Speaker 1: The Volume. All right, welcome to hop tonight. You're at
Speaker 1: the Volume. Happy Wednesday, everybody. I hope all of you
Speaker 1: guys are having a great week so far. We are
Speaker 1: also live on AMPS, so if you're watching on YouTube
Speaker 1: or listening on the podcast feeds, don't forget that AMP
Speaker 1: is the very first place that you guys can get
Speaker 1: these shows. We're continuing our player rankings of the last
Speaker 1: twenty five years today with twenty one, twenty nineteen and eighteen,
Speaker 1: taking a look back at some guys that have been
Speaker 1: out of the league for a little while. You guys
Speaker 1: know the drip. Before we get started, subscribe to the
Speaker 1: volumes YouTube channels. You don't miss any more of our videos.
Speaker 1: Follow me on Twitter at underscore Jason lt so you
Speaker 1: guys don't miss an show announcements. And if, for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: you guys miss one of these videos and you can't
Speaker 1: get back over to YouTube to finish, don't forget you
Speaker 1: can find them wherever you get your podcasts under Hoops Tonight,
Speaker 1: Last but not least, before we get started. Last night,
Speaker 1: I got to run up to Phoenix to watch an
Speaker 1: early screening of the Grand Turismo movie based on a
Speaker 1: true story. Super super interesting story about this contest that
Speaker 1: Nissan held where they had all these really good Grand
Speaker 1: Tarisma players from around the world basically compete for an
Speaker 1: opportunity to then get to learn how to race real
Speaker 1: cars and then experience real success in the real racing
Speaker 1: scene from that, which is interesting based on the simple
Speaker 1: idea that Grand Arismo was a racing simulator, not a
Speaker 1: game we all played like Need for Speed and Road
Speaker 1: Rash and all those like weird racing games that were
Speaker 1: more you know, comical and over the top and very
Speaker 1: you know, unrealistic, and then if you played Grand Turismo,
Speaker 1: you couldn't just floor it through every single turn you
Speaker 1: had to break. You had to actually embrace some of
Speaker 1: the realities of racing. And so it makes some sense
Speaker 1: that that would translate directly towards the actual racing experience.
Speaker 1: And I thought it was really cool in the beginning
Speaker 1: part of the movie how they kind of broke down
Speaker 1: how the creator of Grand Arismo worked really really hard
Speaker 1: to make it as realistic as possible, which is kind
Speaker 1: of cool how those two things kind of bridged. But
Speaker 1: you know, the entire movie hinges on David Harbor and
Speaker 1: Archie Medeck we're doing just an incredible job acting because
Speaker 1: it's such a unique kind of premise, right, and David
Speaker 1: Harbor is just a freak talent and he's absolutely hilarious
Speaker 1: throughout the entire movie. And then I thought Archie kind
Speaker 1: of stole the show. He's super, super talented actor. You
Speaker 1: have to be like super invested in a storyline like
Speaker 1: this as a watcher of the movie to enjoy it,
Speaker 1: and in order for that to happen, you've got to
Speaker 1: have really really high level acting, and Archie just straight
Speaker 1: up knocked it out of the park. The cinematography is
Speaker 1: insaying I highly recommend seeing it in theaters. They use
Speaker 1: a bunch of different camera effects, like drones and different
Speaker 1: camera angles that are up close to the vehicle to
Speaker 1: really capture the intensity of that type of racing. Honestly,
Speaker 1: it's like a visceral experience when you're in the theater,
Speaker 1: especially when you're invested in the stakes that are at play,
Speaker 1: but you're like clinging to the seat because it's just
Speaker 1: this intense visceral experience because of the high quality cinematography.
Speaker 1: I thoroughly enjoyed it. Like I said, I highly recommend
Speaker 1: you guys see in them theaters. It is a little
Speaker 1: bit of something for everyone. It's also super fast paced
Speaker 1: and keeps you engaged throughout it. I was looking just
Speaker 1: for fun at the Rotten Tomatoes this morning. Ninety eight
Speaker 1: percent of audience members who went to go see it
Speaker 1: gave it a thumbs up rating, which I think is
Speaker 1: not the least bit surprising because my wife and I
Speaker 1: thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a really cool little date night
Speaker 1: for us. Grant There's Mill based on a true story,
Speaker 1: is exclusively in movie theaters tomorrow. Get your tickets today,
Speaker 1: rated PG thirteen. All right, let's talk some basketball. So
Speaker 1: before we get into twenty one, twenty nineteen and eighteen,
Speaker 1: a couple of things that I noticed in the comments.
Speaker 1: As is always the case when I do lists, I
Speaker 1: immediately pissed people off. That's just how it works. I
Speaker 1: had people complaining about Tracy McGrady not being in the list.
Speaker 1: I'd someone say that I was vastly overrated or underrating
Speaker 1: Paul George in this particular discussion, but by far the
Speaker 1: biggest one that people got upset about was Chris Paul.
Speaker 1: So I d to elaborate on that really quick. Again.
Speaker 1: I chose thirty one players for this list, and then
Speaker 1: I had to narrow it down to twenty five. Chris
Speaker 1: Paul was on that list of thirty one players. From there,
Speaker 1: I had a list of criteria that I used, and again,
Speaker 1: like everyone's criteria is different, Like, I'm sorry, but if
Speaker 1: I set different criteria, my list could look completely different,
Speaker 1: and the six guys that don't make it are probably
Speaker 1: going to be a completely different six guys. Just like
Speaker 1: if I gave you guys a list of criteria and
Speaker 1: had you build the list, it could look completely different
Speaker 1: based on what you guys interpret those specific things to be.
Speaker 1: And I had six criteria yesterday that I broke down
Speaker 1: and Chris Paul didn't perform well in those specific six criteria,
Speaker 1: which is why he missed the cut of twenty five.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean he wasn't one of the most impactful
Speaker 1: players of this era. He absolutely was. Obviously I had
Speaker 1: him in that top thirty one, right. But the reality
Speaker 1: is anytime I set any sort of parameters, there are
Speaker 1: going to be people that get squeezed. The best example
Speaker 1: I can give you guys as like that. I was
Speaker 1: thinking about this this morning, about the ticket Master kind
Speaker 1: of fiasco I personally have had issues with ticket Master
Speaker 1: in the past, and so like I understand the plight
Speaker 1: of like Zach Bryan being like, I'm not gonna use
Speaker 1: ticket Master anymore. I'm gonna use a lottery. And I
Speaker 1: actually happen to get fortunate and win one of those lotteries,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to see Zach Bryan on Friday. But
Speaker 1: like each system has holes, right, Like the ticket Master
Speaker 1: system favors the people with money. So if you're willing
Speaker 1: to pay an arm and a leg to go see
Speaker 1: a show, you can go see whatever you want because
Speaker 1: you can find a ticket at some price based on
Speaker 1: the market value, and you can go see a movie
Speaker 1: but or the show. But the people that get squeezed
Speaker 1: are the people without money, right, And then you go
Speaker 1: to the Zach Bryan method, or it's like we're gonna
Speaker 1: do a lottery and all of a sudden, it's the
Speaker 1: people that are willing to pay more that gets squeezed.
