Hello everyone, and welcome to the latest episode of Hardwood Knocks. This is
Out of from Here with my fantastic co host Dan for Valley. We're gonna
bring you another mail back episode today. We had so many good questions in
our request for them, because I wasn't the one that sent it, Dan
did, which meant we actually got responses, but we had so many good
questions that we couldn't pack them all into the episode. They're released last week,
so we're coming back at you with another one. And personally, I'm
really excited for these questions because it felt like these were more big picture rather
than granular, just a lot of like deep thought, thought provoking questions that
we wanted to look at beforehand, just to have like some idea of where
we would go with them and all that. But I personally really enjoyed getting
these submissions. Yeah, so did I. And we have we have ones
that are more specific related to teams, and though I love those as well,
especially some of them are related to a lot of stuff that's been happening.
There's one though, that was DM to me days ago. It's like,
that's how long I've had to prepare and I still don't like have a
good answer to it because it was making me thinking for so long. So
those are the those are the best types of questions. So I am excited
for this one. But before we do dive in, how are you doing?
I'm doing pretty well, coming off a great weekend. We had this
thing called Jurassic Quest that came through Denver and they have like a hundred life
sized animatronic dinosaurs and we took my almost three year old son on Sunday with
my family and just had the best time. And he had a good time.
Also, I saw pictures and videos, so I can't confirm that I
think you had a good time. Although the first video I saw I was
I couldn't tell whether he was super focused or petrified. Oh he was petrified,
So he was. He was riding an alasaurus and it was like moving
around, kind of like a bucking broncho kind of thing. He did not
know what to think of that at first. And the funny part is that
it's very closely related to one of my parents' stories about me. When I
was a kid, we went parasailing and I was terrified of heights, and
we just had this sequence of pictures where I am just sobbing, just cannot
contain myself because I'm so just terrified of what's about to happen. And in
the span of five seconds, I went from that to just this big shit
eating grin And like the exact same thing happened with my kid now on this
dinosaur where we just have the sequence of pictures where he goes from petrified to
like a hesitant thumbs up, just beaming. It's great. Genetics are weird.
And you also did find a lightsaber with a dinosaur hilt. Oh yeah,
it was. It was like made for him. I think every kid
at this Jurassic Quest thing had one of those. By the end, it
was thirty dollars, which is ridiculous. Yeah, but that's like that's so
crafted to him privily. If that was a hundred dollars, you would have
had to have bought it. We would to Are you already diving in some
basketball stuff? Though? I guess are you sure? Let's tackle I mean
a lot of these, even though they're related to teams, are sort of
bigger picture. This was not a question we had, but I think it's
one of the current event news items that we need to tackle. The Athletic
reported that the Kings are maybe possibly thinking about putting Luke Walton on the hot
seat if their performance doesn't improve. They did beat the Pistons tonight, so
there is you know, take that for what you owe. They not to
date that they beat them Monday night, which is when we're recording this.
What do you sort of make of this decision? To I guess the way
our frame it is, why not if you're gonna make this decision without also
making any wholesale changes to the roster over the off season and now come to
this conclusion fewer than fifteen games with the season possibly, why would you have
not made this decision over the off season when you could go through a more
thorough coaching search help your team get acclimated. And this says nothing of the
disclaimer would be Luke Walton just shouldn't have a job in the first place with
that was always troubling to be hired amid the sexual assault allegations, let again
them, but this specifically, I'm just curious this is here at that like,
what is the what should why is this the thought process? Sorry?
Can you remind me which organization we're talking about? The Sacramento case. There
you go, there's the answer. It's that simple, right like this,
there's no way he should have been hired in the first place. As you
just mentioned, he shouldn't have had a job for this long. If you're
going to fire the guy, do it after the second straight thirty one and
forty one season in which you just don't show that many signs of growth.
So it should have been done beforehand. So I guess kudos to the Kings
for arriving at that conclusion fifteen games into the season rather than letting it drag
on too long. Now, of course we have to wait and see how
long it'll take them to pull the trigger, but there have been few tangible
signs of progress. Even with a roster that on paper looks like it should
keep getting better. Deer and Fox has been playing terribly this season. Has
regressed in just about every area. That's not what you want to see under
a star player. And maybe it's just a fifty in game sample and he's
gonna progress closer to his mean as that sample grows. But that plus just
failing to maximize year two of Tyrese Haliburton with Fox with Buddy Healed shooting lights
out with Rashaun Holmes back in the fold, Like, this team needs to
show signs of growth and it's not. It's winning percentage is worse than it
was each of the last two years. And I'm curious now, I wonder
if we can figure out which coach has had the most consecutive losing records to
start a career, because Luke Walton's on pace for six in a row and
he's only coached for six years. Wow, I didn't even really give thought
to that. I'm with everything you said on that front, and I don't
on the Luke Walton front. Excuse me, I think the not that I
would understand, But if it was, if it's because he's owed another year
after this one, that's sort of just why you keep him. We're gonna
fire him fewer than twenty games into the season, Like, what's the difference
to me? Because you get like you just default to Alvin Gentry at that
point. He probably gets a little bit of a pay would you've had to
play a new coach more than that? How much money you're actually saving by
going through a quarter of this season with Luke Walton as your head coach?
I keep coming back to the fact, though, what necessarily were they expecting
of this season? This would be where I expected Sacramento to be. It's
you didn't make a ton of changes to the roster, like these are the
I think Buddy Healed and Harrison Barnes. You've gotten some of the best basketball
of their careers. H Shaun Holmes has been really good. Tyres Halberton is
still beyond rock solid. Darreon Fox has struggled. You're probably almost encouraged that
you're this close to five hundred, while the Aaron Fox has not put together
like this long stretch of good basketball and his shot selection stone remains all over
the place. He really needs to work on his decision making with his handle.
I I just don't like, what were the expectations beyond this, Like,
did you expect to be over five hundred? Is it just you're stuck?
You were stuck in the throes of this, this losing streak. If
this is a decision that you make at any point over the next fifteen or
so, I mean, if this is a decision you make in the middle
of the season, but you didn't need more information on Luke Walton there,
Yeah, Tyrris Haliburton could technically have gotten better. You had Dave on Mitchell.
Maybe you're expecting a bump and play from barn Fox, but like,
what was the information you didn't have on this roster that was like, we
need to see another partial season of this before we make any decisions. And
so I'm not advocating for him to keep his job. I just think they
should have one not hired him. But two, the more serious one is
that this is a decision that should have been made over the off season because
and also that's more on right now at the point where this is more on
the organization than Luke Walton. Because if there if this, if they didn't
have, if their expectations were anything beyond this, like drastically, if you
wanted them to be, you know, eight and six instead of six and
eight. Okay, but like that's still they're six to eight. That's not
a huge difference. There needs to be just like or realistic barometers within the
organ like they need to gauge this team more realistically than they have, and
that's not necessarily Luke Walton thing Well, I think is not a good coach,
not a particularly inventive coach. There's been issues with maybe not so much
this season, but definitely in previous seasons where it doesn't feel like the Kings
are playing properly, especially on offense. Their defense switched more neat like that
was they played some of the most needless switching defense that we've ever seen in
the league last year. So I just get all that, which is like
you need to bring the organization, like the governors, like that needs to
be kept in check too, because the deluded expectations aren't helping matters here.
There's also the Marvin Bagley stuff where you have a player who is still young,
ostensibly with some potential, and you have strife with him on the bench
and to the point that he's not entering games, Like that's not a good
reflection on leadership, even if it is ultimately the player's choice. I just
I think I view this as a sunk cost where they entered the season with
him as the head coach. There's no way that we can go back and
change that. So even if we want it to have happened that way,
that's not a possibility at this point. What benefit is keeping him on the
bench for even one more game half, What is going to change your mind?
