Speaker 1: What is up, Fellowsiko's I am Dan Favallei, your host
of Destiny, kind of like the Indiana Pacers might be
the team of Destiny. I am joined by the only
fans content creator of Destiny, Mort Jensen, who is also
famous for his work at the NBA podcast, Yahoo Sports
as well as Forbes. We are here to talk about
You've listened to the game recaps. You've done that by
now We're here to talk big picture stuff. We have
one overarching question we're going to talk with about this series,
thunder Pacers, that Mort and I are going to get
into each of our biggest single takeaways from game one
and then either our biggest question or suggested adjustments moving
forward into game two and beyond. But before we belly
fop in, Mort, how the heck are you?
Speaker 2: You know what?
Speaker 3: I was doing pretty well? And then I realized moments
ago that the last time you and I recorded, we
recorded two episodes, not one. So you sent me over
two files. And for some reason, because I am very
sleep deprived and because it's very late in the season,
I was like, did I record once or twice with Dan?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: I'm sure it was just one, and so I only
uploaded one of the two and the one I didn't
upload was the freaking NBA Finals preview. That's the one
I forgot about to upload. So Dan, I'm doing you well,
but I'm.
Speaker 1: Also eddiehow Yeah you might or you're trying to get
a job at ESPN. You you went right to the
off season rumor stuff and just skipped skipped right over
the basketball.
Speaker 2: It's all about Tom tibbenhow apparently. God So no doing well.
Speaker 3: I'm just I'm tired, sir, And like I will say this,
I love what we've seen from game one. I want
this to go as far as we can. But that
light at the end of the tunnel that says offseason,
it's starting to look big, and man, here I'm coming.
Speaker 1: I would I love the finals because of the breaks
we get in between games. And I know at the
end of this, like my life during the draft and
free agency slash trade season is just like it's a
dead What we do is entirely a dead sprint.
Speaker 4: Like I just want to make that clear.
Speaker 1: It takes a lot of time, very little sleep, and
we're not doing anything noble, so don't feel bad for us.
We're covering a fucking game. But people care about this
game a ton. You have to work hard, but that
around the trade deadline and then immediately after the NBA
Finals are like just the two most and maybe like
when the season first kicks off are just like the
most phrenetic times in my life. And so I kind
of bask in the finals while also going through the
existential dread of shifting into full on offseason mode. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And the thing is our job. They don't really
end by the end of the finals, because then we
have to do draft stuff, then we have to do
free agency. And I've honestly, I've stayed out of summer
league coverage, and that's been intentional for the most part,
because I just can't like there's a limit, there's a
limits to how many months out of the year I
can just sort of get myself up to that level.
Speaker 2: So summer league you're on your own.
Speaker 1: I try to take it easy for a couple of
weeks in August, but then after that it's like right
back into like we're trying to do our team by
team look at it here, and then like as soon
as September rolls around, like even if you were just
to really go by the NBA calendar, it's August and
like a little bit of July is like one.
Speaker 4: September rolls around.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, like, we're gonna start talking about training
camp soon, and I'm going into all the previews and
then oh, is there going to be a trade like
three seconds before training camp opens that no one saw coming.
Speaker 3: So I'll actually tell you something. I'll tell you something
that because I felt the same way. But I've broken
the pattern this year. We've actually booked a trip to
Malta in September and that was that was actually part
because I want to break that pattern. I want to
use September as a month off as well. I really do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're so yeah, get that Yannis to the NIXT
trade done before September, right for for say what we're
saying here, let's dive in here. So I want to
start with just this question that I think it's been.
It's we've referenced it a couple times throughout our playoff coverage,
you and I, Grant and I as well, and people
started to talk about but I really kind of wanted
to dig in to where after Game one of the Finals,
we saw the thunder Go eleven players deep and the
Pacers go ten players deep. And it wasn't I think
Kendrick Williams played like or wasn't an aging like They
played these small spurts, but there were on both sides
at least seven players who logged fifteen or more minutes.
Speaker 4: And it used to be the thought process was and
still is.
Speaker 1: I'm saying used to that you need to shorten your
rotations during the playoffs to limit the amount of weaknesses.
And then it's just what you want to rely on
your best players. I am wondering, So I'm gonna frame
the question like this or what we're seeing is what
we're seeing from Indiana in Oklahoma City the start of
kind of that next trend. Remember when the Warriors had
Draymond Green at the five, it was a small ball
or like going with with five out? Or is this
just a function of these two teams play fast. Their
style is so demanding and so you don't necessarily want
anyone playing a crap ton of minutes, So you had
to build your team this way. And the final thing
before I throw it to you, Shake Gibs Alexander played
I think it was like thirty nine minutes and thirty
four seconds in Game one. That's like a lot of
minutes on its face. But for us to exit game
one that was determined by one point and say that
no one logged forty minutes in that game, I'm not
even sure if Tom Thibodeau is still alive.
Speaker 4: Here's that little fact to it.
Speaker 3: So here's the thing I don't I don't think it's
just you know, for teams that run a lot. I
think it's I think the NBA has finally caught up
to the fact that defense is so more labor intensive
now than it used to be. And look, this is
it's also why the biggest pet peeve for my Oh what.
