Speaker 1: Mmmmmmm. Welcome to the State of the Lakers podcast with Roj.
Speaker 1: You guys know him as at Unwritten Rules on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Rog Good morning man, how are you doing so far today?
Speaker 1: Good morning. We got the All Star break going on here,
Speaker 1: so we're all kind of in a break as well. Um.
Speaker 1: Drake dropped some music yesterday, so that was fun. I
Speaker 1: saw you a slow listen to it. So so it's
Speaker 1: a good morning here in Cali. Yeah. I woke up
Speaker 1: at four twenty this morning, as I usually do on Monday, Wednesday, Friday,
Speaker 1: to play basketball, and I was it helps to have
Speaker 1: something like that when you're having trouble waking up in
Speaker 1: the morning. Um. Since you and I last talked, the
Speaker 1: Lakers had an impressive win against the Warriors, one that
Speaker 1: you and I predicted based solely on the fact that
Speaker 1: we knew Dennis Shudder was so valuable to everything that
Speaker 1: the Lakers needed to do, especially as it pertained to
Speaker 1: their roles and guys kind of slotting into their proper roles.
Speaker 1: And then, of course, immediately after that, Marcusol goes into
Speaker 1: health and safety protocols, which we don't know what's going
Speaker 1: on with that yet, and Kyle Kuzma has a heel contusion,
Speaker 1: and so right when we could have had a pretty
Speaker 1: good indicator of the of the Lakers, you know, with
Speaker 1: Dennis against the better team than the Warriors and the Suns,
Speaker 1: they go out there completely undermanned and lay an egg
Speaker 1: and lose to the Suns. And then Lebron sits out
Speaker 1: uh the other day against Sacramento and they take a loss.
Speaker 1: So not too much to take away from that. Fields
Speaker 1: especially frustrating when you factor in the fact that the
Speaker 1: Jazz have tricked off four their last seven games and
Speaker 1: the Clippers have been losing, and there was kind of
Speaker 1: an opportunity here to get back in the mix of things.
Speaker 1: Could be worse at this point in the season than
Speaker 1: being a half game back of first place and a
Speaker 1: half game back of second place and in three and
Speaker 1: a half games back at first, But it did feel
Speaker 1: kind of like a missed opportunity. We are going to
Speaker 1: save everything having to do with like a total season,
Speaker 1: you know, rehash of the Lakers for next week. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, as we're in the All Star break, uh,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna just kind of we'll we'll, we'll do
Speaker 1: a mail bag. We're gonna do some player grades. We're
Speaker 1: gonna do everything under the sun, just kind of rehashing
Speaker 1: the whole season, but we kind of want to focus
Speaker 1: on But today we're gonna focus on just what happened
Speaker 1: in this last week, and then we're gonna focus on
Speaker 1: a little bit of what we think roster upgrades might
Speaker 1: look like for the Lakers. So my first question for
Speaker 1: Ross to start this off today is, yesterday I sent
Speaker 1: out a pole and all I did was set out
Speaker 1: a pole. People were mad at me, and I literally
Speaker 1: just asked a question, okay, and the question was would
Speaker 1: you trade talent Horton Tucker for PJ Tucker. Now, the
Speaker 1: context of that simply was me thinking that there will
Speaker 1: probably be some kind of bidding war and you might
Speaker 1: have to give up THHD maybe, And I'm not even
Speaker 1: saying necessarily that's the case, but I knew that was
Speaker 1: an option, So I was just presenting the question. So
Speaker 1: my question for you is what was your reaction when
Speaker 1: you saw that poll that I sent up? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: was like, that's gonna be a pretty one sided poll.
Speaker 1: I mean, you have a Laker fans. First of all,
Speaker 1: everybody loves th HT here and the Lakers aren't in
Speaker 1: like a desperation mode, right, Like, if they're in a
Speaker 1: desperate mode, then yeah, um they would give up tail
Speaker 1: Horton Tucker. But he's I feel like he's shown too much.
Speaker 1: He's also a part of Clutch. I mean, they're not
Speaker 1: going to send him to a franchise that's that's falling off. Um,
Speaker 1: Like I saw the treads somebody put up treads for
Speaker 1: like p J Tucker as well, Like there's no way
Speaker 1: treads getting traded there with the Clutch and all that
Speaker 1: comes in comes into play. And uh also p J
Speaker 1: tuckers like thirty six, you know what I mean? Like you,
Speaker 1: I just I would not want to send out twenty
Speaker 1: year old t HD for p J. Tucker. So when
Speaker 1: I saw that, I was like, man, people are gonna
Speaker 1: really take that into one side. I knew where you
Speaker 1: were going with it. I feel like you were thinking
Speaker 1: like young player for that kind of win now move.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I just don't I don't I don't see that.
Speaker 1: I don't see that happening. P J Tuck is a nice,
Speaker 1: nice player. I just he hasn't shown anything. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't really say that because it's a conversation we're
Speaker 1: gonna get into but um, I mean for right now,
Speaker 1: he's not shooting well. I mean it's all situation wise.
Speaker 1: I feel like if he gets bought out, then yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a conversation. I just don't think t HD is
Speaker 1: the guy to give up right now. He's really the
Speaker 1: lakers only asset really, if you think about it that way.
Speaker 1: They don't really have anyone else that's a chip in
Speaker 1: that way. I don't think they'll give it up for
Speaker 1: p J. Tucker because there's something funky with Kuzma's contract
Speaker 1: that makes him hard to trade, right I can't remember
Speaker 1: what it is, but it's uh, maybe I'm wrong about that,
Speaker 1: but I used to be that it was Kuzma, you know,
Speaker 1: and t HD. I would say Caruso is kind of
Speaker 1: an asset too, but they definitely don't have a ton
Speaker 1: of assets, and t HD is certainly their best asset.
Speaker 1: So the whole premise for my whole, you know, devil's
Speaker 1: advocate type approach that I took yesterday is the simple
Speaker 1: fact that the margin for error for the Lakers this
Speaker 1: year is less than it was last year, which is
Speaker 1: crazy because the Lakers got better. But the problem is
Speaker 1: is everybody around the league got better. You know, the Clippers.
Speaker 1: We we've kind of slandered them at length on this podcast,
Speaker 1: in addition to other podcasts that have been on. But
Speaker 1: the truth is is that with Nick Potuman and Surgebaka,
Speaker 1: they're a better basketball team. Not to mention, any team
Speaker 1: coming off of an embarrassing loss usually comes back the
Speaker 1: next year really better. Look at Portland, they get embarrassed
Speaker 1: by New Orleans, They come back next year and make
Speaker 1: the Western Conference Finals. You know, you look at the
Speaker 1: San Antonio Spurs, they blow that game, they come back.
Speaker 1: You know that every every team has a tendency to
Speaker 1: kind of rally around each other when something really bad
Speaker 1: happens and they play better. Uh, if you have Philly
Speaker 1: looks like a bona fide contender. I talked about them
Speaker 1: yesterday as a team that crosses all three boxes. They're
Speaker 1: elite defensively, they put a ton of pressure on the rim,
Speaker 1: and they have shooters. So it's a team that that
Speaker 1: that is interesting to me in that regard. And then
Speaker 1: Brooklyn obviously, and then even these Utah and Phoenix teams
Speaker 1: have kind of added something to the mix. The the
Speaker 1: level of good that the Lakers need to be to
Speaker 1: win this year, it's it's at a higher level than
Speaker 1: it was last year. And so from that perspective, when
Speaker 1: I look at a guy like t p J. Tucker
Speaker 1: as is is a guy that that that fills a
Speaker 1: specific need that very well could increase your chances of
Speaker 1: winning the title by a few percentage points, which, and
Speaker 1: with the margin of air being as small as it is,
Speaker 1: could be the difference maker. Now I agree that he's old,
Speaker 1: but as we're going to talk about here more in
Speaker 1: a second, you know, I think there's plenty of examples
Speaker 1: over the last few years that that guys who are
Speaker 1: are playing in bad situations have a tendency to just
Speaker 1: let the ropes, let the rope slip, and then when
Speaker 1: they get re engaged in a good situation, begin to
Speaker 1: look more like themselves. And p J. Tucker quite simply
Speaker 1: is one of the best corner three point shooters in
Speaker 1: the league. He's not a good overall three point shooter,
Speaker 1: but there's an easy need for the Lakers to have
Speaker 1: somebody in the corner that can knock down shots, and
Speaker 1: he's another body to throw at a Kauai or at
Speaker 1: a Paul George or even a bigger forward in the
Speaker 1: league that he might be able to to to cause
Speaker 1: some physical problems for so, so tell me why you
Speaker 1: don't believe in p J Tucker necessarily as a as
Speaker 1: a as a contributor at this point. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I I got to watch, you know, the Lakers played
Speaker 1: Houston last year in the second round. UM, and PG
Speaker 1: Tucker was awesome and he was there small ball five.
Speaker 1: But he's not keeping up with those wings at that
Speaker 1: age right now, he's what like thirty six. And then
Speaker 1: we talked about those bets that are kind of in
Speaker 1: bad situations. They're usually not this old. They're usually like
Speaker 1: around maybe thirty two, thirty three. I feel like thirty
Speaker 1: six is pretty pretty high up there. And PJ. Tucker
Speaker 1: is a guy with a lot of mileage on him.
Speaker 1: And uh, he's a corner shooter, right He's he's gonna
Speaker 1: sit there and shoot corner threes. Um, he's not gonna
Speaker 1: take it off the dribble. Um, he's not gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: create any kind of offense. He's just gonna stand there.
Speaker 1: And I feel like the Lakers have players like that.
Speaker 1: Um Wes Matthews is probably not as good a shooter,
Speaker 1: but I feel like he feels that kind of defender role.