About Luke Walton's coaching and make you think that he's the future of this
organization on the bench with the clipboard. I don't think there's anything that can
happen this year, even if they make the playoffs, like that's a reflection
on young talent growing in spite of the coach. I just I don't think
that there's anything to be gained from it. There might be something to be
gained from an interim head coach, a new hire, altering a system and
unlocking one of the young talents who wasn't otherwise going to be unlocked, from
seeing what that candidate can do in the interest of potentially making a full time
higher there's way more to gain than to lose, I guess. So as
we're recording this, two quotes came out from Kings players. Tyr's Haliburton on
Luke Walton. This is all per of the Kings, Harold, you should
follow them on Twitter at the Kings Harold Tyrus Albert on Luke Walton. He's
the coach, the leader of our team. So he got his back tepid
endorsement. This from Rashaun Holmes. Rashaun Holmes was I would say far more
definitive. Coach has done a great job putting us in good positions and we've
got his back, not like super powerful, but is that something like do
the players? Is he actually that's been taught about before, is that he's
able to relate to the players and that they like him. Marvin Bagley play
doesn't as I don't know how much I blame Luke Walton for the Marvin Bagley
stuff. That for sure, that's more of a total organizational thing for me.
I am with you, though I don't know what the upside here was.
I also asked Greg Whissinger when he came on The King's Preview podcast,
would you rather if I told you the King's playoff drout? The question was
basically, if I told you the Kings playoff route ended this season, but
that it then resulted in a Luke Walton extension, would you wanted the playoff
rout the end? And he didn't know how to answer it, And it's
like that there's probably a downside here. If we're thinking really big pictures,
what if the King's turned around make the playoffs? There's kind of a fool's
gold element in are are they going to go into next season with Luke Walton
in the final year of his contract. That's not typically something we see with
coaches. Maybe he does coach out the last year of contract, maybe that
forces them to get rid of him anyway because he wants out, or does
he get like what you know, the one plus one extension type deal.
So I agree with you that there they should get rid of him if they
want to. But the fact that they didn't already and this is how it's
playing out, it does feel like it's a harbinger of not enough has changed
aside like within the organization, aside from from Luke Wallen. Then this is
you know, post Vlodi Divox, because he's the guy who hired Luke Walton.
Then he is no longer longer there. So that's what's more troubling to
me than anything. It's not if they get rid of him, you know,
kudos to them for arriving at that decision way late, and it's not
even a kudos thing. I think it's the right call and you make it
because, like you said, you can't go back in time. It's just
the fact that we're in this situation again where it's just like a groundhogs Day
type dilemma where Ken the King's it's not even it is the question can they
get out of their own way? Because I don't think there's a big meme
on the court. They have really good players and so like the whole Kangs
thing like it exists, but it's also it's mostly off the court now,
I feel like more so than on right there with you. Before we move
into the questions, though, if any of our listeners can figure out which
head coach has coached for the most seasons without ever producing a winning record,
because Luke Walton is on his way to season number six qualifying for that,
let us know at Hardwood Knox, Dan will reward you with a personalized compliment,
So obviously that's something worth doing. Because a simple Google search did not
give me an answer, and we're curious. I'm sorry, I'm laughing.
We just got a shop's notification that the Sixers are finding Ben Simmons for not
going on the six game road trip with them. The whole fucking situations at
Nightmare. We will not be discussing on this pod. I'm not saying we're
above it because I haven't read the article. I want to read the article
before talking about it. I'm just talk about it, talk about another organization
has been botching some off court stuff. Let's dive into this mail bag before
we go super big like big picture and more, you know, concepts and
philosophical approaches to the game. A couple interesting questions. This one comes from
Brady is Jonas valanciunis the top runner for most improved player at this time.
Please I don't answer this point, because please answer respectfully. That's all I
would like to I don't have an answer, though, because it feels like
we've had eight hundred different players in a similar question. This has become what
does the Nicola Yokis need to do to repeat his MVP question? Or something
where we always get variations of some type of that question when we send out
a mail bag solicitation, and this one's different because it's always a different player,
but we automatically see either dramatic improvements or in this case I don't mean
to interrupted with you there, or players just playing really well and producing more
so at a higher clip than he has in the past, and so we
want to they want to be thrown to the most improved player discussion, but
please, I'm sorry, I hide no no, you're good. I mean,
like you know, I've thought that Jannis Valentinis is one of, if
not the most underrated player in the NBA for years now. He started a
game more recognition and he is objectively having the best season of his career right
now. And as we're recording nineteen point six points thirteen point five, two
point seven assists per game, he's shooting fifty seven point seven percent on one
point nine three point attempts per game. He's hitting ninety percent of his foul
shots while getting there at four point three times per game, which trails only
what he did with the Memphis Grizzlies during the twenty eighteen nineteen season. He
is playing great basketball. He has improved, he has not improved the extent
necessary to become a Most Improved Player candidate, because he was already probably not
in the All Star conversation, but on the tier below that, where like
somebody might throw his name out and you're not going to totally bulk, even
if you laugh at them a little bit. Like on that tier of NBA
player to win Most Improved Player from that, you need to be in the
MVP conference station. We see guys go from that level to the All Star
conversation on a yearly basis at least, So he just hasn't he hasn't done
enough to compete with the other guys who have made even further strides. And
that is not to say that he has not been a good fit with a
struggling New Orleans Pelicans team carrying an inordinate amount of the offensive load right now.
So it is not a knock on his level of play. It's just
a matter of fact about how this award works. Yeah, and it's look,
there can be some level of unfairness because it's almost you have an easier
better chance of winning Most Improved Player, and when you're working from a lower,
less established baseline. That's not to say that you can't win it if
you are improving off of that high pre existing standard, because I think you
could have made people don't think of it this way, though, I do
think that's a problem. Like Stephen Curry could have won it probably twice,
maybe three times at this point, so working from an All Star baseline,
And so I'm not saying he would be if someone voted for him now,
Yes, I would think that it's egregious even though he's having a career year.
I just he is a little bit sabotaged by the fact that he's been
this really good player for quite some time now and he's just not doing anything
like super different. It's just a matter of you know, when you look
at his playing time over the past few years, this is the three pointers
are a little different. I mean, yeah, I mean fifty seven point
seven percent shooting on threes, which by the way, leads the league among
qualified players if anybody cares. So he's also averaging. It just feels like,
you know, when you break it down per thirty six minutes for him,
his numbers are right in line with his career average. This is just
the first time that he's not only played above thirty minutes per game so far,
that's the first time he's ever played above twenty eight. Twenty eight point
three was his previous career high. So you're playing more than five minutes per
game above your career average. His usage is probably inflayed it a little bit
because Zion has been injured. Brand Ingrams been injured, but he's been there.
I think when you factor in brandon Ingram's availability, probably the best player
it's either him or or DeVante Graham. So I think he has has been
for sure just really good and giving them a presence on the offensive glass.
His postop efficiency is down, but he still has like that element to his
game. He's been super efficient as the role man. But yeah, I'm
with you, I don't think he's a Candidan. We've talked about this.
You do have in Kate. You already mentioned this. We're not hitting on
your own sound tunas. There's a YouTube clip on the hardware not to YouTube
channel subscribe to hardworek not on YouTube of Adam dedicating it to talk about why
you go on to sound Tunis is the most underrated player in the league.
It was four last seasons. He can go find that he might be friendly
underrated. He's very good. I mean, do you kind of think he's
moving into that Mike Conley category though, where so many people have said he's
underrated now that I think this season in particular, he's getting the recognition.