Speaker 1: So you could be the biggest Zach Brian fan in
Speaker 1: the world and you could save up five hundred dollars
Speaker 1: to go see him in Phoenix. But if you lose
Speaker 1: the lottery, you just don't get to see him. And
Speaker 1: so the point is like, no matter where you set
Speaker 1: your criteria, no matter where you set your parameters, there
Speaker 1: are gonna be things that slipped through the cracks. And
Speaker 1: for me, in my list, I was very heavy on,
Speaker 1: you know, playoff accomplishments and big career defining achievements, and
Speaker 1: Chris Paul just doesn't really have one of those. Like
Speaker 1: he hit a really big shot in a first round
Speaker 1: series against the San Antonio Spurs in a Game seven
Speaker 1: to win the series, and then fell apart down the
Speaker 1: stretch in that Houston Rocket series, right, Like, it's just
Speaker 1: with Chris Paul, there's just like there's these big moments,
Speaker 1: but there's just everything is missing, the crescendo. And so again,
Speaker 1: like you guys know how much I value Chris Paul.
Speaker 1: Those of you guys have been listening to the show
Speaker 1: for a while, you probably remember the way I talked
Speaker 1: about him in the playoffs last year as he was
Speaker 1: destroying the New Orleans Pelicans and playing so well at
Speaker 1: the beginning of the Maverick series. You guys have heard
Speaker 1: me talk about Chris Paul and how much I appreciate
Speaker 1: and respect him. But within this particular list and the
Speaker 1: specific set of parameters that I set up. He was
Speaker 1: one of the people that got squeezed out of a
Speaker 1: list of thirty one players, right, So I just wanted
Speaker 1: to kind of break that down again. Like, if I
Speaker 1: put Chris Paul in and I take Russell Westbrook out,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a million people pissed off that Russell
Speaker 1: Westbrook's not in it. If I put Chris paul in
Speaker 1: and I take Jimmy Butler out, every single Miami Heat
Speaker 1: fan is gonna be like, what the hell, dude, He
Speaker 1: has eight forty point playoff games and has been the
Speaker 1: best player on two NBA Finals teams. What the hell
Speaker 1: are you doing? Right, Like, there's no satisfying this type
Speaker 1: of list. But for me personally, I'm going to value
Speaker 1: playoff winning over just about anything else. There are players
Speaker 1: on this list that were frequently considered lesser players than
Speaker 1: Chris paul but they were major parts of championship teams.
Speaker 1: A couple of those guys we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: today in a couple of guards, right. So, Like, again,
Speaker 1: this is just my system. It's not a perfect system.
Speaker 1: If I change the parameters, it's gonna turn out different.
Speaker 1: I know some of you guys disagree with me, but
Speaker 1: I just wanted to kind of lay out my pathway
Speaker 1: for you guys so that you understand it a little
Speaker 1: bit better. So yesterday we had four players who had
Speaker 1: never won an NBA championship. In that twenty five, twenty four,
Speaker 1: twenty three, and twenty two. From this point forward, every
Speaker 1: single player except for two is an NBA champion. So
Speaker 1: that kind of gives you an idea of the way
Speaker 1: that I value that specific accomplishment. Also, the two players
Speaker 1: that did not win NBA championships were some of the
Speaker 1: most iconic players from this particular era. Actually, those of
Speaker 1: you guys in the comments, take a guess, there's two
Speaker 1: players in the rest of the list that are not champions.
Speaker 1: I want to see if any of you guys can
Speaker 1: get that right. Put that in the comments, and none
Speaker 1: of them are in today's video, for whatever that's worth.
Speaker 1: All right, let's start with number twenty one, Tony Parker,
Speaker 1: the second best player on three championship teams. There was
Speaker 1: a couple of years there where he was a little
Speaker 1: closer to managing nobly, but if you watch the Spurs,
Speaker 1: you always feared Tony Parker a little bit more of
Speaker 1: than Manu. I viewed him as like the definitive second
Speaker 1: best player on that team. Basically from five on. He
Speaker 1: was a four time NBA champion with the Spurs, though
Speaker 1: and three five seven in twenty fourteen, and he was
Speaker 1: the MVP of the two thousand and seven NBA Finals.
Speaker 1: Ever made a first team All NBA, but he did
Speaker 1: make four All NBA teams, including back to back to
Speaker 1: back second team All nbas in the early twenty tens.
Speaker 1: His prime stats. Now again, keeping and those of you
Speaker 1: guys who didn't see the previous video, I'm going to
Speaker 1: talk about their stats and their prime, their claim to fame,
Speaker 1: basically the thing that they're remembered for, their archetype. Just
Speaker 1: kind of talk a little bit about what they were
Speaker 1: like as basketball players, their career defining achievement, basically whatever
Speaker 1: their absolute peak was, and the last, but not least,
Speaker 1: the biggest what if of their career. So Tony Parker's
Speaker 1: prime stats. Now, keep in mind the Spurs were kind
Speaker 1: of like the Warriors. Before the Warriors, they were kind
Speaker 1: of equal opportunity, even more so than the Warriors are,
Speaker 1: and a ton of ball movement, a ton of player movement.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a lot of like, just give one guy
Speaker 1: the ball and let him run the entire offense, and
Speaker 1: so as a result, their accounting stats were never overly impressive.
