Speaker 1: The volume. The everards NBA Cup is here and you
Speaker 1: can win big getting in on the action at DraftKings
Speaker 1: sports Book, an official sports betting partner of the NBA.
Speaker 1: Who will win this year We'll find out soon, but
Speaker 1: there's sure to be rim rattling slams and no look
Speaker 1: passes that bring the crowd to their feet. Get behind
Speaker 1: your favorite players and the prop bets you can make
Speaker 1: on DraftKings, the home of NBA player props. Ready to
Speaker 1: place your first bet? Try betting on something simple like
Speaker 1: picking a team to win. Go to the Draft Kings
Speaker 1: Sportsbook app and make your pick. The New York Knicks
Speaker 1: are currently the favorite to win the NBA Cup at
Speaker 1: plus four fifty first time. Here's something special just for you.
Speaker 1: New DraftKings customers can bet five dollars to get one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty dollars in bonus bets if your bet wins.
Speaker 1: Score big with Draft Kings Sportsbook, every point counts. Download
Speaker 1: the Draft Kings Sportsbook app and use code hoops that's
Speaker 1: h oops, that's code hoops for new customers to get
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty dollars in bonus bets if your
Speaker 1: bet wins. When you bet just five bucks only on DraftKings.
Speaker 1: The Crown is yours. Gambling problem called one eight hundred
Speaker 1: gambler in New York call eight seven seven eight hope
Speaker 1: and why, or text hope and why to four six
Speaker 1: seven three sixty nine and Connecticut help us available for
Speaker 1: problem gambling call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven
Speaker 1: seven seven seven or visit CCPG dot org. Please play
Speaker 1: responsibly on behalf of Boothill Casino and Resort in Kansas
Speaker 1: twenty one plus. Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction void
Speaker 1: in Ontario. Bet must win to receive reward. Bonus bets
Speaker 1: expire one hundred and sixty eight hours after issuance. For
Speaker 1: additional terms and responsible gaming resources, see DKG dot co
Speaker 1: slash b ball. All right, welcome to hoopsinight here at
Speaker 1: the volume. Happy Friday, everybody hopeful. If you guys have
Speaker 1: had a great week so far, I got a jampack
Speaker 1: show for you today. It's mail bag Day. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be bouncing all around the league with questions you guys
Speaker 1: dropped in the comments. I sincerely appreciate you guys for
Speaker 1: dropping the questions. Don't forget if you want to leave
Speaker 1: a question in the mail bag, you drop them in
Speaker 1: the YouTube comments. I take them from the Friday and
Speaker 1: then the Monday through Thursday leading into the Friday show.
Speaker 1: So if you want to get a mail bad question
Speaker 1: into next Friday show today or Monday through Thursday next week,
Speaker 1: make sure you drop those questions in the comments. You
Speaker 1: guys are the drill before we get started. Subscribe to
Speaker 1: Hoops Tonight YouTube channel so you don't miss any more
Speaker 1: of our videos. Follow me on Twitter at underscore jcnlts
Speaker 1: you guys don't miss you announcements. Forget about a podcast feed,
Speaker 1: whe you're your podcast under Hoops Tonight. It's also super
Speaker 1: helpful if you leave a rating in a review. On
Speaker 1: that front, we have brand new social media pages on Twitter, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and Facebook for the Hoops Tonight channel. We we're releasing
Speaker 1: more content. Make sure you guys follow us there, and then,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned at the start, keep dropping mail bad
Speaker 1: questions in those YouTube comments so that we can hit
Speaker 1: them on Fridays. All right, let's talk some basketball. First question, Hey, Jason,
Speaker 1: love your videos with the Warriors, need for a second
Speaker 1: option and having thirty plus million in expiring salary. What
Speaker 1: do you think about a Brandon Ingram or Anthony Davis
Speaker 1: fit with the Warriors, are they realistically gettable? Who would
Speaker 1: you also consider? So brandon Ingram is an interesting fit
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways on both sides of the spectrum.
Speaker 1: Like he is a bit of a ball stopper. Like
Speaker 1: brandon Ingram is at his best when he can play
Speaker 1: a more heliocentric style. He's one of the better passing
Speaker 1: forwards in the league, and he's really good at cross
Speaker 1: court passes. He's got long arms, he can get that
Speaker 1: just whip that thing across the court into the shooting
Speaker 1: pocket when a low man steps over and a ball screen.
Speaker 1: He can like really be methodical. And when he's picking
Speaker 1: you part in spread pick and rolls, he likes to
Speaker 1: run a lot of ISOs around the elbow. He'll come
Speaker 1: off of off ball action and look to score around
Speaker 1: the elbow when he's got a defender trailing him in
Speaker 1: those actions. Technically, not a great fit within the Warriors offense,
Speaker 1: which is very much quick decisions, read and react and
Speaker 1: everyone's involved. The ball's flowing from side to side, So
Speaker 1: like that would be somewhat of a concern, right, But
Speaker 1: there's more complications than that. For instance, he's shooting a
Speaker 1: lot more threes this year. He's taking seven per game
Speaker 1: and making thirty seven percent of them. He was below
Speaker 1: four attempts per game in each of the previous two seasons.
Speaker 1: He's converting spot up possessions at one point four to
Speaker 1: three points per possession, so he is doing a better
Speaker 1: job of quickly catching and attacking in those spot up situations. Also,
Speaker 1: there's something to be said about having variety in your offense.
Speaker 1: That's potential upside right. And here's the thing. Anytime you
Speaker 1: make a star trade, there's risk. So for the record,
Speaker 1: before you ever even consider this process or even venture
Speaker 1: into this in terms of changing your kind of mental
Speaker 1: approach to this team towards tweaking the roster in the future,
Speaker 1: anytime you make a trade there's a risk. So if
Speaker 1: you want to pretend like this can't go wrong, I
Speaker 1: don't know what to tell you. Every trade has risk.
Speaker 1: Maybe the fit is super clunky and the team underachieves,
Speaker 1: like that's a potential outcome. Maybe you trade Jonathan Kaminga
Speaker 1: in a deal like this and he goes somewhere else
Speaker 1: and he ends up being a superstar. Now I don't
Speaker 1: think that's likely Johnathankmine got a big game last night
Speaker 1: in the win against the Rockets, Right, But I don't
Speaker 1: think he has superstar upside. I think he has a
Speaker 1: star upside. I don't think he's superstar upside. Like if
Speaker 1: you told me Jonathan Kmingo was the twentieth best player
Speaker 1: in the league in five years, I'd believe that. Do
Speaker 1: I think he's going to be the seventh best player
Speaker 1: in the league in five years? No, I don't think
Speaker 1: that he has them in there that that in his game. Right,
Speaker 1: But like, there's obviously a risk when you make that
Speaker 1: type of deal, right, Like look at the Clippers. You
Speaker 1: trade for Chris for Paul George, Suddenly you're the championship
Speaker 1: favorite in Vegas. Shay is a twenty year old rookie
Speaker 1: who just averaged eleven points per game. Not to be clear,
Speaker 1: when Shae was Jonathan Kaminga's age right now, Shay was
Speaker 1: much much much better. He was like a twenty four
Speaker 1: point per game, fifty to forty guy. Like he was
Speaker 1: just at a much higher level than Jonathan Kaminga is
Speaker 1: at right now. But yeah, you make that trade and
Speaker 1: Shay goes off and becomes a top tier superstar I
Speaker 1: think he's the fourth best player in the world, and
Speaker 1: the Clippers underachieve, and so the gamble doesn't pay off.
Speaker 1: That's part of the risk, right, But then there's also
Speaker 1: versions of that risk where things kind of click into
Speaker 1: place and it ends up dramatically improving your team, and
Speaker 1: who cares what happens with the other guys. You accomplished
Speaker 1: the goals that you want to accomplish. That's the game.
Speaker 1: That's the game of making tweaks to the roster, right,
Speaker 1: and there is up with a guy like Brandon Ingram.
Speaker 1: Even though Brandon plays different, playing different doesn't necessarily mean bad.
