Speaker 1: The volume.
Speaker 2: The NBA Finals are here. This is your last chance
Speaker 2: to bet on the NBA until next season, and DraftKings
Speaker 2: Sportsbook and official sports betting partner of the NBA is
Speaker 2: pulling out all the stops to make this a finals.
Speaker 2: To remember, one team will be crown champ and the
Speaker 2: other will be lost to history. Who you got winning
Speaker 2: at all? Put your hoops expertise to the test. All
Speaker 2: season long, DraftKings has been the go to spot for
Speaker 2: NBA player props and that doesn't stop now. Who's gonna
Speaker 2: carry their team to the chip? Try placing a bet
Speaker 2: on your personal MVP to drop thirty, forty or maybe
Speaker 2: even over fifty. Ready to place your own bet, download
Speaker 2: the DraftKings sports Book app, lock in your bets and
Speaker 2: finish the season as a winner. Here's something special for
Speaker 2: first timers. New DraftKings customers. Bet five dollars to get
Speaker 2: three hundred dollars in bonus bets if your bet wins.
Speaker 2: Don't miss your last chance to bet on the NBA
Speaker 2: this season. Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and use code
Speaker 2: hoops that's hoo, that's code hoops for new customers to
Speaker 2: get three hundred dollars in bonus bets if your bet wins.
Speaker 2: When you bet five bucks only on DraftKings, the Crown
Speaker 2: is yours. Gambling problem called one hundred gambler In New
Speaker 2: York call eight seven seven eight Hope and why, or
Speaker 2: text hope and Why to four six seven three sixty
Speaker 2: nine and Connecticut help is available for problem gambling called
Speaker 2: eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven
Speaker 2: or visit CCPG dot org. Please play responsibly on behalf
Speaker 2: of Boothill Casino and Resort in Kansas twenty one plus.
Speaker 2: Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction void in Ontario. Bet
Speaker 2: must win to receive reward. Minimum minus five hundred odds required.
Speaker 2: Bonus bets expire one hundred and sixty eight hours after issuance.
Speaker 2: For additional terms and responsible gaming resources, see DKG dot co.
Speaker 2: Slash Audio.
Speaker 3: Blending Vice's signature dynamic storytelling with the high octane world
Speaker 3: of sports. Vice Sports brings an exciting and diverse range
Speaker 3: of programming that goes beyond the game. Catch action pack,
Speaker 3: live events, and exclusive sports documentaries and profiles only on
Speaker 3: Vice TV.
Speaker 2: All Right, welcome to hoops tonight. You're at the volume.
Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday, everybody. Oh off, all of you guys are
Speaker 2: having a great start to your week. Well, my friend,
Speaker 2: my good friend, Sam Vessini is coming on the show,
Speaker 2: and we have a very fun kind of format for today,
Speaker 2: and it's kind of unusual. Under the circumstances, the thunder
Speaker 2: are a massive favorite to win the NBA Finals. They
Speaker 2: are currently minus seven hundred and so under those circumstances,
Speaker 2: we talked and we came to the conclusion that it
Speaker 2: would be a fun exercise to pretend that Sam and
Speaker 2: I are the coaches of the Indiana Pacers and we
Speaker 2: are attempting to come up with a game plan that
Speaker 2: might give us the best chance to win this particular series. Sam,
Speaker 2: before we even get started, how are you doing, man?
Speaker 2: We haven't talked in a long time. It's been a very,
Speaker 2: very busy few months. But it's so nice to have
Speaker 2: you back on the show.
Speaker 1: It's great to be here. It's busy. I finally just
Speaker 1: finished the draft Guide, which means I'm like up for
Speaker 1: air now. I finally can you know, relax a little
Speaker 1: bit on top of you know, all of the crazy
Speaker 1: recording that Bryce and I have done, where we're going
Speaker 1: live every other night for the playoffs is the schedule
Speaker 1: we've done in the playoffs. So it's good to be
Speaker 1: up for air, and it's good to chat with you again.
Speaker 1: Like I feel terrible, like we haven't even caught up
Speaker 1: on the phone because I've just been like literally in
Speaker 1: front of my computer. This is the time of year
Speaker 1: where I put on like eight pounds or nine pounds
Speaker 1: just because I have to watch so much tape, like
Speaker 1: to stay above water on both I finally get to
Speaker 1: go to the gym after we're done with this, It's
Speaker 1: gonna be great. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say I stopped playing as much basketball
Speaker 2: for a while there in like April and May, and
Speaker 2: like I was starting to not play as we well,
Speaker 2: started to get a little down on myself. I was like,
Speaker 2: I need to get some of this routine back in motion.
Speaker 2: And thankfully in the finals we space out a little
Speaker 2: bit so before we get into our exercise, I couldn't
Speaker 2: help but think after the finals were set about a
Speaker 2: conversation you and I had on this show right after
Speaker 2: the NBA Finals last year. We discussed this. I asked
Speaker 2: you what your biggest lesson you learned from the playoffs was,
Speaker 2: and we both had like similar answers that were like
Speaker 2: in different kind of like they were more or less
Speaker 2: meaning the same thing. But the answer you came up
Speaker 2: with was ground coverage and essentially having to do with
Speaker 2: speed and the ability to cover ground in rotation because
Speaker 2: of the idea that in order to do anything to
Speaker 2: make a star uncomfortable, you have to do a certain
Speaker 2: amount of aggressive loading up and that inherently puts you
Speaker 2: into these rotation situations. And then there's also just the
Speaker 2: reality of how much of the game is being played.
Speaker 2: In transition, I kind of became obsessed around the idea
Speaker 2: of perimeter speed. This was a concept that I was
Speaker 2: hitting on a lot around the same time, and it
Speaker 2: more or less means the same thing. But I can't
Speaker 2: help but notice that we have these two teams that
Speaker 2: are not particularly big, but that have a depth of
Speaker 2: perimeter speed and the ability to cover ground in rotation
Speaker 2: that vastly supersedes some of the other teams that we've
Speaker 2: seen around the league. And so I my first question
Speaker 2: for you is just what have you really learned from
Speaker 2: this particular postseason run with Indiana in Oklahoma City ending
Speaker 2: up in the finals. Does it legitimize anything about your
Speaker 2: big picture basketball worldview.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that that is a really good point
Speaker 1: in terms of the ground coverage defensively, and look, I've
Speaker 1: been obsessed with this for a couple of years now,
Speaker 1: for sure. I think I would add to it and
Speaker 1: just say that I think every team needs a five
Speaker 1: out look at the very least, like it might not
Speaker 1: be your primary designation, but to at least have the
Speaker 1: look to be able to go five out at all times.
Speaker 1: Otherwise it's just really hard to be able to survive
Speaker 1: in the NBA currently because you need different kinds of
Speaker 1: adjustments you need to be able to make depending on
Speaker 1: the situation. You know, against the Lakers, Minnesota really thrived
Speaker 1: by loading up and being able to play as big
Speaker 1: as possible, but you know, in other situations they certainly
Speaker 1: needed to be able to go five out and be
Speaker 1: able to play multiple different offensive looks more than anything.
Speaker 1: So being able to go five out would be what
Speaker 1: I would add at any point, even if it's not
Speaker 1: your primary look. I would hope that it's your primary look,
Speaker 1: to be frank, but I think you can make it
Speaker 1: work without it being your primary look.
Speaker 2: The other thing that kind of stood out to me
Speaker 2: was just depth. Yeah, Jackson and I were talking on
Speaker 2: playback the other night just this. You know, there's all
Speaker 2: this low hanging fruit in basketball, in terms of things
Speaker 2: like picking up full court to make people uncomfortable, in
Speaker 2: terms of like being able to to play an incredibly
Speaker 2: hillacious pace, in terms of really having like an overall
Speaker 2: expectation that everyone in your lineup is allowed to be aggressive,
Speaker 2: that everyone in your lineup is allowed to turn the
Speaker 2: corner and look to score. And I think that there's
Speaker 2: a reality that you need depth in order to do that.
Speaker 2: And I think what stood out to me as like
Speaker 2: a counter example was the Knicks with Tom Thibodeaux, where
Speaker 2: all year long he's emphasizing heavy minutes for starters under
Speaker 2: the guys of conditioning. But all year long, those guys
Speaker 2: were not sharp on the details, in large part because
Speaker 2: they had to play such heavy minute loads. And so
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's the end all be all, because
Speaker 2: I do think it's possible for you to have success
Speaker 2: in the NBA without a ton of depth, especially if
Speaker 2: you've got like six rock solid players. The Celtics famously
Speaker 2: last year they're like a pretty tight eight man rotation,
Speaker 2: and towards the end they were leaning pretty heavily on
Speaker 2: their top six guys, But I think there's some reality
Speaker 2: to the fact that you can exploit more of that
Speaker 2: low hanging fruit by having a good ten to eleven
Speaker 2: man rotation of guys that can at least succeed within
Speaker 2: your scheme on both ends of the floor.
Speaker 1: Well, the other way to exploit that low hanging fruit,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you brought up the low hanging fruit idea
Speaker 1: is something that both Indiana and The Thunder honestly do
Speaker 1: maybe better than anybody, And that's like spurt ability, right,
Speaker 1: the ability to just go on these crazy runs and
Speaker 1: create points off of turnovers immediately. I believe that Indiana
Speaker 1: and the Thunder right now are currently first and second
Speaker 1: in the playoffs and points per game off of turnovers, right,
Speaker 1: and you look at the way that the series is gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, flow. In my opinion, it's going to be
Speaker 1: based on the idea of the turnover battle, because nobody
Speaker 1: does a better job of forcing turnovers than Oklahoma City,
Speaker 1: and arguably nobody does a better job of reducing turnovers
Speaker 1: than Indiana, right, So like that battle, to me, is
Speaker 1: going to be the key to this series. But Indiana,
Speaker 1: I think is a really underrated team in terms of
Speaker 1: forcing points off turnovers, just because while they don't like
Speaker 1: force an insane number of them, they're always lethal in
Speaker 1: how they execute off of them. They are so intentional
Speaker 1: in the way that they go about finding mismatches if
Speaker 1: you have anything to exploit, they are incredible at finding
Speaker 1: different cross matches in transition to be able to attack.