Speaker 1: And again to get p J. Tucker, I feel like
Speaker 1: it's gonna have to be in a trade and I
Speaker 1: just don't think the Lakers gonna give up anything for him.
Speaker 1: And we saw yesterday at the All Star Draft, Um,
Speaker 1: we saw Lebron kind of take a take a crap
Speaker 1: on Utah there. Just to bring that around here, the
Speaker 1: Lakers shouldn't have to go and trade right there there
Speaker 1: there are a place that people are gonna want to
Speaker 1: come to. They're gonna be a free agent. Uh, They're
Speaker 1: gonna be a buyout market place that people are gonna
Speaker 1: come and play for. And I feel like that's where
Speaker 1: the market is going to be giving up th h
Speaker 1: D for a couple of months of p J. Tucker
Speaker 1: just does not. Like I understand the margin of air
Speaker 1: might be a little spatted this year. I might kind
Speaker 1: of contest to that, but uh, because eighties missed like
Speaker 1: fourteen games and the standings are still as close as
Speaker 1: they are. But even with the marginary, I don't think
Speaker 1: p J. Tucker saws that marginal maryor too high. Like
Speaker 1: how much is he playing in a Brooklyn Net series? Guy? Really?
Speaker 1: Like that's a team to me that I want to
Speaker 1: look at here, the Clippers and Lakers. We know kind
Speaker 1: of the matchups are. I think in a Brooklyn series,
Speaker 1: I don't know how much p J Tucker is playing.
Speaker 1: And I think that's where you're looking at here. You
Speaker 1: don't want to sign guys for a few months or
Speaker 1: you know, for a first round series or somebody that
Speaker 1: That's where my issue was with p J Tucker. So,
Speaker 1: but how much is talent Horton Tucker going to be playing? Like,
Speaker 1: I mean, a part of this for me, and for
Speaker 1: the record, I'm not necessarily saying I don't even know
Speaker 1: what my answer would be to that poll, because there
Speaker 1: are a number of different things that that make it complicated.
Speaker 1: For instance, talent Horton Tucker's salary doesn't match up with
Speaker 1: p J Tucker, so you've got to add additional players,
Speaker 1: and when you're Hardcaps, that can be a problem. Um
Speaker 1: In addition to that, like, yeah, I'm not sure that
Speaker 1: that either talent Horton Tucker or p J Tucker will
Speaker 1: be will be relatively usable in a in a specific
Speaker 1: playoff matchup against some of the best teams in the league.
Speaker 1: You know that said all, I'm saying is like I
Speaker 1: bel I personally was very high on talent Horton Tucker
Speaker 1: about a month and a half ago, um that he
Speaker 1: went through a strike where he was defending extremely well,
Speaker 1: he was attacking closeouts well, he was simplifying his game
Speaker 1: and he did a good job within that specific role. UM.
Speaker 1: But I mean, what's really been disappointing to me as
Speaker 1: of late as I don't think either Frank or really
Speaker 1: any you know, any of his teammates can can count
Speaker 1: on talent Horton Tucker to do his job defensively, which
Speaker 1: has been frustrating because we talked a little bit about this,
Speaker 1: you know, two podcasts ago. But he's not defending very
Speaker 1: well and pick and roll, he's he's getting caught on
Speaker 1: screens too much, which is something he needs to work on.
Speaker 1: He's losing his focus and help defense and getting caught.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a play, uh, there was a
Speaker 1: play against Phoenix the other night where you know, basic
Speaker 1: backdoor cut from I think it was Jay Crowder and
Speaker 1: he's just he's just he's not You're supposed to have
Speaker 1: an eye on man and ball is what they always
Speaker 1: teach you when you're when you're coming up in the game,
Speaker 1: and he didn't have an eye on either, Like he
Speaker 1: was kind of like looking back and forth, looking back
Speaker 1: and forth. But then the guy cut behind him and
Speaker 1: he just wasn't paying attention. It was like was kind
Speaker 1: of sort of like, uh, just towing that line in
Speaker 1: no man's land, and he got beat. And so from
Speaker 1: that same point, like what I'm saying is I I
Speaker 1: feel relatively certain that the perceived value within some corners
Speaker 1: of Lakers Twitter that th h T is this future star.
Speaker 1: I feel relatively certain that that's not the case. Now
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm in the minority there. Um, I
Speaker 1: think he's a good player, but I don't necessarily see
Speaker 1: the same ceiling that everybody else sees. And so, you know, me,
Speaker 1: I've got a core philosophy here, which is like, don't
Speaker 1: get caught trying to tow both lines of the current
Speaker 1: era and the future to the point where you get
Speaker 1: you know, where you get yourself beat. You know, because
Speaker 1: it's like everyone goes like, well, what about the Spurs,
Speaker 1: you know, a team that consistently kind of did both,
Speaker 1: And it's like, yeah, but his talent weren't Tucker Kauai
Speaker 1: Because I don't think talent Horton Tucker's Kauai, you know,
Speaker 1: but that's just my take. I'm lower on th HT
Speaker 1: than other Laker fans, and and that makes it so
Speaker 1: that And again I'm not saying that necessarily giving up
Speaker 1: give him up for p J Tucker, but I think
Speaker 1: I think a lot of fan bases act like this,
Speaker 1: and I'm not necessarily of the opinion that he should
Speaker 1: be untouchable. But you do make a good point. You
Speaker 1: and Ben Roe Salas brought this up yesterday, this idea
Speaker 1: that the Lakers aren't desperate, and I agree. We talked
Speaker 1: about this a lot last week. You know, when a
Speaker 1: d comes back and everyone's healthy, this is still the
Speaker 1: best team in basketball, So there's no reason to overextend yourself.
Speaker 1: All I said from the beginning was is like I
Speaker 1: would I would be I would at least think heavily
Speaker 1: about moving someone like th HT for really solid veteran
Speaker 1: peace because of the fact that the margin for error
Speaker 1: is less this year. And something silly like allowing Lebron
Speaker 1: to save his legs so that he doesn't have to
Speaker 1: guard Kauai in a play series, you know, something silly
Speaker 1: like that might be the difference this year. It might
Speaker 1: not be the Lakers might just be better, but it
Speaker 1: might be the difference this year. So that that's kind
Speaker 1: of where I I kind of tell the wine if
Speaker 1: that makes sense, Yeah, for sure, And I feel like
Speaker 1: there's a right trade out there, then you know you
Speaker 1: can make it for t hd At. I'm not in
Speaker 1: the camp that T is untouchable. I was lower on
Speaker 1: him than most. Well I'm not a draft guy, so
Speaker 1: I really don't even try with those kind of things.
Speaker 1: I was kind of lower on him, But watching him
Speaker 1: this season, I you know, I got excited to you.
Speaker 1: How can you not You watch him kind of dominating
Speaker 1: the UH in the preseason and kind of go go off,
Speaker 1: and you see the ball handling skills, Like against Sacramento,
Speaker 1: there was no one else so they just ran high
Speaker 1: ball screen after high ball school for him and he
Speaker 1: was comfortable and you could see like he was in
Speaker 1: his lab, able to drive and kick and dish, and
Speaker 1: you know that. I feel like the Lakers see him
Speaker 1: as that kind of player. They want to develop him,
Speaker 1: and I don't think for the really quick Sacramento was
Speaker 1: a horrifically bad. Yeah, they have they have a lot
Speaker 1: of bigger issues than just basketball, in my opinion, day
Speaker 1: they have a have a live a lot of issues,
Speaker 1: but just seeing case you get to go to work
Speaker 1: and have fun. You can see, like on defense, I
Speaker 1: get your point with that, but to me, he's twenty, Like,
Speaker 1: I just don't know how many twenty year olds are
Speaker 1: contributing on a title team, like a title team, um,
Speaker 1: especially you know at that age. And he really didn't
Speaker 1: play that much his rookie year either, so he's still
Speaker 1: really new and I'm not going to really kill him
Speaker 1: for that. I feel like his defensive was fine and
Speaker 1: he was playing next to like a d and you
Speaker 1: know in those lines for a while. Yeah. Right now
Speaker 1: it's accountability with those guys. But he just he's been
Speaker 1: he's lost his focus lately. Yeah, right now he's lost.
Speaker 1: I mean, he doesn't know where he's supposed to be.
Speaker 1: You can see a lot of communication issues as well.
Speaker 1: Him and coups and traders are always kind of like, hey,
Speaker 1: that was your rotation. He's like, I'm trying to stop
Speaker 1: the guy at the rim and his guys open for three.
Speaker 1: So a lot of things like that happened. Um, So
Speaker 1: I I still really believe in him defensively and yeah,
Speaker 1: I just don't think p J took is the right
Speaker 1: trade for it. But I'm like, I'm kind of on
Speaker 1: your side there. I don't think he's untouchable. Like, if
Speaker 1: there's a right move out there, then you make it.
Speaker 1: You don't, uh, you don't hold yourself for that that's
Speaker 1: gonna help you in the title. I just don't think
Speaker 1: there are many moves out there they're gonna create the
Speaker 1: big margin that's gonna help you in the playoffs here
Speaker 1: for sure, And there's not minutes available for some sort
Speaker 1: of large type of thing. I'm just saying, like, you know, Okay,
Speaker 1: So for instance, like one of the things I saw
Speaker 1: yesterday from somebody that on Twitter that I follow, I
Speaker 1: can't I'm blanking on the gentleman's name right now, So
Speaker 1: I apologize in advance. But the someone that I followed
Speaker 1: for a while who knows this stuff, and he was
Speaker 1: bringing up the fact that that in Houston in the playoffs,
Speaker 1: that that PJ had started to struggle a little bit.