Speaker 1: Their advantages to playing different ways in different parts of
Speaker 1: the game are being able to tweak your play style
Speaker 1: based on who you're playing against. Even the old Warriors teams,
Speaker 1: if you guys remember when like Sean Livingston and Leandro
Speaker 1: Barbosa would come into the game, they played very different
Speaker 1: than the Steph Curry lineups. Talent is talent at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, and like again, you look at
Speaker 1: like those late game situations, like imagine the final couple
Speaker 1: possessions in the Denver Nuggets game, and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden you have Steph getting denied off ball and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the balls and Andrew Wiggins or Jonathan
Speaker 1: Kuminga's hands. If that's brandon Ingram, he's got a better
Speaker 1: chance of getting a bucket there because that's what he
Speaker 1: does for a living and improves your chances of thriving
Speaker 1: in those types of situations. So like there's upside as well.
Speaker 1: And that's why it's like, anytime you want to make
Speaker 1: yourself better or improve your situation, you typically have to
Speaker 1: take a risk, and that risk comes with the possibility
Speaker 1: of reward or the possibility of it not working out
Speaker 1: in your favor. That's the name of the game. Now,
Speaker 1: Anthony Davis, like you mentioned your question, I just think
Speaker 1: that's too unrealistic. I don't think the Lakers would trade
Speaker 1: Anthony Davis unless they got an absolute haul of draft
Speaker 1: compensation and young players back, and I just think that
Speaker 1: would drain the Warriors' resources too much. And then also
Speaker 1: Anthony Davis and Draymond Green are somewhat redundant, and so
Speaker 1: I don't think that makes a ton of sense. As
Speaker 1: a basketball fan, I would love to see Lebron play
Speaker 1: with the Warriors. I just think him and Steph are
Speaker 1: such a natural fit, and I think it would instantly
Speaker 1: vault them into top tier championship contention, But it would
Speaker 1: just be way too difficult to pull it off. Like
Speaker 1: you'd have to convince Lebron to leave his family, and
Speaker 1: I just don't think he'd ever do that. And then
Speaker 1: Lebron's salary is huge and tough to match, so you'd
Speaker 1: have to include someone like Wiggins or Draymond, which includes
Speaker 1: a lot of risk and and potential downside there. It'd
Speaker 1: be difficult to pull off. So it's never gonna happen.
Speaker 1: But obviously, as a basketball fan, I think it'd be
Speaker 1: fun to watch Lebron and Steph try to make a
Speaker 1: playoff run together. But like, the actual options are somewhat limited.
Speaker 1: Rights guys like Brandon Ingram, guys like Jeremy Grant, guys
Speaker 1: like Zach Lavine that are on the table, and all
Speaker 1: of them come with risk. You just have to decide
Speaker 1: if you want to risk something to try to win
Speaker 1: a championship, and that's a tough decision to make, and
Speaker 1: I understand the complication, and that's why I always talk
Speaker 1: about like waiting till the deadline, you're just gonna have
Speaker 1: more information than you have now, you'll have roughly twice
Speaker 1: as much information when you get to that point, which
Speaker 1: will give you a better opportunity to make an informed
Speaker 1: decision at that point. Is Tyre's Halliburton even a top
Speaker 1: ten point guard right now? He's just been so inconsistent
Speaker 1: slash bad this season. Here are guys ahead of him
Speaker 1: right now, in no particular order, Steph Shay, Luca Kyrie Dame,
Speaker 1: Jalen Brunson, Dearon Fox, LaMelo Ball, John Morant, and James Harden.
Speaker 1: I think I didn't agree with all those guys except
Speaker 1: for LaMelo LaMelo. The stuff with LaMelo is a little
Speaker 1: complicated because, like, he is playing really heliocentric, really high usage,
Speaker 1: and even though he's putting up big box score numbers,
Speaker 1: the team isn't really scoring particularly well by the way,
Speaker 1: this is before his injury. But like the Lamello stuff
Speaker 1: is a little bit like fools gold good stats on
Speaker 1: a bad team kind of thing. But all those other
Speaker 1: guys are definitely playing better than Tyres Halliburton. The Tyreese
Speaker 1: Haliburton thing is one of the strangest things that I
Speaker 1: can remember seeing in my time covering the league, with
Speaker 1: the way he was playing this time last year, he
Speaker 1: legitimately looked like the next great superstar in the league.
Speaker 1: He looked like evolutionary Steve Nash. The Bucks couldn't guard him,
Speaker 1: the Celtics couldn't guard him. Like it was just it
Speaker 1: was just a problem for everybody. And then he heard
Speaker 1: his hamstring and he's never been able to get that
Speaker 1: athletic burst back. And what's scary about that is we've
Speaker 1: seen a couple examples of this where it's like James
Speaker 1: Harden hurts his hamstring and he's never really been the same.
Speaker 1: Remember how good Devin Booker was in the NBA Finals
Speaker 1: run in twenty twenty one, and since then he's been
Speaker 1: able to have some bursts, but he's had some soft
Speaker 1: tissue injuries that have kind of recurred over the last
Speaker 1: few years, and he's been somewhat inconsistent in being able
Speaker 1: to reach the level of play that he that we
Speaker 1: envision for a Devin Booker, right, and so like, there
Speaker 1: are some examples of this where guys like James Harden,
Speaker 1: Tyrese Haliburt, and Devin Booker, where like the hamstring injury
Speaker 1: seems to kind of limit their mobility a little bit
Speaker 1: and then they fail to reach the ceiling they were
Speaker 1: originally at. So I'm hoping that's not what it is.
Speaker 1: But it's just there's there's some weird stuff too with
Speaker 1: the burst, where like at home he seems to be
Speaker 1: like a lot more explosive. The home road splits for
Speaker 1: him are like crazy out of control. So I don't
Speaker 1: really know what to make of it. I think I
Speaker 1: mostly agree with your list that. Like I said, outside
Speaker 1: of Lamello, I'm always hesitant to write guys off completely.
Speaker 1: Lebron said something in his postgame presser after the Heat
Speaker 1: game that I thought was interesting. He said, like he's like,
Speaker 1: I know how quickly things can turn in this league,
Speaker 1: and it's the truth. Like, reputation has this such a
Speaker 1: lingering kind of effect on discourse surrounding players. It's like
Speaker 1: if a guy goes and plays bad for two weeks,
Speaker 1: it completely changes your impression of the of that player.