Speaker 1: So the two fourteen Spurs, for instance, the last championship
Speaker 1: of that dynasty, they didn't have a single player average
Speaker 1: over seventeen points for that entire season, and they won
Speaker 1: the championship. In the two thousand and seven and two
Speaker 1: thousand and five seasons, they didn't have a single player
Speaker 1: average over twenty one points. Tim Duncan was right at
Speaker 1: about twenty in both of those seasons, So statistical production
Speaker 1: with the Spurs is never going to pop like some
Speaker 1: of the other players on this list, But they won
Speaker 1: a shit ton of basketball games, and Tony Parker was
Speaker 1: the second best player on that team. So that's why, again,
Speaker 1: box score numbers can't tell the entire story in this
Speaker 1: particular case. Even like Tim Duncan, who was near the
Speaker 1: top of this list, is a guy that didn't necessarily
Speaker 1: have overwhelmingly eye popping statistical production over the second half
Speaker 1: of his career because of the way that team was
Speaker 1: put together. So I have Tony Parker's prime from two
Speaker 1: thousand and five to twenty fourteen, he had eighteen points,
Speaker 1: three rebounds, and six assists per game in that stretch
Speaker 1: fifty six percent true shooting. In the playoffs, twenty points
Speaker 1: per game, three rebounds, and six assists on fifty three
Speaker 1: percent true shooting. So, like again, as is always the
Speaker 1: case when you get to the later phases of the
Speaker 1: NBA playoffs, a lot of teams that rely heavily on
Speaker 1: motion teams can scout that and get ahead of it
Speaker 1: a little bit and things devolve more into traditional, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of static shot creation, like pick and rolls, post
Speaker 1: ups and ISOs right, and so Tony Parker was actually
Speaker 1: the guy that the Spurs leaned on a lot in
Speaker 1: those particular situations over the second half of their dynasty.
Speaker 1: So the way I look at it, like the Spurs
Speaker 1: dynasty has kind of split into three phases. So there's
Speaker 1: like the first phase where they win the first two titles,
Speaker 1: where Tim Duncan is just arguably the best player in
Speaker 1: the league, depending on who you ask, I think it
Speaker 1: was shocked, but like he was right there with him right.
Speaker 1: It was like basically Shack, Kobe and Tim Duncan were
Speaker 1: the three best players in the league, and it was
Speaker 1: Tim Duncan's dominance that really carried the Spurs over that stretch.
Speaker 1: Then there's kind of like this middle phase, and this
Speaker 1: is where you get to the five seven Championships, where
Speaker 1: Tim Duncan is still really really good, but man who
Speaker 1: and Tony Parker are on the rise. And as they're
Speaker 1: on the rise, you know, things are starting to become
Speaker 1: a little bit more equal opportunity and those guys are
Speaker 1: getting more touches and big playoff moments, and it's more
Speaker 1: of like a team dynamic rather than leaning heavily heavily
Speaker 1: on Tim Duncan, even though Tim Duncan was clearly the
Speaker 1: best player on the team during that stretch. But then
Speaker 1: there was that stretch in the early twenty tents, right
Speaker 1: where they make it to the NBA Finals and nearly
Speaker 1: win against the Miami Heat and then beat the Miami
Speaker 1: Heat in twenty fourteen. During that stretch, like Tim Duncan
Speaker 1: was still probably the best player on the team depending
Speaker 1: on who you ask, but it was much more convoluted
Speaker 1: and on any given night, Tony Parker could have been
Speaker 1: the best player on their team, and that gap between
Speaker 1: Tony Parker and Tim Duncan was actually very small. And
Speaker 1: so when we say Tony Parker was the second best
Speaker 1: player on a championship team, this is not you know,
Speaker 1: this is not the second best player on the team
Speaker 1: the way that like Andrew Wiggins was for Steph Curry
Speaker 1: last year. Right like this is we have Tim Duncan
Speaker 1: and Tony Parker were pretty close to each other and
Speaker 1: overall impact at this point in their particular career. So
Speaker 1: Tony Parker was pretty resoundingly considered one of the ten
Speaker 1: best players in the league during the span I mean,
Speaker 1: second team All NBA twice, and was one of the
Speaker 1: best playoff players in the league at that particular stretch
Speaker 1: of time. But like I said, like things would break
Speaker 1: down in the playoffs and they'd have to rely more
Speaker 1: on static shock creation than they do in the regular season.
Speaker 1: That's where Tony Parker's value came in big in those situations.
Speaker 1: So Tony's archetype. He was just a blazing quick speed guard,
Speaker 1: just like an absurdly quick little guard. He had one
Speaker 1: of the nastiest spin moves in the league, a spin
Speaker 1: move that I think a lot of players have copied
Speaker 1: from him. There's a specific set of footwork that he
Speaker 1: can use too, like he can do it off with
Speaker 1: two feet, but he also had like a one foot
Speaker 1: spin that was kind of ridiculous. Or instead of like
Speaker 1: establishing like firm pivots with both feet, he's kind of
Speaker 1: like pure wetting through the lane off of one leg.
Speaker 1: He had a ridiculously good floater. Everyone called it the
Speaker 1: tear drop at the time, and it's interesting to me
Speaker 1: that no one calls it a tear drop anymore, because
Speaker 1: that was basically just the Tony Parker thing right. Synergy
Speaker 1: did not start tracking floaters until two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: so I can't pull it up for the early stretch
Speaker 1: of his career. But in two thousand and eight, Tony
Speaker 1: Parker shot seventy four percent on floaters. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine he shot sixty six percent on floaters, and
Speaker 1: in twenty ten he shot sixty four percent on floaters.
Speaker 1: He was like the Kola Jokic with that little pop
Speaker 1: shot in the lane on the drive. He had to
Speaker 1: lean on it a lot more in the early twenty
Speaker 1: tens as he started to slow down a little bit,
Speaker 1: but he was still deadly with it. In twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: he made ninety four of them at a fifty one
Speaker 1: percent clip, so he's taking them several times a game,
Speaker 1: but he was making more than half of them. He
Speaker 1: was always one of the highest volume pick and roll
Speaker 1: guys in the league. Super super gifted passer guys were
Speaker 1: obsessed with kind of going underneath screens on Tony Parker
Speaker 1: to try to cut off his driving lanes and try
Speaker 1: to turn him into a jump shooter. Early in his
Speaker 1: career he struggled with jump shooting, but then he kind
Speaker 1: of figured it out towards the end. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and five, kind of the beginning of his prime, he
Speaker 1: only made sixty six pull up jump shots all year
Speaker 1: and only shot thirty seven percent effective field goal percentage
Speaker 1: on them. But by the time we got to twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: he made one hundred and fifty nine pull up jump
Speaker 1: shots on forty six percent effective field goal percentage. So
Speaker 1: he just worked incredibly hard to build out a reliable
Speaker 1: mid range pull up jump shot to use against teams
Speaker 1: that would go underneath on pick and roll, and then
Speaker 1: then he really started to use that to weaponize his passing,
Speaker 1: as he would kind of like bait guys into coming out,
Speaker 1: specifically the big man to come out to show on
Speaker 1: that pull up jump shot and then he'd flip it
Speaker 1: down to to Tim Duncan or Thiago Splitter underneath the basket.
Speaker 1: He was really really gifted pick and role player. In
Speaker 1: the twenty thirteen season, there were fifteen players in the league.