I mean, the fact that somebody's asking this question. Yeah, no,
that's that's also a great point. I've also there was I've seen like jokes
of there's been the you know, everyone wants to talk about Zion's future when
they talk about the Pelicans or even free brandon Ingram, there's been like some
you want to sal and chruna stuff and he can be traded because of the
way his extension was was worked. It's not like this huge incremental race where
he's ineligiably traded. What's tough with him and I don't know that this would
impact his most improved player case or why he's underrated. There's no like obvious
fit out there, which I think is a problem you just run into with
a lot of big men right now. Is he someone who can fit anywhere?
But is there a contender that you think needs you want his sal and
tunis because he's not going to He might be a defensive upgrade over some you
know, Mason Plumbly and Charlotte. Sure, but is he going to be
a huge upgrade for anyone who've viewsed themselves as a contender or fringe contender.
There's no team that springs to mind. You're free to try and change my
mind right now, But just like you know you're I think you're staring trying
to find one, but I couldn't thinking and looking like I don't. There's
no one that that comes and you know he'd be fun. Oklahoma City might
be a contender. Now you know they're they're just winning so often I get
no reaction out of your face. Would you would you trade? Would you
trade James Wyman and Kevon Looney if you're the Warriors? Probably not. I'd
take I'd rather take this wing on Wiseman. Look at how good your defense
has been already, and you have Clay coming back. Why do you have
to men do it? I think you would do it if you're Golden State,
because you would get You've got to be trying to capitalize on the window
right now. The first thing that's happening after this. You don't know what,
of course, I don't know what Clay Thompson's aging curve is gonna look
like coming off all these injuries. You don't know when the drop off is
going to come for Steph. You have an aging Draymond Green. You have
to win right now, and Weisman is your most appealing bridge player between this
era and the next. But if you can get Valancunis right now, I
think you go all in this season. I wouldn't do it. We'll have
to throw it to some We have many resident Warriors fans who listen, but
also that we text with. So if any Warriors fans are out there,
let us know you weren't getting reactions because I was making sure that that worked
financially. If anyone has any thoughts on that trade at promos zero and on,
you can, but you think it's a reasonable one, right, Like
it's just it is. I can see both sides of that one, which
to me is always the sign that it makes sense. I talked to our
Trade Machine podcast. If you haven't listened to that one, you should.
Yeah, I thought I did think about it. I think it's like kind
of a fair one to ask. So coudos to you for coming up the
heartbeat for New Orleans, right, I mean as Wiseman's a terrible fit with
Zion Williamson, so I don't I don't know if the talent grab though,
considering where you're at in that rebuilding, I just feel really bad, sort
of like pilfering through New Orleans as roster and taking it. I feel like
when everyone talks about New Orleans, especially the national media, which we would
fall under that umbrella, not just because of this podcast, but because of
what we both do for a living, but it's always like, oh,
what's going on with Zion, And now it's like, oh, I have
a good player, let's get rid of them. Skimp pass the Brandon name
from discords and it's free onnest Balanciunis. I would love to see New Orleans
full strength to try and figure it out. But when you just look at
their record right now, like they would need to be go nine games ten
games over five dred just to be five hundred for the season. So you
need to start asking like those longer haul questions. But I would like to
I acknowledge that this is quite premature. Yes, I would like to see
the Pelicans atle so they're any Pelicans fans out there, We're not We're really
not trying to do the low breath stuff here. That was longer than we
wanted to spend on that question. Uh, Dean Lee asked, who's the
worst player in the league who's played at least two hundred minutes this season?
I'm wondering if I am wondering if Dean Lee, I'm sure he's listening to
this, had sort of this pre existing answer in mind, which because that's
just a very specific benchmark of two hundred minutes is a very specific benchmark,
so I need to sore for this question. Are you ready for a couple?
And I think I have two, and I'm curious as to what you
think. Are you listening, I'm gonna say, yeah, go for it.
I'm precious A Chewa might be up there for me. He's played three
hundred fourteen minutes, has a true shooting of thirty eight four, which is
that's incredibly low. And then he was just moved. I don't know if
it's permanent, but they bounced him from the Lakers starting lineup. But Ken's
Baysmore has been Ken Baysmore has been bad. That was my answer. It
was Kevin Baysmore. It was Ken Baysmore. I mean, it really depends
on what you mean by this question, too, because I think there are
a couple of different interpretations, Like the least valuable player would probably be one
of the rookies who struggled. Jalen Suggs has been the least valuable player.
He's not the worst player in the NBA or else. He wouldn't be getting
the opportunities to struggle that much. So I kind of look at the people
who aren't doing anything well and aren't being asked to do too much that would
then contribute to them not doing well. So for me, like Kent Baysmore,
Frank Jackson, Jaden McDaniels has been that bad this year, I will
say he's still going to give you the defense is imploded, but he's still
going to do things on that. And then like a Bay's Moore has not.
I thought about him, and I just here's the tough one though,
Russell Westbrook, does he do so much actively bad stuff at this point that
the few strengths that remain do not cancel them out to that extent? My
question? My answer is, I don't know. I think there's a blueprint
him working in LA still and not having Lebron. They're sort of sort of
skews that as does. They are leaning heavier into Anthony Davison the five.
Now I would be reticent to go with him, but if you are,
that's someone who has so much influence over the team while playing that you could
argue maybe he's been like one of the most damaging players, but does that
make him the worst? And it's a tough inferentiation. I agree that like
and I'll qualify that I am not a Westbrook cater, like I have defended
him vociferously for years at this point, more defense than he's played over the
past few years. Hey, there you go. But yeah, I do
agree that the you should be like you can't an Xeyer Williams Okay, fine,
but like Kate Cunningham to this point, well not until tonight, until
tonight, yeah, twenty five, eight and eight, I think it was
tonight or we need to look. Can we ask this question? Why is
basketball discourse so broken on Twitter? I don't want to be older man yells
at clouds, but like we need to get sometimes what Yeah, but we
gotta get away from like trying to deliver these ultra accelerated referendums in the NBA.
This is not the NFL where every game is more than five percent of
your season at this point. This is the NBA where it's far. Let
there are eighty two games and Kay Cunningham like just to talk about like when
he first came back, this was someone who lost a month of the first
season of his career. So it was just like it's great that Evan Like,
yes, Evan Mobley has played himself to the number one pick discussion.
But these are topics that are also and Scottie Barnes as well, these are
topics that are going to bear out over the next three, five, seven
years. And I've just I've become fatigued by what seems like an increasing mounting.
It's not even a subset, but just like section category of NBA Twitter,
we need to have like these way too serious debates over a player's existence
after performances. It's not just the game or looking at a larger sample.
It's zeroing in on that one performance and then making me sweeping all too premature
declarations. I think the optimistic slant is that at least that makes it more
fun. When Kay Cunningham has a game like you did tonight, I'll be
it in a loss because it just looks even dumber. It's a little shot
and Freida, and then it allows people to get off the tweets or engagement
they said Kay Cunningham was a bust. That's the other thing that I just
can't like wrap my head around different different discussion. That was not that was
my question. This question comes from Carson. Who are your guilty pleasure teams
to watch this season? Hmm. I just That's tough for me because I
don't really feel guilty about watching any of them because there's always something to watch
for. So probably I don't have a good answer, do you. I
mean, like we should probably branch it out beyond guilty pleasure? Who would
be like the most surprised? Which team or teams have you enjoyed watching the
most that have surprised you like that you didn't expect to enjoy watch? Probably
the Wizards. The Wizards have played just way better, prettier offensive basketball than
I would have expected. They're really engaged defensively. They've been surprisingly competitive,
I mean, competing for the top spot in the Eastern Conference at this point.