Speaker 1: That's just the reality of what they do is because
Speaker 1: they have Haliburton and Emhard, both of whom have grown
Speaker 1: up playing in these uptempo schemes as point guards. Right,
Speaker 1: they have this incredible ability to always find the cross match.
Speaker 1: Both of those guys are really sharp, knowing exactly where
Speaker 1: the advantage is. Gonzaga played it one of the fastest
Speaker 1: tempos in the league or in the country under Andrew Nemhard, Right,
Speaker 1: Tyrese Haliburton's been playing this way for years, Right, he
Speaker 1: just knows how to handle it. Having multiple ball handlers
Speaker 1: out there who can all shoot, who can all make
Speaker 1: decisions at the end of the day, Like, what this
Speaker 1: comes down to for me on some level is a
Speaker 1: the ground coverage and be just decision making in general.
Speaker 1: The ability to to process the court like basketball in
Speaker 1: the court at such a high level is so incredibly important.
Speaker 1: It's why we've seen Alex Caruso just you know, elevate
Speaker 1: his game even further in the playoffs this year. It's
Speaker 1: why we see guys like chet Holm Grant at the
Speaker 1: center position be able to you know, make decisions faster
Speaker 1: than other centers in my opinion, play such a critical
Speaker 1: role for them. Isaiah Hartenstein's a very good decision maker
Speaker 1: for a big for Oklahoma City. On the other side,
Speaker 1: I would argue that Miles Turner is just so well
Speaker 1: drilled within that scheme at this point. Pascal Siakam is
Speaker 1: so problematic in terms of creating mismatches, but he also
Speaker 1: makes good decisions as well in terms of when to
Speaker 1: attack those mismatches. The ability to process basketball is just
Speaker 1: absolutely critical to me. It is the number one thing
Speaker 1: to me that these two teams, particularly beyond not really
Speaker 1: having like a weak link on the court to really attack.
Speaker 1: That's what these two teams do better than anybody in
Speaker 1: my opinion.
Speaker 2: Well, and with the way they play defense, they're gearing
Speaker 2: everything around, rushing you and getting you to make mistakes
Speaker 2: as decision makers. And like we were blown away when
Speaker 2: we would watch film from the Knick series how often
Speaker 2: they would have like really poor spacing where there'd be
Speaker 2: nobody above the break for some reason, which was the
Speaker 2: number one culprit of their transition defense issues. And then
Speaker 2: they'd have like Mitchell Robinson in one dunker spot and
Speaker 2: ogn and Obie in the other dunker spot, and Kat
Speaker 2: just set a ball screen for Brunson and for some
Speaker 2: reason he's rolling and You're like, You're like, what the
Speaker 2: fuck are you guys doing? Like this is there's so
Speaker 2: many like simple things like that where it's like when
Speaker 2: you watch the Celtics when they were at their best,
Speaker 2: and I actually think the Thunder are an underrated kind
Speaker 2: of like spacing relocating team. They they just kind of
Speaker 2: whirl around off the ball really well. But like there
Speaker 2: they're just so much sharper with the little decisions about
Speaker 2: where they relocate to where they space to where they
Speaker 2: cut from. Like how you know one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why they're such good transition defense is is their ability
Speaker 2: to kind of make sure they always have their floor
Speaker 2: balance set up well.
Speaker 1: Speaking that point, like I saw, you know, your volume
Speaker 1: colleague Jeff Tigue bring up that like when he played
Speaker 1: for TIBs. Like Tibbs, isn't you know, wildly intentional about
Speaker 1: these things? Right? Like he just like kind of says
Speaker 1: go and then just yells damn a whole lot, right, uh.
Speaker 1: Like the intentionality is really critical to me, like having
Speaker 1: intentional spacing, and that's why, like, to me, I kind
Speaker 1: of understand, like, even though the Nicks just went to
Speaker 1: the conference finals, if they want to move on from TIBs, Like,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sit here and complain. I thought he
Speaker 1: coached an incredibly poor series against the Indiana Pacers, just
Speaker 1: both in terms of the lineups he decided to utilize
Speaker 1: going two bigs against that transition attack, and then additionally,
Speaker 1: the intentionality of the spacing just feels totally wrong all
Speaker 1: the time to me with them, not not all the time,
Speaker 1: but too often, let's go with for a team that
Speaker 1: is as talented as they are. So when I look
Speaker 1: at these two teams, I think that what stands out,
Speaker 1: you know, of what I've said so far is the coaching.
Speaker 1: These two coaches are two of the top five coaches
Speaker 1: in the league. And I actually wonder I think for
Speaker 1: a while we were at a point where there were
Speaker 1: like five really elite coaches, right, like guys that I
Speaker 1: thought really moved the needle for you, And then I
Speaker 1: thought there were like five or six, like not great
Speaker 1: coaches that moved the needle negatively, and then everybody else
Speaker 1: is kind of in the middle. Right. I actually wonder
Speaker 1: if in this new era of basketball where intentionality in
Speaker 1: regard to spacing, in terms of tempo, in terms of rotations,
Speaker 1: in terms of making sure you don't have like a
Speaker 1: week link on the court regularly, I think we might
Speaker 1: be at a point now where coaching is actually starting
Speaker 1: to become more important even than what we had been
Speaker 1: thinking of it as being previously, because that intentionality in spacing,
Speaker 1: in rotational alignment is so critical now in the biggest
Speaker 1: moments in the playoffs.
Speaker 2: No agree like this low hanging fruit stuff. It's not
Speaker 2: based on like just easily attainable points that everyone in
Speaker 2: the league is known about for decades. It's a lot
Speaker 2: about how the game has changed. Like the Boston was
Speaker 2: able to tow the line of being an elite offensive
Speaker 2: rebounding team and an elite transition defense. Why because they
Speaker 2: utilize these corner crashes towards the elbows. Because they understood
Speaker 2: this is where the ball most frequently comes off of
Speaker 2: the rim, and it also is kind of like a
Speaker 2: runway for our transition defense. The top two guys get back.
Speaker 2: These guys crashing out of the corners can kind of
Speaker 2: whirl up the floor after they make that crash, And
Speaker 2: there's just like this kind of understanding that, like, Okay,
Speaker 2: every time we play in transition, we're twenty percent more efficient,
Speaker 2: So why would we not hunt that at every single
Speaker 2: opportunity that we have. You mentioned the cross matches like.
Speaker 1: Literally antithesis of that, Jason. Defensively as well, with your spacing,
Speaker 1: the Knicks constantly had like four five guys below the
Speaker 1: foul line chasing offensive rebounds against the Pacers as well,
Speaker 1: So like that, it's not just spacing from an offensive perspective,
Speaker 1: it is actually kind of spacing from a defensive perspective too,
Speaker 1: and making sure that you're able to stop the low
Speaker 1: hanging fruit on the other end too.
Speaker 2: It's yeah, it's like we've just we've been talking so
Speaker 2: much about the things that they've been taking advantage of.
Speaker 2: To your point, both the Pacers and the Thunder are
Speaker 2: great at not turning the ball over. Yes, both this
Speaker 2: is these are all like readily attainable things and so
Speaker 2: like this is one of the things that US Laker
Speaker 2: fans were bitching and moaning about NonStop with respect to
Speaker 2: JJ Reddick versus Darvin Ham is, like JJ did not
Speaker 2: do a good job in this postseason run, and he's
Speaker 2: got obviously playoff game planning and adjustments to figure out
Speaker 2: at a higher level than what he figured that what
Speaker 2: he had this year. And uh, but like JJ at
Speaker 2: the very least came in from day one and was like,
Speaker 2: we're gonna harp on these details. So and they suddenly
Speaker 2: were a better team. And like shake gives as Alexander
Speaker 2: and his MVP speech mentioning how Dagnault was just a
Speaker 2: pain in the end, Like that stuff is all incredibly
Speaker 2: important to maximizing, especially when the margins are smaller too,
Speaker 2: Like this isn't the this isn't what it was ten
Speaker 2: years ago, where the Calves and the Warriors are so
Speaker 2: clearly better than everyone that everyone else is just kind
Speaker 2: of fighting for second place in their conference. Like this
Speaker 2: is every if you look at these the playoff field
Speaker 2: this year kind of felt like anybody could get it done.
Speaker 2: And here we are. We're with Indiana and Oklahoma City
Speaker 2: and Oklahoma City was this close to losing in the
Speaker 2: second round. Like, these are very very tight margins. By
Speaker 2: the way, Oklahoma City was this close to losing in
Speaker 2: the second round in a series where they had twenty
Speaker 2: seven points per game off of turnovers. So, like, you
Speaker 2: tell me whether or not low hanging fruit matters in
Speaker 2: the NBA. But let's get Let's get to this series.
Speaker 2: And so you and I are the coaching staff. We
Speaker 2: are trying to figure out who's the lead assistant Indiana
Speaker 2: right now? Do you know off the top of your hand.
Speaker 1: I think they do different things for different ends of
Speaker 1: the court, Like Jake Boose coordinators I know does the
Speaker 1: defensive side. I can't remember who does the offensive side.
Speaker 1: I feel like Rick does a good amount of the
Speaker 1: offensive side, but I can't remember who they are, Like
Speaker 1: coordinator is on that.
Speaker 2: End, gotcha. So we're sitting down in our coaches meeting,
Speaker 2: we're focusing on the offensive end of the floor. I
Speaker 2: wrote down a couple ideas and I'm gonna just give
Speaker 2: one of them to you right now. We'll just kind
Speaker 2: of go from there. So I have a feeling that
Speaker 2: this series ends with Chet at the five there's some
Speaker 2: pretty strong data from the regular season that Isaiah Hartenstein
Speaker 2: struggles to guard this team. Not hard to figure out why.