Speaker 1: It's just funny that you're saying that when the discourse
is is that no one plays defense.
Speaker 2: That's see, that's the thing.
Speaker 3: That's what I wanted to attack your because I hate
when people say that it's bullshit. Like people look back
and say, oh, they really played defense in the eighties.
Now they play defense from twenty feet in. Now you
start your defense from forty to forty five feet out.
The I mean, the labor intensity of defense has just
gone up like sky high, and it seems like NBA
teams are finally embracing you know, let's dial it down
in terms of giving our guys thirty five forty six
for thirty seven minutes per game. You know, Kenny Atkinson
is a guy who I think is a brilliant example
of embracing that culture as well in Cleveland, and having
debt resolves that issue a great deal. Now, I will
say to answer the question, is depth the next NBA trend?
Good debt is the next NBA trend? Because I mean,
you can are we really sure the Charlotte Hornets, like,
is there their debt good enough to like make anything noteworthy?
Speaker 2: Probably not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've grown to call it functional depth to where
it's something that will translate into the playoffs. It's kind
of the lens that I'm looking at.
Speaker 3: This question three exactly. And yeah, to answer that question, yeah,
it's absolutely a new trend. It's kind of weird when
we think back on it. Why it's never really been
a trend if you catch my drift, because it always
kind of made sense to have more guys come off
the bench and make plays, Like it's common logic if
you kind of squeeze everything together and you play five
or six guys while not five, but like six or
seven guys at the most, they are going to get
absolutely knackered at the end and you need someone to
come in and absorb minutes. And we've often thought about,
you know, finals and even championship winning team where we've
looked at certain guys and gone, why didn't that guy play?
And everyone's kind of said, oh, well, they shortened their rotation,
and we kind of just embraced that and like bought
that on the surface of it and said, okay, cool,
as if that was just a valid argument. So I
love the we're seeing this. It just it makes sense
again to me that we kind of look at this
and go, oh, more.
Speaker 2: Players are a good thing. Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I have three quick points I want to make on it. Yes,
that I think just dovetail nice with what you said,
because I totally agree. One of the points is I
think that the way something like an inflection point with
the Jason Tatum injury and just other injuries we've seen
that you're never going to necessarily know the root cause
of these things. But Jason Tatum has been one of
the most durable and available players in the league since
he entered it, and you see something like that you
see just what feels like these influx of soft tissue injuries,
and I think it's going to become more of a
priority of even if you want to look at it
through the regular season lens. It's not just having bodies
on the roster you could throw out there, but that
can be effective innings zeters, some of which will translate
into the postseason. The second point that I think is
a big deal. I'm also wondering if the way that
the collective bargaining agreement in the era of aprons is
now structured where you know that you're going to have
that the best way to build a team is, well,
we can have like two really top heavy salary guys,
but it now increases the necessity for whether you have
a bunch of top end salary guys or not, of
we need to try and find these flyers or guys
that could contribute. And maybe we're gonna give out more
role player contracts. And I think that could be maybe
an unintended consequence that's actually not so bad relative to
what we've seen where I think a lot of this stuff,
the unintended consequences have been not so great. And I
think the other thing here why I think it's going
to become a trend.
Speaker 2: And this is.
Speaker 1: Something that I think is really cool is that once
you get to the playoffs, if you just have more
buttons to push, more styles that you're able to adapt
to and play within. One, it makes for a more
entertaining product to me, and two, it just increases your
chances of winning. And I think what we're seeing with
the Pacers and the Thunder, to bring it back to them,
are two teams that have been able to adapt at
every single turn. And we thought from right out of
the game. And we'll eventually talk about whether some of
these were the right calls, but it's, oh, like this
might be a Benanic Maathron series now and Mark dagnolt
is gonna change. He changed up his starting lineup for
game one, and that's you try stuff, maybe it doesn't work,
but the other team is able to counter and your
countering back. And I think depths an important part of
that because if you get too pigeonholed into one way
of playing, and we saw that with just because they
were the most recent one of the most recent teams eliminated,
like Minnesota was pretty like they had really like meaty
depth like top heavy, like going seven or eight reliable
guys deep. The Knicks didn't go that deep, and like
everyone was calling for these changes, but there was really
a limited number of changes they could make. If you
think that more of Delawn Wright or Landry shamit was
gonna be the difference between them winning the title and
not winning the title, I would respectfully disagree, and so
I'm very interested to see one. I guess maybe we
could see front offices and ownership uses as an excuse
not to pay really good players as much or stars
as much, where it's like, no, we got to spread
out the wealth across the rest of the roster to
make it more manageable, especially when it comes to trades
for them. But I think overall, what we're kind of
seeing is and I feel like we've seen elements with
other teams. You mentioned Kenny Atkinson, what Cleveland did this year. Yeah,
they ended up injured anyway, so you can't sit here
and say, oh, that's the best way to protect your players.
