece from San
Speaker 3: Antonio getting to a championship.
Speaker 1: Well, and to be fair, we don't know where he
Speaker 1: wants to go play but san Antonio, but it seems
Speaker 1: like go ahead. I'm sorry, no, I mean, listen, the Spurs.
Speaker 1: It's not like if he were to go to Miami
Speaker 1: and pick Miami, then I would say he's not that
Speaker 1: worried about winning a title because they can't win, right.
Speaker 1: You know, with respect to him, you'd have to give
Speaker 1: up something for him, even if you've got a hero
Speaker 1: and bam, that team's not good enough. The Spurs. Castle's good,
Speaker 1: Dearn Fox is really good, Wimby has unlimited upside. And
Speaker 1: if Durance still feels like I'm the you know, fifth
Speaker 1: best player in the NBA, even if he's closer to
Speaker 1: the fifteenth best player in the NBA, Like, it's not
Speaker 1: like he'd be going somewhere where they have no shot whatsoever.
Speaker 1: The So the Spurs to me are interesting, but it
Speaker 1: wouldn't put them over the top. I am those other
Speaker 1: three teams. You could maybe convince me on any of them.
Speaker 1: That man, that team could win the title if you
Speaker 1: took away Jalen Green's minutes and gave them to Kevin Durant.
Speaker 1: They beat the Warriors, like that's that's not even to
Speaker 1: me a question. They beat the Warriors and then they
Speaker 1: have a real you know what I mean, a real
Speaker 1: shot next year, Shingoon a little better. You know, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have a great defense with Udoka Like that, to me,
Speaker 1: that team is really interesting. Now that's the perfect honest team.
Speaker 1: But Houston is really interesting. Anthony Edwards plus Durant, if
Speaker 1: Ant can level up just to touch that one's interesting.
Speaker 1: And the Knicks. I don't think the Knicks necessarily would
Speaker 1: be better than the Knicks with Durant, wouldn't necessarily better
Speaker 1: be better than Houston or Minnesota with Durant, but because
Speaker 1: one's in the East and ones in the West like
Speaker 1: the Knicks, would be a really fascinating one and one
Speaker 1: that I would be really interested in seeing how it
Speaker 1: plays out. I do think KD has at least one
Speaker 1: more elite year left in the tank. And I also
Speaker 1: think people need to understand because of his kind, he's
Speaker 1: not easy to trade. So like the idea, I know
Speaker 1: that Shams has said, or Shams has said, there are
Speaker 1: wild card suitors. You gotta find wild card suitors that
Speaker 1: aren't second Apron and can get the salaries together and
Speaker 1: all of that. And so I would imagine, just my
Speaker 1: guess that one of the wild card suitors is the Clippers.
Speaker 1: That'd be a very hard trade to pull off. And
Speaker 1: that's when I wouldn't like to see. Yeah, I've seen
Speaker 1: Durant with Harden, I'm not And like Kawhi's an injury risk,
Speaker 1: Durant's an injury risk. I'd like to see Durant be
Speaker 1: the old VET on a young team, like you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. I think that would be I think
Speaker 1: that would be fun. But Durant is one hundred percent
Speaker 1: getting traded. Yannis might get traded, and then we'll see
Speaker 1: what the other moves are. All right? Do we have
Speaker 1: a couple listener questions demand we can get too quickly
Speaker 1: before I got to get out of here. Uh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll catch ass.
Speaker 3: Which is more likely Thunder coming back or Demonte's rec
Speaker 3: lead team turning it around.
Speaker 1: What's the answer.
Speaker 3: I'd honestly say Demandy's rec league team turning it around.
Speaker 1: Wow, I think.
Speaker 3: That the Pacers. I just think the Pacers are gonna
Speaker 3: win this series. Man, that would be great. Can I
Speaker 3: just say something else? And I'm gonna bring I'm gonna
Speaker 3: bring my our pods set up with us to Miami.
