The Herd with Colin Cowherd - Hoops Tonight - Reaction to Doc Rivers' 0-2 start with Bucks, LeBron’s last days as a Laker?

Episode Date: February 2, 2024

Jason Timpf reacts to the 0-2 start for the Milwaukee Bucks since Doc Rivers has taken over as head coach (4:00). Giannis Antetokounmpo, Damian Lillard, and the Bucks have struggled offensively in the two games that Doc has been leading the team. Then Jason dives into the future of LeBron James and the Los Angeles Lakers as the team has continued to struggle, and LeBron has been noticeably frustrated. Could LeBron force his way out of LA? (25:30) Finally, Jason discusses the Golden State Warriors' playoff chances as Steph Curry has been playing like an MVP and Jonathan Kuminga has emerged as a star (17:00). #volume #Herd (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year.

Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at it podcast. For 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it.

With our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The volume. Looking for a super offer for Super Bowl 58?

Well, Draft Kings has you covered. New customers can bet on the big game and turn five bucks into 200 instantly and bonus bets. The line right now is at San Francisco minus 1.5, but you can bet all sorts of things on the game, even the coin toss. although big shock, it's going to be 50-50 odds there. My brothers and I always place a bunch of bets on the Super Bowl every year. I'm not actually sure what I'm going to do yet, but I'm excited. It should be a great game. Download the Draft King Sportsbook app now and use code hoops.

That's H-O-O-P-S. New customers can bet five bucks to get 200 instantly in bonus bets. Only on Draft King Sportsbook, an official sports betting partner of Super Bowl 58 with code hoops. Again, that's H-O-O-P-S. The Crown is yours. problem? Call 1-800 gambler or in West Virginia visit www. www.1-800 gambler.net. In New York, call 8778 Hope N.Y or text Hope N.Y to 467-369. In Connecticut, help is available for problem gambling. Call 888-889-7777 or visit ccpg.org. Please play responsibly on behalf of Boot Hill

Casino and Resort in Kansas. 21 plus age varies by jurisdiction, void in Ontario. Bonus bets expire 168 hours after issuance. See dkng.com slash football for eligibility and deposit restrictions, terms, and responsible gambling resources. All right, welcome to Hoops Tonight here at the Volume. Happy Thursday, everybody. Hope all of you guys are having an incredible week. Well, we were going to go live tonight after Lakers Celtics,

but then LeBron James and Anthony Davis decided they're not going to play. So we're definitely not going to go live after that game. What we're going to do instead? I tweeted out asking for mailbag questions, and we got like 50 of them in an hour. I can't get to all 50, but we're going to hit a few dozen mailbag questions. And then off the top, I actually watched Bucks Blazers last night in Dames return to Portland. It ended up being a super interesting game, kind of a defensive slugfest down the stretch.

And then the Bucks make a run late, and they end up taking the lead briefly before Anfurny Simons makes a ridiculous shot. and then we had a little bit of a confusing sequence on the Doc Rivers front at the end of the game. So I want to kind of dive into that game for a few minutes and then we'll get into the mailbag. You guys know the joke before we get started? Subscribe to our brand of a YouTube channel. It mean a lot to me if you guys would take a second to scroll down and hit that subscribe button. Don't forget about our podcast feed wherever you get your podcast under hoops tonight.

And remember, it's really helpful for us if you do listen to the podcast feed if you leave a rating and a review. Then don't forget about our Twitter feed at underscore Jason LT, where we put film breakdowns as well as show announcements. and then last but not least, keep dropping mailbag questions and our YouTube comments so we can keep hitting them throughout the season. All right, let's talk some basketball. So one of the interesting things down the stretch of Bucs Blazers was leaning into switching. Both teams down the stretch leaning a lot into switching. The Bucks readily switching their smaller guards onto Jeremy Grant into screens.

And then on the other end of the floor, one of the things that the Blazers were doing, they played this young wing named to Monica Camara on Damien Lillit. he was doing a really good job just with his length and athleticism kind of containing there. And then what they would do is anytime they'd set a screen with Brooke Lopez or Yana Santana Kumpo, you'd just see Diann-Draeton or Jeremy Grant just switch on to Dame in a lot of those sequences. And so it turned into a lot of one-on-one basketball down the stretch. And it was like Jeremy Grant making, you know, tough shots over the top. Amphrenne Simon's the game winner that he had, that left right Euro into the floater was ridiculous.