But even Houston and like they were pretty I think
what was it Fred van Fleet played forty minutes a
game in that first round series, Like they had eight
guys that were around twenty minutes per game, and when
you watched them and you could argue this is also
a bug, not just a feature. There wasn't ever one
player you thought they couldn't live without. And I don't
think that's the future. I think that's more of a bug.
That's why fred van Fleet has to play so much,
because their offense was so dependent on him. But I
think we started to see the breadcrumbs laid elsewhere of that.
These teams are you know, okay, see they didn't stumble
into this. They're like a very special case study. But
like the Pacers, meticulously built and preserved this team. And
I think that, you know, the NBA is still a
copycat league for all the changes we've seen. You know,
maybe that doesn't last as long because everything feels like
it's changing so fast. But I really think we're gonna
see kind of a throwback. We're not a throwback in emphasis,
just on depth in general, and finally would just be
I think we might even see it when we're talking
about these trades in the offseason. You know, if the
Knicks interested in Kevin Durant, unless you're gonna be able
to get him for Karl Anthony Towns plus a minimum contract.
You gotta think we were shallow this year. We're gonna
give up like like ogn Andobi and Mitchell Robbinson, and
we're just gonna make ourselves even shallower to get a
thirty seven year old. I think that might also be
why you see teams like the Nuggets aren't gonna be
as aggressive and turning multiple contracts into one even if
those contracts aren't unplayable.
Speaker 4: Good bad.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I do think depth overall is
becoming more in vogue, and I think that we're gonna
see more teams lean into it. And it's to your point,
it's not just names on the roster that you've heard of,
its depth, playable bodies that teams want to translate into
the postseason.
Speaker 3: I agree with everything you just said, and I want
to add to it by saying to fans listening in, yes,
like we are probably not gonna see a lot of
these consolidation traits when unless it's a star. When it's
a star, I think we can throw all of that
out of the window because then you trade multiple players
to get like a major difference maker in there, and
you figure something out later. But you're absolutely right. You're
no longer going, oh, let's get rid of two top
ten players on our team to get a top seven
guy in which we've seen before. Like no, I definitely
think that is something that's even more of a discussion
now before you pull the trigger. And it's certainly a
more interesting way to build build out a roster to
me as well, does this mean the Bulls are actually
on were they?
Speaker 2: Were?
Speaker 1: They?
Speaker 2: Right? We just want eight, eight to ten good players.
Speaker 4: But you still need as I think.
Speaker 2: The pacer is kidding Bulls, right, Dan, you need.
Speaker 1: Great players, and the Bulls have two great players in
Nikolovvich and Modis Buzzellis like they've decided. Yeah, so the
Bulls are like the Bulls are in that horn like
I feel like they aspire to be the good version
of the Hornets from like ten or so years ago
to whereas like the Kemba Walker Al Jefferson team that
was pretty deep, but like you knew it wasn't really
gonna go anywhere, And I think that's what.
Speaker 4: The Bulls aspired to be. Yeah, poor Bulls fans like
mort who is genuine.
Speaker 2: No no, no, no, no, I'm gone.
Speaker 3: I just I thought that was funny though, because I
actually saw some people.
Speaker 2: Like make that connection.
Speaker 3: I was just like, you kind of forgetting the most
important thing, Like you still need the MVP caliber players.
You just still need the All NBA ors and uh,
Josh Kinner thined it.
Speaker 4: Portland's a perfect example.
Speaker 1: We caught a lot of shit last summer because we
said they were secretly stacked, and we noted not with
like great players that are gonna get them to the playoffs,
but this team is deep and like they can find
an identity, do some damage. No, and behold, they did
exactly that, like their mid season turnaround, having a top
five defense for basically half the year.
Speaker 4: But you still need I would argue, you need like not.
Speaker 1: That I don't want to call the Pacers the bare minimum,
but like you need even the thunder. I guess you
could say, like, because j dub and Chet Holmgren seemed
to Wax and Wayne, you need one transcending guy that
could be second team All NBA at minimum in any
given year.
Speaker 4: But preferably you need two of those guys.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now I've randomized the order in which who's gonna go
first with their takeaway, So let's see who's coming up first,
I believe this is you more. Yeah, what are you
thinking about the most coming out of game one?
Speaker 3: I mean, look, Indiana is known for taking care of
the basketball.
Speaker 2: We know this.
Speaker 3: They even lowered their turnover rate in the playoffs. They
still yeah, right, let's let's let's kind of update that
after game one. But it was such an interesting point
that you actually raised in the episode we recorded that
you won't find in my feet, We'll find worse.
Speaker 2: Damn that was so dumb.
Speaker 3: Well, because you did raise the point of, look, this
is a a team that protects the ball a great
deal going up against the team that's best just forcing turnovers,
how is that going to look like? And what's interesting
to me in game one was just how laxa daisical
they were with the ball, which is just very much
not Indiana. And some of it I think was just nerves,
like this is these are the finals after all, and
I like OPI top and I think had was it
three turnovers in the first half or like within.
Speaker 1: Two of which were like passes to the stands basically.
Speaker 3: Right, and they were like, was it back to back possessions?