Speaker 1: And if the Pacers win Game four Friday night, all
Speaker 1: do sometimes Saturday morning, some emergency pod type of thing.
Speaker 1: It would be awesome. If the Pacers win. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going to, but it would be awesome.
Speaker 1: Joseph says, what's up with the gun show today? Demanse
Speaker 1: looking all jacked? You know what's so funny? And this
Speaker 1: is a compliment, Demonsey, don't take this the wrong way.
Speaker 1: I actually was thinking the opposite. I was like, you
Speaker 1: need to hit those push ups a little bit more. Man,
Speaker 1: You're not as I do though, no for real, like again,
Speaker 1: like I mean, you're in great shape and a great athlete,
Speaker 1: but just for like when I saw you in your jersey,
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, Demans is a little skinnier than he
Speaker 1: was a few months ago.
Speaker 2: Like, appreciate Joseph.
Speaker 1: Sorry, but Nick, right, muse what did he say? Tomanse
Speaker 1: quick grammar check for Nick.
Speaker 3: I know Nick will appreciate this. He said change tack
Speaker 3: a couple of times now on First Things First and
Speaker 3: the Herd, and it's changed tack.
Speaker 1: Really, it's so that, thank you. I do appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I have said they need to change their tacked tact
Speaker 1: and he's saying that the phrases it needs to change tack,
Speaker 1: which is t a c K. I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: I'll look up why that is.
Speaker 2: I had no idea.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Lebron might be the NBA's leading scorer, but what
Speaker 3: does that mean when you got no.
Speaker 2: Bag on mine?
Speaker 3: In the game, Lebron said, I see all the time
Speaker 3: I'll be on social media and like Lebron has no bag.
Speaker 2: Lebron has no.
Speaker 1: Bag, and I'm sitting here like I got fifty billion points.
Speaker 3: I thought he should have said I've got fifty billion chips,
Speaker 3: like word played on like a bag of chips.
Speaker 2: But Lebron be the undisputed goat if he's got no bag.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let me go. Let me ask you this,
Speaker 1: what do you think having a bag means? Because it's
Speaker 1: this is not an agreed upon definition, and I think
Speaker 1: that is an important piece to it. So I'm curious
Speaker 1: where you what you think?
Speaker 3: Okay, I think having a bag is is James Harden
Speaker 3: that's like like Steph Curry, just just a go to
Speaker 3: move or or a bag of.
Speaker 2: Moves that you can go to to break the defender down.
Speaker 2: I just think it's offense. It's offensive game.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's anything outside of that. No, So
Speaker 1: it's and it's it's definitely offense and definitely related to scoring, right,
Speaker 1: Like I think everybody agrees on that. So here is
Speaker 1: what I think is fair and true, and here is
Speaker 1: what I think is just nonsense. Right. So I think,
Speaker 1: what do you think the weakest part of Lebron's offensive
Speaker 1: game is? Because I think it's very clear. I think
Speaker 1: there is one thing that offensively he is average at
Speaker 1: I would say it's just league average.
Speaker 2: Could stop, go, stop start.
Speaker 1: Well, maybe we're saying the same thing just general ball handling.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, he's not an elite.