Speaker 1: Similar to this year, there were fifteen players in the
Speaker 1: league ran at least one thousand pick and rolls, and
Speaker 1: Tony Parker ranked second in the entire NBA inefficiency. First
Speaker 1: was Chris Paul, which I'm sure all of you Chris
Speaker 1: Paul fans will want to rub in my face to
Speaker 1: further make me pay for my outrageous pick. His crowning
Speaker 1: achievement two thousand and seven NBA Finals MVP, Tim Duncan
Speaker 1: was the best player on that team pretty clearly. Like
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen, it was up for debate two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven, Tim Duncan was the best player on that team,
Speaker 1: but Tony Parker scoring was a huge part in that
Speaker 1: specific playoff run. It's also one of the big reasons
Speaker 1: why I'm not a huge fan of the Finals MVP
Speaker 1: award as it's currently constructed. To me, the Finals MVP
Speaker 1: should always go to the player who is the best
Speaker 1: player on the championship team, and just because a specific
Speaker 1: matchup leads to one player performing better in an NBA
Speaker 1: Finals shouldn't a lot of times, just statistically, not in
Speaker 1: what's actually happening on the court, because a lot of
Speaker 1: times schematics are what's pushing opportunities to a different player.
Speaker 1: See Andre Gudala in the twenty fifteen finals, right. But
Speaker 1: to me, I would rather call it instead of like
Speaker 1: a Finals MVP, I would just call it like a
Speaker 1: championship MVP. And then whoever wins the championship, you give
Speaker 1: the trophy to the player that's clearly their best player
Speaker 1: from the start of the regular season all the way
Speaker 1: through to the end when they hoist the trophy. To me,
Speaker 1: that's what that trophy should be for. But that's not
Speaker 1: how it works. We have a Finals MVP trophy, and
Speaker 1: Tony Parker was the second best player on that team,
Speaker 1: but he averaged twenty one points per game in that
Speaker 1: playoff run and averaged twenty five points per game in
Speaker 1: the NBA Finals series against the Cleveland Cavaliers on sixty
Speaker 1: percent true shooting, winning his first and only Finals MVP award.
Speaker 1: Biggest one if of Tony Parker's career, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: was the Ray Allen three point shot. So I actually
Speaker 1: posted a video not of the three but of the
Speaker 1: two shots that preceded it on my Twitter feeds. You
Speaker 1: guys can find it there if you go look. But
Speaker 1: this is a huge what if in my opinion, because
Speaker 1: I just broke down kind of for you guys. The
Speaker 1: crowning achievement of Tony Parker. Right, he wins back to
Speaker 1: back to back second team All NBA's right, he's arguably
Speaker 1: the best player, second best player on the twenty thirteen
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen Spurs that make it to the finals twice
Speaker 1: and wins the championship in twenty fourteen. But in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: there was a moment where the Heat were up by
Speaker 1: three and the series was the series was three to
Speaker 1: two San Antonio, right, and they're in Miami. So San
Speaker 1: Antonio wins, they win the finals, and there's this play.
Speaker 1: I want to say, there's about a minute and a
Speaker 1: half left if I remember correctly, but there's this play
Speaker 1: where Tony Parker's working on Lebron James and you know
Speaker 1: this is prime Lebron, right, Like he's switching onto any
Speaker 1: player that he needs to guard, and he's one of
Speaker 1: the best defensive players in the league, probably the best
Speaker 1: player in the league defensively and offensively at that phase
Speaker 1: in his career. He's switched out on to Tony Parker.
Speaker 1: He's got to shut him down because the game's on
Speaker 1: the line, right Well, they start trying to set picks
Speaker 1: to get somebody else switched on to Tony Parker, and
Speaker 1: Lebron just like screw that. He's fighting through every pick.
Speaker 1: He stays with him, and the shot clock runs out
Speaker 1: and Tony Parker has to take this ridiculous step back
Speaker 1: three from the top of the key and he drains
Speaker 1: it to tie the game. And then on the very
Speaker 1: next possession, he's working in pick and roll and he
Speaker 1: gets downhill on Mario Chalmers, and Chalmers kind of cuts
Speaker 1: him off, and he's stuck with his back to the basket,
Speaker 1: like literally stuck with his left foot pivot foot with
Speaker 1: the rim over here, with his back to the basket,
Speaker 1: and he just kind of pivots over his shoulder and
Speaker 1: makes this like ridiculous short right handed jump shot in
Speaker 1: the lane, just a ridiculously difficult shot, and it actually
Speaker 1: puts the Spurs up by two and from there, we
Speaker 1: get into the free throw contest. Lebron has those turnovers,
Speaker 1: but then he get into the free throw contest, and
Speaker 1: then Lebron hits the three, and then I think Kawhi
Speaker 1: misses the free throw on the next one, and then
Speaker 1: ray Allen hits the three that ties the game. We
Speaker 1: go to overtime, the Heat win, and then he'd end
Speaker 1: up winning the series. But literally, that entire arena was
Speaker 1: shell shocked after those two shots. The Spurs were up
Speaker 1: by two, and if they would have made their free throws,
Speaker 1: they would have literally won the NBA Championship. I think,
Speaker 1: man who Genobii missed one, and I think Kawhi Leonard
Speaker 1: missed one. Those are the two guys you missed in
Speaker 1: that situation. But let's just pretend that ray Allen doesn't
Speaker 1: make that crazy corner three. Tony Parker has now stolen
Speaker 1: the twenty thirteen NBA Finals. And again, like obviously you
Speaker 1: lose that game, Miami's favored in Game seven, they're probably
Speaker 1: gonna win. They end up actually winning in Game seven, right,
Speaker 1: So like game six essentially determines the series, it flips.
Speaker 1: The entire series flips on that particular outcome and Tony
Speaker 1: Parker came this close to stealing it. Now, let me
Speaker 1: reframe this era from the standpoint of Tony Parker making
Speaker 1: back to back to back second team All NBA's a
Speaker 1: two time champion the Finals MVP potentially in two thousand
Speaker 1: and twenty thirteen, and arguably the best player on the
Speaker 1: team during those two years, depending on who you ask.
Speaker 1: Suddenly that vaults Tony Parker into some ridiculous conversations, right, So,
Speaker 1: like that's a really interesting what if. And Tony Parker's curb.