And then on the other end of the floor, Dame kind of picking on those switches, just had a really explosive dunk driving by DeAndre Aiton that was kind of encouraging. Like, again, I really do think a lot of Dame's struggles. Some of them come down to him and just his ability to make shots and how he's been struggling on that front. But a good chunk of it is, I think, rhythm and just kind of figuring out where his opportunities are to attack with that particular group. But it was kind of an interesting Portland team because Portland kind of gets written off as

one of the bad teams around the league, but they have a lot of talent. Like DeAndre Aten can go into the post and he can get over to that left shoulder and he can make that hook shot over the top. You play off of Malcolm Brogden when he's doing his between the legs dribbles. He can rise up and he can knock down that pull-up three. Anthony Simons was like basically Dame's protege for a while and has added a lot of that high-level shot-making that Dame had, and he's a bigger, better athlete than Dame was. They have a lot of firepower and they can cause problems for teams.

Jeremy Grant is a good basketball player. And like his shot making, especially from three, has been kind of a revelation over the course, this last segment of his career. These are all really good basketball players, and they are a tough matchup, especially in Portland. And, you know, Milwaukee had a really ugly stretch there in the middle of the fourth quarter. Damian Lillard was just throwing the ball away all over the place. Again, I want to give some credit to Tamanu, for just the job he did applying ball pressure and forcing him into a lot of those turnovers. Yannis ran somebody over and had a turnover. It was missing free throws. It was just ugly as the bucks went down by double digits. But they made some play

like. Portland was deliberately ignoring Brooke Lopez and help defense situations, which ended up becoming a theme at the very end of the game, which we'll get to in a few minutes. But Brooke hit a couple of big threes. Dame had that driving dunk against DeAndre Aiton to make it in a one-point game, and all of a sudden it was a close basketball game. Then we get our final sequence. So it was 115 to 112. Dame comes off the ball screen, gets DeAndre Aton on the switch, beats him off the dribble, rises up, throws it down. Again, a very encouraging play just for where Dame is at physically. to stop. They run a ball screen with Jeremy Grant on Anthony Simons. A. Inferney Simon sets a ball, gets a ball screen from Jeremy Grant. Malik Beasley switches onto Jeremy Grant. They go to

make the post entry into Jeremy Grant, and Malik Beasley does a really nice, like kind of three-quarter front gets around and knocks the ball away and forces a steal. So then on the ensuing play on the sideline out of bounds, the Bucks run a wide pin down into a dribble handoff, which is also known as a Zoom action, right? So imagine a Dame starting in the corner, right? And imagine Chris Middleton inbounding the ball to Janus. And as, right after he inbounds, he runs down and sets a pin down for Dame so that his defender is already navigating a screen before he gets into the dribble handoff. Dame comes off the dribble handoff, gets a little bit of airspace, rises up for three and misses. After the miss, Portland gets the defensive

rebound, but Janice and Malik Beasley apply some back court ball pressure onto Anthony Simons, and they force a steal. Next thing you know, Dame is throwing the ball up to Janus at the basket for a dunk. All of a sudden, Portland's up by one. So from there, Portland goes down the floor, and they run a cleared ISO, just basically a one-four flat for Anthony Simons against Malik Beasley. He makes a nice dribble move going to his left, a nasty left-right Euro step into that floater. Anthony Simons is one of the best floaters in the game. Really athletic play, too, really impressive footwork.

Makes a tough shot. So it's 116, 115. So the bucks go down the floor, and they run the exact same zoom action, but Doc Rivers makes a little bit of a tweak. Instead of having Chris Middleton as the guy who sets the pin down and Janus with the dribble handoff, instead he has Janus set the pin down, and he has Brooke Lopez run the dribble handoff. Here's where that's interesting.

Knowing before that, what we saw from that middle to late portion of the fourth quarter, Portland was completely unconcerned with Brooke Lopez taking threes. Now, he did burn them. He made a couple in that fourth quarter stretch. But we knew that Portland's game plan was to ignore Brooke Lopez, right? So what's interesting about that is the first time they ran the Zoom action, it was Chris and Janus and Brooke was on the weak side. And so as a result, Dame, when he came off of the ball screen, had a little bit of space, didn't have a double team coming, right?