Speaker 1: And what bothered me about that is, like, you know,
Speaker 1: I correct me if I'm wrong, And I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: p J. Tucker led the league in corner three point
Speaker 1: percentage last year, So it was a specialty of his, which,
Speaker 1: for the record, it's a significantly different shot, like when
Speaker 1: I'm shooting a photo versus it's a significantly different shot.
Speaker 1: There's a it's a it's a different uh. You know.
Speaker 1: The easiest way I can describe it is like a
Speaker 1: an NBA, you know, a wing or the top of
Speaker 1: the key. Three point shot is like a full body shot,
Speaker 1: whereas a where you have to get a lot of lift,
Speaker 1: Whereas the corner shot is a shot that is a
Speaker 1: little bit more of a set shot. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit more of something that if you if you really
Speaker 1: jumped crazy high and got a ton of lift, it
Speaker 1: would actually throw you off a little bit on that shot.
Speaker 1: And so from that standpoint, you know, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's fair to discount his entire season of shooting based
Speaker 1: on the fact that the Lakers, who are one of
Speaker 1: the best three point defenses in the league, made PJ
Speaker 1: struggle a little bit. Like that, to me, is in
Speaker 1: a fair assessment necessarily because you know, it's like Marcusol.
Speaker 1: Everyone's like, oh, Marcusol can't shoot. He shot poorly in
Speaker 1: the playoffs last year for Toronto, and it's like, well,
Speaker 1: he shot really well all season, he just was on
Speaker 1: a team that didn't have a lot of offensive creation,
Speaker 1: and so when they ran into some elite defenses in
Speaker 1: the playoffs, he wasn't getting the same shot quality, you know.
Speaker 1: And and ironically, like Marcusol has been shooting the hell
Speaker 1: out of the basketball as of late. But I just
Speaker 1: I think, like, you know, uh, the limited minutes, because
Speaker 1: he would them into l a and he'd played probably
Speaker 1: fifteen to twenty minutes a game, the overall shot quality
Speaker 1: that he would get, I think would rejuvenate him. And
Speaker 1: so this is a good point because we're gonna we're
Speaker 1: gonna segue to Blake Griffin here in a second and
Speaker 1: what that would look like. And I think, so there
Speaker 1: are dozens of examples, because there's a difference between what
Speaker 1: I was talking about with Tommy yesterday, which is, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: younger players playing on really good teams and struggling. Think
Speaker 1: like a Kelly Ubre with this Warriors team, or like
Speaker 1: a Rodney Hood or a Jordan Clarkson with the two
Speaker 1: thousand eighteen Calves, and they're struggling, and there's a tendency
Speaker 1: to kind of point fingers and be like why is
Speaker 1: this guy struggling? Why is this guy struggling? Well, that
Speaker 1: has to do with the fact that they're young and
Speaker 1: they're struggling trying to find a way to fit in
Speaker 1: that offense. But with veterans, guys in their late thirties
Speaker 1: who are stuck in bad situations, who come out of
Speaker 1: bad situations and go into good situations and start playing
Speaker 1: around high i Q basketball players, I don't think we
Speaker 1: can I don't think it's possible to overstate how much
Speaker 1: that can reinvigorate people. I don't have any sort of
Speaker 1: receipt or anything, because I remember not necessarily talking about it,
Speaker 1: but I was pretty confident that Nick Patum was going
Speaker 1: to be fine when he came back to the Clippers.
Speaker 1: Why because I wanted the Calves to get him when
Speaker 1: they were floating around that Colin Sexton pick. And the
Speaker 1: truth of the matter is is Nick Patum is It
Speaker 1: brings very translatable skills, right like, you can shoot, he's
Speaker 1: big and pretty athletic, and you can put the ball
Speaker 1: on the floor make basic basketball reads. So obviously, if
Speaker 1: you stick him on a bad basketball team where the
Speaker 1: collective i Q is low, those skills aren't really going
Speaker 1: to manifest themselves. As we talk about all the time
Speaker 1: with the Lakers, their role players play a simplified version
Speaker 1: of the game because of what Dennis Lebron and a
Speaker 1: d do. They put them in situations where they're doing
Speaker 1: a closeout drill where there there are hacking against every
Speaker 1: defensive player at a disadvantage. Those sorts of things. With
Speaker 1: a smart veteran player who brings translatable skills, I think
Speaker 1: reinvigorate them. And I think we have lots of examples
Speaker 1: of that over the years. Like even this last example
Speaker 1: I'll use and then I'll hand it over to you,
Speaker 1: Like even Tyson Chandler last year for him it was
Speaker 1: a health issue or two years ago. I'm sorry for him,
Speaker 1: it was a health issue. Uh, he couldn't say on
Speaker 1: the court for the Lakers. But even when he was
Speaker 1: out there, like just having a guy who wouldn't completely
Speaker 1: urinate down his leg when he was on the court
Speaker 1: at the center position, like really helped them. And there
Speaker 1: and there were numbers, there were advanced metrics that showed
Speaker 1: that when Tyson Chandler was on the floor of the
Speaker 1: Lakers played really well that year. It was just he
Speaker 1: struggled with health and that might have been the most
Speaker 1: washed version of this type of situation, if that makes sense, right.
Speaker 1: But like my only thing with Nick Putune, I mean,
Speaker 1: the rims are still ten feet high and Charlotte as
Speaker 1: they are in l A. Um, it's not like he
Speaker 1: was playing for the Vetterman minimum and Charlotte. He was
Speaker 1: making thirty million a year. So like, I don't know
Speaker 1: if he's an excuse to be like, I just don't care. Um,
Speaker 1: that's the one that's really shocked me. I did not
Speaker 1: think he would. I thought he would be like in
Speaker 1: the rotation and I think he'd be starting and hitting
Speaker 1: threes and you know, going off the dribble and things
Speaker 1: of that nature. So yeah, it's kind of interesting when
Speaker 1: you look at his environment and moving over and you
Speaker 1: kind of like move that to anyone else. Um, I
Speaker 1: wonder if that's more like the exception than the rule.
Speaker 1: But um, the guy I was looking at his Blake Griffin,
Speaker 1: I think we were going to kind of segue to him.
Speaker 1: Um I went because NBA dot com you can go
Speaker 1: and like look at every assist, right, so you can
Speaker 1: go and look at guy's assist and they'll just video
Speaker 1: out the assist and the look at is like they're
Speaker 1: very generous with the assists. So like Blake Griffin would
Speaker 1: have like a six assist game and four of them
Speaker 1: are literally him just swinging to Jeremy Grant who does
Speaker 1: like a three dribble move up and under layup, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, man, he really didn't do anything with that,
Speaker 1: and like a lot of them are of that. Or
Speaker 1: he'll just like kick it to a shooter and he'll
Speaker 1: pumping step back three and he'll get the assist for that.
Speaker 1: So I went and try to rewatch the Laker Students game,
Speaker 1: and that's the game I think Blake actually tried. I
Speaker 1: think he's gonna try against those big, big opponents, and um,
Speaker 1: what I saw is like it's a guy that he's
Speaker 1: obviously lost his athleticism, but he's a guy who can
Speaker 1: hit open threes, he can run a little bit of
Speaker 1: pick and roll, he can handle it. Um, he plays
Speaker 1: a lot out of the post, which I think kind
Speaker 1: of fits this team. I would like to see him
Speaker 1: next to a guy like a d That's the guy
Speaker 1: I think I would like to go for. He's like
Speaker 1: thirty two years old, kind of a really bad situation. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gonna like hundred percent check that, but I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure I checked that yesterday. Here's a reputation around
Speaker 1: the league as a corpse. He's actually I gave him
Speaker 1: an extra year. He's thirty one, so even even more. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's kind of it's crazy. So and I mean you
Speaker 1: look at him. I mean he came to the league
Speaker 1: even before DeAndre or after DeAndre Jordan. I can't remember
Speaker 1: who's starting on the net. So I can see him
Speaker 1: being a contributor. Again, he's a guy that's going to
Speaker 1: get bought out. You don't have to really do much.
Speaker 1: And I think it's a like a low risk, high
Speaker 1: reward kind of player. Um so yeah, I feel like
Speaker 1: you that's the kind of guy. And again, like we
Speaker 1: talked about with p J. Tucker, the minutes just aren't there,
Speaker 1: Like Tres right now with all these guys out is
Speaker 1: playing still played only twenty minutes of game with a
Speaker 1: d out, Mark out still only playing like twenty five
Speaker 1: minutes of game. So look, if you look at the minutes,
Speaker 1: I just don't see they're being too many minutes there
Speaker 1: to have on this team. That's the guy I would
Speaker 1: like to see them go after, for sure. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's fascinating because like a Bloy Griffin move is kind
Speaker 1: of an identity change for the team in a certain
Speaker 1: sense because like you you you kind of tried to
Speaker 1: to slot him into a combination of what you've been
Speaker 1: giving minutes to uh to Keith and uh tres and Marcossol. Now, like,
Speaker 1: for instance, like you can't count on on Blake Griffin
Speaker 1: to be as you know, as active in rotations defensively
Speaker 1: as him on tres Can. He doesn't have the motor,
Speaker 1: he doesn't have the foot speed. Uh, you can't count
Speaker 1: on him to be the same physical rim protector that
Speaker 1: Marcos al is. He's not big enough, he can't jump
Speaker 1: as high anymore. But what he does give you, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, is kind of like a slightly better version
Speaker 1: of what you've been getting from markueff Um. Like if
Speaker 1: you think about what Mark Keith brings to the table,
Speaker 1: which is like he's kind of a corner three point
Speaker 1: shooter kind of guy. To He's he's done a good
Speaker 1: job in post defense. He's that he has struggled in
Speaker 1: in rotations. But if you if if the teams that
Speaker 1: try to isolate markuef on the block like he actually
Speaker 1: does a good job of holding his own. You know,
Speaker 1: I think Blake would slot into that role perfectly. And
Speaker 1: and I would argue that he's a little bit better
Speaker 1: of a shooter and then a little bit better with
Speaker 1: the ball in his hands. Is he as he puts
Speaker 1: the ball on the floor. And again, everything has to
Speaker 1: be quantified with the with the with the type of
Speaker 1: shot quality that they're going to get. You know, the
Speaker 1: Lakers are dead last and three point shooting over the
Speaker 1: last fifteen games. The shoot about it's awful, awful, offul awful,
Speaker 1: like horrific, horrific stuff. Um, but I think the main
Speaker 1: reason for that has to do with the fact that
Speaker 1: with a D out and with Lebron kind of being
Speaker 1: on cruise control as of late, they're just not and
Speaker 1: with Dennis being out for as long as he was,
Speaker 1: they're just not putting any pressure on the rim, which
Speaker 1: is not which is not creating the same high quality
Speaker 1: looks that they were getting when A d was playing.