Maybe not, but like very close to it.
Speaker 1: May They were like three minutes apart and he just
like threw it. It ended up like in the back court.
Speaker 3: Yeah right, And like, look, that's just not normal of
them to make those type of mental mistakes. So, like
my takeaway is they won this game and they threw
the ball away twenty four times, which is very unlike them.
So what does that mean going forward? Like, I know
that's kind of leaning into your second question there, but
like that to me is a major thing. Like the
Pacers are can they still keep on winning if they're
going to turn the ball over to this extent or
are they just gonna low the pants off? Okay, see
if they start just not turning it over they as
they used to not doing. I mean, if anything, just
just this makes the series even more intriguing to me.
Speaker 4: Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: And I think you're right about the nerves thing. There's
not really a way to quantify it. But I went
back and watched every single turnover that the Pacers had,
and there was just like, yeah, there's some things where
it's okay, Oklahoma City's hands are in there. I don't
know how much I want to see Aaronie Smith ribble
in this series as an example, but just like Miles
Turner having just a couple like just tacky offensive fouls.
He also though, like his some of his early turnovers,
and I think most of his came in the first half.
Those felt like, okay, those are certainly controllable. So I
think even Obi Toppins, the ones you met, like the
two specifically where he's just like the balls like ends
up in the back court. I would like to probably
see against this defense, the thunder defense. You probably can't
throw as many bounce passes, I feel like, especially to
your bigs, but that all kind of feels controllable. Okaysee
is going to force turnovers. And if you sat here
and told me though that the Pacers end up having
the highest turnover rate of like any team in NBA
Finals history, which I think is twenty one point eight
when I looked it up on Statthead during Game one,
I wouldn't be shocked. But like, this is a team
where you go back and you watch those turnovers. Okase
caused a bunch of them with their pressure, but like
there was at least and look to the Pacers credit,
they cleaned it up in the second half. They had
five turnovers. So when you could say, well, the thunder
defense kind of faded at that point. Sure, but like
I think a lot of what happened with the Pacers
in the first half, those I feel like more controllables
than oh okay see, his defense is just inevitably going
to do this. That's not to say, though, you know,
you got that game then when it was oh okay
See's defense, let's say they were responsible, Like you really
couldn't avoid half those turnovers. There's gonna be a game
where you might have like eighteen to twenty turnovers that
are also unavoidable because okayc locks in for a full
forty eight minutes. So it's good that you won that game,
but I think that it's I don't think you can
count on doing that again, would be my point.
Speaker 2: Right right, So no go ahead, No, no go ahead.
Speaker 3: I was just going to echo whatever what you said
just said here. Basically, it's it's the unpredictability going into
game two that I find in exciting, because we also
saw a poor shooting performance from Okase, So like things
are going to balance out, and what's going to be
interesting in seeing is like how do the scales match
up when things start to balance in?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think Look, I think you could argue
that favors the Pacers a little bit, like even the
was OKC in transition outscored them eleven to ten in
Game one, and that's with the Pacers committing twenty four turnovers.
Speaker 4: That's insane.
Speaker 1: So coming out of this more of Game one, I
have to know, is Miles Turner just like better than
chet Holmgren or what's the story here?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 1: So doesn't monstern. Miles Turner did not have the cleanest
offensive performance. We already mentioned the turnovers. He ended up
shooting five to ten from the floor to a five
from three. But man, more that dude feasted on defense.
The Oklahoma City was a minus eight during his minutes.
And listen to this, they shot thirty three point three
percent on twos with Miles Turner on the court more
on twos, yep, and he chet Holmgren. I'm to being
mostly tongue in cheek here. I think chet Holmgren's a
fantastic player. He's gotta go up to the basket or
take the ball with more force going like, I don't
know who did he just I know he didn't play
against the Pacers this year during the regular season, but
this is not the first time he's heard of Myles Turner.
Speaker 4: I gotta give Miles Turner all the credit in the
world on.
Speaker 1: The like the defensive job he did for most of
Game one, that is like equal parts deterrent and then
like just possession swallower And he was great on the
defensive end of the floor. And I'm just like, I
don't expect the thunder to struggle that much from inside
the arc, but he was when you were watching their
drives or where they were pulling up from on their shots,
like he was actively changing the way that they were thinking.
Speaker 4: And that's huge for the Pacers.
Speaker 3: Even offensively, you couldn't really move off of him or
move him off the block. You really couldn't move him
at all, because you know, we remember the days when
he came into the league and he was a skinny,
you know, twenty year old. Now he's you know, he's
approaching third he's really added muscle. And I know people
will laugh at this, but I think four or five
years ago, oh wow, that might it might not be
that long. Three or four years ago, he started doing
yoga and started like his flexibility and his core work
got so much better. He's very difficult to move offensively too,
so like when he goes into the dunker spot for example,
good luck trying to get him out or move him.
That physicality is going to be a huge element for them,
especially against homegrown who I like to a great deal.