Speaker 1: Right Like as a Laker fan, I can think of
Speaker 1: like twenty twenty three, Ruey has an awesome playoff run,
Speaker 1: and coming out of that, everyone's like, man, Lebron, a
Speaker 1: d Austin Ruey, what a core. That's a squad. Let's
Speaker 1: see if we can't anchor those guys with a few
Speaker 1: other good players and see if you can't make a
Speaker 1: run right, And then Rui's just flat out bad in
Speaker 1: the Denver series the next year, and now it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: Ruey's unserious, he can't do this. Then like Ruey comes
Speaker 1: out to start the season and he's pretty good this year,
Speaker 1: but then as of Lady's been really bad, and it's like,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, like your opinion of these guys
Speaker 1: just like wildly oscillates back and forth based on how
Speaker 1: they're playing. And that's the thing, Like all it takes
Speaker 1: is him getting healthier, getting his legs underneath him, regaining
Speaker 1: his confidence, mojo rhythm, and going on a run for
Speaker 1: two weeks where he looks like the old Tyres Haliburton
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, most people won't even care
Speaker 1: about the stretches where he looked bad and so like
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of just a weird thing. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of like other stuff going on with Indiana too,
Speaker 1: in terms of like rotation decisions, some of the stuff
Speaker 1: with like the fit with Ben Matherin, like they have
Speaker 1: a funk of their own that they're dealing with but
Speaker 1: like I will say that what I saw happen with
Speaker 1: Tyrey's Haliburton over the course of the last year is
Speaker 1: definitely one of the strangest things that I've seen in
Speaker 1: my time coming covering the league. Hey, Jason mailback, what
Speaker 1: do you think is going on with Jamal Murray? Is
Speaker 1: it laziness or and satisfaction with one ring? I've heard
Speaker 1: via Denver beat writers that Murray never comes into seasons
Speaker 1: in shape and doesn't rehab as hard as he could
Speaker 1: for injuries. Is it coincidence either way for Denver to
Speaker 1: do anything this year? Murray needs to wake up and
Speaker 1: he just got a damn Max contract and put a
Speaker 1: ton of pressure on the Nuggets front office in order
Speaker 1: to do so. So frustrating as a Nuggets fan. So
Speaker 1: you know, I've always thought it's interesting how this kind
Speaker 1: of thing can snowball. And another example of this kind
Speaker 1: of thing is with Joel Embiid, where it's like everyone
Speaker 1: focuses on the injuries, and like, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: sit here and pretend like injuries don't have a certain
Speaker 1: luck element to them and that there's some of that
Speaker 1: that's outside of your control. But on a base let's
Speaker 1: talk through it. If you, as a professional athlete, take
Speaker 1: the level of seriousness necessary with your diet and your
Speaker 1: exercise regimen to be in shape, which should be like
Speaker 1: in theory, the baseline of being a professional athlete, right,
Speaker 1: then you limit your chances of sustaining an injury. If
Speaker 1: you limit your chances of sustaining an injury, you have longer,
Speaker 1: more consistent stretches of being healthy, which continue to help
Speaker 1: you be in better shape, which continue to perpetuate your
Speaker 1: health and your ability to avoid those injuries. The exact
Speaker 1: opposite happens when you're not in shape. So like if
Speaker 1: Jamal Murray or Joel Embiid comes into the season out
Speaker 1: of shape, and he shows up to training camp, and
Speaker 1: I know there's not a ton of you guys that
Speaker 1: listen to the show that played in college, but I
Speaker 1: know there's some of you guys that played in college
Speaker 1: or played in high school. Do you guys remember what
Speaker 1: it was like as a college basketball player showing up
Speaker 1: to campus in August and the type of like heavy
Speaker 1: duty conditioning and how they kick your ass on the
Speaker 1: court every day. Do you remember in high school in
Speaker 1: early November when you'd have your tryouts and then that
Speaker 1: first like two weeks in November, Like how much you
Speaker 1: have to run, how much conditioning there is, how many
Speaker 1: defensive drills you do. Those are hard on your body.
Speaker 1: And like if you go into that situation out of shape, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're playing your way into shape through that training camp
Speaker 1: or that early part of the season where you're starting
Speaker 1: starting up the engine, starting up that process. But that's
Speaker 1: also where you can sustain injuries if you're not in shape.
Speaker 1: And so if you come into season out of shape
Speaker 1: and then you suffer a nagging injury in training camp
Speaker 1: in large part because you're out of shape, and that
Speaker 1: forces you to miss time, which makes it so that
Speaker 1: when you're trying to fight your way back onto the court,
Speaker 1: you're also out of shape. And then you get back
Speaker 1: onto the court and you're still not in the condition
Speaker 1: that you need to be and you suffer another little
Speaker 1: nagging injury. It can just kind of drag on throughout
Speaker 1: the season. Luka Doncic is another guy that's kind of
Speaker 1: a victim of this type of approach. You dramatically improve
Speaker 1: your luck on the injury front just by taking care
Speaker 1: of your body before you go into these processes. If
Speaker 1: you can spend the month of August and September before
Speaker 1: NBA training camp, not necessarily playing with a lot of
Speaker 1: impact or killing your body, but at least hyper focusing
Speaker 1: on your diet and making sure you're at the right
Speaker 1: weight and have a good baseline for cardio and all
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff going into training camp. You just
Speaker 1: have a better chance of surviving that process without suffering
Speaker 1: nagging injuries. So they are all related, and you're right, like,
Speaker 1: I've heard the same things about Jamal Murray in the
Speaker 1: way he approaches his rehab and he the type of
Speaker 1: condition he comes into training camp in, and I absolutely
Speaker 1: believe those things are connected. And so what's going to
Speaker 1: turn things around for Jamal Murray? Getting in shape and
Speaker 1: staying in shape and not letting himself get out of shape.
Speaker 1: That will help him do better on the injury front.
Speaker 1: If you can go an extended stretch of not being injured,
Speaker 1: he'll feel his base getting stronger and he'll get in
Speaker 1: a better rhythm on the court, because that's the other
Speaker 1: part of it. If you're constantly banged up and in
Speaker 1: and out of the lineup and not feeling one hundred
Speaker 1: percent physically, it's hard for you to get into a rhythm.
Speaker 1: I watched Jamal Murray hit a couple of jump shots
Speaker 1: in a game last week, can't remember which one, where
Speaker 1: he's just like not getting a ton of lyft and
Speaker 1: he's like making the shot, but it's like all wrist
Speaker 1: at the top of the shot because he's just not
Speaker 1: getting the lift that he needs. Like Jamal Murray that
Speaker 1: we've seen in the playoffs in the past, gets separation.
Speaker 1: He's an athlete. He'll dunk on you and he's just
Speaker 1: not in that conditions as often as he needs to be.
Speaker 1: And there's some criticism that he deserves as a result
Speaker 1: of that. And you're right, there is pressure. Nicole Jokich
Speaker 1: is the best player in the world. This roster has
Speaker 1: enough talent to be good. They need Jamal Murray to
Speaker 1: be better, and so it starts with him. It starts
Speaker 1: with him in his approach and making sure that he
Speaker 1: holds up his end of the bargain as a professional athlete.
Speaker 1: Why don't the Nuggets play Jokic with more bench players
Speaker 1: as he can elevate everyone and instead try to give
Speaker 1: that unit to Jamal and maybe Michael Porter Junior. I
Speaker 1: thought about this after looking at them at a post
Speaker 1: that said Jokic was the superstar that plays with the
Speaker 1: starters the most, and this leads to the bench being
Speaker 1: extremely terrible. I would be interested to see if you
Speaker 1: can pull up data that backs the notion of Jokic
Speaker 1: playing with the starters more compared to superstars like Giannis,
Speaker 1: Luca and Tatum, et cetera. So here's the thing. You
Speaker 1: inevitably have to play your superstar with bench groups, Like
Speaker 1: there's the best. It's not like starters bench starters bench.
Speaker 1: That only happens if you can do like straight up
Speaker 1: line shifts, and that's extremely rare around the NBA. And
Speaker 1: typically you need to have really really talented lineups, like
Speaker 1: some of the stuff we've seen with the Warriors, where
Speaker 1: like their six through eleventh best players are as good
Speaker 1: as the third through tenth best players on a lot
Speaker 1: or third through ninth best players on some other teams. Right, Like,
Speaker 1: they have a depth of talent. The top bend on
Speaker 1: the Warriors is limited, but they have a depth of talent, right,
Speaker 1: so they can get away with that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: For the vast majority of teams. There's your two primary
Speaker 1: offensive engines. Right, So let's take for the Nuggets, let's
Speaker 1: call it Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokich. There's going to
Speaker 1: be a bench unit that is led by Jamal Murray
Speaker 1: and there's going to be a bench unit that's led
Speaker 1: by Nikola Jokich. If you imagine they start the game together,
Speaker 1: one of them goes to the bench, and this guy's
Speaker 1: got to carry a lineup, and then they swap and
Speaker 1: then that guy's got to carry a line up, and
Speaker 1: then they come back on the floor together and they
Speaker 1: close the half. Right, Like that's the It's more complicated
Speaker 1: than that, but that's the gist of it, right, And
Speaker 1: so inevitably Jokich is gonna be playing with bench groups. Now,
Speaker 1: what I believe you're referencing is like pairing more of
Speaker 1: the starters when Yokich is off the floor, And there
Speaker 1: is some upside to that potentially, but the Nuggets have
Speaker 1: done that over the years generally speaking. When it's like
Speaker 1: playoff time, it's a lot of like Aaron Gordon's out
Speaker 1: there with Jamal Murray and Aaron Gordon's out there with
Speaker 1: Christian Brown and they're switching and they're trying to get
Speaker 1: stops and they're counting on Aaron Gordon and Jamal Murray
Speaker 1: to make something out of nothing. The problem is is that,
Speaker 1: like it's really difficult to do that over the course
Speaker 1: of the regular season because then you're gonna put a
Speaker 1: lot of minutes on your starters, which can wear them
Speaker 1: down in the big picture. And so, like I understand
Speaker 1: when coaches try to make it work with deep bench lineups,
Speaker 1: because every time you have a non damaging stretch with
Speaker 1: a deep bench lineup, you give yourself rest for your starters,
Speaker 1: and you dramatically improve your ability to compete over the
Speaker 1: extent of the season. There's also this thing that you
Speaker 1: run into a lot where coaches don't want to have
Speaker 1: to lean on that sort of thing because then you
Speaker 1: kind of pigeonhole yourself in that for the rest of
Speaker 1: the season. So, for instance, like some lineups are bad,
Speaker 1: but if you give them time, they'll become better. And
Speaker 1: so you have to be willing to put up with
Speaker 1: some suck along the way, right, And so a lot
Speaker 1: of times, like you'll see a group out there and
Speaker 1: it'll be like, man, like, why don't they stagger this
Speaker 1: guy in there? Why don't they put that guy in there?