When you run a ball screen, which a dribble handoff is effectively a ball screen, when you run a screen for the ball handler, where the screener is a guy that defense is not worried about shooting, you are inviting a double team. And so basically what ended up happening is Doc Rivers made a double team far easier for Portland to execute. Dane comes off the dribble handoff, and basically Malcolm Brogden just completely ignores Brooke Lopez and double teams. Dame, they throw the ball back to Brooke Lopez. He pump fakes. It actually gets a pretty solid look, but he misses it. They have to foul.

Portland goes down, they make two free throws. Then it was the second confusing decision from Doc Rivers. He has Damien Lillard, inbound, down three to Janus. And I think there was like, what, five seconds left? or so, and of course Portland immediately fouls Janus. Now again, one of the things I saw going around on Twitter last night, that is a pet action for Milwaukee at the end of a game. What they'll do is they'll have Dame inbound to Janus.

Yannis will just basically hand it right back off to Dame so that he can get ahead of steam and a little bit of a ball screen type of thing in the back court to get going. They ran that exact same action against the Sacramento Kings when Dame hit his game winner. But there was a big difference. they were only down by two in that game against Sacramento. So the idea of fouling gets more convoluted, right? Because, yeah, you might, like, Janus is a poor free throw shooter,

but you're not just going to gift wrap him a chance to go to the line and tie the game, right? But down by three, where most teams are making a decision over whether or not they want to play defense or they want to foul, you are now making that decision for them. And so Portland immediately fouls Janus. he goes down and misses both free throws and the game is over. Now, for the record, because there's going to be, I saw it on Twitter last night, a lot of people going after Doc. That's not why they lost the game.

You didn't lose the game because of those decisions at the end. Even with that weird kind of layout for the Zoom action, Brooke Lopez still got a pretty damn good look, and he missed it, and he had just made two. So I feel like that's kind of playing the result, so to speak. If Brooke Lopez makes that, you call him a genius, right? again, I would say whenever you got a guy that's going to be double-teamed off of, I don't want him in a ball screen.

I'd rather have him off the ball, so it's just a little bit easier to manage, but they still got a decent look. That's how it turned out, right? On the baseline out of bounds, again, don't like the configuration, but it was a one-point game after the Anthony Simon's floater. I look back to like, how about Dame throwing the ball all over the court in the middle of the fourth quarter when he just was struggling with Portland's ball pressure, just in general, some of the ways that Milwaukee's offense bogged down in the middle of that fourth quarter.

So to me, in a 48-minute game, it's really silly to pretend like that's the reason why they lost. It's not the case. However, there just have been some questionable decisions from Doc in these first couple of games with him as the head coach. And mainly what I point to there, because what I talked about is when they hired Doc, I liked it because Adrian Griffin wasn't exactly some sort of tactical genius, but he was really struggling to motivate the group. The group did not believe in him. And so I thought Doc would be able to come in,

pull out some belief from that group, and clean up the margins, get them better at the point of attack defensively, get them better in helping recover situations defensively, and specifically get them better in transition defense, sprinting back, getting matched up, and communicating things along those lines, right? I didn't think Doc was going to come in and just be some sort of schematic genius.

That's not what he's known for, right? But here's the thing. margin for error in the postseason is very small. This is something I talk about all the time. Like, if you really look back at these specific series and the way some of these games have gone over the course of the playoffs in recent years, you can point to singular points where things swing, right?

Like you look at like the Phoenix series. Phoenix tied that series, the Phoenix Denver series. Phoenix tied that series at two, and in game two, they kind of had a lead there for a while, and it kind of slipped away late. Denver earned that win. But like you could see, it's like, okay, if game two goes differently, what if Phoenix takes a bigger lead? Maybe they have a better chance, right? The Lakers Warriors series in game four, it's like Lonnie Walker hits a bunch of

tough pull-up jump shots over Steph Curry, and Steph gets a couple of looks against Anthony Davis late. Now, well-defended looks, but maybe those go in and the series looks different, right? Like, the seven-game series is going to more often than not put the best team forward. That's the design of a seven-game series, but the margins are tight in a seven-game series as well. And so in tight margins, you can't afford to make significant mistakes. And so between that end-of-game play, between some of the offensive layout stuff that I've pointed out, between that weird switch against Denver. We talked about they were switching and then scram switching against Denver down the stretch, and they had it configured nicely so that Janice would end up