I did not have those expectations. I'm pretty sure I hammered the under
which was already set pretty low going into the season. So they're not a
guilty pleasure, but they have been way more fun to watch than I ever
would have anticipated. The Heat too. I think we knew they were going
to be good, but I thought they would just everything down and make it
too ugly to really enjoy it, even coming from someone who tends to enjoy
watching defense as much as offense. But the way that they've operated on offense
has also been really fun for the watch. Washington's fantastic joys. Cleveland is
one for me. They're not They're good. They're not a guilty pleasure now.
But I didn't think Ricky Rubio was going to be this good. I
thought Darius Gotten is gonna better, but he's just been a delight. Of
course, the Evan Mobili stuff has been up there, Jetty Osmen remembering how
to shoot threes has been big. Jared Jared Allen has been buying large great
and like the pairing with him and Mobley working defensively. Not something I expected.
That's definitely a case of I was probably too low on the calves coming
in, but I just didn't think that I was going to enjoy, especially
when it was announce that they were gonna play bigger. I just didn't think
I was gonna enjoy watching them. I've loved the games that I've seen and
the other team. For me, I've been fascinated by them and I don't
feel guilty for watching them. But the Pacers I lose. There's I'm still
waiting. I just want T. J. Warren to get healthy so we
could see their five best guys like all at once on the floor for the
first time ever. What the team looks like. I'm just endlessly fascinated by
them. It seems like they find it. Earlier on, it felt like
they were finding all these different ways to lose games, whereaside from like the
third quarters of Doom, there just wasn't a pattern necessarily how they were fucking
up aside for maybe availability and then like I lose track. It's not every
possession, but there's so much going on on offense for them, sometimes in
a good way that I like lose track of what's happening. And so I've
just tried to grapple with trying to figure out their identity and I still don't
have it. Besides thinking that I do believe they're going to be better than
their current record. Just suggest I'm waiting and just see them get more reps
as they're more healthy. They've they've given the ball to TJ McConnell a little
bit more and like taking these on ball touches away from Christo Arte, which
I think is helped settle them down a little bit. Of course, character
returns. They're just a team that they might be and I don't know if
you have a different team for this, and that's sometimes when I gravitate towards
watching. I'm not going to pretend to have a great feel for the entire
league already, like I try and attention, read, listen to podcasts,
and watch. Even though people claim I don't watch as much basketball as I
can, but I think the Pacers are the team in the league, good
or bad, whichever I have. I don't know that I have a feel
for what they are, what they're going to be by year's end. I
don't know if there's a team like that for you. I think that's a
pretty fair take. I also want to nominate the Spurs for the original question,
just because I did not expect them to be this good or this fun.
J John Tay Murray has made the leap. Kelton Johnson's aggressiveness is always
fun. You never know what you're going to get from Lonnie Walker. Devin
Vassell's progression has been a joy. So I did not expect to want to
watch the Spurs as much as I have. But to answer your question,
I still don't have a feel for the Clippers because they've been yeah, like
their results have been better than I would have expected. Because We've seen this
team before without Kawhi Leonard, with Paul George carrying the load, with the
aging veterans around them. Nick Batoum has been great, But I just don't
know, Like I don't have a feel for whether they can elevate their ceiling
to where their talent suggests that it could be. And I also just don't
know when Paul George is going to have the bottom fall out, because that
tends to happen sometimes, as talented as he is and as much of a
fringe MVP candidate as he's been to this point. Yeah, that's a that's
a good point. There's also the element of I think this one isn't as
big of an unknown, but as Kauai going to play this season, the
answer would probably be know what's sort of going on with Marcus Morris. They're
calling him day to day, but now he's at the point where he's only
played how many games Marks Moors played this season? Three? He's playing we
played two. I was wrong, so Marks Morres played two games and listening
him his day to day with that knee injury. How big of an issue
is the point guard situation because of how well PG is playing we already talked
about on the last Mailbag episode whether we thought their offense had another gear without
getting Kawhi back, what's going on with Segerbaka's back. He played in the
G League a few days ago, didn't have like the best game. But
it's like, I actually liked the idea of having veterans use the G League
to come back and that capacity if they've been injured. But like, and
how much does he actually help with what they need? Like he's not this
super great rebounder. Does he compromise your defense at any point? Does he
really elevate your offense? I think you can just argue by virtue of giving
you another floor spacing look in the front court, he'll he'll help you there.
So there are a lot of questions. I just feel like this team
is not known, but they're not as much as I think that Their defense
has been surprisingly good, and I feel like that's the path through which they're
gonna have to win games. They have to be like super feisty, consistent
and malleable on that end, because their offense is probably gonna have more wild
fluctuations since like Paul George is your only bankable creator at this point, it's
not Pleso, it's not even Jackson, it's not a tomb, it's not
gonna be Morris when he's healthy, etcetera, etcetera. I think the reason
that I went with them those because when you said they're known, I think
it's more they should be known, but they just aren't for whatever reason.
And that's the part that's hard to figure out. I think that's totally If
Dave I would have expected them to have been better offensively than defensively just not
having Kauai, I would have thought that maybe I was underestimating, like the
impact of Nick Mutuum and having Eric Bledsoe and reading too much into hell bad.
He wasn't defensively New Orleans last year. He's been pretty bad on offense
for the Clippers this year, though. I was gonna say that's another reason
that they're going to be better on defense and offense. I'm with you on
the Spurs, by the way, though this is I did this in the
one interesting stat for each team episode, if any wants to go back and
check it out. The Spurs are second in the league in average possession time.
Second, do you think Greg Popovitch just dies a little inside I think
there's a part of me. I think he's been like visibly frustrated. I
feel like with the wild fluctuations from Derek White and I think some of the
half court stuff, I feel like he's fucking loving this. I feel like
he's enjoying himself. Long Live Pop and I'm here if he's going to be
here for the rebuild as long as it doesn't prevent them from actually rebuilding,
which doesn't seem like it does. I'm here for it. And look,
he wasn't playing Daddy as young before Peartle went into the least health and safety
protocalls. I think, so it's like he's really vibe the leaf, the
Leaf, the youth movement. So I'm here for it. Oh, this
question is definitely hyperbolic, but Timmy asked, is Damar top five in the
league. I'm just gonna adjust this. Would Damar crack the top seven to
ten on your MVP ballot right now? M probably not, but he'd be
right there. I think when we did the actual award ballots in an earlier
episode that I had him listed as one of my honorable mentions, but like
not one of the leading ones. I think that there's just enough high end
candidates that without the Bulls, like going on ten game win streaks while he
thrives as a solo star. Which is part of the issue is that as
good as he's been, zach Lavine has been greatest well at times, I
just don't see the narrative element being there to take down again, as you
said, like seven to eight leading contenders, because there are that many superstars
playing well there is. I don't know if he where he belong on the
MVP ballot. I do think his acquisition was highly underrated, and I've mentioned
this, people complated too much what the opportunity costs to get him was with
how much he brought to the Bulls. And I still think there's a convert
This is the conversation's gonna be worth having, at least through the end of
the season when you see what this team actually does. Did they give up
too much to get him? What impact did the Voots trade have on what
that meant of how much they had to give up to get Demara Rosen to
get off Alpha a Communi's deal as part of that trade. So that's a
separate debate. But he's been so critical as having like that other studying ball
handler has made life easier on zac Lavine, not all the on off courts,
but love him he had I'm not even looking at this. This was
a few days ago. Shocker there, right, he had the highest defensive
net ratings swing in the league in a positive direction. This was just that.
This will be just the third time of his career. By the way,
if it holds that his team has performed better defensively with him on the
court, which is just talk about Alex Caruso, Lonzo Ball, Drevant de
Green like really playing well and helping prop him up. Also, I like
that they started Alex Caruso a power forward the other day. That's a that's
a digression there. I don't I think as someone who has struggled to shoot
threes or wouldn't shoot threes, his value has always been oversimplified. I do
think he's a player that demands a specific kind of fit, but sometimes I
think we overrate and efficient, you know, whatever he's scoring at this point.