Speaker 1: And it's like maybe coach Malone will do that if
Speaker 1: he needs to, but he wants to not do that
Speaker 1: if he can, because if he doesn't do that, he
Speaker 1: gives that lineup more reps, more opportunity for Julian Strather
Speaker 1: to try to create offense, right, more opportunity to let
Speaker 1: Russell Westbrook work with these bench guys and see what
Speaker 1: he can put together, and then hopefully in the long run,
Speaker 1: that lineup just performs better. Right, Like the on off
Speaker 1: data with Yokic at the beginning of the year was
Speaker 1: like insane. The goal is to shrink that over the
Speaker 1: course of the year, not to just ask Jokic to
Speaker 1: solve all your problems. That's a lot to ask. And
Speaker 1: this isn't your last chance either. Yokic is in the
Speaker 1: heart of his prime. He's got multiple years left of
Speaker 1: being the best player in the league. There are big
Speaker 1: picture goals that you have to keep in mind as well.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, like I I think that that'll always
Speaker 1: be the way that Mike Malone confronts that problem in
Speaker 1: the in the big moments, it'll be a lot of
Speaker 1: the starters without Jokich when the time comes. But you
Speaker 1: just you need, you need to be more cognizant of
Speaker 1: the big picture goals within the within the scope of
Speaker 1: the regular season. Next question, when are you going to
Speaker 1: criticize JJ like you criticized Ham. This is this was
Speaker 1: an inevitable question that was gonna come, and you're going
Speaker 1: to see a lot of this sort of thing being
Speaker 1: talked about on a lot of different networks and by
Speaker 1: a lot of different media personalities over the course the
Speaker 1: next week or two. All of these things are more
Speaker 1: complicated than they look on the surface. So for instance,
Speaker 1: forget about the coaches for a second, both JJ and Darvin.
Speaker 1: The reason why I'm frustrated with the Lakers in this
Speaker 1: two and six stretch is the extended multi week like
Speaker 1: over two week stretch where they're just not interested in fighting,
Speaker 1: like you desperate need a win for so many reasons,
Speaker 1: and you go into Miami get kicked in the teeth
Speaker 1: and don't in the first quarter. You just stop playing
Speaker 1: like straight up, stop playing the starters before the first
Speaker 1: TV timeout, stopped playing like that. That is an issue, right,
Speaker 1: So that's one issue. The fight of the team, the
Speaker 1: basketball character of the team. That's what I was focused
Speaker 1: on in yesterday's video. A reason why it is very
Speaker 1: simple because the eighty two games is your practice for
Speaker 1: the April May June reality of going after the trophy.
Speaker 1: That is your opportunity to prepare to be a championship team.
Speaker 1: And if you skip that process, you will not be
Speaker 1: a champion. End of story. And I thought last year
Speaker 1: under Darvin Ham that that funk that they were in
Speaker 1: December had a lot more to do with them just
Speaker 1: being frustrated with Darvin Ham. I was wrong. It's their
Speaker 1: basketball character, as has been clearly displayed by them quitting
Speaker 1: on JJ Reddick in early December, Like, come on, you know,
Speaker 1: so that's why I'm off the Lakers. It's a basketball
Speaker 1: character thing. But that's not the only reason the Lakers
Speaker 1: are struggling. Austin Reeves was out the last two games.
Speaker 1: He's the third best player. He's also like one of
Speaker 1: only the only guys on that team that have natural
Speaker 1: motor like that naturally play hard every game are Austin
Speaker 1: Reeves who's injured, Jared Vanderbilt who's injured, and then like
Speaker 1: maybe Gabe Vincent, maybe Jackson Hayes who's injured, and maybe
Speaker 1: a guy like Max Christy, but like Delo, is not
Speaker 1: a natural motor guy. Rue's not a natural motor guy.
Speaker 1: Lebron's not a natural motor guy at this phase of
Speaker 1: his career. He Lebron is a great motor when the
Speaker 1: stakes are down, Like that's the thing is, like Lebron
Speaker 1: is the most dependable big game player that I can
Speaker 1: remember ever watching. Like, if it's an important game, Lebron's
Speaker 1: gonna be there and he's gonna give you his best.
Speaker 1: It's like a guarantee. But like in the regular season,
Speaker 1: he's not a motor guy. Anthony Davis is not motor guy.
Speaker 1: What motor motor is just like your habit, your natural
Speaker 1: ability to just play hard regardless of what the circumstances are, right,
Speaker 1: and so like, there's more complicated things going on. Austin's
Speaker 1: hurt that sucks, Jared Vanderbilt's hurt that sucks. They're bigs.
Speaker 1: The two bench bigs that they have on the roster
Speaker 1: that aren't two way guys are Christian Wood and Jackson Hayes,
Speaker 1: and they're both hurt. So there are other factors at play.
Speaker 1: Anthony Davis is dealing with planter fashion issues in his
Speaker 1: foot that could have something to do with why he's
Speaker 1: not necessarily fighting as hard as he usually does. Lebron's
Speaker 1: in a big funk. So like, there's other factors at play. Obviously,
Speaker 1: everything is a hell of a lot more complicated than
Speaker 1: what's just on the surface. So let's go back to
Speaker 1: last year, and I said this at the time. Is
Speaker 1: Darvin ham one hundred percent responsible for what happened with
Speaker 1: the Lakers? Now? I have been abundantly clear about the
Speaker 1: issues with the Lakers roster as it pertains to their
Speaker 1: athleticism in their motor. I've said that for years now.
Speaker 1: That doesn't change the fact that Darvin was also a
Speaker 1: bad coach. Guys, Darvin was a bad coach. It was
Speaker 1: the worst kept secret in the league. It was consensus
Speaker 1: around the league. People I talked to that don't even
Speaker 1: cover the Lakers that were just watching from afar were like,
Speaker 1: he doesn't know what he's doing. The players have repeatedly
Speaker 1: passive aggressively thrown Darvin under the bus for not knowing
Speaker 1: what he's doing. There were many, like obvious things for
Speaker 1: the fans on the outside, a complete lack of urgency.
Speaker 1: Anytime anything bad happened, it was hands in the pockets.
Speaker 1: It was a presser. Oh you know, it's a marathon,
Speaker 1: not a sprint and it's like, okay, you're not holding
Speaker 1: them accountable on a daily basis though he was not
Speaker 1: an active coach. He was not on the sideline actively
Speaker 1: coaching the game. He would just basically stand there and watch,
Speaker 1: and then when they'd come back to the huddle, he
Speaker 1: throws some platitude, some meaningless platitude to them in the huddle,
Speaker 1: and then they'd go back out there. He was not
Speaker 1: a schematically smart coach like that. Was a bad basketball coach,
Speaker 1: Darvin Ham. I will be shocked if Darvin Ham gets
Speaker 1: another head coaching job in the UD like I'll be
Speaker 1: floored if he gets Ano their head coaching job in
Speaker 1: the NBA. Darvin Ham was a bad coach. That is
Speaker 1: separate from other issues that the Lakers have. JJ Reddick
Speaker 1: has been coaching the team for a month and a
Speaker 1: half and from what I can see with him, he's
Speaker 1: been much more engaged on a daily basis. He's added
Speaker 1: a lot more. They run more off ball action, like
Speaker 1: little things like Darvin Ham did not have them running
Speaker 1: exit screens and ball screens where you're doing stuff with
Speaker 1: the off ball defenders to keep off ball defenders occupied
Speaker 1: while you're running your action up until recently, the Lakers
Speaker 1: were running a much higher percentage of organized offense per
Speaker 1: game than they were running under Darvin Ham. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of clear things that JJ was doing better
Speaker 1: and rectifying. The players were openly talking about the game
Speaker 1: plans and the attention to detail. So here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Do I know that JJ's a good coach? Yet? No,
Speaker 1: it's too early. He's only been doing it for a
Speaker 1: month and a half. I watched Darvin Ham for two years.