Speaker 1: But he's one of those guys that, like, because of
Speaker 1: his statistical production, he's never gonna be viewed on the
Speaker 1: same level as some of his peers. But like, if
Speaker 1: you were there, you were terrified of Tony Parker when
Speaker 1: he had the ball and there was a big moment
Speaker 1: where he had an opportunity to beat you. I remember,
Speaker 1: even after the Ray Allen three, Lebron James guarded Tony
Speaker 1: Parker full court, and I still remember as a fan,
Speaker 1: and you guys, I'm a big Lebron fan. I'm watching
Speaker 1: that like just scared the hell that that Tony Parker's
Speaker 1: gonna dribble down and score. He ends up throwing up
Speaker 1: some crazy shot along the baseline and misses it. But
Speaker 1: like Tony Parker was a terrifying player to root against.
Speaker 1: He was one of those guys that in any playoff
Speaker 1: setting could outplay any of the best stars in the league.
Speaker 1: And then if you were there, you'd probably remember Tony
Speaker 1: Parker in a similar fashion. And he's probably a good
Speaker 1: example of that thing I'm talking about with Chris Paul, right,
Speaker 1: because like most gms would probably take Chris Paul over
Speaker 1: those years, right, But like you know, I'm a big
Speaker 1: believer in actual playoff results, and just Tony Arker was
Speaker 1: just there on the biggest stage, just doing it time
Speaker 1: and time again, and it's a big part of why
Speaker 1: he's a four time NBA champion. All Right, number twenty
Speaker 1: Paul Pierce, he was the second best player on one
Speaker 1: championship team, never made a first team All NBA, three
Speaker 1: All NBA teams though, and he won the NBA Finals
Speaker 1: MVP in two thousand and eight. This is another kind
Speaker 1: of guy that kind of fits that mold, right, Like
Speaker 1: you look at Paul George and he's got all of
Speaker 1: the All NBA selections more than Paul Pierce does, right,
Speaker 1: And he's you know that the highs or the regular
Speaker 1: season highs with Paul George or so high. Right, But
Speaker 1: like anybody who was in the league during Paul Pierce's
Speaker 1: era thought more highly of Paul Pierce than this era
Speaker 1: thinks of Paul George in terms of how what he's
Speaker 1: capable of relative to his peers. So it's another good
Speaker 1: example of this particular dynamic. His prime stats I put
Speaker 1: his prime down from two thousand and one to twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: In that stretch, in the regular season, he averaged twenty
Speaker 1: two six to four on fifty seven percent through shooting,
Speaker 1: and in the playoffs he average twenty one six and
Speaker 1: four on fifty five percent tru shooting. His claim to fame.
Speaker 1: It's funny I saw this the yesterday or two days
Speaker 1: ago on Twitter, someone like took a video of Paul
Speaker 1: Pierce shooting some random game and someone goes like, man,
Speaker 1: you know, Twitter would have you thinking Paul Pierce was
Speaker 1: just another Jimmy Butler or another Paul George. Now, to
Speaker 1: be clear, as you guys know, I obviously have Paul
Speaker 1: Pierce over both, right, because Jimmy Butler is further back
Speaker 1: on this list and Paul George is one of the
Speaker 1: guys who was like in the running but didn't actually
Speaker 1: make it right. So I agree in principle in the
Speaker 1: sense that I view Paul Pierce above those guys. But
Speaker 1: I think Jimmy Butler is the perfect cop for Paul Pierce.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say he's the Jimmy Butler of this era.
Speaker 1: I'd say Jimmy Butler is the Paul Pierce of his era, right,
Speaker 1: because Paul Pierce came first, and I think Paul Pierce
Speaker 1: is the better player. But he's another one of those guys.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a super weird archetype and was never
Speaker 1: truly considered to be on the same level as the
Speaker 1: guys at the buried top of the league. But in
Speaker 1: any one game setting against those guys, he was capable
Speaker 1: of out playing them. To me, that is like the
Speaker 1: spitting image of that Jimmy Butler type of archetype. And
Speaker 1: I think when I saw that tweet, all I thought
Speaker 1: was like, Oh, people are massively underrating Jimmy Butler. I've
Speaker 1: said this before on the show, but Jimmy Butler has
Speaker 1: scored forty points in a playoff game eight times. He's
Speaker 1: scored thirty points in a playoff game like twenty something
Speaker 1: times and more times than Paul Pierce. I think Paul
Speaker 1: Pierce only has three forty point playoff games. Now, different era,
Speaker 1: higher usage, higher pace, all those different things. But the
Speaker 1: point is is, like, it's not an insult to Paul
Speaker 1: Pierce to put him in the same conversation as Jimmy Butler.
Speaker 1: You guys know how highly I think of Jimmy Butler.
Speaker 1: I just think Paul Pierce kind of fits a similar
Speaker 1: mold in his particular era. And while I've alway talked
Speaker 1: about Jimmy Butler is kind of like a miniature version
Speaker 1: of Lebron James, to me, Paul Pierce was kind of
Speaker 1: like a chubbier, less athletic version of Kobe Bryant. There
Speaker 1: were a lot of similarities in his footwork and his
Speaker 1: shot form and the types of shots that he used
Speaker 1: to take. Like he kind of attacked in a very
Speaker 1: similar style, which is a big part of what made
Speaker 1: him so dynamic in playoff situations. He spent the first
Speaker 1: half of his career playing on some limited Celtics teams
Speaker 1: and put up a lot of big numbers, had some
Speaker 1: big playoff series, but never really had the talent necessary
Speaker 1: to compete, and then KG and Ray Allen came and
Speaker 1: he finally had an opportunity to demonstrate it on the
Speaker 1: biggest stage, and he immediately did. So I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: go ahead, and I'm going to come back to his archetype.
Speaker 1: I want to skip ahead to his claim to fame
Speaker 1: and his just kind of talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: what he accomplished with the Celtics, and then we'll go
Speaker 1: back and talk about what kind of basketball player he was.
Speaker 1: So in the two thousand and eight playoff run, Paul
Speaker 1: Pierce average twenty five and five on fifty seven percent
Speaker 1: true shooting. He outplayed a young Lebron James in Game
Speaker 1: seven and a Game seven where Lebron scored forty five points.
Speaker 1: In that particular game, Paul Pierce scored forty one points
Speaker 1: on twenty three shots and beat Lebron to a key
Speaker 1: loose ball at the end of the game. Just I
Speaker 1: thought kind of out played him in that particular game.
