Speaker 1: The volume. It's the most wonderful time of the year
Speaker 1: for getting in on all of the hoops, football, and
Speaker 1: hockey action at Draft Kings Sportsbook. In the season of giving,
Speaker 1: We're being gifted college football and basketball, Pro football and
Speaker 1: basketball and pro hockey too. Almost twenty four to seven.
Speaker 1: So many games every day, so many opportunities to place
Speaker 1: your first bet. Try betting on something simple like picking
Speaker 1: a team to win. Go to the Draft Kings sportsbook
Speaker 1: Gap and place your bet. Current Super Bowl winners on
Speaker 1: DraftKings right now the Detroit Lions at plus two sixty
Speaker 1: and the Kansas City Chiefs at plus four to twenty five.
Speaker 1: And here's a gift for all new customers. Bet five
Speaker 1: dollars to get one hundred and fifty dollars in bonus
Speaker 1: bets if your bet wins. Download the Draft King Sportsbook
Speaker 1: Gap and use code hoops that's h oops. That's code
Speaker 1: hoops for new customers to get one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: dollars in bonus bets if your bet wins. When you
Speaker 1: bet just five bucks, Happy Holidays from DraftKings. The Crown
Speaker 1: is yours gambling problem called one eight hundred gambler in
Speaker 1: New York call eight seven seven eight hope and why,
Speaker 1: or text hope and why to four six seven three
Speaker 1: six nine. In Connecticut, help us available for problem gambling
Speaker 1: Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven
Speaker 1: seven or visit CCPG dot org. Please play responsibly on
Speaker 1: behalf of Boothill Casino and Resort in Kansas twenty one plus.
Speaker 1: Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction void in Ontario. Bet
Speaker 1: must win to receive award. Bonus bets expire one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty eight hours after issuance. For additional terms and
Speaker 1: responsible gaming resources to dkang dot co slash b Ball.
Speaker 1: All right, welcome to Hoops Tonight. You're at the volume.
Speaker 1: Happy Friday, everybody helpe. All of you guys had a
Speaker 1: great week. Friday's mailbag Day. So I've got like thirteen
Speaker 1: fourteen questions that you guys dropped in the comments over
Speaker 1: the course of the last week that we're gonna be hitting,
Speaker 1: bouncing all around the league. You guys know the drill
Speaker 1: before we get started. Subscribed to the Hoops Tonight YouTube
Speaker 1: channels you don't miss any more of our videos. Follow
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at underscore JCNLTS. You guys don't miss
Speaker 1: show announcements. Don't forget about our podcast feed where if
Speaker 1: you get your podcast under Hoops Tonight, don't forget it's
Speaker 1: helpful if you leave a rating and a review there.
Speaker 1: We also have brand new social media feeds on Twitter, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and Facebook for the Hoops Tonight channel. We're releasing more
Speaker 1: content throughout the year. Make sure you follow us there.
Speaker 1: And the last but not least, keep dropping mail back
Speaker 1: questions in those YouTube comments so we can keep getting
Speaker 1: to them on Fridays throughout the rest of the season.
Speaker 1: All right, this first question one I actually think is
Speaker 1: super fascinating and I'm excited to get into it a
Speaker 1: little bit. Hello, Jason, Who has a better chance of
Speaker 1: winning an NBA championship in the next three to five years?
Speaker 1: Is it the Rockets or the Magic Very interesting on
Speaker 1: a couple of different levels, because there's a bunch of
Speaker 1: variables involved, Like, for instance, one of the variables, Orlando's
Speaker 1: in the Eastern Conference, so it's less likely that they'd
Speaker 1: have to win four playoff rounds against elite teams, whereas
Speaker 1: for Houston they will almost certainly have to beat four
Speaker 1: consecutive elite teams to win a championship. Also, Houston is
Speaker 1: far more likely to make a more aggressive trade because
Speaker 1: they've got kind of a logjam in their rotations, some
Speaker 1: guys that are awkward fits. You'll wonder about a guy
Speaker 1: like Jalen Green and if he's ready to lead this roster.
Speaker 1: And so I could see a team like Houston panicking
Speaker 1: is the wrong word, but just pushing their chips in Earlier.
Speaker 1: That said, in terms of the organic talent that they
Speaker 1: have in house, I think Orlando is more capable of
Speaker 1: reaching the championship level in house without having to make
Speaker 1: some sort of all in trade than Houston is. So,
Speaker 1: for instance, when I look at Houston and I look
Speaker 1: at their core pieces, I know what Shangon is. I
Speaker 1: think Shangoon would be. I talked about this a little
Speaker 1: bit in the Thursday Show. But if Shangguon becomes a
Speaker 1: better jump shooter and a little bit better on defense,
Speaker 1: I think he can be the second best player on
Speaker 1: a championship team if you pair him with an elite
Speaker 1: like perimeter player that he can play two man game with.
Speaker 1: I think that's a really solid foundation. But if I
Speaker 1: look at Jalen Green, a guy that I think still
Speaker 1: has potential to reach a pretty high level in this league,
Speaker 1: but he's pretty far away from that at this point.
Speaker 1: Jabari Smith Junior, I think is a very good player
Speaker 1: all around, but he's certainly not that number one option
Speaker 1: type of perimeter talent. Fred Van Vliet isn't that guy either,
Speaker 1: So like, and you know Reachepperd. We got a question
Speaker 1: about Reachepperd later in the show, but read Shepherd. We
Speaker 1: don't know what he's gonna be yet, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: look like he's gonna be a number one perimeter initiator, right.
Speaker 1: So Like as I look at Houston, it's like I
Speaker 1: have this thing that I understand really well in Shingoon,
Speaker 1: but the rest of the guys, it's like, who are
Speaker 1: they gonna be? Like what about a Men Thompson? Like like,
Speaker 1: I don't know what a Men Thompson's gonna be, but
Speaker 1: he could in five years be a really high level
Speaker 1: offensive player because of his feel for the game if
Speaker 1: he polishes things up on a skill level. So, like
Speaker 1: Houston in house talent, not quite sure what they're gonna
Speaker 1: be yet. Orlando, I feel like Palo Franz and Jalen
Speaker 1: Suggs are are as as sure a thing as you'll
Speaker 1: find for like a core big three to build around. Now,
Speaker 1: Jamal Mosley and those guys are going to have to
Speaker 1: figure how to play for each other and with each
Speaker 1: other better than they have as they've been underachieving on
Speaker 1: the offensive end relative to their talent. But I do
Speaker 1: think the in house talent with Orlando makes more sense.