But like, he's still so skinny. Again, He's always going
to be a finesse guy. He really is, and that's
there's no issue with that whatsoever. Kevin Durant is a
finesse player. Wait, so when Panama is a finesse player,
So like, there isn't anything inherently wrong with that, But
it does mean that if you have an advantage and
you can abuse that matchup as Lee Miles Turner seems
to be capable of doing, you totally should the.
Speaker 1: Other number one to throw out there is the Thunder
as a team generated point six four points per possession
when Miles Turner registered as a defender on chet Holmgren.
That is not good point six four points per possession
for anyone wondering. I did went pack and I was
watching too to see like how many of chet Holmgren's
own shots that Turner actually changed. I think that matchup
data has him shooting one of seven against Turner.
Speaker 4: It's actually like pretty accurate.
Speaker 1: There's like one or two shots whereas eh, but like
around the basket, he just didn't I don't.
Speaker 4: I know.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that Chet will probably always be a finesse player,
and I think that's probably to some extent true.
Speaker 4: But like you can go up.
Speaker 1: With more, like be smarter about going up too, Like
some of the angles he was using felt weird, but
you can go up stronger and the.
Speaker 2: Finness players can dunk Dan. I'm not saying Kevin.
Speaker 1: Durant, Yeah, like Prian Kevin Durant. For sure, he doesn't
get to the room anymore, but like that's something he
had some.
Speaker 2: Pot still dunk. Yes, that's not saying he's dunk.
Speaker 1: I'm saying he had more pop during his prod.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: If that's controversial, I don't. I don't know what's not controversial.
So that's I'm that's a matchup I'm gonna be watching
moving forward. And it like kind of bleeds into what
I wanted to talk about when we're looking at like
what are our questions, what are our adjustments? But I
don't know who gets to go first, because like I said,
I randomized it looks like it's gonna be me.
Speaker 4: So here are my questions more, I actually have two.
Speaker 1: This leads into the turn like it kind of steps
on the toes. What we're talking about with turn versus
Home Grin. Does okay, see need to go back. We'll
start here to duel big just because the other thing
that you have to look at, Indiana in the fourth
quarter grabbed fifty percent of its misses and we didn't
see Hartenstein or Homegrin for a single second together, And
I'm just sort of wondering, now, Okay, see didn't get
blasted When you're looking at the second chance points battle,
I want to be clear. I think it was they
They lost twelve to eleven again one point margin, but
like you're gonna go into his second half and like
even a little bit during the third quarter and let
Indiana all teams which is not I know they have
Turner and Siakam, but they're not like this incredible offensive
rebounding team and you're gonna let them grab over forty
percent of their own misses for the entire half. That's
how you win the possession battle but.
Speaker 4: Lose the game. And I would probably like to see them.
Speaker 1: I personally, think again, I think Mark Dagnold has forgotten
more about basketball in the past five seconds than I
will ever know.
Speaker 4: But I'm wondering if we should see them.
Speaker 1: Go back to that look, just because if the offense
is at times gonna be a slog getting your own
misses never I mean, like also just grabbing defensive boards,
that matters too. But if you can open up some
offensive rebounding opportunities for yourself, like that's a way to
kind of drum up then your possession average, which was
just not up to snuff, especially in the second half.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Look, everyone came into this series basically asking the big question, oh,
it's just a nice a Hardensteins series at all, And
when it was announced they wouldn't start, there was be
the lineup change. Everyone was like kind of saying, oh, yeah,
that makes sense. This isn't a harding Stock Hardenstein series
nine to nine. In seventeen minutes, he played pretty well.
I think it's way too premature to kind of say, oh, yeah,
he can't play in this yeraries.
Speaker 2: He absolutely can.
Speaker 3: He absolutely needs to be the one to be the
primary on Miles Turner, because again, Miles Turner is no
longer six eleven two ten. He is six eleven two fifty,
and he knows how to use every damnage of his
body now unlike what he did when he was a youngster.
So you need veteran leadership and veteran, honestly veteran physicality upfront.
That's not a term I think I ever used before,
but I think it applies here, like someone who just
knows how to move people around, someone who's a big
body who could match up like I love Chet. He's
not there, not quite yet, at least harden Sein is.
So whether he starts or not, that may not matter
to me all that much. He just needs to play
more than seventeen minutes.
Speaker 1: I agree, and I think it's probably gonna happen. And
I also think, because this was my second note, that
kind of again bleeds into what we were just talking about.
I'm wondering if offensively they can do more to get
Shay some more separation earlier on in possessions, especially if
you're gonna have games where all right, Chet doesn't have
it tonight or j Dubb is not going what was
he six of nineteen and one of four and three
and where the thunders seemed to have the most success
on offense was Isaiah Hartenstein set in those really hard,
pancakey screens high like against that Indiana pressure, And so
at that point, Shay's either gonna have that runway head
of steam or he's just And I'd like to think
I've watched Shay Gildas Alexander play basketball once or twice,
but I I guess I forget, like what type of
on ball thrust he could have, because he's so good
at like using the thattaclectic part of his game, like
changing his pace so much when you're about someone being
able to split defenders and just like shoom right through them.