Speaker 1: He's a bad coach. So like, again, I understand on
Speaker 1: the surface that it looks bad that the players quit
Speaker 1: on Darvin. Darvin gets fired. Now the players quit on JJ,
Speaker 1: and it looks like it's unfair to Darvin. I get that.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that they have some quit in them, and
Speaker 1: that's separate from the fact that Darvin Ham is a
Speaker 1: bad coach. And so like, let's not get those two
Speaker 1: things conflated. Here's the one troll I'm going to respond
Speaker 1: to today, and then I promise I'll stop. Can you
Speaker 1: actually start covering other teams? Now, the coverage of this
Speaker 1: channel is fifty to sixty percent Lakers, and then good
Speaker 1: teams only get a couple of minutes Also, Lakers fans
Speaker 1: need to apologize to everyone they just quickly labeled Lakers
Speaker 1: hater for seeing this reality two seasons ago. First of all,
Speaker 1: no one's going to apologize to you because two seasons
Speaker 1: ago the Lakers were in the Western Conference Finals, so
Speaker 1: you were being a Lakers hater. And then secondly, this
Speaker 1: is one of my biggest pet peeves. I do talk
Speaker 1: about the Lakers a lot, you know why, they're my
Speaker 1: favorite team and I watch a lot of their games,
Speaker 1: you know, like I want to talk about them. They
Speaker 1: also have a very large fan base, so it monetarily
Speaker 1: makes sense for us to cover the Lakers. That said,
Speaker 1: the idea that fifty to sixty percent of this channel
Speaker 1: is Lakers coverage is just a flat out lie. Like
Speaker 1: this week has been especially heavy in Lakers coverage because
Speaker 1: there's been a lot going on with Lebron being bad,
Speaker 1: which we covered on Tuesday, and then the complete meltdown
Speaker 1: in Miami, which we covered on Thursday. So we did
Speaker 1: in the first four days this week, we did like
Speaker 1: about forty five minutes of Lakers content. You're right, that's
Speaker 1: a lot. We did three hours of shows. We did
Speaker 1: three hours of shows over those four days. So like
Speaker 1: we spent two hours and fifteen minutes covering the rest
Speaker 1: of the league, which is a lot. So in a
Speaker 1: week where we were very heavy in Lakers, we were
Speaker 1: like thirty percent Lakers, and the next week it'll be
Speaker 1: substantially lower, just like the previous week it was substantially lower.
Speaker 1: Like week, we spend four to five hours a week
Speaker 1: covering the NBA, and that means three to four hours
Speaker 1: a week covering a lot of other teams beyond the Lakers,
Speaker 1: the Warriors, the Celtics, that the teams that we regularly hit.
Speaker 1: I spent twenty minutes talking about the Atlanta Hawks yesterday, Like, So,
Speaker 1: it's just one of those things where it's like, if
Speaker 1: you what you will maybe think when you look at
Speaker 1: the channel because of the way our thumbnails are, You're
Speaker 1: gonna see a lot of Steph Curry, You're gonna see
Speaker 1: a lot of Lebron James, You're gonna see a lot
Speaker 1: of Lakers, You're gonna see a lot of these big brands,
Speaker 1: right because that's just smart for marketing, for us to
Speaker 1: get as much exposure for the channel as possible. Every
Speaker 1: one of those episodes has me covering the rest of
Speaker 1: the league. I work extremely hard to cover the rest
Speaker 1: of the league, and it's just complete bullshit that people
Speaker 1: look at the channel and they think it's just a
Speaker 1: Lakers channel. It just could not be further from the truth,
Speaker 1: and it could not be further from reality. All right,
Speaker 1: no more trolls. We're moving on. Next question. There's been
Speaker 1: a lot of conversation about the cliin in ratings, and
Speaker 1: historically the NBA has always changed slash implemented rules to
Speaker 1: keep the game entertaining. So my question is what rule
Speaker 1: would you change, slash ad to increase the entertainment value
Speaker 1: of the NBA. Thanks, love the show. So there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about the three point shooting. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm less worried about that because I don't think it's
Speaker 1: something that needs to be countered by the rules. I
Speaker 1: think it's something that will be countered by defensive evolvement.
Speaker 1: So like a revolution, I should say, so, the two
Speaker 1: most valuable shots are uncontested room attempts and uncontested three
Speaker 1: point shots. Right, so analytically it makes sense to guard
Speaker 1: the three point line well. Teams will continue to emphasize
Speaker 1: guarding the three point line, and within the next five
Speaker 1: years defenses will get really good at guarding the three
Speaker 1: point line, and that will add variety to basketball that
Speaker 1: has been lacking over the course of the last couple years.
Speaker 1: I'm not really worried about that one on a rule level.
Speaker 1: Everything for me, in terms of like opportunity for the
Speaker 1: game to be improved right now, stems around the flow
Speaker 1: of the game as television product, which stems around officiating.
Speaker 1: I don't like complaining about officiating on the team by
Speaker 1: team basis. I don't like complaining about officiating on a
Speaker 1: game by game basis. I think it's a loser mentality.
Speaker 1: We've gone into that a lot on this show. However,
Speaker 1: in the big picture of the NBA, there's still way
Speaker 1: too much of like, Oh, Trey Young came around this
Speaker 1: ball screen and a dude's like side to side with him,
Speaker 1: and Trey just kind of jump bumps into him and
Speaker 1: throws some bullshit up and gets sent to the foul line. Now,
Speaker 1: this entertaining, up and down basketball game between the Bucks
Speaker 1: and the Hawks is now turning into a free throw contest.
Speaker 1: Like you, you don't want that as a fan of
Speaker 1: the game. You don't want to watch team's parade to
Speaker 1: the free throw line. I as a Laker fan. I've
Speaker 1: watched Laker games before where I'm like, Okay, Ad just
Speaker 1: fell over for the third time and Austin Reeves just
Speaker 1: flopped in the mid range for the second time, and
Speaker 1: the Lakers are shooting their tenth free throw of the quarter. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the team is doing well as a result, but this
Speaker 1: isn't fun to watch, right, Like, I get that, and
Speaker 1: so like I am of the belief that the NBA
Speaker 1: officiat side of things needs to focus on the flow
Speaker 1: of the game and the spirit of these rules more
Speaker 1: than the technicality of these rules. The more we focus
Speaker 1: on the technicality, the more gamesmanship we'll see, the more
Speaker 1: choppy stop and go play we'll see because of guys
Speaker 1: parading to the line, the more subjectivity that we bring in,
Speaker 1: the more trying to implement the spirit of the rule,
Speaker 1: the more flow that will get to the game, and
Speaker 1: the better the television product will be. So that's the
Speaker 1: main thing that I think needs to be addressed over
Speaker 1: the course of the next couple of years in terms
Speaker 1: of a rule change. Hey, Jason, I think the thing
Speaker 1: that is making the Hawk's new lineup so good is
Speaker 1: that they now have DeAndre Hunter and boy Bogdan Bogdanovitch
Speaker 1: now cooking other teams bench units, giving Atlanta extra offense
Speaker 1: from their bench, which is pretty reliable to count on.