I didn't even paid attention to his points per game this season. When
you look at him though, he has never since twenty fifteen sixteen, dating
all the way back, he has never rated lower than the seventy fifth percentile
as a scorer out of the pick and roll, and like having that option
on this team is just huge because it was never gonna be Lonzo ball and
it was really only Zach Lavine and then like you had Kobe White who's been
injured, but like that's not I just don't know that his game is to
over see the floor. Demarta Rosen is an actual floor general, and you
know, looking at okay, twenty six point one points per game this season,
like, yeah, sometimes I just feel like we overrate and the number
just might be inflatable, Like he even looking at last year his true shooting,
Like do we just overrate scoring twenty three? Did you say that again?
No? SERI, I can't say that again. My watch is going
off last year, Like are we just going to overrate Demarta Rosen scoring twenty
like twenty Look at just the past few years, as I'm stammering through,
this is just twenty plus points per game and just consistently the past two seasons
at least being around sixty true shooting. Sometimes we just overrate that his ability
to get to the foul line, the work he actually does inside the awk.
But I think his playmaking more than anything, and the threat he poses
as that pick and roll creator. On the Basketball Reference MVP Award tracker,
which is based on historical correlations between different stats and team winning percentage and all
that and previous voting results, he does come in at number seven right now,
which I think is pretty reasonable, you know, because you're seven eight
cut off, I think is the appropriate one for the record. The players
above him Chris Paul at number six, Montrese Harold at number five, which
I think speaks to the perils of doing that with this kind of sample size,
Jimmy Butler at number four, Kevin Durant at number three, Steph Curry
at number two, Nicola Yokich at number one. Elsewhere in the top ten
we have James Harden at eight, Rudy Gobertt nine, and Janis Donda Ducumpo
at number ten. I would bump both of those above him, Montrase Harold
down. So yeah, I think like right around eight is pretty appropriate.
Yeah, I think he's I'd probably say that he could even go. I'd
probably put him in my top seven even there's like probably one of those names
he would bounced, not Jimmy, not Yokich, not Steph. It feels
like it's Yokich in a solo tier, Stephen Katie as the one bees right
now, and then there's a pretty big drop off. Maybe you want to
throw Jimmy Butler in a tier of his own, and then there's a bunch
of candidates kind of clustered together. I might put Staff on the same level
as Yokich. I'm not gonna lie that's fair. Yeah. I mean though
I have Yokich number one at this point, but eight the Moors brothers that
much. Absolutely, It's really hard to decry what Steph is doing now because
it's been ridiculous, very hue egocentric player. You could say this question comes
from and it's not biased at all. Steph lover Steph versus Magic Johnson playmaking
impact. I guess this was a debate on Twitter the other day. I
looked at I just don't know what there's The way they PLAYMAK is so many
different. It's so different because of Steph, Like what he does away from
the ball is a form of playmaking, because of his gravity. I know
people are tired of mentioning that, but I do think Steph has been underrated
as a passer or at least his like impact when he's on the ball.
And so the thing that I looked at for this and there's just no there's
no definitive number. Backpicks dot Com from Ben Taylor has the box creation,
which is an estimate of the number of open shots created for teammates per one
hundred possessions. And so I looked at just the highest box creation scores off
of creation scores in single season in the history that he has put up,
and so Magic Johnson has like the higher of the two. He has the
Steve Nash by the way, as three is the three of the top five
seasons of this metric. Johnson has the eighth best season, Steph has the
ninth and tenth best season. As the box creation in there, they're both
just making players around the better. I guess the caveat here would be two
sixteen, twenty seventeen. Russell Westbrook ranks first in this metric, and so
like there is this still like I think that you know there is there a
per like hundred possessions version of this because I can see Westbrook's involvement just being
so through the roof. I mean, he broke box box plus minus to
the point that the stat was redone, So it wouldn't surprise me if it's
If it's the kind of formula that he's breaking is here as well. I
would say that he's probably broken it less than other formulas because he's only appearing
like once at the tippy top of these seasons and he has a couple more
than the top twenty, but having only one of the top ten. But
I feel like, I don't know, like if you were looking at the
ROSSI you're gonna go with magic over Steph. And I think if you're going
to go with a poa same with like the pure passive ability, for sure,
yeah, you would still go magic over step I still think Steph is
one of the super underrated pastor. He's a great passer, but like,
yeah, magic is magic. He is untouchable in that category. It's yeah,
his form of playmaking, it's just not it's not the Nash Chris Paul
Magic Johnson type stuff is all. And so I think you would take magic
in this discussion rather hands down. But like on your all time ladder of
overall players, is Steph gonna have a chance to userve magic? Johnson?
Has he already userved Matchic Johnson probably not already, but I think he definitely
has a chance to I've not done all that even that I think is pretty
close. Like, I do think this is a legitimate question just in terms
of playmaking, assuming we're we're counting that off ball playmaking, which we have
to because it matters so much. But how do you compare those two concepts,
Like do we even do we know if Ben Taylor's formula is accounting for
gravity? Reading through, it does not look like he's accounting for gravity.
So so based on that, like Steph might be the pick, Like if
we're not even including that and they're already comparable, and there's also the you
know you're having H. Well, I guess this wouldn't be an issue for
Magic Johnson, but the three point line is definitely impacted like some of the
standings when you're when you're looking at that's for sure. But yeah, I
mean, if this is a passing conversation, then come on, that's not
a question and that's not an insult to Steph does have a non three version,
So factoring out that in nineteen eighty six eighty seven, Magic Johnson has
the highest box creation score of the non three version. So Russell Westbrook did
not break this one, although he does finish third in two ten twenty eleven.
That's interesting. But of the top ten in the non three version,
Magic Johnson appears three times, and so that's four times in the top eleven
if you care. So and Steph does not appear once in the top twenty,
I can keep going top thirty. So yeah, that's not definitive,
but to try and adjust it a little bit more. This question was dm
to me from hoop informatics. We're diving into the big picture, more philosophical
conceptual questions. They ask what players have too much focus on what they do
poorly and not enough focus on what they do well. My example was Lonzo
Ball, a stereotypical point guard, runs ball, screen offense, attacks basket,
and can create shots a Lonzo Camp. But he's a six six basketball
player who creates havoc on defense, excels and transition rebounds, can shoot,
and provide spacing in the half court, all valuable attributes of a player.
So which players are underrated because the focus is on what they can't do rather
than what they can provide to their team. I love this question because it's
you with it. I already took that. Well, we're dropping. You
know, it's one of the primary reasons that I end up reeling, rooting
for, and falling in love with watching certain players, because there are The
primary way to be recognized in the NBA is to score a lot of points.
It's as simple as that. Where you know that's points per game is
the number one category that people are going to talk about, the casual fans
are going to talk about. And I don't mean that as an insult,
because there are different levels of fandom and then there should be. But once
you dive into the true value of a player, it's easier to find those
those diamonds and the rough who are making big contributions on the defensive end but
can't shoot, who are phenomenal passers but can't shoot. You know, there's
a trend here, like the players who are really good in one area and
really struggle as shooters. And I think that you can find just a ton
of examples of those those kind of players throughout the league. Whether it's Marcus
Smart because so much attention had always been paid to his shooting and it's improved
now and people don't want to recognize that he has become a valid off ball
threat. Ricky Ruby, guy who before the Seaton at least define this season,
I was standing still small sample, especially with something as volatile is shooting.