Like that's the other thing that those high like. Okay,
so Indiana's pressure is still there, and he just still
gets through. He just needs a sliver of daylight. And
rather than having a guard come up and screen for him,
even rather than having Check come up and screen for him,
Isaiah Hartenstein is gonna get you some separation and even
if it's not a lot, it's gonna be enough for Shay.
And I think that that might be dory Dan, of course,
but I just feel like when you look at the
offensive game that this Thunder team had and if you're
gonna have nights like you did for I mean, Shay
wasn't by his own standards. It took him thirty shots
to get thirty eight. Like that's not a typical like
efficient Shay game. Like he's been more efficient. So I
think that that speaks to the importance of Hartenstein too,
is that he can help shake kills Alexander a lot
offensively in this series with the types of screens he's setting. Again,
especially if you're not getting sort of this one of
those detonations from a J.
Speaker 4: Dub or a chet Holme grin, you're up, what.
Speaker 2: Do you got? Look?
Speaker 3: So shooting variants will that determine who wins the series?
Un thus the chip And I'm asking because the Thunder,
you know, we've talked about them as this very near
perfect team all year long. The one thing that bothered
me coming into the season somewhat like honestly still realizing
that they are a juggernaut and was do they have
enough high volume three point shooting, be that on the bench,
be that in the starting lineup, whatever. I felt like
they needed a shooter or maybe even a couple more
shooters to get that not just the percentage of but
the volume up. The volume was very important here. They
took just thirty three pointers in game one. Indiana took
nine more, which isn't a ton, but they made more.
Speaker 2: They're more.
Speaker 3: I feel as though they move the ball better, they
find shooters better, They're more what's the word I'm looking for?
Volatile from a spacing perspective, Whereas I think, okay, see,
like they're consistent, but they're never that team to just
break out and go completely nuts from behind the arc.
So my question is what the hell happens here? Like
if the Pacers are going to keep hitting like eighteen
threes per game at forty six percent and the thunder
don't really respond and they're like in the mid thirties
taking low volume three pointers, like they will have to
just grind their weight to the free throw line at
ton or convert at a ridiculous rate at their twos.
Their defense has to be ensued, they have to win
the rebound back, like, everything has to go right for
them to sort of even the scales here. So are
we looking at something as potentially simplistic as shooting variants?
Is this going to be the main thing.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's unfair to boil a lot of
this series down to that, especially if I mean, again,
I don't expect Okac to shoot like where were they
twelve of twenty one at the rim or whatever it
only was at all series, But like, if Miles Turner
is going to be out there and cause those types
of problems for you, and if you're also not gonna
have like these picture perfect games from your most important
supporting cast members, three point shooting is a way to.
Speaker 4: Make up a lot of that gap.
Speaker 1: And you know, I mean, like sitting here and I
know he's been he's become a better shooter. He's definitely
a more willing shooter than he was a half decade ago.
But you don't want to waste a game where you
get five made threes from lou Dort And that's kind
of what the Thunder frittered away. And so that's I think,
you know, Also why I think it's more important is
I don't know that people appreciate just like how good
of a shooting team that Indiana can be. I know
that they're not going to take the most threes in
the league, but when you look at their lineup, who
is their their core five Like that started, like who
is their shooter that you trust the least on that
and then if the answer is Nemhard or Siakam or Turner, like,
if that's your week outside threat, you're in pretty damn
good shape. And then you go to the bench and
it's all right. Ben Sheppard could be a little rocky,
but Obi Toppin can get him up.
Speaker 4: We've seen five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Bennan mcmathrin can like like he'll go through heaters
as well.
Speaker 4: So they do have.
Speaker 1: More bankability when it comes to shooting, I think than
the Thunderdue, who I think still have just the better
collection of talent.
Speaker 4: But that's probably something that didn't.
Speaker 1: Get talked about enough is that the Pacers I think
a lot of attention has been paid to their defensive improvement,
as it should be, and then just like, oh, look
at how fast they play on offense, and Tyre's Haliburton's
the engine that drives it all and Aeronie Smith's been
fun and Pascal Siakam is able to operate in the
muck but also on the break. And it's not like
this team like they will they can kill you if
they need to.
Speaker 3: From all yeah, oh, yeah, they can. And the thing
is they can do it in half court situations too.
This isn't a seam that's just jacking threes in transition too.
They can set them up within their half court schemes.
This is something you and I we talked about way
back in I want to say December.
Speaker 2: Or January maybe.
Speaker 3: Where we were talking about the Pacers as this team
that was capable of slowing it down, just as they
were able to just kind of hit the you know,
hit the brakes and like or so not hit the breaks,
just speed things up for them to be able to
manufacture shots the way that they're doing be that when
the game is slowed down or when it's high paced, like,
how do you guard that?
Speaker 2: How do you think?
Speaker 3: Okay, you can go up, you can go up and
say let's let's slow this game down, let's let's force
them into a half court, half court game. They'll still
manufacture the living fuck out of those situations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're like their offense is so dynamic and I
just don't sometimes I don't think I even fully appreciate it, right,
And so that's and that's to say that about going up,
like the thunder defense is the tenth circle of hell.