Speaker 1: What do you think? I talked about this yesterday too,
Speaker 1: Like I even like the idea of being able to
Speaker 1: bring in Bogdan to play with the starters minus one
Speaker 1: of the guys, usually someone like Zachary Resachetu. I think
Speaker 1: is the worst of the three wings at this point,
Speaker 1: just because he's younger and he still has a lot
Speaker 1: of development to do. Allthough, Zachary is really exciting. He's
Speaker 1: got some pretty explosive like close out attacking shops, and
Speaker 1: I kind of see him as being like a guy
Speaker 1: that could become like a more of a like a
Speaker 1: kind of similar to like what Michael Bridges did for
Speaker 1: the Suns in the twenty twenty twenty twenty one area,
Speaker 1: where it's like capitalizing on skip passes and like making
Speaker 1: high level attacking moves in the mid range in the
Speaker 1: short range that is like another like ceiling raising scoring
Speaker 1: piece that he does. Like they're they're gonna have a
Speaker 1: lot of upside there in the long run. But like
Speaker 1: it's like Norman Powell with the Clippers. Right, they have
Speaker 1: their main lineups that they're gonna go with. That's gonna
Speaker 1: have James Harden, three athletes and i Vi Kazubas, Right,
Speaker 1: But then they also have we can bring Norman Powell
Speaker 1: into this mix, and now we have more firepower on
Speaker 1: the floor, and we can we can score with teams. Right, Like,
Speaker 1: don't overestimate or underestimate Norman Powell's contributions to the Clippers success. Right,
Speaker 1: Bogdanovich is what that role is for this Hawks team.
Speaker 1: He's the guy that brings a different type of more
Speaker 1: aggressive scoring to compliment Trey Young's playmaking. And you have
Speaker 1: versions of it where you can keep the two of
Speaker 1: them together, or you have versions of it where you
Speaker 1: can lean into defense in one of the guys. Another
Speaker 1: team like this is the Sacramento Kings before Demarto Rosen
Speaker 1: entered the equation where it's like, Okay, this is a
Speaker 1: game where we can play Malik Monk and Dearon Fox
Speaker 1: together a lot. This is a game where we need
Speaker 1: to play Dearon Fox and another athletic defender instead, right, Like,
Speaker 1: that's the type of flexibility that comes from having those
Speaker 1: different looks and from having a really high powered offensive
Speaker 1: player on the bench. In the event that the Lakers
Speaker 1: could ever make a trade where they keep D'Angelo Russell,
Speaker 1: That's the way I would look at that too. Oh,
Speaker 1: this is a matchup where d'angela Russell can close and
Speaker 1: he can be out there and his offensive ability is
Speaker 1: an upside. Or oh no, this is a game where
Speaker 1: D'Angel Russell needs to sit and we need to have
Speaker 1: this better athlete on the floor because we need more
Speaker 1: support athletically on the perimeter. And like, that's kind of
Speaker 1: that approach, But like, again, I agree that that is
Speaker 1: a vitally important part to being a productive basketball team
Speaker 1: is having multiple guys that can take over the offense
Speaker 1: for extended stretches of the game. Jason, I know you're
Speaker 1: a Lakers fan, but I'm a Heat fan, and I'm
Speaker 1: curious to know your thoughts on our season. A lot
Speaker 1: of the specific Heat analysts who I follow all believe
Speaker 1: that the window is closed. Jimmy's declined due to age
Speaker 1: and BAM's offensive struggles have been a big cause for concern.
Speaker 1: If the Heat stay at this playing level that they've
Speaker 1: been at for the past three years, what would you
Speaker 1: have them do this trade deadline slash offseason. Everyone talks
Speaker 1: about trading Jimmy but is a contract as big as his.
Speaker 1: Granted it's expiring for clearly declining player even valuable. Would
Speaker 1: love to know your thoughts on the decision making for
Speaker 1: the Heat front office. Keep up the great content. Huge
Speaker 1: fan from Hong Kong, Thank you so much for supporting
Speaker 1: the show. It means a lot to me. The offensive
Speaker 1: struggles have been really bizarre. Jimmy Butler in the first
Speaker 1: part of the year was having some really weird games
Speaker 1: where he was like not even looking to score. Then
Speaker 1: he came back from his injury and he's been gunning
Speaker 1: and he's been a lot better, and he's like over
Speaker 1: sixty percent from the field and over sixty percent from
Speaker 1: three on over twenty two points per games since it
Speaker 1: came back, like Jimmy's hoop it right bam, you know.
Speaker 1: Ever since the Nuggets series, I was like, why can't
Speaker 1: this dude make anything around the rim that isn't a dunk,
Speaker 1: And like how many times he got like little five
Speaker 1: foot push shots or easy kind of layup finishes around
Speaker 1: the rim that he'd smoke in. How it hurt their
Speaker 1: chances in that Denver Nugget series, and that just has
Speaker 1: never ceased to be a problem that's extended into this year,
Speaker 1: where he's just been like flat out atrocious finishing around
Speaker 1: the rim on anything that's not a dunk. And then
Speaker 1: there's also been like the oh, BAM's gonna take more
Speaker 1: jump shots thing, which has caused him to be less
Speaker 1: active in the middle of the floor and a little
Speaker 1: bit more spotting up, which is kind of getting him
Speaker 1: out of his original involvement in the offense in some ways.
Speaker 1: And so it's just been kind of funky, but at
Speaker 1: the same time, like you got to seriously ask yourself, like,
Speaker 1: was this team ever a championship team even when Jimmy
Speaker 1: and Bam are really good? And the answer is no.
Speaker 1: Like going back to twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: when there were better versions of Jimmy and Bam, was
Speaker 1: you know, Bam, they were still feisty, able to eliminate
Speaker 1: limited teams. I used to call them the bouncer at
Speaker 1: the Championship Club because it was like, if you were
Speaker 1: not a real contender and you ran into Miami, you'd lose,
Speaker 1: but inevitably Miami would lose to the team that would
Speaker 1: win it all, or that was closer to winning it all,
Speaker 1: that was more of a legitimate championship contender because they
Speaker 1: didn't have the firepower. And so like, if there was
Speaker 1: an opportunity to anchor Jimmy and Bam, it was getting
Speaker 1: a guy like Dame last year or making a more
Speaker 1: aggressive deal even the year before to try to anchor
Speaker 1: those guys when they were at a higher level. At
Speaker 1: this point, though, Jimmy just kind of feels like a
Speaker 1: wild card and Bam seems like he's hit a ceiling
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, and so like, at that point,
Speaker 1: you have to look at your big picture, and your
Speaker 1: big picture option is, like BAM's twenty seven years old.