Speaker 1: He's not an elite ball handler. And so if people
Speaker 1: if by bag they mean like a Kyrie's style, like
Speaker 1: fifteen dribble move, then sure, then yeah, Lebron's not going
Speaker 1: to be one of your top thirty picks of people
Speaker 1: when it comes to ball handling like the he I
Speaker 1: think Durant at seven feet tall might be a better
Speaker 1: ball handler like I do. And so like that is
Speaker 1: to me, that's a if that's what people are talking about,
Speaker 1: that's actually accurate. Now to Lebron's point, is it possible
Speaker 1: that not just kids on Twitter, but also retired NBA
Speaker 1: players on horrific podcasts wildly overrate the bag. If to
Speaker 1: Lebron's point, he's got fifty thousand points and doesn't have one,
Speaker 1: then yeah, then maybe it's not quite as important as
Speaker 1: you think. So if we're just saying bag is ball handling,
Speaker 1: then it's probably it's probably true. Here is where I
Speaker 1: think it gets a little though misconstrued or misleading. If
Speaker 1: by bag. People are talking about ability to score from
Speaker 1: anywhere on the court at any time. Lebron's as good
Speaker 1: as anyone in the history of the league being a
Speaker 1: and this is where, and this is again where we
Speaker 1: will simply run into folks who some I'm sure are
Speaker 1: in the chat right now, who are going to try
Speaker 1: to douce a lot of mental gymnastics around the numbers
Speaker 1: and the facts, which is now. Lebron early in his career,
Speaker 1: didn't you know, was not a good jump shooter. But
Speaker 1: the benefit of playing twenty two years is even if
Speaker 1: you weren't good at something for the first seven, there
Speaker 1: were fifteen years you were good at it. So like
Speaker 1: even be like, oh, Lebron couldn't shoot, But by year
Speaker 1: nine he was literally forty one percent from three. His
Speaker 1: third year in Miami, I guess that would have been
Speaker 1: year ten, and then you know, that was year ten
Speaker 1: for him was still the first half of his career
Speaker 1: in Miami, he developed his three point shot. His second
Speaker 1: stint in Cleveland, he developed his mid range shot, particularly
Speaker 1: the turnaround, and since then has been the idea that
Speaker 1: he's gotten his fifty thousand points by putting his head
Speaker 1: down and just going to the rim one hundred times
Speaker 1: a game. Again, that's just blied by the date, uh
Speaker 1: and by the date I mean the games are on TV.
Speaker 1: You can see where the shots are made, all of it.
Speaker 1: That he has the same shot People talk about him
Speaker 1: as if he has the same shot chart as Shack did.
Speaker 1: That it was lay up, some free throws, done some
Speaker 1: free throws. But this is where now we are, and
Speaker 1: this is why and I you always have to be
Speaker 1: sensitive here because of obviously the tragedy surrounding is passing.
Speaker 1: But the juxtaposition of Kobe versus Lebron, as far as
Speaker 1: what the actual truth is and was versus how they
Speaker 1: are remembered, has always been very interesting because if you
Speaker 1: ask one hundred NBA fans who was the better three
Speaker 1: point shooter, Kobe or Lebron, the vast majority are going
Speaker 1: to say Kobe Bryant, despite the fact that any possible
Speaker 1: way you slice it, it's not true. And I will
Speaker 1: and that's you know, that's bag for some it's like
Speaker 1: your ability, like I said, to score from all three levels.
Speaker 1: So Kobe for his career was thirty two point nine
Speaker 1: percent from three Lebron for his career thirty four point
Speaker 1: nine percent from three. Oh well, Nick, Kobe shot way more. No,
Speaker 1: he didn't. Kobe for his career four point one attempts
Speaker 1: per game, Lebron for his career four point seven attempts
Speaker 1: per game. Well, Kobe was better in the playoffs. No,
Speaker 1: for his career from three, his three point percentage is
Speaker 1: thirty three point one percent on four attempts per game.
Speaker 1: Lebron for his career in the playoffs is thirty three
Speaker 1: percent on four point one attempts per game. Well, oh wait,
Speaker 1: hold on, had I got that last one exactly wrong?
Speaker 1: I apologize because I read Kobe's I read Kobe STAPs twice.
Speaker 1: Kobe for his career in the playoffs thirty three point
Speaker 1: one percent on four attempts per game four point zero exactly.