I want to make that clear, and I think they
made that clear, like early on in Game one. But
if when you were looking at the Eastern Conference Finals specifically,
or even look, I'll say this, going up against this
Thunder defense, the stretches were a full that a full
strength Boston squad was prone to going into for the series,
you might have preferred to see full strength Boston versus Okay, see,
but offensively, the Pacers are probably it would have been
the Pacers or maybe the Cavs for me would have
been the offense is best equipped to give this Thunder
defense a real run for their money. And I just
I mean, you don't want to see them have to
get like down fifteen points in the fourth quarter and
it's oh, another ninety nine percent win probability for their opponent.
They got to come back and do it. At some
point you would assume they're gonna run out of magic,
but they haven't yet, and their just ability to adjust
and it's death buy like a thousand cuts. But I'm
not talking about like necessarily the actual off ball movement
or though there's plenty of that. It's just what do
you need from them on offense, and they'll most likely
find a way to give it to you on any like.
Speaker 4: They will figure it out.
Speaker 1: Maybe not right away, maybe not for the entire game,
but as the game and the series goes on, they
will figure it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it kind of dawned on me.
Speaker 3: We had this thing back in Phoenix when you said
seven seconds or Shack, like, you could get this the
quick Steve Nash shot. If that didn't materialize, you could
go to Shack in the half court setting. There's no
one pacer you can say that about. You can't go
seven seconds or Sam like, yeah you can, but you
can also go in every other direction. So they have
this uncanny abible to go seven seconds or well, we'll
figure it out.
Speaker 4: And I'd be like, is it more like four seconds?
Four seconds?
Speaker 2: Or we'll figure it out?
Speaker 3: And that is that is such a daunting thing to
go up against, regardless of who you are. I mean,
look and side note, we're talking about like schematics and
we're talking about all the adjustments and whatnot. This could not,
from an entertainment perspective, be a better start to a series.
This has This game one had fucking everything everything. It
was a gorgeously executed game, like, yeah, I know the
Thunder missed a bunch of shots. I know the PACER's
started to bowl over Is sixteen million times, and yet
that didn't take away from the factor of enjoyment that
we all had watching this game. We all and Junison
were like, oh, this is basketball porn. This was great
and for us to talk about all the avenue hues
they can still approve upon. Just suggest to me even further,
this series could go long and we'd all be better
for it.
Speaker 4: I hope it has Game one done.
Speaker 1: I had Thunder and five, you had Pacers, and six
is game one.
Speaker 4: And Thunder and six.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, I think I had to write something immediately after,
and I said this series it was bold predictions for
the rest of the series. I just said the series
is going seven because we deserve it to go seven
after seeing two five game finals. But I do think
this doesn't change my opinion that I really do think
the Thunder are inevitable.
Speaker 4: This year and maybe moving forward. I really do believe that.
Speaker 1: But I continue to have even when I think that
I fully appreciate, relative to consensus, the Pacers enough, they
continue to show me that I do not. And that
was probably my biggest takeaway from Game one is that
you can say there's a lot of things okay, see
you can clean up, and you will be right. There
are things that Indiana can still clean up as well too.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, look, uh look, I'm an old grouch who
can't wait for the season to end just because I'm
tired personally, but I want this series to go as
long as humanly possible, because.
Speaker 4: Give me eight more games of it somehow right here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't care, Like, just extend it if you
want to, like, let's go best to fifteen.
Speaker 2: It's fine.
Speaker 3: It's this because these are the kind of games where
fatigue and like a long seed season, all that goes
out the window when you actually watch the game and
when you're sitting there late at night. For me at least,
I'm just sitting there going, oh yeah, this is special
and that's the feeling you want.
Speaker 1: And the final thing I'll say is what I think
is making me a little giddy, not to can be
confused with Josh giddy. The two coaches is that we
have in this series in Mark that Rick Carlisle. They're
true sickos that will hashtag try shit, yep, and they
have this extended break in between games to figure out
what they're gonna try, and so like, now that we're
not in this every other day pattern, I'm sort of
like that, like that meme, like coming around the tree
and wiping my hands together. For anyone who's watching it
on YouTube, I'm just like, what are we gonna see?
Is it we're telling the thunder to go bigger? Do
they just bench Chet Holmgrend and Isaiah Hartenstein and have
j Doub play center again?
Speaker 2: Case Wallace at center? Sure right?
Speaker 3: Not.
Speaker 1: Everyone's like Casey Wallas probably needs to play less and
Mark Daniels like, fuck you, he's playing forty five minutes
in game two.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Alex Crust point guard, let's go nuts.
Speaker 4: Absolutely bring Shay off the bench.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's going for six.
Speaker 4: He got MVP, he needs now needs to get some
six here.
Speaker 3: No, but you're right though, And and that's the thing,
because one of them is probably going to overcorrect on
something as well, and then they're gonna be oh ship,
and then they're gonna go back to the drawing board afterwards.
Speaker 2: It's like the This is.