Speaker 1: I do think he'll get a little bit better as
Speaker 1: time goes on. I do think he can shoot the
Speaker 1: ball a little bit better over the big picture, right,
Speaker 1: But Jimmy at this point is better served to bring
Speaker 1: in other asset return now. One of the things that's
Speaker 1: nice is Jimmy is currently rehabbing his trade value with
Speaker 1: the way that he's been playing, So you could argue
Speaker 1: that the best thing to do is to continue what
Speaker 1: you've done since Jimmy came back, which is play through
Speaker 1: him more and have him put up numbers and rehab
Speaker 1: his value. Then you move him in February to a
Speaker 1: team that's desperate and looks and wants to contend and
Speaker 1: recoup some sort of asset return so that you can
Speaker 1: then try to rebuild around Bam and maybe it's a
Speaker 1: Kelllware Bam front court where you have shooting. Like kell
Speaker 1: Aware's minutes have been really up and down, and I
Speaker 1: haven't been super high on him yet, but he's young
Speaker 1: and that takes a lot of time, right. But Like
Speaker 1: at that point, you just kind of start to look
Speaker 1: around and you're like, Okay, if Tyler Harrow's not a
Speaker 1: real foundational piece for us, what can we get back
Speaker 1: for him? Right? Like, what are the guys that we're
Speaker 1: trying to build around in the long term? Like Pella Larson,
Speaker 1: he seems like a foundational type of role player within
Speaker 1: the Heat system, right, Like Haimihawks Junior. His role has
Speaker 1: been a little bit different this year, but he's a
Speaker 1: guy that you want to continue to kind of give
Speaker 1: an opportunity to see what he can become in the
Speaker 1: big picture, Right, Nikole Jovich, I don't really know that
Speaker 1: there's much of a foundational type of player there. But
Speaker 1: like you start to give all those guys more opportunity
Speaker 1: and see what they're capable of, and you start to
Speaker 1: kind of reconfigure from there. But like, unless you think
Speaker 1: you can contend for a title with Jimmy at this point,
Speaker 1: it's like it's kind of like anything else where. It's
Speaker 1: like his best ability to help this team at this
Speaker 1: point as asset return, but like he needs to continue
Speaker 1: to rehab his value, and the best way to do
Speaker 1: that is continue to play around him. In the big picture,
Speaker 1: I do think it'd be interesting to go in on
Speaker 1: a big look. I think it'd be really interesting to
Speaker 1: find a center that could play alongside Bam, because when
Speaker 1: you have a really big, deep, monstrous defensive front line,
Speaker 1: it's just such a high floor. It's like the Brook
Speaker 1: Lopezianis and Tenakumbo thing. It's like anytime Brooke and Giannis
Speaker 1: just like play really hard on defense, they're just in
Speaker 1: every game because the two of those guys are just
Speaker 1: so good together, right, And like, when you have that
Speaker 1: type of size and in physically imposing frontline, it's just
Speaker 1: such a strong foundation to build on everything else. Right
Speaker 1: when you start to take chances on high level offensive
Speaker 1: players in the draft and try to see if you
Speaker 1: can't find a perimeter initiator that brings more juice to
Speaker 1: the table than a guy like Tyler Harrow or Terry
Speaker 1: Rozier Hi Jason. The Pistons have largely regained respectability this season,
Speaker 1: I agree, and Caid Ivy and the Kid Ivy pairing
Speaker 1: has been a huge positive given the influent initial questions
Speaker 1: about their fit. However, the two common themes behind them
Speaker 1: losing games is inconsistent front court scoring and a lack
Speaker 1: of ball handling slash initiation outside of Kid. Getting a
Speaker 1: backup point guard like Alfred Payton should address the latter issue,
Speaker 1: but I do feel like in order to take the
Speaker 1: next step, Detroit needs to find a number one scoring
Speaker 1: week as I think Cad is best served as an
Speaker 1: overqualified second scoring option. Asar and Ron Holland don't project
Speaker 1: to fit that mold, and I understand Trajan's view that
Speaker 1: this year is very much an evaluation of the current roster.
Speaker 1: But if you were the GM, would you consider trying
Speaker 1: to acquire an established vet like a Randall or an
Speaker 1: Ingram in a trade to accelerate this process or wait
Speaker 1: to get that player via the draft understanding of scoring
Speaker 1: forward is arguably the most coveted player archetype moment. That's
Speaker 1: a good point, Like if you want to get in
Speaker 1: the race for a guy like Randall or Ingram, I
Speaker 1: don't think. I don't think Randall will gets traded, but
Speaker 1: maybe he will will see but whether it even like
Speaker 1: Jeremy Grant or like Zach Lavine, that kind of thing, like,
Speaker 1: there is going to be some fights for some of
Speaker 1: those guys and it could end up being expensive and
Speaker 1: it could end up setting your team back. Here's the thing,
Speaker 1: don't be in a rush. I think Jade and Ivy
Speaker 1: is a really natural compliment to Kate, and the main
Speaker 1: reason why is he brings a different type of attack.
Speaker 1: Kate is a size methodical working out of the middle
Speaker 1: of the floor decision maker, meaning like getting into ball
Speaker 1: screens and putting his defender in jail and kind of
Speaker 1: just slowly operating in the middle of the floor till
Speaker 1: he sees an opportunity to score, to make those kickoff passes.
Speaker 1: He kind of has like a Luca Light type of
Speaker 1: approach there. Jade and Ivy brings downhill burst. That is
Speaker 1: a great compliment Jaden can score the basketball. He has
Speaker 1: eight to twenty point games this year. He had seventeen
Speaker 1: all year last year. His true shooting percentage jumps by
Speaker 1: about two percent every year. He's up to fifty six
Speaker 1: percent you shooting now, which like for a young guard
Speaker 1: is really good, Like sixty percent is outstanding, and he's
Speaker 1: already starting to encroach on that on a year by
Speaker 1: year basis. So like my thing is like, yeah, you
Speaker 1: are eventually going to want a third offensive player in
Speaker 1: there somewhere that can create his own shot and can
Speaker 1: create shots for others. But racing to get there at
Speaker 1: the expensive asset return is silly. The idea here is
Speaker 1: like a men, excuse me, Asar Thompson, You know Ron Holland,
Speaker 1: these guys, they are going to be playing your support
Speaker 1: roles alongside these guys, so they need to develop as
Speaker 1: off ball scorers. Now, do I think Asar Thompson could
Speaker 1: be a Michael Porter junior esque off ball scorer, Mikhale
Speaker 1: Bridges esque off ball scorer? No? Do I think Ron
Speaker 1: Holland can be that? No? And so that's the really
Speaker 1: the next approach. It's I don't necessarily think they need
Speaker 1: to look for a guy that can be an offensive
Speaker 1: engine the way that Ivy and Kid can be at
Speaker 1: stretches of the game. I think they need off ball
Speaker 1: scoring essentially. Just imagine a much better version of Tobias Harris,
Speaker 1: a guy that when you swing the ball to the
Speaker 1: weak side on that skip pass, he's either knocking down
Speaker 1: the three or he's getting chased off the line to
Speaker 1: where he can make a play. We've seen a lot
Speaker 1: of teams go this route. Like the number one overall
Speaker 1: draft pick this year, Zachary Rissoche is a perfect example
Speaker 1: of this. That is an off ball score who can
Speaker 1: be a plus a defensive player for them. That's the
Speaker 1: like off ball scoring complements on ball scoring so well.
Speaker 1: On ball scoring with on ball scoring can be clunky,
Speaker 1: So like that, that's where it's like, if you were
Speaker 1: going to make that sort of deal, I would be
Speaker 1: targeting someone like a Lori Markin in this summer where
Speaker 1: it's like, what if we put Lori Markin in, Like
Speaker 1: if you were going to try to include young players,
Speaker 1: that's the type of player you want to go after.
Speaker 1: Someone that has a lot more good basketball in them,
Speaker 1: that's earlier in their prime, that very wonderfully compliments your Stars.
Speaker 1: That would be the type of player that I'd make
Speaker 1: that type of deal for. But again, unless you feel
Speaker 1: like you can do it without giving up too much,
Speaker 1: you're better off just being patient and doing it through
Speaker 1: the draft, because again, it might be another two years.
Speaker 1: But Jayden Ivy feels like a guy to me that's
Speaker 1: gonna average twenty six points per game on sixty percent
Speaker 1: for shooting at some point, and if he does, you're
Speaker 1: in a much better position at that point, and Caide's
Speaker 1: gonna keep improving and you're gonna be able to generate
Speaker 1: a lot of really high quality off ball opportunities. You
Speaker 1: need guys, you need guys who can be deadly in
Speaker 1: those particular types of situations. But I wouldn't trade for
Speaker 1: a brandon Ingram. I wouldn't trade for an older, injury
Speaker 1: prone type of guy there. I would be going for
Speaker 1: either a young player, someone along the lines of Lori Markinen,
Speaker 1: or I'd be looking for that type of player in
Speaker 1: the draft to try to anchor those guys as an
Speaker 1: off ball score. Last question, Jason, I'm surprised to hear
Speaker 1: how this was from the Cave Celtics video on Monday. Jason,
Speaker 1: I'm surprised to hear how much you liked the shots
Speaker 1: Tatum was getting when he was hunting Garland, particularly at
Speaker 1: the end of the game. As a Cavs fan, I
Speaker 1: was really happy when that was the Celtics late game
Speaker 1: offensive process. What makes the Celtics so good is they
Speaker 1: just have more high quality guys that can shooter attack
Speaker 1: close outs. In most teams, Hunting Garland basically neutralized that
Speaker 1: advantage and made their success come down to a low
Speaker 1: efficient shot that almost no team wants their players taking
Speaker 1: contested mid range shots. It's hard to watch a smaller
Speaker 1: player consistently put into one on one situations over and over,
Speaker 1: and Tatum will convert on some of those possessions playing
Speaker 1: that way as he did in this game. But I
Speaker 1: will take that one hundred percent over ball movement and
Speaker 1: spraying threes. He just could not keep up with the
Speaker 1: math problem that presents a couple things. It's more complicated
Speaker 1: than that. In order to get those spray in threes,
Speaker 1: Tatum needs to bring two to the ball, and his
Speaker 1: best way to bring two to the ball in that
Speaker 1: situation is to punish Garland one on one and so
Speaker 1: like It's one of those things where like Cleveland's defensive
Speaker 1: approach in that situation was we don't want Boston to
Speaker 1: get spray out easy catching shoot threes. By the way,
Speaker 1: they still gave up a few. There is a play
Speaker 1: where Tatum attacked guard Land with about five minutes left
Speaker 1: on the right wing, beat him off the dribble, brought
Speaker 1: in an extra defender, and made a kickoff passing Al
Speaker 1: Horford at a wide up in corner three. But for
Speaker 1: the most part, Cleveland was trying to stay home and
Speaker 1: trying to force Tatum to score on Garland on an island.