Speaker 1: So would that be the case. Who has a better
Speaker 1: chance of winning an NBA championship in the next three
Speaker 1: to five years. I'm gonna say Orlando, but I think
Speaker 1: there's always that chance that Houston just gets super aggressive,
Speaker 1: jumps in and gets some superstar. They put him on
Speaker 1: that roster with that elite defense and with Shangun kind
Speaker 1: of anchoring things as the other half of that partnership,
Speaker 1: and I could see Houston getting it done. So again,
Speaker 1: both teams have the chance. Orlando might more likely to
Speaker 1: do it organically, and because of that, I think they're
Speaker 1: more likely overall, because that's the other part too, is hard.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be hard to convince the superstar to really
Speaker 1: want to go to Houston too, so they might have
Speaker 1: some limitations and what they could do on a trade anyway,
Speaker 1: Thank you Jason for the video. A mailbag question what
Speaker 1: do you think so far this season of the league
Speaker 1: parody between the two conferences, let's say strictly the first
Speaker 1: six teams of each conference. It looks like the Magic,
Speaker 1: Knicks and Calves have all taken leaps and the Rockets,
Speaker 1: to me, are not going to sustain this level of success.
Speaker 1: Oka See is Legit is very much legit. Though, let
Speaker 1: us know, thanks again for the great content. A couple
Speaker 1: stats of eighteen teams in the NBA right now that
Speaker 1: are five hundred are better. Eleven of them are in
Speaker 1: the West, so it's evened out from where it was
Speaker 1: at the start of the year, but still a substantial
Speaker 1: advantage there. In ninety seven head to head matchups, the
Speaker 1: West is fifty six and forty one so far this year.
Speaker 1: It's a fifty eight percent win percentage. It's pretty high.
Speaker 1: My contender rankings as of right now. If I was
Speaker 1: ranking my top four, Boston is a clear number one
Speaker 1: to me. Okay, See is a clear number two, Dallas
Speaker 1: is a clear number three. Number four is up in
Speaker 1: the air, but I think I'd go Dallas or Denver,
Speaker 1: excuse me. So like for me, if I'm ranking the
Speaker 1: top four championship contenders, I still have three Western Conference
Speaker 1: teams in there. But if I go to five and six,
Speaker 1: I think I go New York Knicks, and then I
Speaker 1: think I go Cleveland Cavaliers. So three of the top
Speaker 1: teams and the best team are in the East. So
Speaker 1: with that being said, I think the top of the
Speaker 1: East is every bit as good as the top of
Speaker 1: the West, if not a little better because of that
Speaker 1: Boston factor. But there's no doubt that the depth of talent,
Speaker 1: the depth of star talent, the head to head stuff,
Speaker 1: it's all pretty clear that the Western Conference is substantially
Speaker 1: stronger and tougher on a night in, night out basis
Speaker 1: than the Eastern Conference. Despite Chet being out for a
Speaker 1: considerable amount of time, the OKC Thunder have still been
Speaker 1: comfortably the best defensive team in the league. With this
Speaker 1: being said, do you think Chet's impact defensively isn't as
Speaker 1: big as we thought? A couple things. First of all,
Speaker 1: there's a difference between like big picture defensive ratings stuff
Speaker 1: and like how good are we when the Chips are
Speaker 1: down defensively against an elite offense in a high leverage situation? Right,
Speaker 1: So here's the thing. The Thunder are super good defensively
Speaker 1: on the perimeter that is the most important spot to
Speaker 1: be really good defensively. Also isay, Hartenstein provides a pretty
Speaker 1: high floor defensively. We're gonna there's a conversation that we're
Speaker 1: gonna have here in a few questions that centers around
Speaker 1: what the most valuable type of role player is and
Speaker 1: we're gonna be bringing up Hartenstein as an example. And
Speaker 1: like he's not an elite defensive player, but he's very
Speaker 1: good in drop coverage, you can defend a little bit
Speaker 1: on switches, and he's a good rebounder. So like overall,
Speaker 1: like a guy like that is a decent foundation for
Speaker 1: them to go around defensively. Like, for instance, like with
Speaker 1: you having an elite perimeter defense, a guy like Hartenstein
Speaker 1: is like everything you need in order to continue to
Speaker 1: like build out a strong defensive foundation. That said, when
Speaker 1: Sheet comes back, the unique thing with Chet is he's
Speaker 1: both he is an elite rim protector that bothers a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff around the rim while also being a
Speaker 1: pretty quick perimeter athlete who can cover ground and can
Speaker 1: cover ground well. So like the thing is is like
Speaker 1: OKC is maintaining a high level defensively because of all
Speaker 1: of their perimeter talent and because of the foundation that
Speaker 1: Isaah Hardenstein helps them establish. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, their defensive ceiling, which you really would only
Speaker 1: see in a high leverage situation against an elite offense,
Speaker 1: is just so much higher with Chet because he gives
Speaker 1: you the best of both worlds, elite rim protection with
Speaker 1: the flexibility to fly around on the perimeter. Jason, can
Speaker 1: you please explain to me why it was even a
Speaker 1: thought that crossed the mind of Steph Curry to shoot
Speaker 1: the ball with so much time left on the clock.
Speaker 1: At the very least, a timeout should have been called
Speaker 1: by the coach before the shot was taken, or as
Speaker 1: soon as Gary Payton collected the rebound. Someone pointed that
Speaker 1: out in the comments yesterday was a good point, which
Speaker 1: is that Gary Payton, when he dived on the floor,
Speaker 1: that was probably when things should have been stopped with
Speaker 1: the timeout. A lot of it's happening very fast, though,
Speaker 1: and I talked about this a little bit yesterday. First
Speaker 1: of all, to answer your question what crossed his mind
Speaker 1: is pretty simple. He had Dylan Brooks on him, and
Speaker 1: he had an opportunity to get a decent look that
Speaker 1: would have not only ended the game, but it would
Speaker 1: have been another moment a Dylan Brod expense, which is
Speaker 1: one something that Steph has plenty of, right, So that's
Speaker 1: part that's really the motivation behind it. But I talked
Speaker 1: about this in the show yesterday. I thought of all
Speaker 1: the mistakes that Golden State made down the stretch of
Speaker 1: that game, that was one of the smaller ones because
Speaker 1: it's a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface.
Speaker 1: In short, he takes the shot and it's a scrum
Speaker 1: for the defensive rebound, and Golden State ends up committing
Speaker 1: the foul with five and a half seconds left. Let's
Speaker 1: say you wait and you go till one or two
Speaker 1: seconds left on the shot clock when you shoot, so
Speaker 1: four or five seconds on the game clock, shot goes up.