Speaker 1: Because early in the season the Lakers shot well. And
Speaker 1: so from that standpoint, like when everybody gets back, you know,
Speaker 1: Blake Griffin is gonna be one of the guys that
Speaker 1: gets left alone and you know, we're gonna transition here
Speaker 1: in a minute to kind of talking about the Lakers
Speaker 1: trapping defense. And you know, one of the points that
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make is that you know, everybody talks with
Speaker 1: the Lakers like you gotta make Eventually they're gonna make
Speaker 1: these guys make shots because they're gonna, uh, they're gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, trap Lebron or double Lebron and they're gonna
Speaker 1: double a D. And the Lakers are gonna do the
Speaker 1: same thing to other teams with their defense, which we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about in a minute. But the truth of
Speaker 1: the matter is is that's how it's going to be
Speaker 1: in a playoffs series. They're gonna they're gonna relentlessly attack
Speaker 1: specific matchups with Lebron and a D and guys like
Speaker 1: Blake Griffin, you know, are going to be able to
Speaker 1: to make plays off the dribble in space as they
Speaker 1: put the ball on the floor. And I think if
Speaker 1: you can get him in the buyout market, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's obviously no way they're going to trade for him,
Speaker 1: the salaries would be impossible, but if you could get
Speaker 1: him in the buyout market, like I see him as
Speaker 1: a pretty clean swap. The only thing that would get
Speaker 1: trouble from there is then Markief almost entirely falls out
Speaker 1: of the rotation, which makes it tough to kind of
Speaker 1: figure out how you work that out because he's complained
Speaker 1: in the past about not being in the rotation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think Blake would have to earn those minutes.
Speaker 1: I mean, just on this team. He's not gonna come
Speaker 1: here and kind of demand minutes, But you have to
Speaker 1: earn those And if he's playing better than Markief, then
Speaker 1: he plays. I mean that's just how it goes. Markief,
Speaker 1: I think would understand that. Um, he started some games
Speaker 1: in the bubble right in the playoffs and uh and
Speaker 1: some games he didn't play. So that's how I see him.
Speaker 1: Blake man like he was, he was a star in
Speaker 1: this league. Like those kind of guys, I feel like
Speaker 1: they're not just gonna go out off on a whip, right,
Speaker 1: Like they're not just gonna fall out of the league.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, Like those guys want to prove something
Speaker 1: we saw with Dwight Howard last year, and I don't
Speaker 1: think Blake is even close. I think Dwight was a
Speaker 1: lot closer to his athletic uh peak than Blake is
Speaker 1: right now. But you know those kind of guys that
Speaker 1: they know how to play, and uh, Blake's was never
Speaker 1: like a great defender, but he's a smart defender. He
Speaker 1: knows where to be, where he's supposed to be. He
Speaker 1: doesn't put a crazy amount of pressure on the rim.
Speaker 1: But what's interesting to me rewatching a few Pistons game,
Speaker 1: which I don't recommend at all because those are not
Speaker 1: fun games to watch, but people do send like doubles
Speaker 1: at him still, which is kind of funny. Like, so
Speaker 1: he'll go on the post and people will trap him, Yes,
Speaker 1: and people will trap him even though like even the
Speaker 1: numbers say again this the numbers test kind of thing,
Speaker 1: but like the number say, shoot on turnaround jumpers. But
Speaker 1: still people come and double him and he kicks it.
Speaker 1: He makes the right play guys, cut off of it um. Again,
Speaker 1: he gets some kind of what's called assists that he
Speaker 1: probably shouldn't get, but still like he makes the right
Speaker 1: play um in those situations. So again, in that second
Speaker 1: unit where offense is kind of struggling, I would like
Speaker 1: him to kind of help that out. I think he
Speaker 1: can be a he can be a secondary creator. But
Speaker 1: when everyone's healthy. Yeah, I mean he might be a luxury,
Speaker 1: but I think it's a guy that low risk, high reward.
Speaker 1: Like you, you can if it doesn't work out, it
Speaker 1: doesn't work out, but he can kind of test it
Speaker 1: and see if it does. Yeah, and you know he's
Speaker 1: even setting basketball aside. Um. Blake's a star and he
Speaker 1: belongs in l A, and I I it's on good
Speaker 1: authority for many people that he wants to be here,
Speaker 1: and thank God for Steve Bomber burning the bridge so
Speaker 1: horrifically bad that he would never go back to the Clippers. Um.
Speaker 1: So like I I would imagine. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: have any intel on this, obviously I'm not the intel
Speaker 1: kind of guy, but my gut tells me that he
Speaker 1: will be a Laker um just by virtue of the
Speaker 1: simple fact that there's intel out that he's gonna get
Speaker 1: bought out and all signs point to l A. But
Speaker 1: the one thing that's gets sketchy is there will be
Speaker 1: a conversation with Rob Olinka and Frank Vogel at some
Speaker 1: point talking about minutes. And as you and I both know,
Speaker 1: there is there is significant evidence in NBA history of
Speaker 1: buy out guys chasing minutes because they like to play basketball,
Speaker 1: and so that'll be the interesting part. Like I, you know,
Speaker 1: people would probably burn me at the stake for this too,
Speaker 1: but I would consider trading Tres for some shooting if
Speaker 1: I knew for a fact that Blake Griffin was coming, um,
Speaker 1: just because of the fact that I think they only
Speaker 1: have one additional buyout spot after Blake and uh um.
Speaker 1: You know, in Montrese, to me, as good as he's
Speaker 1: been this year, he's been exactly what we wanted him
Speaker 1: to be, which is an innings eater, a guy that, yeah,
Speaker 1: the Lakers on the short turnaround got blitzed by injuries
Speaker 1: in COVID, And the truth of the matter is is
Speaker 1: Montrese was worth every penny to be the guy that
Speaker 1: could eat up a lot of those minutes. But that said,
Speaker 1: when push comes to shoves in the shove in the playoffs,
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily see him as as that much of
Speaker 1: an ass that whereas like you know, Blake's got tons
Speaker 1: and tons of playoff reps and uh and his shooting
Speaker 1: helps with spacing and that specific type of environment. And
Speaker 1: then defensively they're not the same. But my guess is
Speaker 1: that you could find a way to be similarly effective
Speaker 1: with Blake defensively that you would with a mantres if
Speaker 1: that makes sense. Yeah, well my only issue, like I
Speaker 1: saw a lot of like I would trade Tres on
Speaker 1: Twitter or whatever. Um, but I mean this is not
Speaker 1: two K you know what I mean, Like we can't
Speaker 1: like uh and also this is pleased with Clutch and
Speaker 1: all those kind of factors go in and uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I just don't see it happened. He took a pay
Speaker 1: cut to kind of be here, and I wouldn't even
Speaker 1: think about it because there's just no way they're moving.
Speaker 1: They're moving Tress, no chance at all whatsoever. But I
Speaker 1: just don't. I just don't see it. It's it's way
Speaker 1: too many things that would have to go wrong for
Speaker 1: that to happen. Um, it was funny. I was seeing
Speaker 1: like a Celtics fan being like, um yeah, I can't
Speaker 1: even put Tristan Thompson trade room trade rorez because he's
Speaker 1: a clutch guy and you can't screw over clutch, which
Speaker 1: you know, I think he was talking kind of facetiously,
Speaker 1: but uh, that's kind of true. I mean these are
Speaker 1: like relationships that people have built, you know, and it's
Speaker 1: just no way that he was getting he would get
Speaker 1: traded in my opinion, Um, he's he's a he's too
Speaker 1: close with everyone, so I just don't see it, and
Speaker 1: he's played too well. I just I just don't see
Speaker 1: it happening. He's been as advertised and he hasn't complained,
Speaker 1: he's he's done his role, so I just don't see
Speaker 1: him getting moved. I would even argue he's been better
Speaker 1: than I thought he would be. To be honest, it's
Speaker 1: just it's more just like a fit thing. And you know,
Speaker 1: and it may be as simple as like, you know,
Speaker 1: because the Lakers shooting has been you know the problem
Speaker 1: this last you know, a couple of months month really
Speaker 1: and and really if you look at the way the
Speaker 1: rosters built in their core lineups, you know, when k
Speaker 1: CP is actually playing like k c P. You know
Speaker 1: when when Wesley Matthews is shooting a league average like
Speaker 1: he should at this phase of his career. Kyle Kuzma
Speaker 1: has actually been better shooting the ball than he has
Speaker 1: in years passed. When all these guys are actually playing
Speaker 1: like themselves, they are what they should be, which is
Speaker 1: an average three and shooting team that should shoot really
Speaker 1: well at times because of the high quality at three
Speaker 1: point shots that they get. So I I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: see that as a problem. I'm just kind of floating
Speaker 1: these kinds of things out there. In truth of the matter,
Speaker 1: is with how old Marcosol is, and with how old
Speaker 1: Blake Griffin is, and with Anthony Davis being somewhat injury
Speaker 1: prone this year, you know, Blake Griffin might be worth
Speaker 1: having just for death at this position, which is which
Speaker 1: is something to to uh uh to at least, you know,
Speaker 1: takeing to to at least take a look at even
Speaker 1: if you have to have a conversation with your players
Speaker 1: and and be like, look like we're keeping you around
Speaker 1: for debt um. So I wanted to talk about uh
Speaker 1: you actually brought this up, so I should credit you,
Speaker 1: but to talk about the Lakers defensive schemes. So you
Speaker 1: had I'll let you actually lead this one off. So
Speaker 1: you had mentioned that you, uh had something you wanted
Speaker 1: to say about the Lakers trapping the way they have
Speaker 1: in the last couple of games. What did you have
Speaker 1: in mind? Yeah, So it's funny because I remember when
Speaker 1: we recorded last week, you said, uh, something like I
Speaker 1: think fans are gonna be surprised how well they play.