Speaker 2: The traditional bigs that are not like apex athletes like
Speaker 2: Mitchell Robinson are gonna struggle to a certain extent in
Speaker 2: this type of whirling dervish type of offense. So I
Speaker 2: think it's gonna be a lot of Chet at the
Speaker 2: five alongside four perimeter type of players. So I think
Speaker 2: it's vitally important for the Pacers to force Chet to
Speaker 2: guard on the perimeter as much as possible. So my
Speaker 2: next question, if I first pitched to you, is this,
Speaker 2: should Indiana consider going small in this series?
Speaker 1: In what respect? So are we talking like Toppin' and Pascal?
Speaker 1: Are we talking, you know, like they go four perimeter
Speaker 1: guys in like Nie Smith at the four? Small? Like
Speaker 1: how small?
Speaker 2: I would say, like a good amount of Siakaman top.
Speaker 2: And then for the record, this is not this is
Speaker 2: not like we start the game this way. This is
Speaker 2: like does the game tilt towards we are because we
Speaker 2: haven't even got to the other end of the floor.
Speaker 2: They did struggle a little bit in ball screens, especially
Speaker 2: with Heart and stegin getting behind and I think that's
Speaker 2: gonna happen a lot with Chat as well. So, like
Speaker 2: my idea behind the Pacers going small is the true
Speaker 2: switch ability to be able to switch ball screens and
Speaker 2: prevent the easy kind of reads that Indiana or that
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City can make in pick and roll, but also
Speaker 2: the ability to consistently force Chat to guard on the perimeter.
Speaker 2: I think that Indiana is gonna be able to get
Speaker 2: a certain amount of like pick and pop type of
Speaker 2: stuff with Miles Turner, but I think that Okay c
Speaker 2: He's gonna live with chasing him off with just a
Speaker 2: late closeout. And so what I'm I'm wondering is could
Speaker 2: you actually force Chet to guard in more action and
Speaker 2: force them to guard in the perimeter more by going small,
Speaker 2: especially with a team that's not particularly big in any case.
Speaker 1: So I don't mind this idea. In general, the Pacers
Speaker 1: have really taken advantage of Biggs in the playoffs. This
Speaker 1: you know, entire run from Mitchell Robinson to like Jared
Speaker 1: Allen never being able to figure out that Tyres Haliburton
Speaker 1: only goes right right like they have really really struggled. Uh,
Speaker 1: They've really taken advantage of that and other teams have
Speaker 1: struggled to deal with them. I don't so like almost
Speaker 1: the way I'm gonna think of this as like, you know,
Speaker 1: you you bring up this idea, and like I'm trying
Speaker 1: to think of like it from Oklahoma City's perspective, because
Speaker 1: so much of this is a chess game, right, You're
Speaker 1: trying to figure out what the counters are going to
Speaker 1: be ahead of the counters, right, So if you go small, right,
Speaker 1: do you think that a Siakam based five unit is
Speaker 1: going to be capable of taking advantage of Hartenstein enough?
Speaker 1: Is my question, because if I'm the thunder at that point,
Speaker 1: I'm just crashing Hartenstein to the glass on the offensive
Speaker 1: end fairly regularly, especially with how I'm assuming you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to play defensively, where you're gonna have to play a
Speaker 1: little bit more like shell coverages as opposed to like
Speaker 1: getting aggressive and trying to force turnovers because Oklahom City
Speaker 1: doesn't really do that. So that would create like potentially
Speaker 1: more situations where Hartenstein might be able to crash the
Speaker 1: offensive glass a little bit easier. I do agree with
Speaker 1: your point that like the Hartenstein minutes will probably only
Speaker 1: be like twenty ye or so a game. But like,
Speaker 1: if you're going smaller, do I just match and go
Speaker 1: bigger with Hartenstein and Chet and say, okay, can Siakam
Speaker 1: beat Hartenstein in a mismatched situation? My guess is yes,
Speaker 1: But like at what level? Would be my question to you?
Speaker 2: So Hart and Sign was matched up with Siakam one
Speaker 2: on one quite a few times and transition cross matches.
Speaker 2: In the film that I was watching, I actually thought
Speaker 2: Siakam had some success, just like getting downhill against him.
Speaker 2: There was a little bit of like there were a
Speaker 2: few plays where Siakam tried to draw fouls and it
Speaker 2: didn't work. But I actually liked Siakham's attack attacks against
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City's Biggs. But the point you' bringing up about
Speaker 2: Hart and Stein is fair. I think the way that
Speaker 2: I would think of it is, in this theoretical scenario,
Speaker 2: the Pacers have played Hart and Sign off the floor
Speaker 2: and then they go small. So essentially it would be
Speaker 2: almost like mirroring Miles Turner's Minutes to Heart and Sign,
Speaker 2: if that makes sense.
Speaker 1: The other thing that we have to talk about here
Speaker 1: in any of the minutes that we watched on film,
Speaker 1: because I have watched the other games as well, like
Speaker 1: the games from the regular season which Oklahoma City went
Speaker 1: to and the game in March was like a twenty
Speaker 1: point beating and Chet did not play in either of
Speaker 1: these games. Is like the like basically everybody else, Like
Speaker 1: I think Ben Matherin missed one of the games as well,
Speaker 1: but like basically everybody else played in these games. So
Speaker 1: like we have like a decent sample here, but Chet
Speaker 1: did not play and that does like really fundamentally change
Speaker 1: a lot for the way that Indiana is gonna be
Speaker 1: able to match up. I think what worries me about this?
Speaker 1: And I don't even know that you're wrong, Like I
Speaker 1: think that it's potentially their best option. I think it's
Speaker 1: potentially Indiana's best option. Is I do think Chet is
Speaker 1: better at guarding on the perimeter than like, you know,
Speaker 1: Carl Towns, and then you know anybody like Jared Allen,
Speaker 1: like any of these other guys that they played, right,
Speaker 1: So what would worry me about this is you're just like, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're just gonna play drop with Chet, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: play at the level. Maybe with Chet you're gonna try
Speaker 1: and what like slip Siakam behind him maybe to get
Speaker 1: like an easy mismatch at times, maybe you try and
Speaker 1: run like a quick, little like slide action where it's
Speaker 1: just like a quick little ghost pick and pop kind
Speaker 1: of thing in order to catch him. I think Indiana
Speaker 1: does a really good job of differentiating the kinds of
Speaker 1: ball screens that they run. For sure, maybe like it
Speaker 1: might be their best option is to go small. It's
Speaker 1: just the issue is, like they haven't really been willing
Speaker 1: to do this, and I did it.
Speaker 2: A little bit at the end of the next series,
Speaker 2: just a little bit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, I'm like all in favor of them not
Speaker 1: playing Tony Bradley and Thomas Bryant, Like, I think those
Speaker 1: are the minutes that really worry me if I'm Indiana,
Speaker 1: But yeah, this is better to me. This is a
Speaker 1: good idea. If I'm them, I'm definitely playing small more
Speaker 1: than I'm playing the ten to twelve minutes a game
Speaker 1: where Thomas Bryant and Tony Bradley are on the court,
Speaker 1: I would definitely do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it ties to the defensive end because I didn't
Speaker 2: like the way that I thought that Indiana gave up
Speaker 2: a lot of vertical spacing opportunities on the role, specifically
Speaker 2: to Hartenstein and that's what kind of I'm glad you
Speaker 2: brought up the Chet piece because we talked about this
Speaker 2: in our series preview. Like, I look at Chet as
Speaker 2: the best of both worlds with Hartenstein in the sense
Speaker 2: that he brings the same kind of vertical spacing element
Speaker 2: as a guy that can roll behind the defense, but
Speaker 2: that legitimately can guard on the perimeter in this whirling
Speaker 2: kind of offense. That said, even within that context, I
Speaker 2: think he's the smartest target point for Indiana to try
Speaker 2: to go after, just because he's a big body and
Speaker 2: if you can get him shifting one way or the other,
Speaker 2: that could help.
Speaker 1: The other thing with Chet is a lob threat to me, right,
Speaker 1: I always think Chet is a little bit better is
Speaker 1: a lob threat cutting baseline than he is in ball screens.
Speaker 1: I just think it allows him to load up a
Speaker 1: little bit easier on those like in those situations. But
Speaker 1: what that does is it means that like a lot
Speaker 1: of the ball screens will be set like guard to guard, right,
Speaker 1: And I would imagine that like figuring out an answer
Speaker 1: to the guard to guard screening actions and the small
Speaker 1: lineups or actually those are actually going to be the
Speaker 1: critical thing to me trying to figure out, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: how do we how do we handle the guard to guards?
Speaker 1: Are we just switching if it means we're getting Halliburton
Speaker 1: on Shay, or if it means we're getting you know,
Speaker 1: Obi Toppin onto Shay, or are we you know, gonna
Speaker 1: try and like hedge and recover a little bit with
Speaker 1: Halliburton and top In. Obviously you switch anything, nem Hardne Smith,
Speaker 1: I would think, but you know, what would your answer
Speaker 1: be to the way that you guard to guard ball
Speaker 1: screens if you're going smaller would be my question?
Speaker 2: I would switch. I thought that Halliburton's hedges straight up
Speaker 2: didn't work because Oklahoma City's guards were just slipping to
Speaker 2: the rim, particularly Cason Wallace. And I feel like Halliburton
Speaker 2: is at his best when he's going against like ghost
Speaker 2: screen guards that go to the three point line, because
Speaker 2: he's really good at getting out of the hedge with
Speaker 2: his hands up and making that pass kind of float
Speaker 2: over the top and being able to rotate relatively quick.