Speaker 1: Let's say that it's a bad shot because Steph waded
Speaker 1: deep into the clock. Let's save Houston cleanly defensive rebounds
Speaker 1: it and calls a timeout. They're probably getting the ball
Speaker 1: with two or three seconds left. So the difference is
Speaker 1: let's say that the defensive foul doesn't get called, the
Speaker 1: defense of the rebounding foul doesn't get called. The one
Speaker 1: that ended up leading Jalen Green the two free throws,
Speaker 1: and let's say email Udoka just calls a timeout. There's
Speaker 1: five and a half seconds left, okay, whereas the alternative
Speaker 1: is maybe two or three seconds left. So I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the difference in three seconds, which, yeah, that's gonna
Speaker 1: change how capable your team is of getting a stop,
Speaker 1: because two or three seconds a guy's catching, he's ripping,
Speaker 1: he's making one or two dribble move, and then he's
Speaker 1: going into a shot. Four or five seconds, I can
Speaker 1: drive and kick once or twice, right, So yeah, there's
Speaker 1: no doubt that it's easier on your defense if you
Speaker 1: have less time in that situation. But you also have
Speaker 1: to look at the flip side of the coin, which
Speaker 1: is we're playing the result here. Steph got a decent look.
Speaker 1: Steph probably would not have gotten a decent look if
Speaker 1: he dribbled the clock out. All you had to do
Speaker 1: is watch that game and look at all of the
Speaker 1: shot clock violations, the airballs, the blocked shots at the
Speaker 1: end of the clock, like Golden State was really struggling
Speaker 1: at the end of the clock. So you have to
Speaker 1: weigh that in your head. The difference in trying to
Speaker 1: get a stop with two seconds left, first five seconds left,
Speaker 1: versus I've got a pretty good look against Dylan Brooks
Speaker 1: right now, or I can work the clock down more right,
Speaker 1: And I'm just saying that it's more complicated. So the
Speaker 1: real issue there is that probably shouldn't be called the
Speaker 1: defensive rebounding foul like or a foul on the defensive
Speaker 1: rebound like that. That was where the issue was, Like
Speaker 1: like like let's say the exact same situation takes place,
Speaker 1: but emy Udoka just gets a time out, Houston still
Speaker 1: has to go down and score, which is something they
Speaker 1: really struggled with. So like again we're just playing the
Speaker 1: results here. Steph happened to miss there, happened to be
Speaker 1: a fucking awful call, and so Houston ended up winning,
Speaker 1: and so now we're hyper analyzing the process. But there
Speaker 1: were just way more clear mistakes that were made by
Speaker 1: Golden State down the stretch of that game, like Pojemski
Speaker 1: and Draymond hitting at rebounds instead of grabbing rebounds, Draymond
Speaker 1: biting on the pump fake with Alpern, Shangun Pods ducking
Speaker 1: under a pick against Fred van Vliet, like shot clock violations,
Speaker 1: like there were bigger issues that Golden State had than
Speaker 1: Steph shooting a few seconds earlier and taking a decent look.
Speaker 1: Hey Jason, great content you've been putting out lately. Appreciate
Speaker 1: your takes on the NBA this far thus far, just
Speaker 1: a fun one for you. I know you said Steph
Speaker 1: is your second favorite player, so as a huge Steph
Speaker 1: fan myself, I'm wondering your thoughts on this. If you
Speaker 1: could put Steph in his current form on any team
Speaker 1: right now and replace their starting point guard, how many
Speaker 1: teams would automatically be a bona fide championship contender. Would
Speaker 1: it just be the big hitters like Boston or OKC
Speaker 1: or plenty of more teams. I would love to hear
Speaker 1: your take as a Dubs fan who knows Steph is
Speaker 1: still playing at a high level but our roster construction
Speaker 1: is so mediocre. It'd be so cool to hear how
Speaker 1: many teams you think would be contenders proving Steph is
Speaker 1: still one of those guys if you had a strong
Speaker 1: roster around him. I know it's all hypothetical, but it's
Speaker 1: fun to discuss. Keep up the great work. Greetings from Australia,
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna change the question a little bit because
Speaker 1: if you just swap out for point guards there, there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a lot of teams that like that have
Speaker 1: like like role player point like for instance, like if
Speaker 1: I could just swap D'Angelo Russell for Steph Curry, the
Speaker 1: Lakers are a championship contender, right, But that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that like uh, like it's a realistic type of swap, right.
Speaker 1: So I looked at team if you swapped out their
Speaker 1: best player, Boston I think for sure. And that's not
Speaker 1: a Tatum commentary. It's just that that Celtics roster is
Speaker 1: insaying Oklahoma City for sure. That's not a Shay commentary.
Speaker 1: Oklahoma City's roster is just insane. Cleveland for sure. I
Speaker 1: just think they have a really high floor on both
Speaker 1: ends of the floor. There's a backup shot creator there,
Speaker 1: really good defense, really good coach, a lot of athleticism
Speaker 1: on the perimeter. That makes sense to me. And then
Speaker 1: the New York Knicks. I just think Steph is a
Speaker 1: better basketball player than Jalen Brunson, And I think that
Speaker 1: that is a type of environment that if you dropped
Speaker 1: Steph in he would immediately Like I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: much he'd raise that level because Jalen Brunson has closed
Speaker 1: the gap on him in recent years. But I do
Speaker 1: think Steph is better. So those are the four teams
Speaker 1: for sure. And it's just, you know, it's complicated because
Speaker 1: I actually don't think the Warriors roster is bad. They
Speaker 1: just are missing one very important thing, which is a
Speaker 1: reliable secondary shot creator. That's a very strong roster in
Speaker 1: so many different ways. They just need a reliable twenty
Speaker 1: plus point per game forward that can help support Steph Unlock.
Speaker 1: High level two man game with Steph gives Steph an
Speaker 1: option in high leverage physical situations when teams deny him
Speaker 1: the basketball, which has been a consistent issue. Right. So yeah,
Speaker 1: those four teams. Hi, I love your analysis of the
Speaker 1: NBA because you took you look for the overarching concepts
Speaker 1: that are not talked about enough, which is why I
Speaker 1: want you to talk about the following topic. What do
Speaker 1: you believe is the most valuable archetype of role player
Speaker 1: except the three and D wing for Biggs, the five
Speaker 1: out like the five out big like a Heart and Stegn,
Speaker 1: the stretch big like a Turner, or the more traditional
Speaker 1: rim protector like a Kessler for guards the three and
Speaker 1: D like a KCP, the playmaker like Conley, or a
Speaker 1: scorer like Malik Monk. Thank you for your content and
Speaker 1: keep up your grind. Thank you all for all of
Speaker 1: the kind words that you guys have been leaving in
Speaker 1: the comments. They do mean a lot to me. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to change three and D wing into a
Speaker 1: more qualified term. So, I think the most highigh level
Speaker 1: role player in the NBA right now is the perimeterive
Speaker 1: player that is very athletic, that can guard multiple positions
Speaker 1: both on and off the ball, while also being a
Speaker 1: competent off ball score and a connective piece on offense,
Speaker 1: meaning they make quick decisions and they make good reads.
Speaker 1: Those are the kinds of players that every team should
Speaker 1: be hunting and trying to hold onto as much as possible.