Speaker 1: And then in the NBA Finals in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: I thought he flat out out played Kobe Bryant. Kobe
Speaker 1: averaged twenty five points, but he was super inefficient in
Speaker 1: that particular series, Paul Pierce averaged twenty two to five
Speaker 1: and six on fifty nine percent true shooting in beating
Speaker 1: the Lakers and winning the two thousand and eight NBA
Speaker 1: Finals MVP kind of similar to like we were talking
Speaker 1: about with Tony Parker. I thought Kevin Garnett was the
Speaker 1: best player on that particular team, but it was close,
Speaker 1: and Paul Pierce absolutely played like a superstar on the
Speaker 1: biggest stage and made a lot of the big plays
Speaker 1: in route to them winning a championship. He kind of
Speaker 1: like took on that role as the closer, kind of
Speaker 1: similarly to Tony Parker with the Spurs. His archetype, like
Speaker 1: I said before, it's like it's kind of is just
Speaker 1: like a chubbier, like shifty, like less athletic version of
Speaker 1: Kobe Bryant. Right. He was only about six seven, but
Speaker 1: he had ridiculously long arms. He had a seven foot
Speaker 1: three wingspan. He was kind of strangely coordinated and weirdly agile.
Speaker 1: Still had a lot of poster dunks over the top
Speaker 1: of people, even though he wasn't a great athlete, just
Speaker 1: because his arms were so damn long and he was
Speaker 1: just one of the best rise in fire guys in
Speaker 1: the league. Now, to me, rise and fire is like,
Speaker 1: get to your spot, even if you don't have a
Speaker 1: ton of separation, just elevate over the top of everyone
Speaker 1: and knock down a jump shot. That, to me is
Speaker 1: what reminds me the most of Kobe. Like, if you
Speaker 1: just go pull up a bunch of footage of Paul
Speaker 1: Pierce scoring on YouTube, you're gonna notice a lot of
Speaker 1: similarities and the footwork and the pivots and the pump
Speaker 1: fakes and the like. Even the long drawn out release
Speaker 1: on his jump shot where he's kind of like elevating
Speaker 1: as high as he can and like holding onto the
Speaker 1: ball a little bit longer. That a lot of that
Speaker 1: stuff just kind of reminds me of Kobe. Obviously, Kobe
Speaker 1: is a much better player, but like a lot of
Speaker 1: there were some similarities there, and I think that led
Speaker 1: to some of his high level impact in that specific
Speaker 1: playoff environment. He was consistently viewed as one of the
Speaker 1: fifteen best players in the league during his era and
Speaker 1: one of the ten best playoff players in the league
Speaker 1: during his era. Is also one of the best foul
Speaker 1: drifters in the league, utilize the pump fake extremely well
Speaker 1: to get to the line. Here's a crazy stat for you.
Speaker 1: Paul Pierce made susan nine and eighteen free throws in
Speaker 1: his career. That is tenth in NBA history, regardless of era,
Speaker 1: not just last twenty five years, but regardless of era.
Speaker 1: He was just one of those guys you know. And
Speaker 1: again it's a similar kind of thing like those of
Speaker 1: you guys who are in your thirties or older are
Speaker 1: gonna remember that. Like when you had to root against
Speaker 1: Paul Pearson a playoff series, he was terrifying. It was
Speaker 1: just one of those guys, kind of like Jimmy Butler
Speaker 1: that you just knew that, even if you had the
Speaker 1: best player in the series, that he was capable of
Speaker 1: going toe to toe with your guy in beating you.
Speaker 1: And he did on several occasions over the course of
Speaker 1: his career. Biggest what if of Paul Pierce's career, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, what if KG did not get hurt at
Speaker 1: the start of the two thousand and nine season. A
Speaker 1: lot of people don't remember this, but the Celtics started
Speaker 1: the year after they won the title. They started twenty
Speaker 1: seven and two. Now, to give you some perspective, the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen Warriors are the best regular season team of
Speaker 1: all time, and they started twenty eight and one, so
Speaker 1: they were one game behind the Golden State Warriors to
Speaker 1: start that particular season. Before Kevin Guard goes down with
Speaker 1: the injury. You end up missing the playoffs and then
Speaker 1: they end up losing to Orlando in the Conference semis.
Speaker 1: But again, that was the best Celtics team. That was
Speaker 1: better than the two thousand and seven team. And you know, obviously,
Speaker 1: if Paul Pierce becomes a guy with two NBA championships
Speaker 1: and two Finals MVPs, it gets a lot more complicated
Speaker 1: in terms of him in all time conversations, especially if
Speaker 1: you like, we look back at that era as like,
Speaker 1: you know, the Laker Celtics era and Kobe got two,
Speaker 1: Paul Pierce got one. What if it was Paul Pierce
Speaker 1: got two and Kobe got one. You could see how
Speaker 1: that would kind of make things a little bit more complicated.
Speaker 1: Number nineteen Chauncey Billups, mister big shot, best player on
Speaker 1: one championship team, never made a first team All NBA,
Speaker 1: but he did make three All NBA teams. He had
Speaker 1: two All Defense teams as well. He also won the
Speaker 1: NBA Finals MVP in two thousand and four. I thought
Speaker 1: he was the best player on the Pistons in that
Speaker 1: particular era. It's obviously, obviously it's convoluted because it's similar
Speaker 1: to the Spurs situation with Tony Parker, where like nobody
Speaker 1: on the team averaged over twenty points in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five, was more equal opportunity. They had a lot
Speaker 1: of really good players on the team. So like, obviously
Speaker 1: it's not the same type of statistical production that you
Speaker 1: see from some of his peers. But he was the
Speaker 1: best player on a team the hoisted the trophy, and
Speaker 1: that has to be worth a ton, as you guys know.
Speaker 1: In my particular list, so I put down on his
Speaker 1: prime two thousand and three to twenty ten, seventeen points,
Speaker 1: three rebounds and six assists on fifty nine percent true shooting,
Speaker 1: and then in the playoffs eighteen points, three rebounds and
Speaker 1: six assists on fifty eight percent true shooting. His claim
Speaker 1: to fame. He was the offensive engine of one of
Speaker 1: the best defensive teams of all time, So he filled
Speaker 1: a very important role for a team that tried to
Speaker 1: win with defense but needed to get baskets. Obviously, he
Speaker 1: was the engine that made that all work. Every kind
Speaker 1: of player. You know. It's funny when I think back
Speaker 1: and think about the Detroit Pistons. They were a team
Speaker 1: I watched a lot when I was young, because obviously
Speaker 1: I was rooting for Lebron in the Eastern Conference. And
Speaker 1: I think they made it to five consecutive Eastern Conference
Speaker 1: finals if I remember correctly. But like each they had
Speaker 1: like this perfect starting five where like each guy kind
Speaker 1: of filled a different archetype, right, Like Billups was this
Speaker 1: like unbelievable skill guard who just had this ridiculous pull
Speaker 1: up jump shot, and he was kind of the point
Speaker 1: guard ran the show and like ran a lot of
Speaker 1: pick and roll things like that. Richard Hamilton was like
Speaker 1: the classic throwback two guard that was just flying off
Speaker 1: of screens. I looked up this stat today. In two
Speaker 1: thousand and five, which is when they started tracking this
Speaker 1: particular data, Rip Hamilton shot two hundred and sixty four
Speaker 1: shots flying off of screens. That's more than nine NBA
Speaker 1: teams did this year. So rich Rip Hamilton by himself
Speaker 1: would have been right around the twenty two spot in
Speaker 1: the NBA this year in total off screen attempts going
Speaker 1: against the other thirty NBA team, So that just gives
Speaker 1: you an idea of how the league has changed a lot.