Speaker 2: But I think the traditional like kind of guard guard
Speaker 2: screen where the guard just slips to to the rim
Speaker 2: torch Haliburton I actually thought he did okay in his
Speaker 2: shase switches like okay, and like at least enough to
Speaker 2: make him hit a couple counter moves to where the
Speaker 2: help defense could get involved, and he actually did force
Speaker 2: a couple of misses. I know that's a lot to
Speaker 2: ask for Halliburton, but I'm worried that if they just
Speaker 2: let him hedge that it's going to end in a
Speaker 2: bunch of slips. But you're right, I mean going small,
Speaker 2: I think the entire game plan shifts more towards switching,
Speaker 2: because essentially the entire purpose of going small on both
Speaker 2: ends of the floor, it revolves around being able to
Speaker 2: attack chat in space more effectively and then being able
Speaker 2: to switch ball screens so that they don't have the
Speaker 2: issues they were having with the role man in the
Speaker 2: regular season. So I find that to be most likely
Speaker 2: a switching scheme if they were to go small.
Speaker 1: Okay, And then final final question here about this piece
Speaker 1: of it. If you go small, so do you just trust,
Speaker 1: if you're Oklahoma City, for Jalen Williams to be able
Speaker 1: to guard Siakam Because if you do that, then it's Toppin'.
Speaker 1: Then it's chet on topin And I would imagine they'll
Speaker 1: just leave top and open from three at that point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you could also talk me specifically because
Speaker 2: of the Oklahoma City matchup into them going into more guards.
Speaker 2: I actually put this, Actually, this is the perfect pivot
Speaker 2: to the next one. I had a different one for
Speaker 2: my second piece, but we'll circle back to that, should
Speaker 2: they because a lot of my Indiana on offense takes
Speaker 2: are geared around the idea that they're going to be
Speaker 2: face guarding Tyres Haliburton and ball pressuring in full court
Speaker 2: and some of the stuff with him kind of getting disengaged.
Speaker 2: Haliburton's usage rate in the regular season is low compared
Speaker 2: to other guards because of how quickly he gets rid
Speaker 2: of the ball, but even juxtapose with his normal usage rate,
Speaker 2: his usage rate against Oklahoma City was hilariously low. It
Speaker 2: was like twelve percent.
Speaker 1: So the one game, like he took like six shots
Speaker 1: or something like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that it was the first one early in the season,
Speaker 2: and he was aggressive in the second game as a
Speaker 2: three point shooter, but he wasn't really the same kind
Speaker 2: of like downhill force that he can usually be. So
Speaker 2: what I'm worried about because the other thing too, that
Speaker 2: kind of hammers that home is both Cleveland and New
Speaker 2: York had success to dying Halburton, and that's specifically leading
Speaker 2: to him kind of getting disengaged. So I'm kind of
Speaker 2: obsessed with this idea of how to make Haliburton useful
Speaker 2: as an off ball player in this series. So first,
Speaker 2: the third piece that I wrote down here to kind
Speaker 2: of circle back to your point about who this fifth
Speaker 2: guy should be, I think dribble penetration is going to
Speaker 2: be really important because when things really bogged down for
Speaker 2: Indiana against Oklahoma City, especially when they start to switch,
Speaker 2: they're gonna need someone who can beat the man in
Speaker 2: front of him. And all of a sudden, I start
Speaker 2: looking at TJ McConnell as an option. So I'm wondering if,
Speaker 2: obviously TJ makes no sense if you're going to be
Speaker 2: playing through Halliburton on ball. But let's say that Dort
Speaker 2: has a bunch of success against Haliburton early in the
Speaker 2: series with the niles and physicality, and Halliburton's just clearly
Speaker 2: super uncomfortable. You know, We're halfway through game two and
Speaker 2: he has like thirteen total points on like twelve shots,
Speaker 2: and we're like, something's gone going on. We gotta find
Speaker 2: a way to get Haliburton going, I would start to
Speaker 2: look at like a guard lineup that has TJ alongside Hallie,
Speaker 2: where he can one space the floor off the ball,
Speaker 2: but two I would be obsessed with using Halliburton as
Speaker 2: a screener in this series because if Dort's gonna hug
Speaker 2: up to him, then that's the best time to use
Speaker 2: him as a screener because either O Dort will have
Speaker 2: to help, which will get him separated from that pressure,
Speaker 2: or you're gonna get all sorts of dribble penetration off
Speaker 2: of Dort not helping on screens. But either way, I
Speaker 2: like the idea of having a guard like TJ who's
Speaker 2: big and plays bigger than he is, but that has
Speaker 2: the ability to beat the man in front of him
Speaker 2: off the dribble. Arguably that's his best NBA Trait is
Speaker 2: like he can get past his man, and so I
Speaker 2: think that suddenly becomes really valuable alongside a Halliburton lineup.
Speaker 1: Or he's not being aggressive, Yeah, no, this I completely
Speaker 1: agree with. I would expect that offensively, TJ will play
Speaker 1: a big role in this series just because they do
Speaker 1: need somebody who can get consistent penetration against Oklahoma City
Speaker 1: and I do think that TJ can just drive like
Speaker 1: Cason will be on him at times a great defender.
Speaker 1: Maybe you put Caruso on him at times. Maybe Cruso
Speaker 1: guards up the lineup. He's just so flexible in terms
Speaker 1: of what you can do with him that he's critical
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. But I think TJ can
Speaker 1: get downhill like in a way that is just effective
Speaker 1: almost against anybody. It's what happens when he gets to
Speaker 1: the paint that is the question, right, Like can he
Speaker 1: make the mid range jumper? Can he you know, get
Speaker 1: all the way downhill and get all the way to
Speaker 1: the rim. I think he might struggle there. But I
Speaker 1: agree with you totally in terms of the idea of
Speaker 1: using Haliburton as a screener, Like I would like I'd
Speaker 1: be looking at like double drags into flares right for
Speaker 1: Halliburton to be able to potentially try and get him loose.
Speaker 1: I'd be looking at like, you know, trying to run
Speaker 1: even like off ball action for Halliburton, where like you know,
Speaker 1: he's the screener, like you set like a double pin
Speaker 1: down like a rap pin or something where Halliburton is
Speaker 1: the initial screener and then you know the guy in
Speaker 1: the corner. Maybe it's like Obi toppin or something comes
Speaker 1: around and sets like a rap pin for him to
Speaker 1: come around and be able to like go up and
Speaker 1: get the ball right. Like, those ideas are really interesting
Speaker 1: to me in the series, Like, those are things that
Speaker 1: I would almost certainly try to look at. I think
Speaker 1: that that's gonna be huge because if you look at
Speaker 1: where the Knicks started to have success with Haliburton later
Speaker 1: in the series, it was the pickup point, right, like
Speaker 1: they would pick him up fifty sixty feet from the
Speaker 1: rim and say, hey, we're gonna make life a little
Speaker 1: bit harder on you. We're gonna make sure that you
Speaker 1: have to work for every single second that you're on
Speaker 1: the court here, especially whenever you're not running in transition,
Speaker 1: not off of a make any The key here for
Speaker 1: the Thunder almost to me, is like can their offensive
Speaker 1: efficiency be strong enough to where they can stop Indiana
Speaker 1: from running at the end of the day, because they
Speaker 1: will run off of missus, they will run off of turnovers.
Speaker 1: Like I think that against Oklahoma City, you probably struggle
Speaker 1: to run off of makes quite as often, just because
Speaker 1: of the fact that Oklahoma City doesn't really go for
Speaker 1: the offensive class regularly, Like, it's just not something that
Speaker 1: they do. I think they were like twenty first twenty
Speaker 1: seconds something like that in the league and offensive rebounding
Speaker 1: rate this year, so they're almost always have four guys back.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a little bit harder to run in transition,
Speaker 1: so you're gonna have to figure out ways to get
Speaker 1: offensive efficiency in the half court. And to me, making
Speaker 1: Haliburton a screener and then trying to get him loose
Speaker 1: off the ball, that's a really that's something I would
Speaker 1: absolutely do. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the last piece I had it and it all
Speaker 2: falls in the same lane is just Siakam Halliburton inverted
Speaker 2: ball screens. I think the series eventually tilts towards Jadubb
Speaker 2: guarding Siakam. I think Jadab has generally done a good
Speaker 2: job against some of these big scoring forwards. He's just
Speaker 2: built like a truck and he's got long arms, which
Speaker 2: I think is the big thing. That you can swipe
Speaker 2: at the basketball without getting out of position, which is key.
Speaker 2: But same sort of concept like imagine dort Now. I
Speaker 2: think Oklahoma City would inevitably just start switching this, But
Speaker 2: I think I like Haliburton's ability to potentially beat Jadub
Speaker 2: off the dribble more than I like him against Dort,
Speaker 2: And similarly, I think I like Dor. I think I
Speaker 2: like Siakam trying to score against Dort in the posts
Speaker 2: more than I like him trying to score against Jay
Speaker 2: Dub And so now inevitably I think Oklahoma City will
Speaker 2: double post ups over the course of the series. But
Speaker 2: I think that I would really really explore just Siakam
Speaker 2: at the top of the key with Haliburton as a
Speaker 2: screener and then Haliburton basically just slipping out to the
Speaker 2: three point line if they're gonna if they're not gonna switch,
Speaker 2: and if they do switch, then using both of those
Speaker 2: guys just having more favorable matchups. But to your point,
Speaker 2: and this is the more important piece of it all,
Speaker 2: I think Indiana is gonna be running less for buckets
Speaker 2: in this series because of Oklahoma City's transition defense, but
Speaker 2: running more for those transition cross matches, because I think
Speaker 2: those are gonna be the key to getting them earlier,
Speaker 2: easier opportunities in the half court.
Speaker 1: See. But and I know we're trying to look at
Speaker 1: this from like, how does Indiana win? That's what makes
Speaker 1: India That's what makes the thunder really really hard to
Speaker 1: deal with is because like, their cross matches are not
Speaker 1: always advantageous, right, uh, certainly not nearly marginally as advantageous
Speaker 1: as other teams cross matches are. Right, So, okay, we're
Speaker 1: cross matching in transition, right, we're getting uh oh wait,
Speaker 1: it's Caruso and Halliburton. Now it's uh it's Cason Wallace
Speaker 1: on Aaron Nesmith now right, Like It's it's hard, right,
Speaker 1: especially when you have a number of different bodies that
Speaker 1: I feel okay with guarding Siakam right, Like, like, I
Speaker 1: feel fine if Caruso is on Siakam, I feel fine.