But you know, Ricky Rubio, a guy who I don't think his
ridiculously good passing, his creative finishing around the basket, Like he had that
underhanded scoop layoff layoup down pat and it was super entertaining to Washington. It
was effective because it kept defenders on the interior offbeat. But because he wasn't
a big score, because he wasn't a good shooter, because he shot such
a low fieldable percentage. I don't think those elements of his game got appreciated
nearly enough. Do you think Nerland's no elegants enough credit? Because he's just
this ridiculously rangey defender who reeks havoc on an unreal number of plays in his
relatively limited run. But he doesn't do anything on offense, so he doesn't
really get recognition as a valuable player, you know, unless we're talking about
like people who are doing free agency breakdowns and how much play should be paid
and trade columns and like people who are paid to put forth that kind of
content, like, sure, they're going to recognize his value, but he's
not appreciated in the overall basketball watching world. So I just I think there
are a lot of examples, and Lonzo might be one of the very best
ones. He provided a lot of value even with the New Orleans Pelicans,
but the conversation was always about what he wasn't rather than what he is.
And it's a trend that's fairly common for top picks who don't really pan out
to the level that you want them to, because it's hard to let go
of those expectations and divorce yourself of the notion that that peak could be achieved,
that that potential could be realized, even if all evidence has been to
the contrary. So we really struggle to accept that those guys. I think
Cody Zeller is a great example, where as a top three pick, you
want him to be a superstar, but he provided significantly above average play to
Charlotte for a substantial hill amount of time and provided about the amount of value
that you can expect historically from his draft slot. And that kind of guy
doesn't get appreciated because there's that red flag that he didn't live up to his
potential on his resume. It happens at the higher level too, not so
much of they're not living up to their resume, but if they're not having
conventional star output. Or Rudy Gobert probably be a perfect example of oh can
he be played off the floor and the question the question is invalid because it's
so much more nuanced than that he's not a big who is punishing mismatches in
the post. Part of that might be because the Jazz aren't having him do
that, but that was even a thing with Kyle Lowry, where just he
didn't have those gaudy numbers. I think also when you look at non stars,
because I think like a Draymond or Al Horford, maybe their peaks were
a little bit underrated because they well, Draymond had his defense, but Al
Horford his peak was probably underrated because he wasn't remember the focus on like his
rebounds per game and or just like he didn't score enough, but he just
did every thing. Kyle Anderson has felt like he's forever underrated because he does
no he's not. He definitely was limited. He's more of a shooter now
than he's ever been. But he does so many things well, but he's
just not dominant in one area that that almost works against them too. I
do think Lonzo Ball was like probably the perfect case study here, and you
can come up with, you know, others, whether it's role players or
like I said, guys who are maybe at like the higher level. I
will say that it does feel what makes Lonzo Ball unique because it feels like
a lot of the players in these examples are mostly going to be people that
defend so well, and they're viewed as having a glaring offensive weakness rather than
the other way around, probably because of how much we value offense. And
so Alonzo checks the box in the sense that like, he has a glaring
void in his game relative to the position he's supposed to play, but he's
not he's not supposed to be a point like Colin Sexton would be another good
example of this not different player from a Lonzo Ball. But because Colin Sexton,
like wasn't could get tunnel vision on drives, isn't the best passer,
could have his game ball out a little bit before the rim, and I
know he wasn't great necessarily this season before he got injured. He did have
some issues on defense, but like he didn't appreciate like what he did last
season where he was scoring twenty four plus points per game on just super efficient
shooting splits, so fifty plus percent on twos and over thirty seven percent on
three. So I do think there are players like that, but Lontotball does
feel like the quintessential one at the moment of the hundreds of possible answers,
I think he's still like the leading candidate. But I do think you're talking
about twenty five thirty percent of the league is just yeah, under I do
think that the reason that I legitimately think the number is that high is because
of the toxicity of the type of basketball discourse that relies on denigrating one player
to prop up another. Because so much of how we discuss basketball, just
as an overall NBA watching fan base, is about using one player's flaws as
the reason that the other players better, rather than focusing on what gets done
really well. So we hear the constant chatter about players flaws and it doesn't
matter if their role players or rookies or MVP candidates. Like how much of
the discussion about Yokich always is about his defense and his defensive shortcomings and whether
he's grown into a good defender, and even peak Westbrook, the conversation was
about the turnovers, and with James Harden it's about his style of play.
And it's one thing after another where so much of the primary focus driven by
a national media that's looking for controversies and looking to sell based on negativity.
Every player has their flaws discussed at nauseum and their strengths are not discussed to
the same level. That's fair. Daddy is young, another name is praise
mine, probably for his entire career. Basically, yeah, absolutely might fall
into the more like all around player type heal than just with limitations on the
ball. So yeah, I guess there are a lot of players. I
like that you went from my impassioned argument to Thaddy is young. I'm very
passionate about that. HM is probably just if there was like someone who fit
this mold for their entire career, where Lonzo is still earlier in it,
there's time for him to because I do think there are players who have probably
like played themselves out of this. Al Horford might be one of them,
or maybe a Draymond Green at one point where people thought he was a top
ten or fifteen player at one time. I don't think Lonzo Ball is ever
gonna get to that height. But Thaddy is young feels like he's sort of
been in that bucket his entire career. I could not disagree with that.
This next question comes from Nick's watcher. Do you think people who work with
advanced stats slash models from the guys who make the models to the analytics accounts
on Twitter, do you think they do a good job communicating why they should
be used, their usefulness, and how they work to the fan bases that
are consuming them. If no, how can that be changed? Should it
be? I think in general the conversation isn't what it should be. Maybe
it's partially an inability to explain it properly and partially partially an unwillingness to grasp
the conversation and the topic. Like we can only hear Charles Barkley talk about
why analytics are dumb because of insert invalid reason here so many times to think
that there's a little bit of like willful ignorance going on. But that said,
like, I don't think it's been communicated that analytics isn't just like advanced
statistics. That's not the same thing. Analytics is discovering, interpreting, and
then communicating what the takeaways from the data is so without like realizing how these
things are applied. No, I don't think that a good job is done
in general, and at NBA math we're probably guilty of that too. You
and I try to add context to some of the stats that are out there,
but like when I tweet out just the faces and stuff without a context
for every single player, like that's probably not the best pure conveyanced method of
an analytical an analytical approach. Yeah, so there's a lot of thing and
it's interesting, it's informative, but I don't think it's as good at as
it could be. I do think so their degrees to this one of them.
I think a lot of these methods are proprietary, and so you're not
going to necessarily know the formulas the approach that goes into the mall and I
don't know, you know, when you're looking at stuff that's not from a
conglomerate, like like you could probably argue that maybe ESPN the real plus minus
the formula should be made public there, and I don't believe it's ever been.
It has never been. If it has, I'm not right up on
it. But like when you're dealing with more of these independent blogs and sites,
I would never fault them for not making their proprietary stuff available because like
they you're not this, like you don't have this this huge backing. I
do think the other thing, and I'm definitely I've gotten better at this.