Speaker 1: Why Because regardless of who your star is, regardless of
Speaker 1: who your shot creator is, regardless of the style of
Speaker 1: play that you embark on, that player is going to
Speaker 1: help you no matter what. Now, if I had to
Speaker 1: go with my second most important archetype of player, I
Speaker 1: would go towards a big Now, you broke down the
Speaker 1: three different types, and that's a good way of putting it.
Speaker 1: Like a stretch big, like a big that can shoot.
Speaker 1: A Hartenstein who is kind of like a do everything big,
Speaker 1: or your traditional defensive anchor like a Walker Kestler. Right,
Speaker 1: So I gotta go with Hartenstein, the big pretty good
Speaker 1: at everything, because when I look at a guy like Hartenstein,
Speaker 1: and this is like pretty much a league average center,
Speaker 1: Like if your ranking centers in the NBA, Hertenstein is
Speaker 1: going to show up somewhere between ten and twenty depending
Speaker 1: on who you ask, right, So he's a league average
Speaker 1: starting center in this league. He is a good drop
Speaker 1: coverage big, not a great drop coverage big, but a
Speaker 1: good drop coverage big. He's a good switch big. He
Speaker 1: is a good defensive rebounder. He on the other end
Speaker 1: of the floor is a great screener. He is a
Speaker 1: good connective piece. He keeps the ball moving from side
Speaker 1: to side. He makes great reads. He's in general, just
Speaker 1: a very quick decision maker. Right. That raises the floor
Speaker 1: for my team on both ends of the floor. If
Speaker 1: I feel like Hartenstein is gonna anchor me on the
Speaker 1: defensive end in multiple different coverages while also cleaning up
Speaker 1: the glass while also being the folkrum that ties all
Speaker 1: of my perimeter talent together. That is a really really
Speaker 1: strong foundation for me to build a basketball team. So again,
Speaker 1: like I would probably after I have a good amount
Speaker 1: of those guys that I'm talking about, like I want
Speaker 1: to have at least two, I'd rather have a flawed center,
Speaker 1: like a center that's I'd rather have a center is
Speaker 1: like a stretch big that has some defensive limitations, or
Speaker 1: a defensive big that has some offensive limitations, as long
Speaker 1: as I have lots of those really good perimeter athletes
Speaker 1: that can score off the ball and connect offense. But
Speaker 1: once I have two or three of those, I really
Speaker 1: would be looking for that type of center. I think
Speaker 1: that that is a center that makes everything easier for
Speaker 1: your team on both ends of the four. I really
Speaker 1: think Jason is the best basketball commentator on YouTube, and
Speaker 1: I love almost everything he says. But I'm never going
Speaker 1: to get on board with this take about refs that
Speaker 1: whenever they destroy a game, we just have to remind
Speaker 1: everyone that the other team should have outplayed bad reffing,
Speaker 1: which takes away from the reality, which is these shouldn't
Speaker 1: be happening and it's all the ref's fault. So look,
Speaker 1: I'm not asking you not to be frustrated, like I
Speaker 1: you know, I used to do this a lot when
Speaker 1: I was younger, and it's stupid. It's like fan police
Speaker 1: telling you how to be a fan. Be a fan
Speaker 1: however you want, and if that involves you getting super
Speaker 1: worked up about officiating, go ahead, Like I'm like that,
Speaker 1: that's that's your prerogative as a fan. I have this
Speaker 1: feeling about officiating from personal experience with the game, like
Speaker 1: I am the guy that has always cared a lot
Speaker 1: about the player's perspective because you know, that's my background
Speaker 1: in the game. I came up playing, and to this
Speaker 1: day I'm I'm that dude who's thirty three and for
Speaker 1: some reason is training to be the best basketball player
Speaker 1: that he can be because he just loves doing it,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. That's so that's kind of
Speaker 1: my approach now. When I was a player in college,
Speaker 1: I had a coach who had this thought process and
Speaker 1: would talk to us about, Hey, we're on the road.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a bad call or two. We
Speaker 1: have to be prepared for it. We need to try
Speaker 1: to build as much margin for air to make it
Speaker 1: so that that's not the case. That is something that
Speaker 1: is kind of like stuck with me. Over the years
Speaker 1: of that, I MI, my relationship with officials has actually
Speaker 1: changed a lot. When I was younger, I was a hothead.
Speaker 1: I am a very animated basketball player. I communicate a
Speaker 1: lot when I'm on the floor. Guys who've played with
Speaker 1: me or played against me know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: But like, I used to get into it with refs
Speaker 1: all the time, and it was actually my wife that
Speaker 1: got me out of it, because there was I had
Speaker 1: a really bad one in Charlotte where I got kicked
Speaker 1: out of a game for double technical and we were
Speaker 1: like walking out to the car, my wife is just like,
Speaker 1: my wife is just like like this is embarrassing for me.
Speaker 1: We joke about it all the time because like as
Speaker 1: an adult now, like as a grown adult, I've become
Speaker 1: very good with officials. I legitimately can't remember the last
Speaker 1: time I picked up a technical foul. And I have
Speaker 1: a very good communicative relationship with the officials and the
Speaker 1: games that I play now. But when I was younger,
Speaker 1: I used to just be like I just just used
Speaker 1: to get so worked up about it. Every bad call
Speaker 1: irritated me and I was arguing the res like what
Speaker 1: you see Luca do on TV like I was doing
Speaker 1: that when I was Luca's age, which is which is
Speaker 1: why I keep yelling at him to cut that shit out,
Speaker 1: because it's just it just doesn't help you, and more
Speaker 1: important anything else, it just distracts you. It distracts you
Speaker 1: from what you're trying to accomplish, Like when you're worried
Speaker 1: about what the refs are doing, when the reality is
Speaker 1: is they're completely out of your control. All that's doing
Speaker 1: is preventing you from focusing on the task at hand.
Speaker 1: And that's really the point. And that's what came brings
Speaker 1: me back to the thought that my coach had for
Speaker 1: me when I was in college, which is, this is
Speaker 1: a variable that is outside of our control. So the
Speaker 1: only thing that we should do is try to build
Speaker 1: in margin for error so that if this sort of
Speaker 1: thing happens, we don't get beat by it. And how
Speaker 1: do we build up that margin for air by focusing
Speaker 1: entirely on things that are in our control. The more
Speaker 1: we do that, the more margin we have. Then the
Speaker 1: ref comes in and decides to co op the big
Speaker 1: moment at the end of the game, maybe it's you know,
Speaker 1: maybe that exact same vowl happens, but you're up five,
Speaker 1: that's a game you end up winning, right, So, like
Speaker 1: it's just about perspective, and my my perspective is always
Speaker 1: going to come from what it was like for me
Speaker 1: when I'm playing, when I was playing in the past,
Speaker 1: or what I'm playing now. That's always going to be
Speaker 1: my perspective. But like again, I'm not telling you guys
Speaker 1: not to be pissed off as fans. If you're if
Speaker 1: you're pissed off about it, be pissed off. It's just
Speaker 1: complaining about revs is not actually going to save your team.