Speaker 1: If Jalen is on Siakam, I feel certainly fine. If
Speaker 1: Cheta is on Siakam. Right, Shay is like, to me,
Speaker 1: the guy that you probably want to try and bring
Speaker 1: into the action defensively. And this isn't because sha as
Speaker 1: a bad defender. I certainly don't think he is. It's more,
Speaker 1: can you wear him down and kind of tire him
Speaker 1: out a little bit over the course of a series.
Speaker 1: The problem is in the finals there are two days
Speaker 1: between every game except for one, so it's a little
Speaker 1: bit trickier to even like try and go with the
Speaker 1: let's wear somebody down angle, because you know, it's just harder,
Speaker 1: but like maybe you can wear him down over the
Speaker 1: course of a game a little bit, like a small amount.
Speaker 1: Like who I would imagine that the way that they'll
Speaker 1: set this up is that Shay is gonna be guarding
Speaker 1: Nie Smith. We think, yeah, right, So like to me,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna set a bunch of Nie Smith screens early
Speaker 1: in the game. I want to make Shae try and
Speaker 1: guard early in games, is what I'm doing. If I'm Indiana.
Speaker 1: Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but at the very least,
Speaker 1: I'm making him work defensively and trying to make him
Speaker 1: engaged in the game defensively a little bit more often
Speaker 1: than what you know he might have to be. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: if he's able to play on Nie Smith and just
Speaker 1: sitting corner and then he's so long and covers ground
Speaker 1: so well that he's just going to be able to,
Speaker 1: you know, sit off of him and kind of relax
Speaker 1: a little bit, and then it's just very dangerous for
Speaker 1: Indiana on the other end, because then he's well rested,
Speaker 1: he's playing that free safety role in the back line.
Speaker 1: He'll probably get some steals doing that because he's so long.
Speaker 1: That's I think my goal early on would be to
Speaker 1: try and involve Shae in screens. Even though Shae is
Speaker 1: not a bad like on ball defender necessarily, I think.
Speaker 2: Shaye is a vehicle for them in a bunch of
Speaker 2: different ways. Like I think in situations where they can't
Speaker 2: push the ball at the floor in transition and they
Speaker 2: have to face up ball pressure, I think that Shay
Speaker 2: is an easy vehicle with which to like basically alleviate
Speaker 2: some of that. So essentially just let Nee Smith bring
Speaker 2: the ball to the floor, you know, when whenever Haliburton
Speaker 2: needs a break or when he's fatigued. Things along those lines.
Speaker 2: I think you mentioned using him as a screener. I
Speaker 2: even think I would hunt him off the ball with
Speaker 2: spot ups for aaron Ne Smith, because I think Aaron
Speaker 2: Smith is a very good spot up, close out attacker.
Speaker 2: And I think if I think, if if Dagnall has
Speaker 2: Shay doing what he did in the other series, where
Speaker 2: he's like quite literally in the paint the entire series,
Speaker 2: just as like a roamer, I think that's where you
Speaker 2: could end up burning him off ball with like those kickouts,
Speaker 2: like ultimately before we shift over to the defensive end
Speaker 2: of the floor. I think this series inevitably tilts as
Speaker 2: long as Indiana doesn't like quite literally soil themselves against
Speaker 2: all the ball pressure, which I just don't think they will.
Speaker 2: But if if they just as long as they don't
Speaker 2: like straight up soil themselves, they'll eventually take advantage of
Speaker 2: the openings in Oklahoma City's base scheme by moving the
Speaker 2: ball through it and getting those kickouts and knocking them
Speaker 2: down and just playing Indiana Pacers basketball.
Speaker 1: But the difference is the penetration is the key.
Speaker 2: If they can get penetration. But even like within that context,
Speaker 2: I like, for instance, like let's say, let's say that
Speaker 2: they're running ball screens on the right side of the
Speaker 2: floor with you know, or three man action on the
Speaker 2: right side of the floor with Haliburton and Turner and
Speaker 2: and you know, Nie Smith or something like that, they're
Speaker 2: gonna tag rollers and they're gonna pinch in and the
Speaker 2: skip pass is gonna be open, and Tyres is one
Speaker 2: of the very best players in the league at making
Speaker 2: the skip pass. So inevitably, I think the difference in
Speaker 2: between the two teams is that, uh, I don't know
Speaker 2: that Indiana has the same kind of defensive solutions that
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City has. Like Oklahoma City can be like, we're
Speaker 2: struggling to guard these actions, all right, guys, we're switching
Speaker 2: everything guard, stay home, off ball. Let's force these guys
Speaker 2: to play a bunch of one on one and let's
Speaker 2: see what happens. And like to your point, there's just
Speaker 2: not a favorable matchup out there. Like we were talking
Speaker 2: about the Siakam Halliburton ball screen, I think there's a
Speaker 2: good chance we see Caruso on Siakam a lot in
Speaker 2: this series and have him just switch onto guards in
Speaker 2: action and stuff like that. And so ultimately it comes
Speaker 2: down to the fact that Oklahoma City just has more solutions.
Speaker 2: But moving to the defensive end of the floor, the
Speaker 2: first thing I wrote down is just the ultimate load up,
Speaker 2: meaning bring Miles Tchurner up to the level every single time,
Speaker 2: help hard as the low man live in rotation. The
Speaker 2: thought probably as there is in this postseason, Oklahoma City
Speaker 2: is still converting spot up possessions at just zero point
Speaker 2: nine to six points per possession, which ranks tenth amongst
Speaker 2: sixteen playoff teams. Now, I would argue that in every
Speaker 2: big moment they've come through and hit those shots and
Speaker 2: driven those close outs and made plays. But I still
Speaker 2: think it's probably the best chance to slow this team
Speaker 2: down in the half court and then forcing bigs to
Speaker 2: score in the pocket, like bringing low man help more
Speaker 2: towards the rim and less like aggressively up in the
Speaker 2: middle and making those bigs like catch there. And they're
Speaker 2: still shooting just forty nine percent as role men in
Speaker 2: this postseason, and they're turning the ball over about ten
Speaker 2: percent of the time there. So essentially by just living
Speaker 2: in a super aggressive, loaded up traditional coverage where you're
Speaker 2: at the level coming over as the low man, digging
Speaker 2: into the paint, forcing them to basically score in the
Speaker 2: pocket and score on spot ups, I think is still
Speaker 2: the best base scheme that they could use in this matchup.
Speaker 1: Okay, so here here'd be my first question, where is
Speaker 1: the pickup point for you? Then I remember you picking
Speaker 1: Shae up.
Speaker 2: I would start the series picking him up full court
Speaker 2: just because that's your identity and just see how it goes.
Speaker 2: But I would be willing to bail on that quickly
Speaker 2: because Shaye is really good at turning ball pressure into
Speaker 2: dribble penetration. And Oklahoma City is really good at setting
Speaker 2: extended ball screens where they can get you into some trouble,
Speaker 2: like even as far out as half court, to just
Speaker 2: get you into a compromising position. So I would start there,
Speaker 2: but I would potentially if Shae beats the ball pressure easily,
Speaker 2: I would completely alter the pickup point to more of
Speaker 2: a contain approach where you're conceding pull up threes and
Speaker 2: you're ducking underpicks and you're like doing that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2: The I just I would. I'm a big believer in, like,
Speaker 2: don't pivot off of your identity until they knock you
Speaker 2: off of it. So like this is a ball pressure
Speaker 2: team that has lived with ball pressure all postseason. I
Speaker 2: would start with that, but I would I would pivot
Speaker 2: quickly if Shaye does what he did to Jada McDaniels
Speaker 2: and just gets past some before you even get into
Speaker 2: the half court.
Speaker 1: So I'm kind of working under the assumption that that's
Speaker 1: gonna happen because that's just what Shade does, right, Like,
Speaker 1: if you pick up high, he's gonna cause problems. And
Speaker 1: if you pick up high and he doesn't cause problems,
Speaker 1: then you're gonna give the ball to Jalen, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna set screens for Jalen, and then Jalen's gonna get
Speaker 1: downhill and he's gonna cause problems in terms of you
Speaker 1: picking up too high, so they have too many options
Speaker 1: to be able to handle the ball if you use
Speaker 1: the pickup point that high. I agree with you, and
Speaker 1: don't go away from your identity early in a series.
Speaker 1: I think you shouldn't do that. But I do think
Speaker 1: that the best way to guard this Oklahoma City team,
Speaker 1: and just generally, because what you're trying to do here,
Speaker 1: if you're Indiana, in my opinion, is you're trying to
Speaker 1: create variants on some level, right ye you are the underdog.
Speaker 1: You're trying to create variants. I'm trying to make them
Speaker 1: a three point shooting team, and I'm trying to make
Speaker 1: them a catch and shoot three point shooting team. Particularly
Speaker 1: or not, I'm sorry, I'll pull up shoot three point
Speaker 1: shooting team, not a catch and shoot three point shooting team.