Speaker 1: Lebron for his career in the playoffs thirty three point
Speaker 1: three percent, essentially the same. Lebron to took better, but
Speaker 1: on four point nine attempts per game. Oh well, Nick,
Speaker 1: And this is one you'll hear when people are really
Speaker 1: at this point grasping, Nick, the game's changed so much,
Speaker 1: even though Lebron and Kobe played in the league together
Speaker 1: for a more than a dec Okay, so if you
Speaker 1: just take Lebron's career and stop it. When Kobe retired,
Speaker 1: Kobe again for his career, thirty three point one percent
Speaker 1: on four point zero attempts per game. Look, that's for
Speaker 1: the playoffs, and for the regular season Kobe thirty two
Speaker 1: point nine on four point one attempts per game, basically
Speaker 1: identical for Kobe regular season of playoffs he retired in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Lebron his rookie year through the date of
Speaker 1: Kobe's retirement the exact same number of three point attempts
Speaker 1: per game four point zero and Kobe's thirty two point
Speaker 1: nine Lebron thirty four point zero. And so this isn't
Speaker 1: a I'm not trying to do like a Kobe versus
Speaker 1: Lebron thing, because I think that's a silly, really unten argument,
Speaker 1: as much as people try to make it one. The
Speaker 1: reason I am mentioning that is because that is as
Speaker 1: clear and as clean and as matter of fact as
Speaker 1: data can get, and people simply will say, I do
Speaker 1: not believe that. That's not how I remember it, which
Speaker 1: is that and the people in the chat can get
Speaker 1: as angry as they want and they say that's longevity,
Speaker 1: even though it's per game that that's a different era,
Speaker 1: even if we just go year per year. In their
Speaker 1: mind's eye, Kobe was a dominant three point assassin, and
Speaker 1: in their mind's eye, Lebron was just putting his shoulder
Speaker 1: down and get into the rim. Despite the fact that
Speaker 1: at the date of Kobe's retirement, he averaged the exact
Speaker 1: same number of three point attempts per game as Lebron
Speaker 1: did and shot him worse. It's just what the facts were.
Speaker 1: So when Lebron is talking about I'm get on social
Speaker 1: media and say Lebron didn't have a bag or this
Speaker 1: or that, it's because so much of that is it's
Speaker 1: not revisionist history. It's just absolute fake news so to speak,
Speaker 1: that people will believe to their dying breath. Like one
Speaker 1: of the number one questions people will ask is, okay,
Speaker 1: so whatever you're gonna say, Lebron's better than Kobe because
Speaker 1: of you know, he played longer or whatever it is. However,
Speaker 1: but one shot life on the line and then you
Speaker 1: tell him, well playoff game winners. Like we just talked
Speaker 1: before Lebron took was eight of twenty, Kobe was four
Speaker 1: of eighteen. People will simply say, I don't believe you
Speaker 1: even though it is what it is. And so now
Speaker 1: doctor Frank says in the chat, but would you say
Speaker 1: Kobe had a deeper bag than Lebron? I think there's
Speaker 1: an argument there. Yes, they're a hunt, ye, because I
Speaker 1: Kobe was a better mid range shot maker than Lebron,
Speaker 1: and I think Kobe was a better ball handler than Lebron.
Speaker 1: That one I agree with here, Yeah, yeah, on the
Speaker 1: back you agree, Yeah, there is. But the that then
Speaker 1: circles back to the more I think interesting question is.
Speaker 1: But then what does it really matter except for again
Speaker 1: to be fair, because I am I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: among other things, I'm the most I'm the fairest arguer
Speaker 1: in sports media because I will often make an argument
Speaker 1: and while I'm making it, because it's how my brain works,
Speaker 1: think like, oh does this contradict something you were making?
Speaker 1: Argument you're making about something else, and how do you
Speaker 1: reconcile those two? So, while how deep your bag is
Speaker 1: might be overrated when it comes to your effectiveness as
Speaker 1: a player, as evidenced by our discussion about why people
Speaker 1: were more maybe attracted to Russell Westbrook's style of play
Speaker 1: than Shay Gilgess Alexander's how deep your bag is certainly
Speaker 1: has to do as an impact on popularity. Grabbing the
Speaker 1: casual fan highlights things like that, that part there is
Speaker 1: a real impact, Zi