on Jamal Murray and Brooke Lopez would end up on Nicole Yokic, but down the stretch randomly when they got it to one possession game, Doc switched it up and put Brooke on Jamal in the switch, and he got cooked, and you're like, why, why? Why did you switch that up, right? So like, again, it's not a major concern. It's just something to keep an eye on because, like, the margin, Milwaukee's not going to sweep Boston. Milwaukee's not going to sweep some of, you know, Miami or something like that. It's going to be tight contested series, and, like, those kinds of mistakes can swing games and can swing series. So it's just something worth keeping an eye on in the short term. One last thing I wanted to get to on the Bucks as well. It was not a good defensive game overall

for Milwaukee and Portland, but in the fourth quarter, they were really good. They held them to an offensive rating below 90, a bunch of key stops. Specifically, once again, I thought Malik Beasley and Damien Lillard really turned up their defensive engagement down the stretch of that game. And for the record, it's been a theme this season, as you can see in the numbers for Milwaukee in their clutch defense. But there are some encouraging notes. coming out of the early Doc Rivers situation in Milwaukee, where you're seeing just better defensive engagement, at least in specific spots.

And that could go a long way for this team and what their playoff potential is. So again, in a loss, still some encouraging stuff coming out of Milwaukee. All right, guys, let's get into our mailbag. First question, do you think being a 7-8 seed is the best case scenario for a team like Golden State matching up with Minnesota or Oklahoma City? With little playoff experience seems better than playing Denver or L.A. So specifically in the Western Conference, I don't think playoff seating matters as much. There's no doubt that you want to have home court because that really can make a difference in a playoff series.

But there's some truth to the fact that like a play-in team, like let's say that once again the 7-8 ends up being Golden State L.A. Okay, the Lakers and Warriors, again. And let's say it ends up being a Golden State against Oklahoma City and it ends up being a Lakers against Minnesota. If you're in Golden State or L.A.'s position there, you'd prefer to go against a younger, less experienced team. So there's no doubt that, like, yeah, you'd like your chances against a Minnesota or Oklahoma City more than you'd like your chances against the clippers or nuggets, right? So there's some truth to the fact that the seven or eight seat kind of has worked out there.

But the reality is, is that can all move around before the end of the season. It could be Denver and L.A. at 1-2. and then it could be Oklahoma City, Minnesota by the time we get to the end of this thing. So a lot of that's still up in the air. However, I do tend to think, different from the Eastern Conference. In the Eastern Conference, all of those top four seeds are going to be favored over those bottom four. At least the one, two, three are going to be significant favorites. And so, like, in the Eastern Conference, getting up there's a big deal because you don't get a first round buy,

but you get a heavily favored type of first round series that can be significant. In the Western Conference, they're just our eight. really good teams. So, and probably more than that, there's probably like 10 really good teams. So the truth of the matter is, in the Western Conference, I think it's far more realistic for a team to be able to, like, kind of not care about seating and just kind of take it when they get to the postseason, just because your chances of beating an Oklahoma City, if you're a Lakers, is about the same as it is if you're going to beat a Pelicans or if you're going to beat

a Clippers or any of these other teams. Like, all of these teams in the Western Conference are good. there is no like, oh, if I get to this seat, I have an easy matchup. Like, that's just not the case. Same goes for the top seats. Like, if you're the one or the two, you're probably going to be facing a Lakers in the first round. You're probably going to be facing a Sons or a Warriors in the first round. So, like, I don't really necessarily think seating matters all that much in the Western Conference.

Next question. Thoughts on the Celtics trading for Sadiq Bay before the trade deadline. Not a terrible idea. This is a team that probably could use an additional wing. Also, that backup center position, I'm not as concerned about their, like, between, you know, like, between Luke Cornett and the Nemes Quetta has been kind of providing pretty solid play in basically as a one-shift guy, like playing one shift a half for them in the last week and a half or so. Like, I tend to think, too, when you go out looking for backup centers, they're all kind of flawed in their own ways. And so I don't really view them as really transformative types of players. the thing that would make a guy like Sadiq Bay tough to trade for is he's coming up on a new deal this summer.

So he's going to have to negotiate a new deal. And my guess is a player like him is going to be looking for something around the mid-level exception. So like in that, you know, $10 to $15 million a year range. And I'm just not sure that's necessarily something the Celtics can afford with everything else that they have to pay for. So it's not that Sadiq Bay wouldn't be good for the Celtics. I actually think that's a good fit as a backup wing. It's just, it's not necessarily the best move for them in terms of their salary cap situation moving forward. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged.

It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A win is a win.