Speaker 1: This is where we can get a little bit heavy
Speaker 1: to playing the results. So for instance, Donovan Mitchell hit
Speaker 1: a pull up three, two of them in the in
Speaker 1: clutch time, a step back over Merrill and then or no,
Speaker 1: not over maryl over howser, excuse me? And then he
Speaker 1: hit that crossover on Drew Holliday where he kind of
Speaker 1: got caught on the screen and he hit that like
Speaker 1: pull up three at the top of the key. Donovan
Speaker 1: Mitchell is shooting thirty seven point five percent on pull
Speaker 1: up jump shots this year, so they both went in,
Speaker 1: but there's a sixty two point five percent chance that
Speaker 1: he misses either of those shots. I based on the
Speaker 1: way Tatum was playing, those short range jump shots felt
Speaker 1: like a high percentage shot to me, like a shot
Speaker 1: that he was going to hit sixty sixty five percent
Speaker 1: of the time. And so again, just because Jason Tatum
Speaker 1: missed an easy layup over Garland and Donovan Mitchell made
Speaker 1: a tough, contested pull up three doesn't mean that Cleveland
Speaker 1: got the better shots. That's the results in a late
Speaker 1: game situation. Anything can happen. You could be running really
Speaker 1: great process on both ends for both teams, but maybe
Speaker 1: this guy sinks a prayer at the end of the
Speaker 1: shot clock and this guy smokes a layup, and that's
Speaker 1: the difference in the game. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: Cleveland smoke made a prayer at the end of the
Speaker 1: shocol like I'm talking about an imaginary situation. But you
Speaker 1: get the point, like, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: you can have better process than your opponent and they
Speaker 1: might just make shots. So like, you can't really over
Speaker 1: index on the result and pay more attention to the process.
Speaker 1: The reality is the math advantage of the three point
Speaker 1: shot only matters in the large sample. In the small sample,
Speaker 1: it only matters if the shot goes in, and it's
Speaker 1: a lower percentage shot than shots that are closer to
Speaker 1: the basket. So, like I tweeted this during the game
Speaker 1: while it was happening, but like I thought Boston was
Speaker 1: gonna win that game because I thought Tatum's mid range
Speaker 1: pull ups over Garland were higher percentage shots than anything
Speaker 1: that Cleveland was getting, and they were. Donovan Mitchell just
Speaker 1: made two really tough pull up threes and Tatum missed
Speaker 1: a couple of layups. On one play where Darius Garland
Speaker 1: did a really good job rushing Tatum, driving into traffic,
Speaker 1: over penetrating and missing, and then another where Tatum made
Speaker 1: a great plane beat Garland and was right there, like
Speaker 1: he just he he makes that lay up, it's a
Speaker 1: different game, you know. And he drove by Garland and
Speaker 1: once again got a wide open three for Alhalford in
Speaker 1: the left corner. There was a double team that led
Speaker 1: to another wide open three for Alhalford in the right corner.
Speaker 1: So like, again, I don't, technically, I haven't. I'll pull
Speaker 1: it up real quick just because I'm curious, But technically,
Speaker 1: on a percentage basis, al Horford shot has a higher
Speaker 1: percentage chance of going in. I'm gonna pull it up
Speaker 1: just to just to see. But I bet you, I
Speaker 1: bet you he's over forty percent on Al Horford on
Speaker 1: uncontested catch and shoot jump shots, shooting forty seven point
Speaker 1: five percent twenty eight for fifty nine. Like, technically Boston
Speaker 1: got better shots, even on a point per shot basis
Speaker 1: down the stretch of that game. It's just again it
Speaker 1: went in shout out to Cleveland. That's why you play
Speaker 1: seven game series in the NBA, because we want to
Speaker 1: find out who the better teams are absence of some
Speaker 1: of the variants that can happen in basketball games. Right.
Speaker 1: So again, like that's why I'm i I was harping
Speaker 1: on that because there's a huge difference between I'm operating
Speaker 1: in a ball screen and I'm taking like a rear
Speaker 1: view contested seventeen foot pull up jump shot off the dribble,
Speaker 1: which is a pretty low percentage and pretty low value
Speaker 1: shot versus Tatum six ' ten, big and strong versus
Speaker 1: Garland tiny guard fighting him down to like seven to
Speaker 1: eight feet from the rim and taking straight up and
Speaker 1: down short range jump shots that I think think he's
Speaker 1: gonna make fifty five to sixty percent of the time,
Speaker 1: which means if we have three big clutch possessions at
Speaker 1: the end of the game, I feel like there's a
Speaker 1: pretty good chance that I might score on two of them.
Speaker 1: Whereas if I'm James Harden, I'm taking step back threes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you shot thirty eight percent on step back threes for
Speaker 1: a season, and that's worth a lot of points in
Speaker 1: a large sample, but like sixty two percent of the
Speaker 1: time he's missing that shot, and a lot of times
Speaker 1: in the playoffs he'd go through extended stretches where he
Speaker 1: couldn't make them and it just didn't matter. So again,
Speaker 1: like that that's kind of hopefully just a better breakdown
Speaker 1: for you guys of why I kind of believe in
Speaker 1: that process over over the course of the tail ends
Speaker 1: of games, like large sample shot value, small sample field
Speaker 1: goal percentage, And like I had I had someone say,
Speaker 1: last thing and then we'll get out of here. I
Speaker 1: had someone say once like, well, that doesn't even factor
Speaker 1: in free throw shooting, so that doesn't work. You're right.
Speaker 1: There's a stat that Synergy uses that I really like.
Speaker 1: It's called score percentage, which just takes the percentage of
Speaker 1: possessions that you score, meaning like made field goal or
Speaker 1: gets to the line and make at least one free throw.
Speaker 1: So like the score percentage is higher when the field
Speaker 1: goal percentage is higher, the points per possession is higher
Speaker 1: when the shot value is better. Right, and so again
Speaker 1: when we get into these like slow down situations at
Speaker 1: the end of games, I'm looking for the most valuable
Speaker 1: shot on the most likely shot on that possession to
Speaker 1: earn me points, not the most valuable shot that I
Speaker 1: could get on that possession, If that makes sense. All right, guys,
Speaker 1: It's all I have for today and for this week,
Speaker 1: as always is severely sincerely appreciate you guys for rocking
Speaker 1: with me and supporting the show. We'll be back on
Speaker 1: Monday with another set of power rankings as we bounce
Speaker 1: all the way around the league, I'll see you guys
Speaker 1: then the volume. What's so, guys? As always, I appreciate
Speaker 1: you for listening to and support hoops tonight. It would
Speaker 1: actually be really helpful for us if you guys would
Speaker 1: take a second and leave a rating and a review.
Speaker 1: As always, I appreciate you guys supporting us, but if
Speaker 1: you could take a minute to do that, I'd really
Speaker 1: appreciate it.