Speaker 1: But Rip Hamilton was a lot of off ball stuff,
Speaker 1: a lot of flying off screens. He did a little
Speaker 1: bit of post up ISOs as well. Tayshaun Prince was
Speaker 1: just this terrifying defensive wing with a ridiculous wingspan. He
Speaker 1: did most of his work in transition and in spot
Speaker 1: up situations, but he also could score a little bit
Speaker 1: as well. Rashid Wallace was a post up full grumbley
Speaker 1: throw the ball down to him on the block a lot.
Speaker 1: He also could knock down a spot up jump shot.
Speaker 1: He was also a great rim protector. And then Ben
Speaker 1: Wallace was just like far and away the best defensive
Speaker 1: player in the league at the time. And so at
Speaker 1: the front line you had Tayshawn Prince who's one of
Speaker 1: the very best defensive players in the league, Rashide Wallace,
Speaker 1: who was an excellent defensive player, and then Ben Wallace,
Speaker 1: who was the best defensive player in the league. And
Speaker 1: those three guys just completely screwed up every single team
Speaker 1: they played against offensively and caused all sorts of problems.
Speaker 1: And that was the bread and butter for how they won.
Speaker 1: But Rip Hamilton and Chauncey Billups had to carry most
Speaker 1: of the offensive load, and Chauncey in particular did the
Speaker 1: most in terms of scoring and facilitating for his teammates. Now,
Speaker 1: he was a big, strong guard. He was about six
Speaker 1: foot three and weighed in at about two hundred and
Speaker 1: ten pounds. He was an absolutely dead eye pull up shooter. Now,
Speaker 1: pull up shooting data was not tracked on Synergy before
Speaker 1: two thousand and five, so I can't go back that far.
Speaker 1: But in the two thousand and five season, Chauncey Billups
Speaker 1: shot forty five percent on pull up jump shots and
Speaker 1: fifty two percent when you weighed it for threes. He
Speaker 1: had this everything for Jouncey Billups was built out of
Speaker 1: a high hesitation in his left hand, so like he
Speaker 1: would kind of go through his legs or in a
Speaker 1: crossover and he kind of sit in a high hesitation
Speaker 1: in his left hand. This is a move that I
Speaker 1: teach a ton to the younger players that I coach,
Speaker 1: and a big part of it is it's the bridge
Speaker 1: move that bridges everything together. When you're in that high
Speaker 1: hesitation in your left hand, you can rise up into
Speaker 1: a jump shot, you can continue to push the ball
Speaker 1: forward as a drive to the left. You can hit
Speaker 1: it in and out dribble, you can cross over to
Speaker 1: the right, you can go between your legs, you can
Speaker 1: go behind the back, you can literally do anything out
Speaker 1: of a high hesitation dribble. It is the bridge move
Speaker 1: that connects everything else. And so with Chauncey, he was
Speaker 1: just like a pretty damn reliable pull up jump shooter
Speaker 1: out of that left handed high hesitation. Now he almost
Speaker 1: exclusively drove left. He drove left about seventy percent of
Speaker 1: the time, but it was still too super hard to
Speaker 1: guard because it was a give and to take. You
Speaker 1: could press up to take away the jump shot and
Speaker 1: he's dusting you to your left hand to his left hand,
Speaker 1: or you can play off and he's gonna rise up
Speaker 1: up and knocked that shot down. Use that threat of
Speaker 1: that shot to generate a lot of rim pressure. Who
Speaker 1: was also a great passer. He also was pretty big
Speaker 1: and strong, so he's a great post up player among guards.
Speaker 1: Just kind of would like back smaller guards down, get
Speaker 1: closer to the basket, and take like little short fadeaway
Speaker 1: jump shots in lane. It was a big time short
Speaker 1: jump shot maker out of the post. His crowning achievement
Speaker 1: was winning Finals MVP in two thousand and forty. He
Speaker 1: averaged twenty one points, three rebounds, and five assists on
Speaker 1: that series on seventy seventy percent through shooting, knocking out
Speaker 1: the vaunted shock Kobe Lakers in five games. The biggest
Speaker 1: what if of Chauncey Phillips's career, in my opinion, is
Speaker 1: what if Robert Ori misses the three point shot with
Speaker 1: six seconds left in Game five of the two thousand
Speaker 1: and five NBA Finals. The Pistons were up by two
Speaker 1: and the series was tied. It too, so they were
Speaker 1: gone to San Antonio with two opportunities to win an
Speaker 1: NBA championship. Now once again, kind of like I was
Speaker 1: talking about with Tony Parker and Paul Pierce, let's reframe
Speaker 1: this as a back to back champion in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four to two thousand and five with two finals
Speaker 1: MVPs knock out literally the Spurs and the Lakers along
Speaker 1: the way. You can imagine how that would put Chauncey
Speaker 1: Billups and really that whole Pistons team all time if
Speaker 1: that's how it would have gone down. But that's not
Speaker 1: how it went. Robert ori made the shot, Spurs won
Speaker 1: in seven, and the Pistons ended up only getting one championship.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny, Robert ORRII showed up in a
Speaker 1: lot of like the the filters and stuff that I
Speaker 1: was running as I was tracking championship players and stuff.