Speaker 1: When Shrewder comes back, I was like, well, I think
Speaker 1: they'll play better and I think they played this good.
Speaker 1: But just just like watching right but like, but for me,
Speaker 1: like I focus on that Portland's and Warriors game because
Speaker 1: I feel like they really wanted those two and they
Speaker 1: had all their guys pretty much there except for except
Speaker 1: for a d obviously, and man, these trapped Like, to me,
Speaker 1: Stephan Dame are the most dangerous thirty plus shooters in
Speaker 1: the league. Like, I don't know if there's anyone other
Speaker 1: than that, maybe Luca when he's on, but Stephan Dame
Speaker 1: to me are the ones you have to guard that
Speaker 1: high up and uh, obviously step doesn't have the supporting
Speaker 1: cast right now there this is Dame. But watching like
Speaker 1: Shrewder first of all, him chasing screens like this, Like
Speaker 1: it's funny when people think about the trapping defense, they think,
Speaker 1: like anyone can just trap, and it's just not It's
Speaker 1: just not true that not every team can play this style.
Speaker 1: So I was watching Shooter kind of chase Steph and
Speaker 1: Dame around these screens, and marcusol is at the level
Speaker 1: of the screen, right, and you have Stephan Dame picking
Speaker 1: the ball up like near half court, and now you
Speaker 1: have like a four on three and I'm watching Lebron.
Speaker 1: I forgot, like how much of a force Lebron can
Speaker 1: be on defense when he's when he wants to. He
Speaker 1: he hasn't really done it much this year, so you
Speaker 1: kind of forget. But I think him and A d
Speaker 1: are probably the best at this, and they're on the
Speaker 1: same team kind of defending two guys at the same time. Obviously,
Speaker 1: with the Warriors, I think he's played them a million times.
Speaker 1: He knows their place. But even with even with the Blazers,
Speaker 1: man he was blowing up those those coverages. So I
Speaker 1: saw like the peak of what they can be. They're
Speaker 1: not gonna do that every night. They can't do that
Speaker 1: every play, but just seeing their trapping schemes something they
Speaker 1: have in their wallet that they've used last year that's worked, Um,
Speaker 1: I think. I think it's really cool to see it
Speaker 1: see it work in these two games because I feel
Speaker 1: like they really tried it. And again, this is all
Speaker 1: without Anthony Davis, who to me is the the number
Speaker 1: one in this who protects all things at the rim
Speaker 1: and around around the basket. But yeah, I want to
Speaker 1: see like your thoughts on that, because I really felt
Speaker 1: like they wanted to defend those guys. Dame have like
Speaker 1: twenty eight or some crazy number in the first half,
Speaker 1: and then they really shut all that off in the
Speaker 1: second half, and from there, I think they took that
Speaker 1: into the Warriors game, and that Warrior's game was over
Speaker 1: within the first five minutes. It was not a contest um.
Speaker 1: So I want I wanted, you know, like, were those
Speaker 1: shots that they were missing, like because they were giving
Speaker 1: some open looks. I think Andrew Wiggins had a few
Speaker 1: open threes and all that. But again, I feel like
Speaker 1: they can control it. Right, if you just let Stephan
Speaker 1: Dame run high screen a role, they're gonna kill your
Speaker 1: drop coverage and they're gonna kill your switches. But if
Speaker 1: you can kind of control who's getting the shots, I
Speaker 1: think because I was listening to the Warriors broadcast and
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, they're just missing open looks, I was like, well,
Speaker 1: there's a reason those guys are open right, making sure
Speaker 1: Wiggins is the one taking the three with the hard
Speaker 1: clothes out. So I kind of want to hear your
Speaker 1: thoughts kind of on that. So, first of all, as
Speaker 1: far as missing open looks go. I talked about this
Speaker 1: specifically with Tommy yesterday, and it's actually a problem with
Speaker 1: strictly analytical approach to two shot evaluation because they'll call
Speaker 1: a shot a wide open shot because there's no defender
Speaker 1: within six feet, but it doesn't account for how that
Speaker 1: wide open shot was generated so or who it is.
Speaker 1: So for instance, like if the shot is generated in
Speaker 1: against the super physical def is that chases you off
Speaker 1: the line and forces you into a couple of attacked closeouts.
Speaker 1: By the time you're open, there's a fatigue element, you know,
Speaker 1: in addition to the selective leaving of guys open. So
Speaker 1: when you look at it's I don't think it's necessarily
Speaker 1: a fair indicator of of of shot quality to just say, oh,
Speaker 1: we have this many wide open shots, because if those
Speaker 1: wide open shots are all in fatigued situations and all
Speaker 1: given to average to blow average shooters, it's actually good defense.
Speaker 1: And it always bothers me when analytics guys will undercut
Speaker 1: a defense by saying like, oh, well, they're actually performing
Speaker 1: way above uh they're expected three point shot quality defensively,
Speaker 1: so they're benefiting from luck. So this defense actually sucks
Speaker 1: Like that to me is that to me is dishonest,
Speaker 1: and it just it just glosses over some basic, uh
Speaker 1: you know, principles of the way basketball actually works. And
Speaker 1: as far as the trapping team goes. I brought this
Speaker 1: up earlier. You know, the we talk about how teams
Speaker 1: are gonna inevitably make Lebron and a D B passers, right,
Speaker 1: that's just part of how playoff basketball works. Well, the
Speaker 1: truth of the matter is that the Lakers have to
Speaker 1: do the same thing to these other teams, especially in
Speaker 1: the Western Conference, when you've got Dame and you've got
Speaker 1: Jamal Murray, and you've got Steph Curry, and you've got
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's Here and Fox that you see
Speaker 1: in a playing game or in the first round if
Speaker 1: they happen to sneak in or there are just all
Speaker 1: of these super super quick guards that are great at
Speaker 1: at creating shots. I mean, Lou Williams is a guy
Speaker 1: that they'll probably do it to some in the uh
Speaker 1: in the Clipper series. But the truth of the matter
Speaker 1: is is like that's their version of what some of
Speaker 1: these other teams are doing to Lebron and A D.
Speaker 1: When teams are doubling Lebron in the post or doubling
Speaker 1: a d in the post. That's what the Lakers are
Speaker 1: doing to these guards at the point of attack in
Speaker 1: these pick and rolls. And so what I always look
Speaker 1: at it as is you're you're accepting the fact that
Speaker 1: you're going to give up a certain amount of shot quality,
Speaker 1: whether it's a wide open shot for and Andrew Wiggins
Speaker 1: or you know, a Nick Patuma or whoever it is
Speaker 1: that ends up getting the shot. However, what you're hoping
Speaker 1: is that the overall rhythm of the offense gets thrown
Speaker 1: off by the fact that their star player, who usually
Speaker 1: controls everything, is suddenly not getting the normal shot attempts
Speaker 1: and a bunch of inferior players are shooting the ball
Speaker 1: more frequently. You hope that that throws them off. And
Speaker 1: then secondly, this is something that you and I have
Speaker 1: talked about at length, the Lakers thriving chaos they do.
Speaker 1: And so you know the trap. The key with the
Speaker 1: trap is, uh, if you aggressively trap out front and
Speaker 1: you force the stepher a dame to throw a looping
Speaker 1: like side arm kind of over the top pass to
Speaker 1: the short roll guy, that time that it takes for
Speaker 1: that past to connect is what allows you to pre
Speaker 1: rotate or essentially like jump the gun in your rotations
Speaker 1: and give yourself an advantage. And it almost allows for
Speaker 1: that second defender on the on dame to get into
Speaker 1: the flow and get back into the rotation. That's what's
Speaker 1: so bad about this kind of half past thing that
Speaker 1: they did for most of the first part of the season.
Speaker 1: Or it's not a trap, but it's not drop coverage,
Speaker 1: and you're basically just a no man's line because now
Speaker 1: that pass to the short roll guy is a pocket pass,
Speaker 1: and that hard bounce pass into that gap hits that
Speaker 1: guy and you can't pre rotate, and now you're a
Speaker 1: step behind through the whole process, and it just puts
Speaker 1: you at a disadvantage. But the Lakers extensively used that
Speaker 1: specific scheme against Portland last year and against Houston in
Speaker 1: the playoffs, and it worked. Then they had a problem
Speaker 1: with with Denver having to do with the fact that
Speaker 1: Yokis was so good in that short role. So they
Speaker 1: did and this is what's so genius about it is
Speaker 1: they put Lebron in that action with Anthony Davis, and
Speaker 1: so they would run Yokis Murray pick and roll and
Speaker 1: they would just switch it. And now Jamal Murray there's
Speaker 1: a whole highlight reel of film of him trying to
Speaker 1: attack Anthony Davis and Lebron and these isolations and and
Speaker 1: not getting good shots, you know. And so that's what's
Speaker 1: so devastating about what they do is they can trap
Speaker 1: you and and survive in rotations. And if you're beaten that,
Speaker 1: here are two of the best defensive players in the
Speaker 1: world when they're engaged, and we're just gonna put them
Speaker 1: on your two best players. Now, good luck running that
Speaker 1: sort of action. Okay, you want to bring our worst
Speaker 1: defender into the action, cool, I bet you he's on
Speaker 1: your worst offensive player, and your worst offensive player isn't
Speaker 1: smart enough to consistently beat us in that short role position.