Speaker 1: There's an expression be an active participant in your own survival.
Speaker 1: Like the only way you can participate in your survival
Speaker 1: in a game like that is to make basketball plays
Speaker 1: that are under your control, not to focus on the officiating.
Speaker 1: Do you think Anthony Edwards shot diet is somehow holding
Speaker 1: the Timberwolves back even though he's been crazy efficient or
Speaker 1: is it more of a lack of spacing that is
Speaker 1: affecting their offensive cohesion maybe also causing Anthony Edwards lack
Speaker 1: of shots at the rim. So one of the things
Speaker 1: you'll notice about the first of all, I don't think
Speaker 1: to answer the question very quickly. Anthony Erwards is still
Speaker 1: shooting in the mid forties on eleven attempts per game.
Speaker 1: It's still the Anthony Edwards three point shot is one
Speaker 1: of the most efficient shots that the Timberwolves could ever
Speaker 1: generate in their offense. So I don't have any issue
Speaker 1: with him taking them. If he starts missing, then we
Speaker 1: can have another conversation. But it's not something I'm worried about.
Speaker 1: As far as the build for the Timberwolves, there's this
Speaker 1: concept that's been happening a lot in the NBA we
Speaker 1: just saw last night where it's like, Okay, where are
Speaker 1: we hiding shanng goom oh? If we put him on
Speaker 1: Gary Payton, then we don't have to worry about some
Speaker 1: of the stuff that Draymond can do on the role.
Speaker 1: You know, Gary Payne's a lesser shooter, so we can
Speaker 1: hide him there, right Or like Jason Tatum guarding a
Speaker 1: center in Porzingis guarding Derek Jones Junior in the NBA Finals,
Speaker 1: every team is constantly looking for an opportunity to put
Speaker 1: their weakest defensive player onto a non shooter. Every team
Speaker 1: is looking for an opportunity to help in other matchups
Speaker 1: by coming off of guys that they don't view his threats.
Speaker 1: The problem is Jada McDaniels is a guy that can
Speaker 1: knock down a three, but probably won't. Julius Randall has
Speaker 1: had has shot the ball really well at times this year, right, So, like,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to pretend like you can't shoot, but
Speaker 1: he's a guy that most teams on the game plan
Speaker 1: are thinking, he's not Michael Porter junior. We can close
Speaker 1: out on him, and then Rudy Gobert can barely even
Speaker 1: catch the basketball when he's in any sort of traffic,
Speaker 1: which any good defense is going to put you in traffic.
Speaker 1: So the real problem is is that there are just
Speaker 1: a lot of options when you're playing against Minnesota to
Speaker 1: tinker with matchups, leave guys open, pack the paint. It's
Speaker 1: just inherent in their roster construction. Something I've been complaining
Speaker 1: about NonStop. Anthony Edwards is addressing it by becoming one
Speaker 1: of the best jump shooters in the league. And that
Speaker 1: just goes to show you another reason why I think
Speaker 1: Anthony's going to be one of the best players in
Speaker 1: the NBA. He already is one of the best players
Speaker 1: in the NBA, But why he has the potential to
Speaker 1: be a true top top, top tier super in the
Speaker 1: long run is because he has the competitive nature to
Speaker 1: be like, I can't get to the room with this group.
Speaker 1: I need to just get really really good at knocking
Speaker 1: down threes. But yeah, that's why I've been preaching so
Speaker 1: much over the years. Like, I would love to see
Speaker 1: a team take a guy like Anthony Edwards and accentuate
Speaker 1: his superpower, which is his ability to be anybody in
Speaker 1: the world off the dribble. So hopefully eventually they do that,
Speaker 1: hopefully before he loses his athletic burst. Thankfully, Anthony's super
Speaker 1: young and there are many years to figure this out.
Speaker 1: But like, my thing is, as long as Jaden McDaniels
Speaker 1: and Rudy Gobert are your foundational three and five. Unless
Speaker 1: Jayden McDaniels just becomes a deadly forty two percent catch
Speaker 1: and shoot three point shooter, I don't think you're gonna
Speaker 1: see a situation where Minnesota's spacing improves tangibly. Do you
Speaker 1: think Jalen Brunson gonna be the best player in a
Speaker 1: championship series? Absolutely? I mean last year's Celtics are the
Speaker 1: perfect example of that. Now, Jason Tatum's playing at a
Speaker 1: top three or four level this year, but last year
Speaker 1: he wasn't, and he sure as hell wasn't in the playoffs. So, like,
Speaker 1: the point is, if you put Jalen Brunson on a
Speaker 1: roster with that type of talent, they absolutely can win
Speaker 1: the title. The Knicks, it remains to be seen if
Speaker 1: they have that much talent. They especially on the defensive end,
Speaker 1: haven't really put that together. But like, I think the
Speaker 1: Knicks are championship contender this year. Is certainly a top
Speaker 1: six championship contender this year with him on this current roster.
Speaker 1: So if put him on a better roster, I certainly
Speaker 1: think that he could do it. So I would say absolutely, Hey, Jason,
Speaker 1: can you explain in your opinion and basketball reasons why
Speaker 1: one the Rockets aren't using Read Sheepherd as much and
Speaker 1: two why you draft him at all when you paid
Speaker 1: Fred Van Vliet thinks keep out the good work a
Speaker 1: couple of things. Read's been struggling a little bit with
Speaker 1: size and athleticism in the NBA. That'll take time for
Speaker 1: him to figure out. I think it's an adjustment for
Speaker 1: anybody to go to that level, and just in time
Speaker 1: he'll figure out how to compensate that with sharper fundamentals.
Speaker 1: And Reid's a good athlete himself. He just just to
Speaker 1: find a way to leverage it properly right Star. As
Speaker 1: the rotation goes, in general, the rotation is it's just
Speaker 1: very shrunk for Houston. They have a ton of good players,
Speaker 1: it's a bit of a log jam. The reason why
Speaker 1: you make a draft like that, you draft like that
Speaker 1: is look at the roster. You have a Men Thompson
Speaker 1: who maybe has big picture offensive potential, but right now
Speaker 1: is a defensive player, Tarry Easton defensive player, Dylan Brooks
Speaker 1: defensive player, Javari Smith more or less a three and
Speaker 1: D guy, Shane Gun offensive player but plays at the
Speaker 1: center position. As you start to kind of like work
Speaker 1: your way down the roster, Fred van Vliet and Jalen
Speaker 1: Green are pretty much your only two primary ball handlers.