Speaker 1: It's just kind of crazy how many big playoff moments
Speaker 1: Robert Oriy has been there for all right, last guy
Speaker 1: for today, Number eighteen Pau Gasol, second best player on
Speaker 1: two championship teams. Never made a first team All NBA,
Speaker 1: but he made four All NBA teams in his prime
Speaker 1: I put down from two thousand and six to twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1: In the regular season, he averaged nineteen points, ten rebounds,
Speaker 1: and four assists fifty seven percent true shooting. In the playoffs,
Speaker 1: he averaged seventeen points, ten rebounds and four assists on
Speaker 1: fifty six percent true shooting. His claimed to favor really
Speaker 1: as he was the second most skilled big man in
Speaker 1: the league over that era, basically behind Dirk Novitsky. He
Speaker 1: was also the guy who helped hersuscitate Kobe Bryant's career
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles. As we know, Kobe threatening straight up
Speaker 1: asked for a trade. It looked like that era was
Speaker 1: coming too close. Power Gasol comes in gives them the
Speaker 1: necessary boost and talent that they needed. Suddenly they become
Speaker 1: a championship caliber team. His archetype, he was a classic
Speaker 1: throwback post up big man. Over forty percent of his
Speaker 1: shot attempts came out of post up situations. He preferred
Speaker 1: the left block. Actually, as a right handed player, he
Speaker 1: preferred to take look hooks over his right shoulder with
Speaker 1: his left hand. Like his most common post up play
Speaker 1: type was just dump it to him on the on
Speaker 1: the left block. He'd kind of work with his right
Speaker 1: hand into the lane and then he quick spin back
Speaker 1: to his left hand and make a hook shot over
Speaker 1: the top of the defender. But that was just one
Speaker 1: of his go to moves. He obviously had everything. He
Speaker 1: had a left shoulder hook, he had a right shoulder hook.
Speaker 1: He had up in under moves. He had fadeaways over
Speaker 1: both shoulders. He could make pop shots in the lane
Speaker 1: out of pick and roll. He was a good pick
Speaker 1: and pop jump shooter as well. Like he just was,
Speaker 1: like I said, the second most skilled big man in
Speaker 1: that era. Unfortunately, Synergy did not start tracking hook shots
Speaker 1: until twenty eleven, so I can't pull up his exact accuracy.
Speaker 1: But in two twenty ten, which I look at his
Speaker 1: POW's best season as a pro, he shot forty eight
Speaker 1: percent in field goal attempts out of the post, which
Speaker 1: is insanely good for any sort of static half court
Speaker 1: shot creating situation. His crowning achievement was thoroughly out playing
Speaker 1: Kevin Garnett in the twenty ten NBA Finals. He averaged
Speaker 1: nineteen and twelve in that series on fifty six percent
Speaker 1: true shooting. He utterly demolished the Celtics on the glass
Speaker 1: in that series. It's funny because like early on in
Speaker 1: Powe's careers, and this was a reputation that followed a
Speaker 1: lot of European players, but a lot of people looked
Speaker 1: at him as soft, and he didn't play particularly great
Speaker 1: in the two thousand and eight season, right specifically in
Speaker 1: the NBA Finals, And so as we look forward at
Speaker 1: the twenty ten season, it's kind of crazy to see
Speaker 1: that transformation because he straight up bullied the Celtics front court.
Speaker 1: He had thirty five thirty five offensive rebounds in the
Speaker 1: twenty ten NBA Finals. That's five per game. He had
Speaker 1: nine offensive rebounds in Game seven. He had nineteen points
Speaker 1: and eighteen rebounds overall in Game seven, and then he
Speaker 1: hit the biggest shot of the series again. This was
Speaker 1: Game seven, series tied at three, winner take all. The
Speaker 1: Lakers were ugh four with just under two minutes left,
Speaker 1: and he was posting abrasheid Wallace once again on that
Speaker 1: left block like he always likes, spun back towards the
Speaker 1: baseline like he always likes to do, and the Celtics
Speaker 1: actually came to the triple team. They brought Paul Pierson
Speaker 1: Kevin Garnett over and just smothered him. He ended up
Speaker 1: having to double pump and take this weird, kind of
Speaker 1: like jump shot as he was falling to the ground,
Speaker 1: but he made it, put the Lakers up six with
Speaker 1: a minut and a half left, and that essentially iced
Speaker 1: the series as the Lakers went on twin their second
Speaker 1: consecutive NBA championship. He was definitely the best player on
Speaker 1: the floor in Game seven of that series, and you
Speaker 1: could even make a case that he was the best
Speaker 1: player on the Lakers in that particular series, But that
Speaker 1: is a take that I personally disagree with. I tend
Speaker 1: to think that Kobe, especially with what Boston was throwing
Speaker 1: at him and with all the stuff that he did
Speaker 1: throughout the entire season. Kind of back to what we
Speaker 1: were talking about with Finals MVP versus Championship MVP, I
Speaker 1: thought Kobe was a deserving Finals MVP. Biggest what if
Speaker 1: I Paul Pierce's excuse me, Palagassol's career. This was one
Speaker 1: that I had a hard time with because I feel
Speaker 1: like Pawa Gasol's career went the way it was supposed to,
Speaker 1: Like he kind of learned how to play in the
Speaker 1: NBA in Memphis, and then he played his best years
Speaker 1: with a really, really good Lakers team and got to
Speaker 1: experience what his individual ceiling was like. Twenty eleven twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: they clearly just weren't good enough anymore, so they make
Speaker 1: an all in trade for Steve Nash and for Dwight Howard,
Speaker 1: and then everyone breaks down that season, Like Dwight Howard
Speaker 1: played all the time, but he wasn't the same Dwight Howard.
Speaker 1: He was just stiffer than he used to be. Steve
Speaker 1: Nash was in and out of the lineup with injuries
Speaker 1: all season. Power Gasol himself only played I think forty
Speaker 1: nine games in that particular season, and then Kobe ends
Speaker 1: up tearing his achilles, and then from there, basically all
Speaker 1: those guys careers were over. Dwight Howard ended up transitioning
Speaker 1: with the other three guys were basically done at that point, Right,
Speaker 1: So I don't really have a really good one if
Speaker 1: just simply based on the fact that the I feel
Speaker 1: like things kind of went the way they were supposed
Speaker 1: to for Palgasol. But if I had to choose one,
Speaker 1: I'd say, what if the Lakers did not blow Game
Speaker 1: four of the two thousand and eight NBA Finals. They
Speaker 1: were up by twenty seventy to fifty in the middle
Speaker 1: of the third quarter of Game four, down two games
Speaker 1: to one, and they scored just twenty one points over
Speaker 1: the final eighteen minutes of that game as the Celtics
Speaker 1: came back to win and take a three to one
Speaker 1: lead in the series. Obviously, it's not a sure thing
Speaker 1: from there, because they would have had to win Game
Speaker 1: five at home to go up three to two, and
Speaker 1: then they'd have to win a game in Boston. But
Speaker 1: they would have been in a commanding position in the
Speaker 1: series had they not blown that lead, so it's significant
Speaker 1: what if and then obviously now we're talking about a
Speaker 1: three peat if the Lakers win that particular series. So
Speaker 1: that's all I have for today with Paucasol at number eighteen.
Speaker 1: We'll be back tomorrow with number seventeen, sixteen, fifteen, and
Speaker 1: fourteen the volume