Speaker 1: Because that's the key. What makes the Warriors short role
Speaker 1: work out of those traps is Draymond because he's making
Speaker 1: the first play. What's making it work for Denver is
Speaker 1: Yoki because he's making the first play. Portland Nurkics is
Speaker 1: pretty good at it. But anybody else they put in
Speaker 1: that spot, like like can't just can't make enough plays
Speaker 1: out of that position. And so you actually that's what's
Speaker 1: so beautiful about putting a Lebron in a D pairing
Speaker 1: on your two best playmakers is now you've got to
Speaker 1: run that action with an inferior playmaker and a guy
Speaker 1: who's a little bit slow making a read and a
Speaker 1: four on three. That's all it takes for your defense
Speaker 1: to recover at that point. And the truth of the matter,
Speaker 1: this is what's so nice about having Lebron in a
Speaker 1: D two is Lebron and a d are so big
Speaker 1: and physical that I don't care how many doubles you
Speaker 1: send their way. They're still getting thirty points because of
Speaker 1: their physicality around the rim, and there are specific spots
Speaker 1: on the floor that it's suicide to double. But like
Speaker 1: a guy like Dame or a guy like Steph, like
Speaker 1: when you trap them, they literally have to give it up.
Speaker 1: They don't have an option that's like, oh, I'll just
Speaker 1: go post up, because that's the thing. If you try
Speaker 1: to trap Lebron and pick and rolls, He's just gonna
Speaker 1: go post up where it's a better spot for him
Speaker 1: to attack double teams. Guys like Stephan Dame can't do that,
Speaker 1: and so that that's kind of what I think is
Speaker 1: so fascinating about the trapping defense is it's a specific
Speaker 1: way to neutralize a star and force them to play
Speaker 1: four on three in the back end. And as long
Speaker 1: as you can force them to play four on three
Speaker 1: with an inferior initiator, or you can switch that act altogether,
Speaker 1: it allows them to shut down these teams. That's why
Speaker 1: I think they looked so unbelievably dominant at stretches in
Speaker 1: the playoffs last year. Right. And I like how you say,
Speaker 1: like Anthony Davids kind of raises the ceiling for this defense. Right,
Speaker 1: He's not like the the Anchors the speed right in
Speaker 1: their guards. Their guards are fast as hell. Carusoe k
Speaker 1: CP shrewder. Those guys are running around chasing Um, I
Speaker 1: saw them. Depending they're the labor intensive guys in the defense.
Speaker 1: They do the most work exactly. And it's all about
Speaker 1: your point of attack defense, right. If you're just getting
Speaker 1: blown by, it's gonna be hard to do anything. Um.
Speaker 1: But they really keep guys in front of them. They stay,
Speaker 1: they stay in front, and uh, that's the that's the
Speaker 1: basis of this defense. You have Lebron also chasing around.
Speaker 1: H posted a few clips against the Warriors and they
Speaker 1: just took away every single action so the Warriors. The
Speaker 1: Warriors are emotion offense. I know Warrior fans get mad
Speaker 1: at that a lot that the Warriors are emotional offense,
Speaker 1: but they're super heavy motion offense, and I feel like
Speaker 1: that's where they have some wins because those are hard
Speaker 1: to defend. Um. The Lakers are really good at switching
Speaker 1: and getting out and I feel, I guess for t
Speaker 1: HT struggles right because he's he is having trouble with
Speaker 1: that kind of communicating and getting on the same page.
Speaker 1: But when you have five guys that know what they're doing,
Speaker 1: this team really locks in. And I was looking at
Speaker 1: I think they still have like the third best defense.
Speaker 1: I think Davis has missed sport teen games and in
Speaker 1: those spoorteen games, they still have like third best defense
Speaker 1: in the league, which is incredible. So they have the
Speaker 1: first right now obviously overall, but just looking at it
Speaker 1: in totality with the games he's missed. UM. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm excited to see how they keep moving with that.
Speaker 1: But it was awesome to see them lock in because
Speaker 1: they haven't locked in in very many games this year,
Speaker 1: but seeing see it against Portland and Golden State, I
Speaker 1: feel like was a template they can use going going
Speaker 1: forward well, and so to the to the point of
Speaker 1: what you're talking about with the with the defense, like
Speaker 1: there's there is a delineation in my opinion, between like
Speaker 1: effort based regular season success, scheme based success, and then
Speaker 1: like a playoffs ceiling success. So, for instance, there in
Speaker 1: the regular season over the last two years, the Lakers
Speaker 1: have actually been better defensively without a D on the floor. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't think a D actually hurts their defense. That's silly,
Speaker 1: that's not at all what I'm saying. But in the
Speaker 1: regular season, the effort of the guards at the point
Speaker 1: of attack and in rotation and Frank Vogels scheming and
Speaker 1: things along those lines, the consistency on that end allow
Speaker 1: them to be an elite defensive team without Anthony Davis.
Speaker 1: But then there's this whole other side of it in
Speaker 1: the playoffs, and the same thing goes on with offense.
Speaker 1: We talked about you and I have talked about this
Speaker 1: at length, Like offense is cute with like what Utah
Speaker 1: is doing is cute, right, Like they're driving and kicking,
Speaker 1: they're putting their you know, Rudy Gobert's roll into the rim,
Speaker 1: and they're generating these threes or like what the Bucks
Speaker 1: have done the last two years is like literally one
Speaker 1: of the best offenses like ever that we've ever seen
Speaker 1: the last couple of years. And but then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden they get in the playoffs and that offense
Speaker 1: like doesn't work, Like it just doesn't work. And the
Speaker 1: it's because there's this delineation between the two. Like you
Speaker 1: can try hard your way and just scoring points in
Speaker 1: the regular season. You can try hard your way into
Speaker 1: defending in the regular season, but once we get to
Speaker 1: the playoffs, there has to be like a tangible like
Speaker 1: like identity to the way that that defense can succeed
Speaker 1: against the best of the best. And you can see
Speaker 1: that with the Lakers were like when like the truth
Speaker 1: of the matter is when push comes to shove, If
Speaker 1: you've got the Lakers down to one and you're going
Speaker 1: into Game three and you think you've got a chance
Speaker 1: to get to win there in the game is you know,
Speaker 1: and it's a tie game in the fourth quarter, It's like,
Speaker 1: here's what I know you're gonna see. You're gonna see
Speaker 1: Dennis Showder hounding your point guard full court. You're gonna
Speaker 1: see Alex Caruso flying around in rotations, You're gonna see
Speaker 1: k c p out there flying around in rotations and
Speaker 1: you've got Lebron and a d Good luck because when
Speaker 1: that because when that group is out there, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be nothing easy for you on anywhere on the floor.
Speaker 1: And so you know that group, I don't even know
Speaker 1: what their defensive rating is this year when the five
Speaker 1: of them play together, and it's probably okay because with
Speaker 1: the eight minutes have been weird this year because he
Speaker 1: hasn't been great. But the truth of the matter is
Speaker 1: like when things really come down to that that moment
Speaker 1: in a game, you know that specific lineup makes sense
Speaker 1: in the way that they can guard. All three of
Speaker 1: those guards are super quick and they play extremely hard,
Speaker 1: and they're great at the point of attack. Even Dennis
Speaker 1: like will fight in a in a post mismatch, you know,
Speaker 1: at least put in a position where the guy's a
Speaker 1: little uncomfortable, you know. But if I that, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a team like Utah for instance, it's like at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, like do you love Bogdanovitch out there?
Speaker 1: You know, guarding the other team's best player like Royce
Speaker 1: O'Neil is pretty good, but he's not you know, he's
Speaker 1: not that great in those specific matchups. You know, some
Speaker 1: of the stuff doesn't make sense and translate to the
Speaker 1: playoffs and and and then good luck on the other
Speaker 1: end too, because you know what Lebron and n A.
Speaker 1: D Are going to do to you offensively with that lineup,
Speaker 1: you know, with the spacing that it's provided. So it's
Speaker 1: just different. It's important to draw the line between the two,
Speaker 1: you know, And and I like, I clearly don't think
Speaker 1: Anthony Davis hurts their defense in the regular season, but
Speaker 1: but it's very it's obvious that what they can do
Speaker 1: against the best of the best requires him to be
Speaker 1: on the floor. Um yeah, anyway, yeah, yeah, exactly. And
Speaker 1: their biggest trump card is a D at the five, right,
Speaker 1: That's that's the one that no one's known in the
Speaker 1: league has yet figured out how to stop. And I
Speaker 1: don't don't see anything that has changed my mind on that.
Speaker 1: Him and Lebron with the elite defense at the five,
Speaker 1: them two can just run, screen and roll. They did
Speaker 1: it I think against the Bucks to win that game.
Speaker 1: They haven't really had to go and go to it
Speaker 1: too much. Yeah, that's that's where it goes and you
Speaker 1: have to stop that four out of seven. So I
Speaker 1: saw something funny yesterday. I think it was a Raptors
Speaker 1: fan was like telling Utah Jazz fans like a being
Speaker 1: then one seed with Lebron in the same conference doesn't
Speaker 1: really mean much because they've they've obviously been destroyed by
Speaker 1: by Lebron a few times. So um yeah, I've seen.