I think is I've gotten older, and I've always been good at at least
trying to read to understand. And I'm not going to pretend to necessarily be
an expert in it, but like we need to admit when we don't understand
something, And like I'll just use examples as someone who has done like line
up rankings and try to find the best way to like use regression models or
just averaging smaller samples like the luck regression. That shit still goes over my
head. And so like I read up on it, and there are people
that do it that I really trust, and so there's a I don't want
to say to blind faith, but like I'll take what they're delivering, what
their models returning, as fact or at least useful. The other thing is
we can't interpret anything is gospel, and that's whatever catch all metric it is,
whether it's TPA, whether it's real plus minus, whether it's regular eyes
adjusted plus minus. But would drip now there's something raptor Draymond. There's like
eighty different ones out there at the moment. And I do think though,
that the I don't even want to call it the analytics community, because I
think people in the analytics community have been I hate calling it that, but
I don't. I don't know. There's no one that I value who's opinion
on value that hasn't at some point pointed out that you need to blend everything
that's available, and stats and analytics overall are just a way of you've already
sort of alluded to this, gaining more information, interpreting that information, and
then applying all we should always want more information. I get why it could
be overwhelming, but it's not. I don't know anyone who's just looking at
numbers. And I do think though, and this is not I don't I
hate I don't want to make this a generalized statement. I don't necessarily know
how approachable people who some people who are maybe in these positions with they're relying
on, Like they're disseminating the analytics. They might be so fed up with
people claiming they don't watch basketball, or that these numbers don't work, or
that numbers are stupid. How approachable are you going to be when you're asked
about your formulas or why this is what it is. And I also just
don't think social media in general, and this is where a lot for the
NBA specifically, people forget that, like Twitter is just the very small bubble
and it's not as large as like a Facebook or Instagram with people on there,
but like it's so representative of such a finite demographic. And with the
MBA, I do feel like it's how we are consuming and getting a lot
of our information or opinions are being conveyed. Now as writing continues to I
don't want to say die out, but be on life support at least a
certain form of it. It's not built for nuance, and so that's going
to contribute to this as well too. And then there's just they're people,
whether it's disingenuous or not, They're just going to have their agendas and so
if something works for them, And I think we talked about this on the
the podcast. When NBC Sports affiliate with the Warriors tweeted out the graphic of
Steph being in the top five of individual defensive rating, it's did you take
the time to consider what went into that stat? And maybe you did,
and then you probably didn't care because it just fits this model of either we
get engagement or prove something that I already believe to be true, or I
need to prove to be true and I'm not. I hate I feel like
I'm on a soapbox right now, but it is something I've at least thought.
I've already been on one this episode, so go go for it.
What did you say? I said, I've already been on one a couple
of times this episode, so you can borrow the entire episode one. Yeah.
So it's just everyone's imperfect. Every stat is imperfect. And I do
wish that there was more of, you know, cooperation between two different schools
of thought, but I don't. I also don't think it's as warring as
some make it out to be. We just see the extremes that make the
headlines or that go viral on Twitter, that are most aggressive on Twitter,
because that's how this that's how that app and that's how the way you know,
the NBA discourse works. Even the people that think they're they're just people
who've become insufferable because they think that they're just like above every single form of
basketball discourse that is normalized. And so I understand the league is probably too
transaction heavy, but let the focus of the coverage. But like there is
a place to talk about transactions, you don't have to be completely above it.
So there is This probably speaks to a larger issue about the way the
league is covered and presented. But looking at this question specifically, I think
it's a great question. I do think there's always a better way to simplify
information or put more of an effort into conveying it. But I don't know
that is there going to be a huge payoff, Like how many people are
willing to actually consume that that nuance, how many companies are willing to invest
in these sites that are coming up with these statistical you know, the independent
statistical models that are that are fantastic. I also think, what what doesn't
help? But I understand like a lot of this stuff is behind a paywall
too. It's like if you don't subscribe, and I subscribe to so many
different sites, but you don't subscribe to Cleaning the Glass or be Ball Index,
you might not necessarily have a chance to understand what these stats mean,
aside from when those parent handles tweet out you know, the singular graphics in
general, and that's your chance to get the context. I don't fault anyone
for me behind a paywall by the like you need to doing that ship for
free, Like that's exhausting. So I'm just saying I don't know that there's
a solution I do. I would be of the mind that these people are
way smarter than I am. I do obviously think there's a better way to
convey the information and to create like some sort of synergy between you know,
not I test Twitter verus analytics Twitter, but to move beyond that even being
a thing, because I don't I don't know that there's like I test versus
analytics Twitter right like that is an outmoded concept to me. I've seen it
blended more and more. I feel like as the years go on, it's
just the way we talk about it lacks that context and nuance. I think
there is some analytics gatekeeping in in play too though, for sure, where
there's a lot of elitism about it, and you know, sometimes there's looking
down on people who don't understand it, which makes it harder for them to
understand it, an off putting for people who are interested, you know,
so on and so forth. So I think it's a combination of just so
many factors. Anything could always be better. Were probably might answer here,
and there's now fourth answer. But that's a great question, and thank you
for asking it, Nick's watcher. I guess you're a Nets fan being a
Knicks watcher. This will be the question we end on. And it's one
that Adam has been itching to answer. Maybe it comes from well you made
us wait, so you better have been itching to answer it. It was
gonna be on The last mail bag comes from Jay. How do the new
foul rules and three point shooting regression impact the future of heliocentrism? Is it
no longer the high powered strategy it once was? For anyone who doesn't know
what helio centrism is, I hope I'm not mis explaining it. But it
was basically coined by Set part now of the Athletic and the mid Range Theory
book where it's just basically being star focused, like singular player focused, the
highest true usage player focused, and there has been this season. Everyone knows
there's been the emphasis on the referee when it comes to I guess natural offensive
movements however you you want to call it. And three point shooting, like
the average is just and we've seen offense in general, like the productivity has
been down at least from previous season's averages. And then right now when you
look at the average three point shooting of the league, I believe I don't
know which year it's at the lowest from because I've not checked in a while,
but the average three point oh it's thirty Oh wait, that's the that's
the frequency us with. The average three point accuracy of a team right now
is thirty five percent. And this is I don't want to use just one
season to justify anything, but last season, the average clip from beyond the
arc outside of garbage time, we're thirty seven point two percents. Like that
is a pretty fairly substantial singular season drop off. But the larger question general
I think is interesting and I'm curious Adam as to what you think about it.
I actually don't really think. So you don't think it's interesting. No,
I do think it's interesting. I don't think it's really going to change
that much. It's still really tough to read into league wide trends this early
in a season, because this has been an exaggerated version of the early season
scoring dip we've seen in a lot of seasons. Because there are always rule
changes in play, you're finding a rhythm with your teammates. It's a little
bit easier for defenses to dominate because still should have done it in the offseason
exactly. You know, there's one thing after another. There are just myriad
reasons. But we do typically see a bit of an early season offensive malaise
before it trends back up. So I think reading too much into this right
now is dangerous. We're probably going to see a little bit of a version
on some of these foul calls, because I think pretty much everyone would admit,
even the biggest proponents of this rule change, that it's been called it's
been the whistles have been swallowed a little bit excessively. Like there are some
plays where it's like, yeah, like that was a foul. I get
that you're just trying to use that as a point of emphasis, but eventually
those are going to be called. Eventually players are going to adjust. We're
still talking about really talented, superstar players who have the ball on their hands
for a reason, and they have spent their entire lives to this point overcoming
what defenses have thrown at them, what referees have thrown at them. Because
to get to this level, you need to be able to adjust, because
you're eventually going to move up from junior varsity basketball to varsity basketball and face
a whole new set of defensive challenges that you then have to overcome. This
isn't anything new for these players, even if it requires an adjustment period,
even if there is some initial stubbornness. I just I think these lead ball
handlers, the guys who were talking about, is heliocentric because the entire offense
revolves around them at all times. They're just too fucking good at basketball for
this to change that much like there's no reason for the Atlanta Hawks to take
the ball out of Trey Young's hands more frequently, the same goes for Luca
Donchech with the Dallas Mavericks, because every possession is going to be better when
he's touching it. The same is true of Nicole Yo Kitchen, Steph Curry.
The list goes on and on when we're talking about stars of that caliber.
So even if there are some slight deviations, some changes of directions,
some regressions during it, this is where basketball is naturally going to go as
we get players who are increasingly that much better than everyone else at everything.