A win is a win. I don't care what I'm saying. Yep, that's me, Cliver Taylor the 4th. You might have seen the skits, the reactions, my journey from basketball to college football, or my career in sports media. Well, somewhere along the way, this platform became bigger than I ever imagined. And now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifford Show. This is a place for raw, unfiltered conversations with some of your favorite athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated.

One week, I'll take you behind the scenes of the biggest moments in sports and entertainment, and the next we'll talk about life, mental health, purpose, and even music. The Clifford Show isn't just a podcast. It's a space for honest conversations, stories that don't always get told, and for people who are chasing something bigger. So, if you've ever supported me, or you're just chasing down a dream, this is right where you need to be. Listen to the Clifford show on the IHeart Radio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tap Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with Little Kim?

Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast. I'm Sam Jek. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84's big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack on day, but just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack,

so I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now, so. Thank you for finishing that sentence. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Next question. What separates a good defensive team from a bad defensive team other than on-court effort? In other words, can a bad defensive team be a mid-or-good defensive team just by playing harder? So this has been one of my long-standing basketball belief. and I actually thought Denver last year was a really good example of this. But when it comes to the defensive end of the floor, personnel is a good chunk of it, having the athleticism,

having all those archetypes that I talked about, like a center that has the flexibility to defend in multiple coverages, a big forward that can help as like a low man, a defensive rebounder and rotation guy, like that perimeter-oriented three that can guard like bigger perimeter players but navigate screens well, like the shorter, stockier wing that plays the two that can really defend at the point of the attack.

right? Those are all important elements of a defense, but above and beyond that, when it comes to actually getting stops, it's just being in the right spot. And so that comes back to like, are you sprinting back in transition defense getting matched up and forcing them to play in the half court? Are your guys at the point of attack doing their job, chasing over the top and applying back pressure? Is your screen defender doing his job in the coverage of splitting the difference between the role man and the ball handler? Are your off ball players? doing a nice job splitting the difference between digging down and disrupting those driving lanes while also being in a position to rotate.

When you're rotating, are you funneling in the right direction? Like most defensive schemes, with exception of specific players that have a strong hand, are going to ask you to funnel towards the baseline? When you're funneling towards the baseline, after you've done your job, are you rotating, are you getting to the next open guy in the chain? Are people communicating? Is everyone rotating like windshield wipers or is one guy rotating and is there a delay that's leading to an opening, right?

Like there's all these elements to it that if those don't take place, it doesn't really matter what your personnel is. And we talk about a team like the Nuggets last year. Those guys did their jobs. They fulfilled their element in the game plan. And so, again, I will always take a really good offensive team that defends in that like five to 10 range in defensive rating, meaning like they're just really sharp on the details,

but obviously they can't get stops like the best defensive teams in the league. Those are the teams that I think translate best to the playoffs. Another great example of that would be like the Golden State Warriors teams from like 2015 and 2014. They defended extremely well while having some limited defensive personnel on the floor. The 2016 Cavs, like they were not a team that had incredible defensive personnel with Kevin Lovett Center and with J.R. Smith on the floor and Kyra Irving. But they just defended well within their roles and did their jobs. They were, I think they finished that regular season as number 10 in defensive rating. It was the one time in that four-year span that they were top 10 in defensive rating.

And it just goes to show you that it was the same group of personnel that they had most of those years, but they were just more locked in on the details. And so they were able to defend well enough to get to the Larry O'Brien trophy. So again, like, I think that a bad defensive team is usually a combination of both. It's usually weak personnel and weak execution. but I think you can have average personnel and excellent execution and be a good defense and have your offensive skill pull you over the top to win the title. Next question.

Do you see LeBron asking out if they don't fire Darvinham and or make a run this season? A couple of things. I think that it's on the table that if this season ends in extremely ugly fashion that LeBron opts out and looks to sign somewhere else this summer. or to try to have a better chance to contend for a title. The biggest thing working against that happening would be the simple fact that he's going to be in his 20 second season and his kids are in L.A.

And so there's going to be moments where he's going to sit down and he's going to be like, man, this organization is a shit show. I could get out and I could go play for them and have a chance to win the title. But I'm old. I've been doing this for a long time. I have four titles.

I've been to the finals 10 times. I've already kind of solidified myself as at worst, the second best basketball player to ever touch the floor. Like, do I really want to leave my family and go do this? And I just think when he gets to that point, I think he's going to have a really hard time saying yes. So more likely than not, I think he just stays in L.A., but I do think it's on the table,

especially if things get really bad for the Lakers this year. Next question. What do you think about the different ways the Warriors and Lakers are handling the trade deadline? The dubs are trying to go on a run and the Lakers are tanking like tonight against the Celtics to make a point. Different strategies and both stuck fighting for the plan. So I think both teams are really trying to make a run. I think the Warriors are dealing with real talent issues and I think the Lakers are dealing with real like connectivity and belief issues.