Speaker 3: Why I also always prefer to watch players who think
the game out. That's why I'm such a big Luka
guy Jokic guide, like the guys who just on the
fly reads stuff and goes, oh, yeah, I'm supposed to
do A, but I have to do B because that's
the best option I.
Speaker 2: Can read, you know, at my own capability. Here For me,
I had to go this route instead.
Speaker 3: So when you combine that with coaches who are as
you said, true sikos Man, you just get the best
fucking product out of it. And I've realized it sounds
like I'm fillatioing DNBA right now, But look, it's I
genuinely believe this is great for the product, It's great
for the interest. Yeah, it's two small markets teams. I
don't give a fuck. It's great basketball. Isn't that the
whole point?
Speaker 1: Honestly, I haven't seen anything since we leading into the series.
I saw something about the market stuff, and I don't
know if I guess I'm pleasantly surprised I didn't think
of it, But I haven't seen a whole like oh,
is like that game won you said it was a
perfect start to the series.
Speaker 4: That's actually part of why.
Speaker 1: Even if you want to dismiss the people that talk
about the market stuff. It gets talked about. There probably
is some impact on the bottom line or viewership. I
don't know, don't I don't really care. But like if
you were just sort of choppering in and haven't watched
any of the NBA playoffs or didn't have an allegiance
or any interest in either of these two teams, and
you sat through most or all of Game one, as
long as you sat through, like I'm sure a bunch
of people turned it off when Okay, so he went
up fifteen in the fourth quarter, They're like, oh, sweep
or something is coming. That was a perfect opening game
because it disproved so many preconceived notions, including some of
our own, but including that larger one of just like
there was the one about the lack of star power
in this series, which is just like, yeah, Tyrus Aliburton
is built different, he's a psychopath, and the.
Speaker 4: Pacers also the.
Speaker 1: Albert Can I pour some cold water on that though
I like it as a like a having a chip
on his shoulder for us to make jokes and talk about.
Speaker 4: When you do the math, it was like less than
twelve players. I called him.
Speaker 2: I know it.
Speaker 3: I've said this before and it's it's totally valid. I
just love throwing that out there because it just seems
so preposterous now and it's just it's gotten a whole
lot of attention. And look, if he needs that to
feed all of that, A might to judge, that's fine
if you need that to give us that type of
performance like lat in games.
Speaker 4: I think the ringer ranked him. I don't know if
they were doing there.
Speaker 1: I didn't actually look at the list, but the ringer
had him like the fifth best player in the league
or the seventh best player in the league right now.
So I think the overrated conversation is actually gonna get
more widespread because of it. So that's he'll have plenty
of motivation then, because I'm sure that stuff is fluttering
around out there, but he is having this. It might
be captive of the moment type deal. I don't know
that I've ever seen just like a more clutch postseason run.
We've seen clutcher shots, although not many at the just
made one of the finals, but like, this is a
generational clutch performance from him across the entire postseason.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Like I'm I'm thinking back to Mike, and even
Mike didn't have this many moments in the same year,
like collectively, Okay, Mike is like far ahead, but in
the same year, I don't think so, Like I'm am
I forgetting someone Like is there anyone who was that clutch?
Like Jamal Murray had major performances, but that was the clutch,
right like that.
Speaker 1: Rest Damian Lillard's had like two series winners, which is
kind of crazy.
Speaker 4: That's up there for sure.
Speaker 3: But those were so different years, which okay, yeah, that's
like you said, that's you said it series enders though,
that's that's fair. That's a difference than just a game ender.
Speaker 1: Honestly, they proved to be like era ending for those teams.
Remember what happened to the Rockets and the thunder after
Lillard did those shots?
Speaker 3: Yeah, now the Thunderer, it's taking taking it all. Just
got a trade Paul George. Man, that's the recipe. So
next year if that's just that's the Sixers mission. Now
get off the Paul George contract. You'll be in the
finals in about twelve months.
Speaker 2: It's fine.
Speaker 1: Mark, Do you have anything else to add or would
you like to tell our subscribers or are non subscribers
who are gonna get on YouTube, Spotify, Apple the whole
night and subscribe already and rock with us forever and
ever and ever and always where they can find you
and all the fantastic work that you do.
Speaker 3: Yes, so when I remember to upload, you can find
my stuff. We're at the NBA podcast I always do.
I also do a Danish podcast called Busser Peter, and
I write for Forbes and Yahoo Sports and you can
just type my name into Google and those things will
pop up, or you can find me a blue sky
at MSJ NBA. I'm not that super active anymore on
social media, which frankly feels pretty nice.
Speaker 2: Honestly, that's a bad way to I'm just gonna sit.
Speaker 4: You know. That's a terrible way to promote your social media.
Speaker 3: I know I'm sorry about that, but like I'm still
I'm still there occasionally, and when I am, it's always
with enthusiasm, even though I say dumb shit with I am.
Speaker 4: On social media like a true superhero. So you can
come follow me wherever you're on social media.
Speaker 1: Until next time, and as always, leave with the one
shout out to the one, the only the player who
might be signed and then rolled out. In Game two
of the Finals, by one of these teams, who knows
mister Frank HeLa