Speaker 1: I want to avoid the catch and shoot three point
Speaker 1: shot as much as humanly possible. To me. The way
Speaker 1: to do that is you go under. Chase, you under,
Speaker 1: and like drop, even not drop, but like you play
Speaker 1: not a fool drop, but like slightly at the level, right,
Speaker 1: like slightly below the level. Maybe just make it so
Speaker 1: Shay can't walk into like eighteen footers, right, and then
Speaker 1: you led Jayden get back in recovery and then you
Speaker 1: make and then they're probably gonna adjust to like more
Speaker 1: guard to guard action, right, And that's fine to me
Speaker 1: as well. Maybe you just switch that depending on what
Speaker 1: your matchup is it it's Halliburton, I don't love that
Speaker 1: switch you maybe decide to. Yeah, like I just go
Speaker 1: I think I go under with Haliburton at that point
Speaker 1: and don't even like you don't hard heads. You just
Speaker 1: go under and drop and you make Shae beat you
Speaker 1: with pull up threes as opposed to pull up two's.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the other thing they could explore there too,
Speaker 2: is like using kind of a modified hedge where the
Speaker 2: on ball guy kind of drops back to chuck the
Speaker 2: cutter as Haliburton's throwing the hedge. Because ye my, it's
Speaker 2: like with the at the level coverage. The at the
Speaker 2: level coverage to me is not about taking away the
Speaker 2: pull up. It's about preventing him from getting ahead of
Speaker 2: steam like that. To me, that like, I I'm with
Speaker 2: you like I want I want Shay taking as many
Speaker 2: pull up jump shots as possible in this series. But
Speaker 2: I think if you run too aggressive of a drop
Speaker 2: and you let him get a runway, Yeah, it's one
Speaker 2: thing to be like it's fine, just go under the pick,
Speaker 2: but it's like all it takes is him just doing
Speaker 2: a nifty ball handling move where he gets you jumping
Speaker 2: under the pick and then he just reverses or something
Speaker 2: like that, and you could be in some serious trouble.
Speaker 2: So like that, that's the one thing where like I like,
Speaker 2: I feel like at the level is primarily serving the
Speaker 2: purpose of stopping the ball handler from getting ahead of
Speaker 2: steam the hedges. I don't have a good answer for you.
Speaker 2: The switch is bad with Haliburton. This like modified kind
Speaker 2: of like Chuck the cutter thing I'm talking about. It's
Speaker 2: all theoretical, like it's you're just that's just the reality
Speaker 2: of Tyres Haliburton being Tyres Haliburton and trying to guard
Speaker 2: in that sort of action. But I still think I
Speaker 2: would try switching over anything else. But I generally agree
Speaker 2: with you that, like the game plan of this particular
Speaker 2: matchup is to gear them towards the highest variance shot
Speaker 2: that they can take, which is literally a pull up
Speaker 2: jump shot for Shay or j Dubb. We talked about
Speaker 2: going small, that's the true one through five switchability, but
Speaker 2: that opens the door for offense rebounding in the same
Speaker 2: sort of problem that we talked about with Halliburton zone.
Speaker 2: The thing with zone, I was gonna.
Speaker 1: Bring it up.
Speaker 2: The Thunder struggled a bit with zone early in the
Speaker 2: Denver series, but they're averaging well over a point per
Speaker 2: possession against zone over their last six playoff games, Like
Speaker 2: they've been figuring that out, and it's just they just
Speaker 2: have guys that are a lot of guys who are
Speaker 2: comfortable working in the middle of the floor. And once again,
Speaker 2: this team, the overall like ball movement and spacing principles
Speaker 2: and just the awareness on offense is like so much
Speaker 2: high than it was last year. In my opinion, they
Speaker 2: could try some inventive zones like a three to two
Speaker 2: or a one to three one, but I think chet
Speaker 2: and Hartenstein and Caruso and Cason Wallace, I think all
Speaker 2: of those guys have been great with like teeing up
Speaker 2: and working along the baseline and like finding opportunities against
Speaker 2: any sort of like front loaded defense. So like I
Speaker 2: I think ultimately things come back down to what you
Speaker 2: just mentioned, which is like that contain the ball, forced
Speaker 2: them to play in drop some variation of drop, either
Speaker 2: a high dropper or a low dropper, a mid somewhere
Speaker 2: in the middle, and ducking under whenever possible, and basically
Speaker 2: just putting the ball handler into this like decision zone
Speaker 2: where it's like will I take this mediocre shot or
Speaker 2: will I attempt to continue to work things around.
Speaker 1: And it's not an either or thing, right Like, if
Speaker 1: I'm Rick Carlisle, I'm going into this series doing something
Speaker 1: very similar to what Denver did in terms of I'm
Speaker 1: not just sitting in a two three zone or I'm
Speaker 1: not just sitting in man demand. I'm giving him five
Speaker 1: different looks, you know what I mean? Like Denver in games,
Speaker 1: what was it like three four and five maybe if
Speaker 1: I remember correctly, they came out like a goofy one
Speaker 1: three to one, where like Jokic was on the left wing,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Like, and then they would
Speaker 1: sync back into like their normal two three zone, and
Speaker 1: then there'd be possessions where they played and drop, and
Speaker 1: then there'd be possessions where they hedged like they gave
Speaker 1: them different looks. And to me, you know, the days
Speaker 1: off going into the finals, the days off between games
Speaker 1: in the finals, that gives you ample opportunity to be
Speaker 1: able to throw some of these things in, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, you can throw in the idea of Okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to give them five different looks in the
Speaker 1: first quarter like Denver did. We're gonna say, hey, we
Speaker 1: need to be really solid with our two to three defense,
Speaker 1: where like Denver's two three was really interesting, Like they
Speaker 1: would lift Jokic pretty high toward like the foul line
Speaker 1: area in order to take away that ability for you know,
Speaker 1: Caruso to shoot into the foul line area or Check
Speaker 1: to shoot into the foul line area, or for Shay
Speaker 1: to feel comfortable once he got into that area because
Speaker 1: he'd always have someone to contest. And then they'd have
Speaker 1: the base, the back line guys in the corners, you know,
Speaker 1: rotate in and rotate out right. Like it was like
Speaker 1: a weird like almost like a two to one two
Speaker 1: like two three zone. Half the time, Like if if
Speaker 1: I'm them, I'm Indiana, I'm looking at it, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's throw some of those looks in. Let's throw some
Speaker 1: of those, like, let's throw a one to three one
Speaker 1: look in, Let's throw a man de man look in.
Speaker 1: And this is all very hard. This is all very
Speaker 1: difficult on the fly when you haven't done it all season. Right,
Speaker 1: this is the whole point of having all these days
Speaker 1: off and having a team that I frankly think is
Speaker 1: like filled with really freaking smart basketball players. Right, they
Speaker 1: can probably figure that, like this team of guys, Like
Speaker 1: I didn't really trust Minnesota's guys to figure it out,
Speaker 1: because both Aunt and Julius Randall are just not attentive
Speaker 1: enough off the ball defensively to be able to like
Speaker 1: effectively be able to play his own. But most of
Speaker 1: Indiana's guys are like pretty solid, Like even Tyreese is
Speaker 1: like a pretty solid off ball defender. He knows where
Speaker 1: he's supposed to rotate, he knows where he's supposed to go.
Speaker 1: If I'm them, I'm just throwing all sort of different
Speaker 1: looks at them. More than anything. I'm throwing different ball
Speaker 1: screen coverages. I'm throwing different occasional zone looks, And if
Speaker 1: I have some success, I see what's like you're throwing
Speaker 1: spaghetti at a wall. Whenever you have like a fork
Speaker 1: in the middle of the wall and you're seeing which
Speaker 1: strand falls onto the fork and stays hanging as opposed
Speaker 1: to falling to the ground. Right.
Speaker 2: I love this point that you're making because, like you
Speaker 2: talked about trying to breed veryperience as much as possible,
Speaker 2: and how I mean, even before we started talking about
Speaker 2: the series, just about the value of coaching, and when
Speaker 2: you have these extra days, you just have so much
Speaker 2: more time to implement these sort of things. I almost
Speaker 2: think of it like, you know, like in the NFL
Speaker 2: when they talk about like your first drive being scripted,
Speaker 2: and then you know, after you get off script, like
Speaker 2: how well can you, you know, play call in the moment.
Speaker 2: I almost feel like if you're gonna mix up coverages,
Speaker 2: you almost go into it with like an incredibly scripted
Speaker 2: approach where it's like, here's how we're coming out, here's
Speaker 2: what we're gonna do. After the first time out, as
Speaker 2: soon as they go to you know, this lineup, this
Speaker 2: is what we're gonna do. As soon as they go
Speaker 2: to that lineup, this is what we're gonna do. Then
Speaker 2: we're suddenly gonna come out in the second half and
Speaker 2: do this, and then when we're in an early fourth
Speaker 2: quarter stretch, when you know, this is how we anticipate
Speaker 2: the game to be going, this is what we're gonna do,
Speaker 2: just have like an incredibly scripted approach to the mixing
Speaker 2: up of coverages and essentially just calling your guys to
Speaker 2: spend their off days mentally engaged, kind of figuring out
Speaker 2: how they're gonna do that kind of stuff, because to
Speaker 2: your point, they're gonna need every inch. They're gonna need
Speaker 2: every inch to win this series. And so before we
Speaker 2: wrap up today, I said on my show that I
Speaker 2: would be absolutely stunned if Indiana won. I picked Oklahoma
Speaker 2: City in five. I'm having a really hard time even
Speaker 2: conceptualizing a universe where they win this series. Why don't
Speaker 2: you just tell us, like your thirty thousand feet like
Speaker 2: outlook on the series in terms of who you think
Speaker 2: is gonna win, how you expect the series to go,
Speaker 2: just like what your read is on the series from
Speaker 2: your perspective.
Speaker 1: I also picked Oklahoma City in five in on my show.