That said, like their deadline strategies are different as well because the Lakers are willing to give up DeAngelo Russell. They're willing to give up a first round pick to improve. they're willing to put guys in. For the Warriors, it's tough because their best trade asset is Jonathan Kaminga, and he is on a star trajectory, and so they probably won't move him. And so for the Warriors, it's looking more like a move on the margins. And so, like, it's one of those things where I think both of them are kind of destined for that playing tournament.

I think that's, like, almost a certainty at this point. All you have to do is take a peek at the standings. But I think they both want to do it. I just think they're different. Like, the Warriors, to me, have good basketball character. They play hard all the time. they just have some limitations. The Lakers, to me, have lots of talent, but they have really bad basketball character.

And that's what makes them very different from each other. That's why I say the Warriors actually remind me a lot of last year's Lakers. Last year's Lakers in December and January, they were fighting. They were trying to get back into a position where they could do something. Then the trade deadline gave them the talent they needed to make a move. That's why I look at that as kind of a corollary for Golden State. Bring in some more talent at the deadline. these guys really do believe, these guys really do play hard,

that's where you could have a run post deadline. Next question. Is Jalen Green worth moving on from if you can get an all-star caliber player like Levine or him, for him, I should say. So I think trading a guy like Jalen Green for Zach Levine would be a huge problem, a huge mistake. First of all, Zach Levine is not some sort of franchise altering talent. To me, the changes that Houston made are really smart in the sense that, like,

Ime Udoka is a good coach that's great at, like, getting the toughness out of his young players. They brought in veteran players to kind of like increase the competence in the room. Now, I will say that like it is a mediocre basketball team, which is what we predicted before the season. But there's one giant exciting part in all of that. And that's that Jabari Smith Jr. and Alper and Shangoon are just really freaking good. So like, Jabari Smith and Alper and Shangoon are really freaking good. So, like, you can have, like, you've already got, like, a decent foundation there. Now, the question is, do you bail on Jalen Green to go bring back another player?

And, yeah, if you can get a really good player, like, if you can get a legitimate star, sure. But I don't think you trade Jabari Smith or, excuse me, Jalen Green for a flawed star, someone like Zach Levine. Not only that, Jailen Green's playing a little bit better. And to Jalen Green's credit, when you go and you bring in a Dylan Brooks and you go and bring in a Fred Van Vleet, you make the situation in Houston more complicated with ball handling. And for a young guard, that changes his role fundamentally. Now, I would argue it's better than what he was doing before, where Houston's just deliberately being bad. And in that sequence, you know, Jalen Green has the ball a lot, but he's just learning how to be bad.

that's not good either, but like it is a little bit different for him. He's learning how to share the basketball more in a team with a lot more ball handling. And my thing is like kind of like what I've said in a lot of cases, Jalen Greene's potential upside in the long run with him just kind of figuring things out and getting better is probably higher than what you can get back for a trade. So be happy with the fact that Jabari Smith and Alpern-Sangoon are so damn good. Give Jalen Green some time to find out what he can be as an NBA player. Next question. In baseball, they say a good versus bad manager is worth plus or minus three wins-ish.

Where do you think that number is in basketball? Where do you think the current Laker team would be with Spolstra or Lou coaching as compared to Ham, who most would agree has done a poor job this season? So I think that coaching has a huge impact in the regular season, and I think it has some impact in the postseason, but I do still think that the coach doesn't have nearly. as much impact as the star. Best example is the Lakers. Like, Darvinham, I've said this before, and we're going to talk about it more in a little bit, but to me, like, Darwin Ham's main role on this team

is just getting the rotation right. Like, I'm not, like, LeBron will figure out the offensive adjustments. LeBron and Anthony Davis together will figure out the defensive adjustments in terms of the way they need to organize themselves on the floor. And even when they first hired Darwinham, I didn't view him as like a tactician.