Speaker 1: And Jalen Green is a guy that might not fit
Speaker 1: this timeline. Fred van Vliet is a guy that's almost
Speaker 1: certainly going to go out in a trade if you
Speaker 1: end up making a star trade, and so where that
Speaker 1: advantage is present is like let's say you make a
Speaker 1: trade for a star wing like let's just say brandon
Speaker 1: Ingram for instance, Let's say that they go get brandon Ingram.
Speaker 1: If they go get brandon Ingram and you trade Fred
Speaker 1: van Vliet, suddenly you're down a guard up a forward.
Speaker 1: That could be a position where Reed Shepherd suddenly gets minuted.
Speaker 1: So it's one of those things where like inevitably Houston's
Speaker 1: gonna make some kind of consolidation trade, maybe not for
Speaker 1: at star, but maybe first Star, and in that case,
Speaker 1: Reay Shepherd's opportunity will open up. But again, like he's
Speaker 1: struggling a little bit with size and athleticism, give him
Speaker 1: some time. He just hasn't really had as many reps
Speaker 1: as you would like to see as well. Right, we
Speaker 1: have five more yo. Jason loved the show. It's probably
Speaker 1: my favorite basketball show currently. I have yet another yokch topic.
Speaker 1: So the discourse lately has been that Yokic's output has
Speaker 1: been so high because his teammates, namely Jamal, are just
Speaker 1: bad lately, and so he has to do everything reasonable,
Speaker 1: no doubt. But I have been considering the opposite, which
Speaker 1: is maybe his teammates are being affected by not his usage,
Speaker 1: but the fact that he dictates everything. What I meant
Speaker 1: to say is what I mean to say is I
Speaker 1: was perusing time of possession stats, not usage, and I
Speaker 1: noticed something. The Nuggets have had three real playoff runs together,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four. They were
Speaker 1: competitive in two of them, twenty twenty and twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: and those playoffs, specifically, Yokic's averages touches per game where
Speaker 1: one hundred and three Murray's were ninety. In the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three playoffs, Jokich was at one hundred and eleven
Speaker 1: and Murray was at ninety last year's playoffs. In this
Speaker 1: regular season so far, the split is closer to one
Speaker 1: to fifteen for Jokic and seventy for Murray. So I
Speaker 1: say all that to ask you this, do you think
Speaker 1: there's any possible validity to the assertion that maybe Jokic
Speaker 1: getting one hundred and fifteen touches per game and although
Speaker 1: the stats are insane and the onus is all on
Speaker 1: him and Murray their point guard only getting seventy, not
Speaker 1: to mention Michael Porter Junior and others being relegated to
Speaker 1: spot up standing around guys, again, do you think that
Speaker 1: Jokic's play to play dominance is contributing to his teammates
Speaker 1: being out of rhythm, poor play, whatever, and just the
Speaker 1: team's overall issues in general. Obviously, he needs to touch
Speaker 1: the ball a lot regardless. My main question is has
Speaker 1: it gone too far? Is the discrepancy between him and
Speaker 1: especially Murray two wide? And also why do you think
Speaker 1: that is. Do you think it's just because the team
Speaker 1: sucks so he's just doing everything, or do you think
Speaker 1: maybe Murray needs to be forced back into the same
Speaker 1: role he played in twenty twenty and twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: Same for Michael Porter Junior and Aaron Gordon. Would love
Speaker 1: to hear thoughts. First of all, thanks for the kind
Speaker 1: words and the support. Here's the thing. I don't think
Speaker 1: Yo Kicch's touches or his usage affects the team in
Speaker 1: a negative way at all. Whatsoever. He's out a ball stopper,
Speaker 1: he is a ball mover. He is dictating a lot,
Speaker 1: but he's doing it as the part of the process
Speaker 1: of generating advantages. The point is this is not Luka
Speaker 1: Doncic dribble the ball off the floor, wait till thirteen
Speaker 1: or fourteen seconds on the shot clock, spread ball screen,
Speaker 1: kick out pass with four or five seconds on the
Speaker 1: shot clock for a guy to maybe take a catch
Speaker 1: and shoot three or drive to close out one time.
Speaker 1: Denver is constant motion side to side, trying to get
Speaker 1: guys involved, trying to create advantages. Jokicch touches the ball
Speaker 1: a lot. He is the fulcrum that makes everything work.
Speaker 1: But very rarely is Yokich just dribbling the air out
Speaker 1: of the basketball or just standing there with the basketball
Speaker 1: for extended periods of time. The big reason why the
Speaker 1: touches are shifting is just because Jamal is not playing
Speaker 1: well in a basketball and there's a natural flow that
Speaker 1: takes place, like you'll find like you'll find that like
Speaker 1: if you come out to start a game and that
Speaker 1: your point guard hits like a pull up three in
Speaker 1: a ball screen, and then hits a floater in a
Speaker 1: ball screen and then hits another three and like a
Speaker 1: transition situation, and he's got eight points in the first quarter,
Speaker 1: Like he's in rhythm and he's feeling good, and that
Speaker 1: team might play through that guy more throughout the game.
Speaker 1: If he misses that first pull up three, maybe he
Speaker 1: doesn't take the floater, misses the transition three, Maybe you
Speaker 1: play through other guys for different for other parts of
Speaker 1: the game. That's not to say you go away from
Speaker 1: that guy entirely, but basketball games tend to like kind
Speaker 1: of naturally find the player that's in rhythm. That's just
Speaker 1: kind of the way it goes. Smart smart basketball players
Speaker 1: will do that. They'll just get the ball to the
Speaker 1: guy who's in rhythm. There's gonna be a natural dip
Speaker 1: in Jamal Murray's touches because he's not playing well. You
Speaker 1: don't want to stop feeding him entire but they haven't.
Speaker 1: He's still getting seventy touches a game, as you said,
Speaker 1: But like you'll see, if Jamal gets it going, if
Speaker 1: he gets back into form, his touches will increase commensurate
Speaker 1: with that. I'm just saying from my like, I'm watching
Speaker 1: Jamal not move as well. I'm watching Jamal not get
Speaker 1: as much lyft on his pull up jump shot. There's
Speaker 1: there's a lot more that goes into Jamal Murray's struggles
Speaker 1: than just he's not getting enough touches, is my point.
Speaker 1: And the last dead giveaway for this is, have you
Speaker 1: guys looked at the offensive rating when Yo kitch is
Speaker 1: on the floor? Denver is scoring. It's like it's like
Speaker 1: almost one hundred and twenty four points per one hundred
Speaker 1: possession when Yo Kitch is on the floor, despite all
Speaker 1: these guys struggling. So it's like the opposite of the
Speaker 1: LaMelo ball thing, where like with the Lamel ball, he's
Speaker 1: putting up monster numbers but the team can't score. Yokic
Speaker 1: is putting up monster numbers. And Denver is historically great
Speaker 1: offensively when he's on the floor. So like, I don't
Speaker 1: think the issue is anything to do with Jokic. It's
Speaker 1: just he has accentuated, leveraged his own greatness to cover
Speaker 1: for his teammates who are out of rhythm. As his
Speaker 1: teammates come out of that funk, and Jamal has a
Speaker 1: tendency to play his way into shape and peak at
Speaker 1: the end of seasons, as Jamal gets his shit together,
Speaker 1: Jokic will parse back his touches and you'll see that
Speaker 1: one fifteen number come back down to one oh five
Speaker 1: or whatever, and you'll see Jamal Murray's ebbs go back up.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be on him to dig himself out of that.