And you could maybe I'm off base here, but the way I thought about
it too is we've seen the way that teams have been built fundamentally change over
the past like twenty years, where it's like you're not building your team around
Dwight Howard anymore. That's not happening. And so the progression here would be
if there are players, or if there's a certain archetype of player to where
they don't they're not as good within the new rules or the way that the
game is being played, you're going to gravitate towards a model or a player
who can play within that. And like the example here just might be which
of these perimeter players I think I'm with you I players We've already seen sort
of an uptick in the way James Harden is playing Don Chitz has even not
been up to as usual standard. He'll get better. Most is this,
I think is adjusting. But just like if they're someone who can still get
to the free throw lot, if you can't get to the foul line anymore,
because this is the way that the rules have been changed, someone who
can still get to the valle line but is in that point of attack role
as well, they're just gonna become inherently more valuable. So I think it
accentuates maybe a certain type of heliocentric star, but I would be shocked if
it all together moved like or even if we see a negligible nudge in the
direction of not building a team in that vein because we've for so long I
think your league has just been associated with you need to have a superstar.
And I would argue probably now too people think to win a title. There
are exceptions, but until that becomes the standard that I think that's what would
have more of an impact would be if we see like a twenty fourteen Spurs
team win championships plural or like that Pistons team in two thousand and four,
right, I get the year, right, I can't remember, so that
it would be something to watch, but I don't think that would shift the
way that teams were built more than this, I believe, but I don't
know if that's like sort of a disconnect the way I'm evaluating it though,
against what the question actually is. I just think the players who can't play
well within these rules, those are the ones are going to build around at
the point of attack, whereas it's someone and I can't even think of a
player who's just legitimately going to be that like more than fractionally worse because of
these rules. People made the jokes about James Hard, but like he's already
on the comm from this. Yeah, I think everyone's I mean, sure,
like he might decline a little bit because honestly, like, well,
thirty one is an old but he's over there. I do think that,
if anything, we're going to see the heliocentrism trend continue to elevate incoming seasons
because the other thing here is just increasing medical technolog oology, increasing awareness of
how to take care of your body from a workout standpoint, from a sleep
standpoint, from a eating standpoint, you know, just the ability for players
to reasonably shoulder this kind of load coupled with the advent of these rest days
for players and load management, like players are now geared to come into the
league and immediately pushed for the all time record and usage percentage and still assist
on over half of their teams made shots like Luca don Chich. Isn't supposed
to happen a player to be this dominant in this big of a role,
this quickly and this seamlessly. But we're going to see more and more of
that because players are getting better. And you know, players now are better
than they were five years ago, are better than they were ten years ago,
are better than they were twenty years ago. If we're comparing greatness with
an era that's obviously different, but just in terms of basketball ability, physical
ability, they're getting better and they're going to keep getting better. It's not
like we've reached some assmtote and they're just not going to improve. So I
think that in spite of these efforts to curtail it a little bit to make
the game more esthetically pleasing, all of that, we're just going to see
players continue to go down this archetype and continue taking it to that proverbial next
level that was a fantastic answer. You know the rules though around here or
whatever, Adam use the word to ask them toote. We automatically have to
end the podcast right there. I actually did want to follow up, don't
ask you? Is what would be the Is it just what I said before?
Is there anything that could get NBA teams away from the model, this
heliocentric model, and it's I don't even know if it's a player archetypes as
much as it's a style now because it is about the control or influence you
or your team. I'm just curious as to what it would take, if
anything, at that point, to deviate from what has become. I guess
that the trend pattern here, whatever you want to call it. Maybe it's
like some sary salary cap changes now if you put like a true hard cap,
and I guess I would do the opposite, if you went soccer style
and removed the salary cap entirely, and you got a lot of stars like
actively playing alongside each other, Like I'm not talking about like what we have
now, but like multiple heliocentric stars wanting to play together. So something like
that potentially, but it's within the confines at the CBA and the expectations of
a CBA where you're not going to see like just such stark deviations. I
don't really know how you move off this path. It's it feels like a
natural progression, though, doesn't it just because players are getting better at every
aspect of basketball. So now you have players who are going to grow up
to be seven feet tall learning to operate as a point guard at the high
school level, like Chet Holmgren right now. You know, just guys like
that who are the evolutionary concept of players who came before them. That's always
what's been happening. And you saw it, you know, going from the
fifties into the sixties, where it was a big deal that Bob Kuzy could
dribble sometimes with his left hand, and then you take that to you know,
the dazzling, more flashy dribbling styles as point guards evolved, and that
was groundbreaking, and then there was no going back from that. And I
just don't think we're ever going back from a from an era where size doesn't
predetermine the role that you fill in the court so much as aids what you
can do. So I think that's not going to change. I don't see
how that could change. There would also be why would you because the concept
of that player is always going to be this preconceived notion where it's I know
you're saying Luca Dantage wasn't supposed to happen, but you draft Luca Dantage to
be just the center of your solar system on you. I'm not saying he
wasn't supposed to happen once he was selected and that wasn't the reason. He
just from a from a development standpoint, like an Era's passed that wasn't supposed
to happen. A player like that, Well, I'm just more so saying
even if you didn't expect him to be this like central to because they are
all well they've tried path the good MAVs teams and they're okay Luca, why
would you not try and find that player would be Michel? There's no team.
This is basically dumping all over what I said before is you're not necessarily
trying to build the twenty fourteen Spurs the two thousand and four Pistons. A
lot of that stuff is almost I don't want to say accidental, but it's
the two thousand and fourteen Spurs. They found a way to maximize like the
post heydays of their stars, and so they had reached a different point in
their development where they weren't trying to build a team without a mega star.
That was the hand they've been dealt. And that model typically isn't sustainable because
you're not looking to sustain it. And so I'm everything you said makes so
much sense. We're talking about this is the natural progression. Why would you
ever try to build You're not going to try and set out to build a
contender without that type of a player. That would be stupid. You back
your way into that because you have no other options, right, and if
even if you do that, it's not something that you're good. This isn't
we found we're looking for the next Draymond Green because of what he's done over
the course of the career. No, that's not viewed as sustainable. So
I agree with what you said before. Where it does do like if it
were to change, it's because of any material difference or alteration of the collective
bargaining agreement where if stars or even more, you know, you talk about
super teams now, it would have to be like a mega super team or
something to where those become more common play and maybe not warriors or nets level
super teams, but like where I think big threes become as common as people
actually thought they were at one point, because what was actually common was the
concept of chasing a big three, not the actual big threes themselves. And
so I think you hit the nail. That was me basically my long winded
way, it's I think everything you said was spectacular. I appreciate that every
once in a while you tell me that, and I just feel like I
got lucky. This was fun. We have questions left on the board,
but this went long enough, and I think the philosophical questions where hopefully people
will enjoy our takes on those. Thank you everyone's Adam said, ask him
to it, and we went and we didn't stop the podcast immediately because the
rule is normally I just shut it off whatever he says, ask him to
it. That's the rule in life too. I stop talking, I hang
up on the phone. If we're in person, I walk away in case
anyone's wondering. But if you have questions, you can always DM either of
us at Framoz or nine at dan FA Valley FA V A L E.
Find us at Hardwood Knox at Hardwooknox. You can email us too, Hardwooknox
at gmail dot com if you have questions. Subscribe to our YouTube channel YouTube
dot com Hardwood Knox. We're on Instagram at Hardwood Underscore Knox. Follow all
the sports math networks. We are an inclusive stats network where Adam sends out
charts, but he's also willing to respond and interact with users and explain the
methodology and the flaws and the strength at the underscore sports Underscore Math Hockey,
Football, Baseball, and of course the vaunted, the legendary NBA Math.
Until next time, leave you to shout out to the one, the only,
the player that I can't believe we did bring up when talking about people
who are underappreciated because they have flaws and yet they're still so fucking good.
Frank Neil Akina