Speaker 1: Seeing Lebron kind of shoot on Utah was kind of
Speaker 1: hilarious considering they're the best team and they have like
Speaker 1: what eight losses and they've just run through the league.
Speaker 1: So I'm excited to see them play again. Utah obviously
Speaker 1: kicked our butt, but I want to see with a
Speaker 1: D healthy and see how that how that line up
Speaker 1: looks going forward. The as far as seeding goes, what
Speaker 1: matters most to me is not, uh, getting above Utah. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I think it'd be fine. I mean, you don't What
Speaker 1: you don't want to do is put yourself in a
Speaker 1: situation where you know a guy's banged up and it
Speaker 1: has to sit out a game, and you lose a
Speaker 1: game in l A and now you've got to win
Speaker 1: two games in Utah. Like, you don't want to put
Speaker 1: yourself in that position, especially since knowing Utah, like, they'll
Speaker 1: probably have like fifty percent capacity fans by the time
Speaker 1: May and June coming around. So like I but but fortunately,
Speaker 1: like I think the Lakers are only a half game
Speaker 1: back being above everybody in the East. I don't know
Speaker 1: that for sure, but I think they are because I
Speaker 1: think Phoenix is a one full game ahead of them.
Speaker 1: And but anyway, so like, as long as they can
Speaker 1: have home court advantage against everyone else, I think it's
Speaker 1: worth going for. Uh, you know, because obviously against the Clippers,
Speaker 1: they'll probably have home games for every single game, but
Speaker 1: you know, going into going into Milwaukee in the finals
Speaker 1: would suck, like if you had to do that four times,
Speaker 1: So like, why not at least go for it? But
Speaker 1: I agree with you, like Utah, Utah having home court
Speaker 1: isn't as big of a deal, and quite frankly, as
Speaker 1: you and I have discussed on this podcast a half
Speaker 1: dozen times, that it's just the worst possible matchup for them,
Speaker 1: And I don't think the Lakers are even the slightest
Speaker 1: bit scared of that particular matchup. But but I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: it'll be interesting to see what they go for. By
Speaker 1: the way, I don't know if you saw, but the
Speaker 1: alert just came on my phone. Blake Griffin just got
Speaker 1: bought out. Oh really, Oh yeah, let's see. It's a
Speaker 1: six time also for Blake. Griffin has agreed to a
Speaker 1: contract by it with the Detroit Pistons and will become
Speaker 1: an unrestricted free agent. Griffin has interest from many of
Speaker 1: the NBA's top playoff contenders and is expected to make
Speaker 1: a decision on his next team after conversations with prospective
Speaker 1: teams in the near future. That's very vague from for
Speaker 1: the Yeah, yeah, I'm pretty sure he knows where he's
Speaker 1: going in my opening, like those kind of those kind
Speaker 1: of people really know what they're know what's coming. I
Speaker 1: my gut is tell like, because it's just knowing Blake. Uh,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't he Why wouldn't he come here? I there's
Speaker 1: the thing again. The one thing that would throw it
Speaker 1: off would be minutes. Like all it takes is a
Speaker 1: team like Brooklyn calling Blake and being like, do you
Speaker 1: can play as much as you want here? You know,
Speaker 1: like something stupid like promising minutes? That could throw it
Speaker 1: off because the conversation with Frank and Uh and Rob
Speaker 1: is gonna go like this, Hey, Blake, you're our backup
Speaker 1: stretch five. That's what it is like the like Blake's
Speaker 1: not gonna take Mark out of the starting lineup, Like
Speaker 1: he's just not there. So you're backup five. You know
Speaker 1: there's minutes there, but you're a backup five. But if
Speaker 1: there's a contender out there that will look at him
Speaker 1: in the face and be like, dude, you're starting. You're
Speaker 1: playing twenty plus minutes a night. You know you can
Speaker 1: play as much as you want, but if you need rest,
Speaker 1: will rest you. Blah blah blah. That might be something
Speaker 1: that that could throw him out of the mix. But
Speaker 1: I certainly would like to like to see him in
Speaker 1: l A so quickly before we get out of here.
Speaker 1: You had mentioned so mean and I had a conversation
Speaker 1: about analytics, yeah, yesterday and you had mentioned that you
Speaker 1: had a follow up to that you that you wanted
Speaker 1: to ask, Yeah, because there's the stat that I always
Speaker 1: see people throw around, is this per thirty six minutes? Right?
Speaker 1: And I kind of fell into it too. I just, um,
Speaker 1: I just heard you guys yesterday though, was a good
Speaker 1: point where you're saying, like every shot is in the
Speaker 1: same shot, right, So you kind of have to uh
Speaker 1: kind of fit in fatigue, and you know how long
Speaker 1: guys played or who's open or whatever. There's a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of factors that you know, numbers will never be
Speaker 1: able to quantify, and you can work with that with film. Right,
Speaker 1: those two go together. There shouldn't be some big war
Speaker 1: onto it. But like the thirty six minutes, I think
Speaker 1: it's fine for like players who play thirty minutes right,
Speaker 1: that to me it makes sense. It's really when I
Speaker 1: see like I saw like a James White, little James Wisen,
Speaker 1: which you know, I think he's gonna be good. But
Speaker 1: I saw that James Wisen per thirty six someone posted
Speaker 1: he would be like twenty and twelve in per thirty six.
Speaker 1: I'm like, he's never playing thirty six minutes. So like
Speaker 1: showing showing that James Wisen as averages twenty and twelve
Speaker 1: on a per thirty six just doesn't makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: Or like I saw what the Clippers that they posted
Speaker 1: like a Luke Kennard per thirty six, it was like
Speaker 1: sixteen four and like you know, like shooting, I'm like,
Speaker 1: he's never playing thirty six minutes. The average is nineteen.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really make sense to me to put up
Speaker 1: per thirty six out for guys who will never play
Speaker 1: thirty six minutes. Like, it's just it's confusing to me
Speaker 1: when I see that, Like with the Lebron or like
Speaker 1: Paul George or those guys are gonna play thirty minutes,
Speaker 1: so their per thirty six kind of makes sense. It
Speaker 1: fits into their rotation, right, so you can kind of
Speaker 1: you can kind of predict what their numbers will be
Speaker 1: in that kind of thirty six minutes is kind of
Speaker 1: like the average what a superstar or like a full
Speaker 1: rotation starter plays, right, so it makes sense exactly. But
Speaker 1: when I see like rookies have per like rookies that
Speaker 1: don't play at all getting per thirty six minutes, who
Speaker 1: average like fifteen minutes a game. Basketball just doesn't work
Speaker 1: like that, where like if you get ten points in
Speaker 1: ten minutes, it means you'll make you'll get twenty and
Speaker 1: like another fifteen. Like that's what's confusing. What do you
Speaker 1: think about that kind of staff? That's that's kind of
Speaker 1: strange to me when I when I see it put
Speaker 1: out for guys who don't play rotate minutes, and I
Speaker 1: see like per thirty six for them like, yeah, that
Speaker 1: looks great, that looks awesome. You can do that with
Speaker 1: any rookie lee round. I'll go do their per thirty six.
Speaker 1: It's just doesn't really make sense for guys who will
Speaker 1: never get that that minutes this year. So for me personally,
Speaker 1: I've used it, uh mostly referring to stars who have
Speaker 1: been playing in lower minutes. So for instance, think like
Speaker 1: Janice last year. I think like early this year when
Speaker 1: Lebron is playing like thirty three minutes a game or whatever.
Speaker 1: Where I agree with you that it's not necessarily the
Speaker 1: same translation for a rookie playing ten minutes a night.
Speaker 1: But here's where I would look at per thirty six
Speaker 1: and I don't I don't think it's perfect, but I
Speaker 1: think it is an indicator of your overall activity in
Speaker 1: those minutes. So let me give you an example. So
Speaker 1: for instance, like I played pickup basketball games this morning.
Speaker 1: One of the things I love about these pickup basketball
Speaker 1: games that I played with this particular group of guys
Speaker 1: is we like quick games. So we played twos and
Speaker 1: threes to nine. So literally a game can end in
Speaker 1: three possessions if you don't defend. And what's interesting is like,
Speaker 1: you know, I might average you know, four or five
Speaker 1: points per pickup game, but if there was a way
Speaker 1: to quantify it as a per thirty six, it would
Speaker 1: give an indicator of how productive I was in that
Speaker 1: specific young on one second, I'm having a nightmare said
Speaker 1: of luck in the last couple of weeks with my computers.
Speaker 1: I'm telling him in um anyway, So the it gives it,
Speaker 1: h it gives a general indicator of what your productive,
Speaker 1: your production level was in those minutes. So again, if
Speaker 1: you we use Alex Cruso as an example, Alex Crusoe
Speaker 1: is going to be more impactful, not even statistically, but
Speaker 1: just in his overall effort and stuff. He's gonna be
Speaker 1: more productive in a seventeen minute outing than he is
Speaker 1: in a twenty seven minute outing. We've learned this now,
Speaker 1: you know that that was one of the things that
Speaker 1: was revealed during this Dennis Shrewder injury. However, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: if if if a guy, if if a guy. I
Speaker 1: if I play Trisan Thompson off the bench in Boston,
Speaker 1: and I play him for fifteen minutes a night, and
Speaker 1: in those fifteen minutes he's getting ten points and eight rebounds.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a fair a fair uh you know,
Speaker 1: representation of what he accomplished in that game, because what
Speaker 1: he really accomplished in that game is per thirty six,
Speaker 1: he averaged like he put up like twenty six and
Speaker 1: fourteen or whatever it is. I'm not sure where the
Speaker 1: conversion is there, but the and what that means is
Speaker 1: in his fifteen minutes, he was a wrecking ball. Now
Speaker 1: that doesn't that doesn't translate to him having been able
Speaker 1: to be a wrecking ball for thirty minutes, but it
Speaker 1: does show me that he was a wrecking ball for
Speaker 1: those fifteen minutes. So it's as with any stat, it's imperfect.