I was like, this is the classic former player coach type archetype that can look eye to eye with these guys and get them to play hard, just like EMA Udoca did for the Celtics. The problem is, is Darwin Ham is not motivating these guys. And so when you combine that with his rotation decisions, which have been so confusing, it has been downright damaging. Belief plays a huge role over the course of the regular season, which is why I've said the regular season has a bigger coaching impact than the postseason. If Eric Spolstra was the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, you can bet your ass that there's going to be more down the roster belief in the day-to-day product, which will get them to play harder more consistently. The rotation will be right and schematically they will be assisted from the sideline. That would absolutely make them a better team. I think this Laker roster would probably win between 45 and 50 games if Eric Spolster was the coach.

I still think they'd have some issues with LeBron kind of coasting from time to time. I still think they'd have some issues with some of the roster organization before the deadline. Like, we all knew the Lakers were going to be a deadline, a team that was active at the deadline. But, like, because all that hasn't happened, you've gotten really poor effort. You've had misalignment of the rotation. You haven't had schematic support from the sideline as a result they've underachieved. And, you know, Tai Loo is kind of an interesting example because let's not forget, Ty Lue agreed to terms to become the Lakers coach before Frank Vogel got hired.

what happened was, is Jeannie Bus disrespected him. Ty Lou was a championship coach, wanted to be paid like a championship coach, and Jeannie Bus said, I'm not going to pay you like a championship coach, which was downright disrespectful. And there's a real case to be made that it was one of the bigger turning points of the LeBron AD era, that instead of Tai Liu getting what he deserved and he'd still be the coach of the Lakers, and they would have just better support from the sideline over the course of the 82, and said they don't have that.

And so it's an interesting thing to kind of look back at. Next question. What's your biggest pet peeve sports narrative? For me, and this is from the questioner, for me, it's when teams have constant success get disregarded with, quote, they haven't won anything, end quote, simply because they don't win a title. Think these recent Celtics teams, Michigan football before the Natty or Hardin's Rockets. So with your specific pet peeve, I do think there's some truth to that where like it can be

kind of like no fun to act like winning the title as all that matters. but that's exactly what makes champions so special. And that's why, you know, Logan, our head of content here at the volume, calls me a loyalist of the banner. That's why I look so much at the championship. That's why I told Yokic fans, like, once he gets it done, I'll defend him to the bitter end. Like, to me, it is so incredibly hard to do. That goes to show you with these Celtics teams, for instance, how they've consistently come up short. Like, it is difficult to do.

and so when it is done, we need to apply the appropriate respect to it. My pet peeves. I've got two of them that I'll throw you, or three of them that I'll throw you guys. One, old heads thinking the game used to be better. That always blows my mind. Like basketball players are just better now than they used to be. Big shock. That's why I say when it comes to ranking guys all time, you have to rank them relative

to their era, not against each other because basketball players are just better now. Second one, catch all metrics. I just think it is a fundamental misunderstanding. of the way the game of basketball works. And so trying to quantify a player's impact into one number, I think, is just a fool's errand. And I always think it's funny when I see people kind of put a catch-all metrics in player comparisons as like the end-all be-all when that just simply is not the case.

And then lastly, referring to shooting luck as gospel rather than one of the many small factors in a basketball game. Again, to be clear, I think shooting luck is a thing that does impact basketball games. But we've reached a point now where we basically, it's like the first. first and only thing we talk about. And that, that I think becomes a problem. I think, I think that we're, when we start to view the game of basketball as a slot machine, I think we've all lost the plot. And so those are just three of my bigger pet peeves as of right now cover in the game. Next question. Can you do a deep dive on the Celtics? What should they do

at the trade deadline to shore up their bench? Why doesn't Tatum go to the rim late in games? Why do they sit Jalen Brown in the corner late? What would they look like with smart instead of Drew, et cetera? So we're not going to do a full deep dive, obviously, just because we've got so many mailback questions to get to, but a couple of things. Like, we talked about the trade deadline earlier. Like, I'm sure they will be looking for a bench wing. I'm sure they will be looking for a backup big. But I think with the Celtics in general, I just don't think they'll put any sort of real

asset on the table for something like that. Not to mention they don't really have a ton to offer. And at this point, they have their core five down, which is key. This is something I talk about all the time on the show. If you have your core five, if you know who your five guys are that you're going down with, any sort of upgrade below that point. probably should not involve significant assets spending, just simply because, like, there's a diminishing return with those guys as everyone's rotation minutes go up when you get to the postseason.