Speaker 1: Joki is gonna keep setting monster screens for him, keep
Speaker 1: running two man game for him. He still gonna get
Speaker 1: opportunities the lead second units. Jamal is gonna get all
Speaker 1: the opportunity in the world to figure it out, but
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, he's got to be
Speaker 1: the one that figures it out. What's up, Jason, big
Speaker 1: fan of the show. I've been seeing a few people
Speaker 1: on the internet talk about a potential Jimmy Butler the
Speaker 1: trade to Denver for Michael Porter Junior in a pick.
Speaker 1: What do you think the basketball reasoning is behind that
Speaker 1: potential trade and how do you think Jimmy Butler would
Speaker 1: fit in with Denver. Also, maybe it would be dope
Speaker 1: if you had a series where you broke down basketball
Speaker 1: reasoning behind potential trades that could possibly happen. Love your content, bo,
Speaker 1: Hope you stay blessed. Thanks again for the kind words
Speaker 1: and for supporting the show. I've been pretty bad at
Speaker 1: covering like hypothetical trades in the time leading up to
Speaker 1: the trade deadline. We'll try to figure that out better
Speaker 1: this year. It's a little too early. There's most players
Speaker 1: aren't even eligible to be traded till December fifteenth. We
Speaker 1: might get a panic trade before then from a team
Speaker 1: like Golden State, but like usually it'll be like mid
Speaker 1: January that we start getting really serious about looking at
Speaker 1: the trade market. But if you guys have any ideas
Speaker 1: for how you want to cover that, let me know
Speaker 1: and we'll dig into it, because I would like to
Speaker 1: get better at covering the trade deadline up. I've always
Speaker 1: been like pretty good at like, Okay, this trade happened,
Speaker 1: let me talk about the basketball of how this works.
Speaker 1: I have not as creative as most trade machine workers are,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. Like I see guys post
Speaker 1: trades on twin or I see some of my favorite
Speaker 1: NBA podcasters talk about him on their shows, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I'm like, I clearly just don't have enough of that
Speaker 1: like time to just sit down and just conceptualize. I
Speaker 1: haven't devoted enough time, is my point, to conceptualize different
Speaker 1: trade opportunities and things along those lines. It's just something
Speaker 1: I need to get better at because inevitably it is
Speaker 1: an important part of this industry because people love to
Speaker 1: think about potential trades. So it's something I'll try to
Speaker 1: get better at. In the big picture, as far as
Speaker 1: Jimmy Butler goes, i'd be concerned about trading. Michael Porter
Speaker 1: Junior for Jimmy Butler because Michael Porter Junior feels a
Speaker 1: very very important role in terms of skip pass scoring,
Speaker 1: Like he is your off ball scoring that compliments everything.
Speaker 1: Jimmy shooting the ball really well since he came back
Speaker 1: from his injury. But he's not the kind of guy
Speaker 1: that's going to be guarded the way Michael Porter Junior does,
Speaker 1: or he's or to make teams pay the way Michael
Speaker 1: Porter Junior does on those skip passes. I wouldn't trade
Speaker 1: for Paul George, but let's say that it's Paul George
Speaker 1: totally different story. He's an upgrade of Michael Porter Junior
Speaker 1: that can do a lot of similar things. Right, So, like,
Speaker 1: if you could upgrade a player in that mix for
Speaker 1: somebody that kind of is a like fit, I'd go for.
Speaker 1: I'd be careful with like tinkering too much with the fit,
Speaker 1: because remember, part of what made that Denver team so
Speaker 1: good in twenty twenty three was it was a perfect
Speaker 1: fitting starting five. Maybe not all the guys that you'd
Speaker 1: rank super high in a vacuum as basketball players, but
Speaker 1: each one of those guys fit a specific role so perfectly.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Butler probably would inevitably find a way to impact
Speaker 1: the game and play well alongside Jokic, But I do
Speaker 1: think there's more clunkiness in that fit. Then we realize
Speaker 1: that they need shooting. They need guys who can shoot.
Speaker 1: That's the kind of thing that Denver is going to
Speaker 1: be looking a lot at in the trademarket. Hey, Jason,
Speaker 1: you always say that it's easier to cover defensive shortcomings
Speaker 1: rather than offensive ones with role players, which I agree,
Speaker 1: But do you also think that the ceiling is higher
Speaker 1: on a perfect team or on a player like Luca,
Speaker 1: or as a player like Giannis with his defense more
Speaker 1: effective with a hypothetical perfect team around him. Love the
Speaker 1: show and I appreciate your analysis over the legacy media.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work. So I still think that
Speaker 1: I take so let's take Let's take Boston for instance,
Speaker 1: Like if I put Giannis or Luca on Boston, They're
Speaker 1: winning the title no matter what, Like both of those
Speaker 1: for the same reason that Tatum's winning the title with them,
Speaker 1: Like they're just they're the best roster, right. Uh, Tatum
Speaker 1: does a lot uniquely to make all that work. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to undercut that. I'm just trying to focus
Speaker 1: on this specific debate between Yannis and Luca. So let's
Speaker 1: remove Tatum from the equation for a second. Just imagine,
Speaker 1: when I refer to Boston, I'm referring to just the
Speaker 1: most talented roster in the league. Okay, that fits a
Speaker 1: lot of modern basketball concepts. I think. I think if
Speaker 1: you put Luca with Boston, they'd be devastating offensively, just
Speaker 1: like flat out devastating, and they'd still be so good
Speaker 1: defensively because of their ability to cover for him. With Yannis,
Speaker 1: Yannis would Jannis would still put up monster numbers in
Speaker 1: a in a roster like Boston, and he would still
Speaker 1: unlock a super high ceiling with them. I just don't
Speaker 1: think he'd be able to reach the level of offense
Speaker 1: that Luca would be able to reach with that group.
Speaker 1: And yeah, Boston would still be really good defensively, but
Speaker 1: I think they'd be really good defensively even with Luca. So,
Speaker 1: like it's complicated, but the gist of it is, a
Speaker 1: perfect basketball team around Luca I think has like transcendently
Speaker 1: great offense, whereas a perfect basketball team built around Giannis
Speaker 1: still would have some limitations offensively when things really really
Speaker 1: grind down. But Again, here's the thing, Giannis has played
Speaker 1: better than Luca this year, So like I'm talking more
Speaker 1: about an idealized version of Luca that hasn't really come
Speaker 1: to fruition yet this year. Now, I believe it will.