Speaker 1: You know, plus minus is imperfect. I hate plus minus
Speaker 1: in a single game, but I do believe in plus
Speaker 1: minus in the long term because I think that clearly
Speaker 1: shows that when this guys on the floor, the team
Speaker 1: has success for whatever reason, even fits against specific lineups
Speaker 1: and with specific role players next to him are specific
Speaker 1: supporting cast. But you know, one of the things I
Speaker 1: like about her thirty six is it's an indicator of activity. So,
Speaker 1: for instance, Damian Jones like, it'd be interesting to take
Speaker 1: a look at it, and I'll look it up real quick,
Speaker 1: but it's it's a quick indicator. Let's see real quick.
Speaker 1: Let's look up Damian Jones. So if Damian Jones is
Speaker 1: playing super limited minutes, so he's been playing ten point
Speaker 1: three minutes per game with the Lakers, it shows that
Speaker 1: he's only averaging four point seven rebounds. But if I
Speaker 1: take it as a per thirty six, he's at fourteen
Speaker 1: and nine, So I can relatively assume that his production
Speaker 1: in his limited minutes mimics that of a fourteen and
Speaker 1: nine type of player. That that's not amazing, but that's
Speaker 1: that's back up big type of production, right, So I'm
Speaker 1: getting I'm getting back up big level production out of
Speaker 1: Damian uh, Damian Lee in or like Damian Joel in
Speaker 1: those specific minutes. Does that make sense? Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: And I don't think there's no place for it obviously,
Speaker 1: And I think it does have something like if you
Speaker 1: have a guy that's playing twenty five minutes, I guess
Speaker 1: you can kind of extrapulate that out to thirty six, right, well,
Speaker 1: he would be in a rotation. I just see it
Speaker 1: used a lot today for like narrative base and like, oh,
Speaker 1: let's compare this rookie who's playing fifteen minutes to the
Speaker 1: per his per thirty six to like Jimmy Butler and
Speaker 1: be like, oh yeah, they're both averaging like seventeen and eight.
Speaker 1: You know, in these things like that's not how um
Speaker 1: this that that comparison should kind of go. So that's
Speaker 1: that's my main issue with it. I see it used
Speaker 1: a lot for rookies, especially because rookies aren't gonna get
Speaker 1: crazy minutes, right, So like when you do a Perth
Speaker 1: Dady six or a guy making who's doing fifteen minutes
Speaker 1: who has no reputation at all in the league, it's
Speaker 1: kind of hard to um. It's kind of hard to
Speaker 1: see that um in the stats. So obviously with any
Speaker 1: stat you have to kind of think about it. With
Speaker 1: the film and with everything that you see. Obviously Alex
Speaker 1: Cruse you can tell his activity obviously is high. So
Speaker 1: when you go to a Perth day six, you kind
Speaker 1: of like, okay, he gets like one steel every fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1: I can kind of see him getting three fields and
Speaker 1: like that minutes. You know, So that that's remics to
Speaker 1: issue with it. It is just using it for players
Speaker 1: in comparisons that it just doesn't makes sense for UM,
Speaker 1: but I mean, I'm not mad at Every stat has
Speaker 1: its flaws, every stat has its positive. So I'm a
Speaker 1: person who really likes defensive rating. A lot of people don't.
Speaker 1: I feel like there's stats that you like and don't
Speaker 1: like kind of um in your philosophy and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: So that that was my main thing. That's the thing
Speaker 1: that I thought when I was hearing you guys talk
Speaker 1: about it, because I thought it was interesting that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of stats out there. There's I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a stat for a stat right today, you can have
Speaker 1: stats for stats, so you can kind of gets you
Speaker 1: can kind of get lost in that um. And yeah,
Speaker 1: that's my main point that it's kind of interesting seeing
Speaker 1: those kind of things. Like a lot of people like
Speaker 1: there's I think Andy Bailey who's like the Utah guy.
Speaker 1: He really likes per seventy five possessions, Like he does
Speaker 1: everything with per seventy five, which I guess is like
Speaker 1: the the average amount of possessions in like a full game.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing, so he really goes possessions would be closer
Speaker 1: to a full game, and no one plays a full
Speaker 1: game because I think the NBA game has like a
Speaker 1: hundred and seven possessions per team or something like exactly.
Speaker 1: So that kind of trips blow and I'm like, I
Speaker 1: understand it where he's going with it, but he uses
Speaker 1: a lot to be like, Okay, Gobert with average like
Speaker 1: five and fifteen on like a per seventy five, you know,
Speaker 1: and things like that. So it's kind of funny just
Speaker 1: to see it used in that way, and I feel
Speaker 1: like there's a that's a better way to kind of
Speaker 1: look at it. Again. We're all kind of improving here
Speaker 1: on our stats. But I was interesting I heard. I
Speaker 1: thought of that when I when I heard you guys
Speaker 1: do that conversation? Can you hear me or my cut out?
Speaker 1: You're good, I'm hearing. I'm getting a little symbol on
Speaker 1: my screen. Heck is about the break loost with my WiFi?
Speaker 1: Um No, I think you're absolutely right. Using it to
Speaker 1: compare players is foolishness because there's no two situations that
Speaker 1: are like like I said, I just like using it
Speaker 1: specifically to kind of gauge, you know, if you're a
Speaker 1: fan of a team and you want to gauge you know,
Speaker 1: how impactful a player has been in a limited role.
Speaker 1: I think it'll give you a general idea. Um the uh,
Speaker 1: and it's the last thing I'll talk about and then
Speaker 1: we'll get you out of here. But the defensive rating
Speaker 1: is scoreboard like offensive rating is the scoreboard. That's not
Speaker 1: That's not an advanced metric. All that is is a
Speaker 1: scoreboard waited per possessions like guess what, like if you
Speaker 1: have a positive net rating in a basketball game, you
Speaker 1: are guaranteed to win as a team. That like guaranteed
Speaker 1: like one thousand million percent of the time. It's not.
Speaker 1: It is not an advanced metric, and it buy any
Speaker 1: stretch of the imagination. The only thing I don't like
Speaker 1: with advance with offensive rating and defensive rating is every
Speaker 1: single year there are a bunch of teams that are
Speaker 1: at the top of the offensive rating that don't defend.
Speaker 1: And every single year there are teams like the Lakers
Speaker 1: and other teams who defend extremely well, but they are
Speaker 1: more middle of the pack offensively or you know, bottom
Speaker 1: of the top ten or whatever it is. And the
Speaker 1: reason why is because it takes energy to do both.
Speaker 1: You know, teams that don't defend usually have better legs
Speaker 1: on offense and they're better at scoring points and teams
Speaker 1: that don't score are better at defend Teams that defended
Speaker 1: a really high level struggle offensively because they're fatigued and
Speaker 1: usually the game will they'll strangle the pace in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways. But yeah, I there are uh, there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with defensive rating offensive rating in a vacuum,
Speaker 1: because all they are is literally the scoreboard. My biggest,
Speaker 1: my biggest. You know, it's not a convoluted stat you know,
Speaker 1: like raptor is or lebron or whatever. Those metrics that
Speaker 1: you see floating around as of late, Like those are deeply,
Speaker 1: deeply convoluted stats that are trying to attach a single
Speaker 1: number to something that uh, to a specific role on
Speaker 1: a basketball team, like more you kind of cut off.
Speaker 1: I think you're bad. There you go, alrighty, I'm back.
Speaker 1: I apologize everyone for the WiFi stuff. I was talking
Speaker 1: with Roj beforehand. I think I have it figured out.
Speaker 1: I just have to order a specific piece of equipment
Speaker 1: to get me back up and running towards not a problem.
Speaker 1: But I appreciate everybody bearing with me through the process.
Speaker 1: Um real quickly before I get you out of here. Uh.
Speaker 1: Tweet from Mark Stein the Lakers Clippers nets and Heat
Speaker 1: and Warriors are the five teams that have most publicly
Speaker 1: expressed interest in Blake Griffin at this time. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: that's kind of predictable, right, all kind of contenders or
Speaker 1: semi contenders. Um. Also big markets, right, he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to go to know, go no East market, a small
Speaker 1: market team, so it kind of makes sense. I still
Speaker 1: think he's gonna want to go to a winning contender,
Speaker 1: like he wants to go to one of the championship teams. Um.
Speaker 1: I think I think it's gonna be Brooklyn or the Lakers.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's going to the Clippers. Might be
Speaker 1: I just can't see him going back there after being
Speaker 1: sent away, But we'll we'll see. I think he's coming.
Speaker 1: I think you're right. I think you're I think you
Speaker 1: said you're kind of feeling him coming here too. I
Speaker 1: think it just makes too much sense, um for them
Speaker 1: to to kind of try it out. So that's I
Speaker 1: think he'll be here. We'll see. Um, maybe we'll find
Speaker 1: out today. I don't know. I hope we find out today.
Speaker 1: We'll see at least get some intel. But I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get you out of here before my WiFi cuts out again. Um,
Speaker 1: let's let's send out a tweet, you know, Monday, Tuesday
Speaker 1: next week, just asking for some mail back questions, and
Speaker 1: then we'll do uh, we'll do some grades and some
Speaker 1: just overall kind of like rehashing of the first half
Speaker 1: of the season from the Lakers. Roj is always I
Speaker 1: really appreciate you, man, and I will see you next Friday.
Speaker 1: Thank you everybody for listening in. Thank you