Speaker 1: I think that they're gonna throw just so many different
Speaker 1: bodies at Halliburton. The thunder are gonna throw so many
Speaker 1: different bodies at Halliburton, and then they also have bodies
Speaker 1: like you can have two different primary defenders each game
Speaker 1: to throw at Halliburton and Nemhard to be able to
Speaker 1: just slow them down and annoy them. And then you're
Speaker 1: making at that point, Nie Smith Siakam be the guys
Speaker 1: that either bring them all off the court or have
Speaker 1: to initiate offense or whatever you want to do in
Speaker 1: order to have a real degree of effectiveness if those
Speaker 1: guys get wiped out, so that worries me offensively. I mean,
Speaker 1: look like the numbers say that Oklahoma City has been
Speaker 1: better with the five out alignment of Chet at the
Speaker 1: five and then four small guys jadab typically at the four. Right,
Speaker 1: I am interested to see what the two big lineup
Speaker 1: looks like against the Pacers, if only because I think
Speaker 1: that because they do generally kind of abandon the offensive
Speaker 1: glass outside of Hartenstein, that they might have a little
Speaker 1: bit more success than teams like Cleveland in New York
Speaker 1: did against Indiana in terms of just being able to
Speaker 1: get all the way back in transit and avoid cross
Speaker 1: matches in significant ways. The big things that really worry
Speaker 1: me though, for the Pacers here are we're talking about
Speaker 1: this all in a manner in which we know that
Speaker 1: like they're entirely healthy, and like Miles Turner to me,
Speaker 1: has not moved quite as well as he was early
Speaker 1: in the playoffs since he went down the tunnel in
Speaker 1: game two, if I remember correctly of the Knick series,
Speaker 1: like I mean, Carl Towns like absolutely obliterated him in
Speaker 1: that series in any like bench unit situation. I was like,
Speaker 1: I did not love the way he was moving. And
Speaker 1: then Aaron Nesmith as well obviously Sprain's's ankle or whatever
Speaker 1: in game what was that four? Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Game five?
Speaker 2: Maybe yea. And he hasn't been as impactful since he
Speaker 2: came back yet.
Speaker 1: He hasn't been as impactful and just hasn't like played
Speaker 1: more than twenty minutes in a game yet. So like,
Speaker 1: if he can't play a ton of a ton of minutes,
Speaker 1: jars Walker is gonna miss the first two games of
Speaker 1: this series as well. And like you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: sitting here saying that I think Jarris Walker is like
Speaker 1: an impact player by any stretch of the imagination in
Speaker 1: an NBA Finals, I mean, maybe down the road, but
Speaker 1: I don't really know what to expect from him even
Speaker 1: when he gets back and losing him gives you like
Speaker 1: another chess piece that you can throw down at the table.
Speaker 1: Here having Tony Bradley and Thomas Bryant like you probably
Speaker 1: play them like minutes of this series unless Obi top
Speaker 1: Im proves that he's able to like play the five
Speaker 1: consistently and frankly, Rick Carlisle proves that he's willing to
Speaker 1: play small consistently, which like he hasn't done yet. Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: I think they steal one for sure because I just
Speaker 1: have an immense amount of faith in this Indiana team.
Speaker 1: But the biggest thing for me here is look like
Speaker 1: I had Oklahoma City. I don't even think I picked
Speaker 1: a winner of these two in the preseason. I had
Speaker 1: Oklahoma City in Boston as the two teams that I
Speaker 1: thought would be in finals in the preseason. I picked
Speaker 1: Oklahoma City. At the start of the playoffs, Like, I
Speaker 1: think we're just way underrating how good this team is
Speaker 1: and how well they've been built. This is a genuinely
Speaker 1: historic defense that they've built. That they are one of
Speaker 1: the best defensive teams I've ever watched play in my
Speaker 1: entire life, and they have an MVP candidate to be
Speaker 1: able to get them enough on offense, and they have
Speaker 1: the five out structure to be able to play well
Speaker 1: enough on offense to be able to make it work.
Speaker 1: Like they have Shay Gills Alexander who could probably retire
Speaker 1: now and be a Hall of Famer. They have Chet
Speaker 1: and Jalen Williams, who, like frankly like if they go
Speaker 1: down and become Hall of Famers, I don't think anybody
Speaker 1: should be surprised based on what they've shown so far.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to sit here and say these guys
Speaker 1: are Hall of Famers right now, but like that trajectory
Speaker 1: is very open to them still in a real way.
Speaker 1: And they just have like a tremendous number of role
Speaker 1: players that are really hard to deal with. So they
Speaker 1: won sixty eight games and have a like elite elite defense.
Speaker 1: This might just be like a truly great team, right,
Speaker 1: It's okay, Like it's okay for the Pacers to lose
Speaker 1: like a truly truly great team, And I think that
Speaker 1: that's kind of where this is setting up at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting because, like I think some of the
Speaker 2: criticism of Oklahoma City going into the postseason was fair
Speaker 2: in the sense that, like their offense was rickety. And
Speaker 2: guess what, every time they lost in this postseason, it
Speaker 2: was rickety. Like all four of their losses, their half
Speaker 2: court offensive rating was below ninety, and they and it
Speaker 2: was close. Like they were down nine in Game five
Speaker 2: of the Nuggets series in the fourth quarter, they were
Speaker 2: down eight in Game four of the Nugget series in
Speaker 2: the fourth quarter. They could have been a second round exit,
Speaker 2: but to their credit, they conquered their demons in those
Speaker 2: moments and got the job done. And so like it.
Speaker 2: I thought Oklahoma City had all the markers of one
Speaker 2: of those great teams, but I thought the skepticism surrounding
Speaker 2: them was also fair. I had them second going into
Speaker 2: the postseason, behind Boston just because I looked at Boston
Speaker 2: is essentially a team that could reach not that same
Speaker 2: level defensively, but a very high level defensively, but also
Speaker 2: just a more experienced, veteran reliable offense. And that ended
Speaker 2: up being completely wrong, as Boston quite literally fell apart
Speaker 2: in that Nick series. But I agree with you, like
Speaker 2: I think I think Indiana gets Game three. I think
Speaker 2: it's completely reasonable to think that Indiana can get a
Speaker 2: game based on that rickety offense, Like they're they just
Speaker 2: have the ability still to go very cold, and their
Speaker 2: guard initiators are still somewhat prone to stretches of poor
Speaker 2: decision making that you can you can see them losing
Speaker 2: a game their defense. Though I'm one hundred percent with you.
Speaker 2: I think it's one of the greats. I listed this
Speaker 2: earlier today on our other pod, because our actual full
Speaker 2: series preview pod, because I was just so fascinated by
Speaker 2: the line of just body bags that Oklahoma City has
Speaker 2: left behind in this postseason, Desmond Bayne had a three
Speaker 2: for twelve with four turnovers, A three for fourteen with
Speaker 2: five turnovers, Jaron Jackson at two for thirteen with four points,
Speaker 2: Jared Jackson at three for twelve, Jokics for three straight games,
Speaker 2: went thirty three percent from the field eighteen percent from
Speaker 2: three with more turnovers than assists. Julius Randall a two
Speaker 2: for eleven with six points and one for seven with
Speaker 2: five points. Like they have like straight up embarrassed some
Speaker 2: of the better players in our league, and I think
Speaker 2: they have the potential to do that again. Like we
Speaker 2: didn't even talk about it, but like I think there's
Speaker 2: a chance to Tyres Haliburton. We leave this series thinking
Speaker 2: of him very differently because of the damage that this
Speaker 2: team can do. Like, in my opinion, all time great
Speaker 2: is something that you start throwing around when you win
Speaker 2: multiple championships. But speaking strictly within the scope of one season,
Speaker 2: I'd argue this since since like Kobe's last title in
Speaker 2: twenty ten, Like, if you went from like twenty eleven
Speaker 2: moving forward, it's the twenty seventeen Warriors, and then I
Speaker 2: think it would be this team. I think they would
Speaker 2: be the next team on that list. Like I think
Speaker 2: they've been more dominant and more successful against tougher competition
Speaker 2: than like the twenty thirteen eat. You know, like if
Speaker 2: you really dig into it, like i'd argue, I'd probably
Speaker 2: like if you're if you're asking me who i'd taken
Speaker 2: a series, I'd probably take the twenty thirteen heat because
Speaker 2: it's like Lebron and Dayne Wade. But like if you're
Speaker 2: just strictly speaking of like what's happening within the season,
Speaker 2: what did they accomplish. We've discussed this Western Conference as
Speaker 2: being an absolute blood bath going into the season, and
Speaker 2: guess what, it was an absolute blood bath. We talked
Speaker 2: about there being seven legitimate contenders in the Western Conference,
Speaker 2: and they've won it. They won the conference, and they
Speaker 2: won it relatively easily. Obviously a little bit of a
Speaker 2: threat from Denver. They've played some really good teams. I
Speaker 2: think it's pretty undeniable that if they close this out,
Speaker 2: they're one of the great single season champions. Obviously, you
Speaker 2: got to sustain, and the NBA has a weird way
Speaker 2: of just positioning new adversity and your path. Just ask
Speaker 2: Celtics fans, like as they lose to in a series,
Speaker 2: they were a minus eight hundred favorite. But yeah, like
Speaker 2: i I've been so, I thought game I thought Game
Speaker 2: four against Minnesota was the defining moment of this playoff
Speaker 2: run in the sense that you have Shay putting together
Speaker 2: probably the best individual game of his career in that
Speaker 2: like he was fake that Minnesota completely shifted their scheme
Speaker 2: and played a very similar type of like pack. The
Speaker 2: paint forced him to make decisions and over the top
Speaker 2: shots to what Oklahoma said he was doing to ant
Speaker 2: and he had forty and ten assists in that same game.
Speaker 2: J dub, the guy who's been consistently criticized as a
Speaker 2: guy who doesn't show up, just was fucking awesome. And
Speaker 2: then Chet Holmgren hitting huge catch and shoot threes, their
Speaker 2: defense hold it like Game four against Minnesota to me
Speaker 2: was like the kids growing up and them showing that
Speaker 2: all of the demons that stood in their way they
Speaker 2: were able to conquer and get the job done. And
Speaker 2: I think they absolutely are one of those special teams.
Speaker 2: And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they won the
Speaker 2: title again next year. I mean, honestly, let me just
Speaker 2: this will be my last little thing towards to ask you,
Speaker 2: what do you if you, let's say Oklahoma City wins,
Speaker 2: what do you think would be the preseason odds for
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City to win the title next year?
Speaker 1: Plus one fifty plus two hundred. So here's my thing.
Speaker 1: Is san Antonio getting y honest? If san Antonio gets Yannis,
Speaker 1: I think they're an immediate title contender, just point blank.