Speaker 1: I believe Luca will demonstrate that he's still at that
Speaker 1: level over the course of this season. He played pretty
Speaker 1: well up until that Oklahoma City game in the last
Speaker 1: couple of games that he had played. But yeah, like
Speaker 1: to Jannis's credit, he's outplayed Luca at this point in
Speaker 1: the season. So I'm more referring to these players in
Speaker 1: a vacuum, kind of like the idealized versions of themselves
Speaker 1: outside just the scope of this season. Last one, hey,
Speaker 1: Jason was wondering what you think of different defensive concepts
Speaker 1: man three two two three zone, occasional traps. They seem
Speaker 1: to be the only defensive formations anyone will play, so
Speaker 1: much is invested in new offensive concept However, I think
Speaker 1: defense needs innovation with these concepts. So there's you know,
Speaker 1: I was thinking about this earlier, like every defensive scheme
Speaker 1: has its upsides in its downsides, and most of the
Speaker 1: time whether or not they work has to do with personnel.
Speaker 1: I'll give you an example, The Lakers tried doing a
Speaker 1: lot of switching this year. I am generally a person
Speaker 1: who likes switching, but that has to do with what
Speaker 1: kind of roster I have. The Lakers are a roster
Speaker 1: that is going to struggle with switching because they don't
Speaker 1: have really versatile defensive players in their lineup. So all
Speaker 1: teams have to do is get Ad into the action,
Speaker 1: get him switched, pull him out of the play, and
Speaker 1: then look to attack elsewhere. And they have and they
Speaker 1: have tons of advantages. Or just get a shot up
Speaker 1: over Ad and you're going to get the offensive rebound
Speaker 1: because there's not enough size on that back line to
Speaker 1: clean things up. That is a roster that probably should
Speaker 1: be running a lot more drop coverage. Why because that
Speaker 1: keeps Anthony Davis near the rim, prevents him from switching
Speaker 1: out to the perimeter, allows him to solve problems there.
Speaker 1: At the very least, you can try to gear the
Speaker 1: shots towards things that your game plan would prefer to
Speaker 1: give up, like mid range attempts, kickouts to mediocre shooters,
Speaker 1: things along those lines. Right, But the point is switching
Speaker 1: has an upside. The upside of switching shuts down screening
Speaker 1: actions lower ask physically on your defensive players. The downside
Speaker 1: of switching is you can give up rebounding mismatches and
Speaker 1: you can give up size mismatches to attack one on one.
Speaker 1: Another upside of switching is keeps you out of rotation, right,
Speaker 1: but again the downsides that come with rebounding, and also
Speaker 1: I think that one of the things switching to is
Speaker 1: it breeds laziness in a lot of ways because it
Speaker 1: is so much easier. Right traditional coverages like drop to
Speaker 1: varying degrees, a low drop coverage. It can work really
Speaker 1: well if you've got an elite point of attack defender
Speaker 1: who can get over the top of screens in funnel
Speaker 1: into your big But if that guy starts getting caught
Speaker 1: on screens, there's a big weak point there in the
Speaker 1: short to mid range. Right, Okay, well, what if we
Speaker 1: go with the high drop coverage. Well, with the high
Speaker 1: drop coverage, we take away that little opening there in
Speaker 1: the mid range, but now we open up the pocket
Speaker 1: pass or the skip pass, depending on whether or not
Speaker 1: the low man comes over. Zone zone defense can disrupt rhythm.
Speaker 1: Zone defense depending on the configuration, can take things away
Speaker 1: like the paint or the three point line, but it's
Speaker 1: really difficult to rebound in zones. Professional basketball players are
Speaker 1: much better at solving zones than younger basketball players are.
Speaker 1: Point being, there's upsides and there's downsides. Ball pressure and aggression.
Speaker 1: Trying to force turnovers. Upsides speeds teams up, makes them uncomfortable,
Speaker 1: disrupts rhythm. Forces turnovers can help you get out in transition. Downside,
Speaker 1: a lot of aggression at the point of attack can
Speaker 1: lead to dribble penetration and to you being in rotation
Speaker 1: a lot, which can lead to offensive rebounds. So the
Speaker 1: point is is like every defensive concept has upside and
Speaker 1: has downside, and so what you want to do as
Speaker 1: a team is you want to find two or three
Speaker 1: concepts that you can do that accentuate your talent. And
Speaker 1: if it accentuates your talent, then it'll probably work well. Boston,
Speaker 1: for instance, a lot of switching, especially with Horford right,
Speaker 1: but then they try to protect Porzingis as much as
Speaker 1: possible by running drop with him and putting him on
Speaker 1: the weakest above the brakeshooter on the other team. They
Speaker 1: have schemes that match up really well with their personnel.
Speaker 1: Like we talked about with the Lakers. I would like
Speaker 1: to see them, over time maybe go away from switching.
Speaker 1: Not because I don't believe in switching. I do believe
Speaker 1: in switching. I just don't think that's the right roster
Speaker 1: for switching. I think that's a roster that needs to
Speaker 1: be running more drop coverage. So that's kind of the point.
Speaker 1: Ball pressure. A team like the Lakers really shouldn't ball pressure.
Speaker 1: They're not athletic enough, and so if they do, they're
Speaker 1: just gonna get beat off the dribble right, and then
Speaker 1: they're gonna be in rotation where they're slow and they're
Speaker 1: just gonna get beat right. Teams like Houston, Oklahoma City,
Speaker 1: they've got all these athletes on the perimeter. They should
Speaker 1: be pressuring the ball. If they don't pressure the ball,
Speaker 1: it's a waste. Right. So, like defensive schemes are not,
Speaker 1: you know, world beaters, they are not the end all
Speaker 1: beat all. It's it's a combination of like the scheme,
Speaker 1: matching with the personnel, and sharp execution. And if you
Speaker 1: don't put all three of those together, it's not gonna
Speaker 1: have any success to begin with. All right, guys, it's
Speaker 1: all have for today as always to sincerely appreciate you
Speaker 1: for supporting me and supporting the show. I hope all
Speaker 1: of you guys have a great weekend. We'll be reacting
Speaker 1: to the n Season Tournament semi final games as well
Speaker 1: as the Power rankings on Monday. I'll see you guys
Speaker 1: then the volume whats So guys. As always, I appreciate
Speaker 1: you for listening to and supporting Who tonight. It would
Speaker 1: actually be really helpful for us if you guys would
Speaker 1: take a second and leave a rating and a review.
Speaker 1: As always, I appreciate you guys supporting us, but if
Speaker 1: you could take a minute to do that, I'd really
Speaker 1: appreciate it.