Speaker 1: I agree, straight up. If they get Yannis and like
Speaker 1: some or if somebody else gets honest, like I'm I'm
Speaker 1: willing to hear that out for sure, and I think
Speaker 1: those odds would change in some way. But going without
Speaker 1: knowing who that is, without knowing where Duran is going,
Speaker 1: I think they open quite low. I would say in
Speaker 1: terms of the odds, not quite like like to me,
Speaker 1: it's like, you know Scotti Scheffler in golf right now,
Speaker 1: you know somebody that like bets on golf, right Like
Speaker 1: Scotti Scheffler has won like his last three tournaments, right
Speaker 1: and I think we're looking at it's something like he
Speaker 1: wins like once every like four times. He wants every
Speaker 1: three or four times he plays right, so and like
Speaker 1: with the way he's playing right now, like I kind
Speaker 1: of think he should be like plus one hundred to
Speaker 1: plus one fifty every single time that he takes the
Speaker 1: course because it's just ridiculous, Like he's so far ahead
Speaker 1: of everybody. It's like a tiger effect thing right now.
Speaker 1: I kind of think that given that this is the
Speaker 1: year before Oklahoma City gets expensive and there are gonna
Speaker 1: be decisions that have to be made in the summer
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty six, maybe even starting this year, where
Speaker 1: they have to figure things out in order to get
Speaker 1: ahead of it. But they also have like a million
Speaker 1: draft picks to get ahead of it too, and they
Speaker 1: do a pretty good job drafting. They're not like infallible,
Speaker 1: like they will take Uzban Jangen Dylan Jones sometimes, but
Speaker 1: like they're pretty damn good at drafting, right, so they're
Speaker 1: really well equipped to keep this thing going. And really
Speaker 1: the financial problems don't start next year, they start the
Speaker 1: year after. So it's yeah, like they should be very
Speaker 1: much the favorite going into next year. Old Like, even
Speaker 1: if they lose the series, I think they should be
Speaker 1: the favorite going into next year because Jalen and Ched
Speaker 1: aren't getting worse. Guys, Like, those guys are gonna get better.
Speaker 1: Ched Olgrin is like scratching the surface of how good
Speaker 1: he's gonna be. He's nowhere near that level yet, is
Speaker 1: the crazy thing. So yeah, to me, yeah, this team
Speaker 1: is awesome. And by the way, like Jadub can we
Speaker 1: like just like chill on the like, hey, is this
Speaker 1: guy like a failure or whatever? Is this guy like
Speaker 1: a guy who doesn't raise the occasion. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: you did that obviously, but you know in the Minnesota
Speaker 1: series twenty two points, seven rebounds, four assists, shooting forty
Speaker 1: nine forty six eighty three. In the Memphis series, I
Speaker 1: thought he was their best player. Scored over twenty points
Speaker 1: every game, you know, shot twenty three five and five
Speaker 1: on fifty four, twenty nine sixty like they didn't really
Speaker 1: need him to go nuts, but he's still did it
Speaker 1: most nights and the efficiency can go from time to time.
Speaker 1: But like his ability to create shots and then he's
Speaker 1: doing it also while being one of the fifteen best
Speaker 1: defenders in the league too. It's crazy he is. I
Speaker 1: continue to say this. We did a show on my podcast,
Speaker 1: what like maybe a year and twenty year in two
Speaker 1: months ago, year in three months ago, like the guys
Speaker 1: that are like rising stars in the NBA, right, like
Speaker 1: the guys that aren't getting talked about enough. And my
Speaker 1: first pick was Jalen Williams because it's like, I do
Speaker 1: not think people understand how hard it is to find
Speaker 1: this skill set in a single player who can shoot,
Speaker 1: create his own shot, defend at a high level, switch
Speaker 1: against one through like four and a half, let's call it,
Speaker 1: like these guys are impossible to find like he is.
Speaker 1: This is like a Jimmy Butler. This is like this
Speaker 1: era is coming Up's Jimmy Butler and he might get
Speaker 1: one like when he's twenty three or twenty four years old.
Speaker 1: Is where we're at, Like, yeah, he.
Speaker 2: Has the competitiveness too. There's just there's like there's like
Speaker 2: a layer of competitiveness that really I think goes down
Speaker 2: the roster with Oklahoma City. We were actually talking about
Speaker 2: this on play back the other night, Like I would
Speaker 2: argue that that's one of the most underrated basketball trades.
Speaker 2: It's like how much of a how much do you
Speaker 2: hate losing? Like how much are you willing to put
Speaker 2: it on the line to prevent the loss? And he's
Speaker 2: just one of those classic guys. I think it's so
Speaker 2: funny that you said we literally landed on the exact
Speaker 2: same number. We had a little exercise where we were like,
Speaker 2: what what would be the championship odds for Oklahoma City
Speaker 2: at open next year? And we both said the same
Speaker 2: thing right around that one fifty plus one fifty range.
Speaker 2: I I'm not as worried about the big picture costs
Speaker 2: stuff because I think I think I think they're just
Speaker 2: I think they're literally just going to try to use
Speaker 2: the draft to find supplemental role player talent. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: think that's what they're gonna do. I think they're gonna
Speaker 2: I think they're gonna have their max guys, and I
Speaker 2: think they're just gonna rotate through trusting their draft department.
Speaker 2: I like, I don't think they're going to trade a
Speaker 2: bunch of draft picks for their generations. Dorian Finney Smith.
Speaker 2: You know what I mean, Like they're gonna for a
Speaker 2: twenty million dollar role player. They're gonna be targeting smart
Speaker 2: upperclassmen that have been playing in organized programs for great
Speaker 2: coaches that they can trust to come in and play
Speaker 2: ten to fifteen minutes in a playoff game. You know,
Speaker 2: basically the case on Wallace types. Uh, Like they're gonna
Speaker 2: be They're gonna be hunting those guys NonStop. And I
Speaker 2: think they'll pivot off of expensive role players and they'll
Speaker 2: trust their core, and I think they're here to stay,
Speaker 2: and I think that is an excellent coach.
Speaker 1: You bring up like the competitiveness thing, and like the
Speaker 1: basketball I qu thing, this is part of their process,
Speaker 1: Like this is what they look for, Like this is
Speaker 1: exactly what they're I've been talking about this for multiple
Speaker 1: years now. They look for dribble, pass, shoot, defend, real
Speaker 1: positional size, length, and competitiveness. Like those are the things
Speaker 1: that if you have those boxes and you tick those boxes,
Speaker 1: you can play for this team. If you can't, then
Speaker 1: you're you know, not everybody's gonna tick every single one
Speaker 1: of those boxes, but you need to be able to
Speaker 1: like potentially get there at some point to be able
Speaker 1: to tick that box. And you know, if you don't
Speaker 1: hit a certain threshold in all of those categories, you
Speaker 1: probably are not an Oklahoma City Thunder guy. And to me,
Speaker 1: they were just so far ahead of it in terms
Speaker 1: of the rest of the league where they knew that
Speaker 1: these guys were the most valuable guys and they put
Speaker 1: their stamp on it by going out and getting Alex
Speaker 1: Caruso this summer through our tourist carness of this incompetence,
Speaker 1: but like you know, they're always there to take advantage
Speaker 1: of those front offices that maybe don't value a player
Speaker 1: quite a quite enough and get the right value for them.
Speaker 2: So yeah, anybody, anybody could have traded for Drew Holiday,
Speaker 2: you know, anybody gelt like these guys are a lot.
Speaker 2: It's the it's the market inefficiency right now, Like, how
Speaker 2: how how often in this playoff run did we see
Speaker 2: a really good player? I thought Julius Randall was the
Speaker 2: latest example in that in like Game four of the
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City series, where like when things don't go their way,
Speaker 2: they just kind of shut down, like there's a lot
Speaker 2: of guys who are like that, Like it's it's like
Speaker 2: a fight or flight response, and like you, when the
Speaker 2: shit gets tough, do you have a dude who like
Speaker 2: knuckles down and like really tries to just find a
Speaker 2: way to impact winning one way or another. It's I
Speaker 2: think it's I think it's such an important foundational basketball trade.
Speaker 2: But Sam, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to
Speaker 2: come on the show. Tell everybody where they can find
Speaker 2: your work.
Speaker 1: Go to the Game Theory podcast over on YouTube. We
Speaker 1: just passed like forty thousand subscribers, so we're doing great
Speaker 1: over there. We appreciate you guys immensely for coming over
Speaker 1: and hitting that button. Go go to the Athletic Keep
Speaker 1: Me Employed over there, where I write about the NBA
Speaker 1: Draft as well the NBA Draft Guide, which is the big,
Speaker 1: like one hundred and fifty thousand word thing I write
Speaker 1: about all of the prospects in the draft that will
Speaker 1: be forthcoming relatively soon. I don't want to put a
Speaker 1: date on it because I don't want to jinx the
Speaker 1: fact that if I put a date on it, things
Speaker 1: could get hairy. But like could be as soon his
Speaker 1: next week, let's say so. Once that goes live. Go
Speaker 1: hit the subscribe button, go hit the you know, go
Speaker 1: go subscribe to the New York Times and all that
Speaker 1: stuff where I go work.
Speaker 2: So yeah, and guys, Sam and I talked before the show.
Speaker 2: He will be coming on at some point later in
Speaker 2: the month to he's I think he's the best guy
Speaker 2: cover in the draft, and so we're as you guys know,
Speaker 2: I basically completely ignore the draft until right after the finals,
Speaker 2: and so although there's been a little bit more Cooper Flag,
Speaker 2: you know, kind of motivation this year, but like we're
Speaker 2: gonna have Sam on and we're gonna talk a lot
Speaker 2: of NBA Draft stuff when we get later into the month. Sam, again,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for the time. I will give
Speaker 2: you a call sometime in the next week too, so
Speaker 2: we can catch up and just see how you're doing
Speaker 2: over there. But as always, we appreciate you guys for
Speaker 2: supporting us and supporting the show. Make sure you guys
Speaker 2: head over and subscribe to Sam's YouTube channel and his
Speaker 2: work on the Athletic and we will see you guys
Speaker 2: tomorrow for the top five storylines of the NBA Finals.