Why doesn't Tatum go to the rim late in games? I think he's just a young basketball player still learning how to impact winning at the highest level. I think that he's made a decision, a conscious decision to lean on his pull-up jump shot to kind of carry him in a lot of cases. and I think it'll just take more losing for him to learn that lesson properly. But hopefully he learns it sooner than later. Why do they sit Jalen Brown in the corner late? It's really simple. It's a decision-making kind of a configuration.

They view Derek White and Jason Tatum as their best decision-makers. And so when they run two-man game at the end of games, Jason Tatum and Derek White are usually involved. From there, you know, Jalen Brown has to space the floor somewhere. And so whether it's on the corner on the wing, it doesn't really matter. he's out of the action, if that makes sense. Lastly, what would they look like with Smart instead of Drew, et cetera? I think with Marcus Smart, there obviously was a lot of continuity there that goes without saying, right?

But you needed Marcus Smart to get Chris Ops-Prozingus. Drew Holiday impacts winning, especially in the postseason, in his own way with his physicality. I have a feeling that Drew Holiday is going to have a lot of big moments when we get to the postseason this year. We have more Celtics questions coming later on in the show. Do you think SGA is better than Tatum, even though SGA doesn't have the playoff resume? He has won truly elite skill set with his mid-range and has been a consistent 30-plus point per-game score, while Tatum's issues have always been inconsistency in his pull-up jump shot being unreliable. So I tend to think that the playoffs are an adjustment for every player.

And Shea has not yet played a playoff series where he was the number one option. The reason why I say that is like there's extensive film study, not just on your history, but also within the series to find out which matchups you struggle against, which coverages you struggle against, which off-ball configurations you struggle against, And with that, teams are going to find a way to make you feel uncomfortable one way or another. That's why most stars are inconsistent in the postseason. It's just really difficult to be a good playoff player. And so even though Tatum has his limitations, he's just a lot more experienced there.

So whether or not SGA can become a better playoff player than Tatum remains to be seen, but I would take Tatum in the short term because I do think SGA has some lumps that he's going to have to get through before he can really break through. That said, I do think SGA projects to be an outstanding playoff player, simply because of that diversity of his shot creation. The one thing that worries me a little bit with him is he's very thin. And so I do wonder in just really, really physical playoff environments of his efficiency will tank, but we can't find out until we actually watch him play. Next question.

There seems to be a lull in the NBA since the end of the in-season tournament and waiting for the All-Star break. Do you think the NBA should add something else to keep fans engaged, or is reducing the number of games the only way to increase the value of games? So I've noticed this a little as well. It's actually funny. So today is my two-year anniversary since I started with the volume. And we were looking through, my wife and I actually were looking through some numbers just to zoom it out for the entire two years. And it's just been really cool to see the growth. And so I just want to take a second to thank you guys for supporting the show because it just is mind-blowing to me to see the support that we've had over the course of the two years. But as we've looked at the two years, it's interesting that there's been, a consistent dip in our numbers each year in that like end of December, January stretch. And then once we get to February and we have the trade deadline things kind of pick up right where they left off. It's happening a little bit this year. And it's happened last year at

this time. And so there is some truth to the fact that like you've played, every team's played over 40 games, right? Every team has over 40 games left, basically. If you factor in the postseason, we are like firmly in the middle of this grind. We're seeing young teams like the Utah Jazz and the Cleveland Cavaliers have a lot of success, which is something that happens when you get into January when some of the veteran teams start to lose steam. We're seeing a lot of teams, like a lot of the veteran teams have little drop-offs in their play as they struggle a little bit with just kind of malaise in the middle of the season. And that's what happens when you play 82 games.

I've put myself out there and said this several times. I think they should shorten the season to 66 games. Keep the same length of the season, but do 66 games instead of 82 because that 20% reduction would get rid of back-to-backs, make it so that no team plays more than three times a week, which means you have a guaranteed two days off in a row at some point every single week.

It would just make it so much easier for your stars to be available. And so even though there'd be a 20% decrease in the total volume of games, I think in the long run there would be a 20% increase in revenue driven from each game, simply because the product would be better. More urgency, better star participation. Like, once again, we have a nationally televised game today where stars are sitting out. It's a consistent problem in the NBA.

So, like, you mean to tell me that if the stars didn't play in all these games, that there wouldn't just be more TV revenue? Of course there would be. And so, look, that's what my personal belief system is, but we both know that we all know that that's never going to change. All right, next question. Do you think the rest have an attitude problem in the NBA? I don't mean like they're bad people.

but they have a short fuse. I think there's a consistency problem. Each ref has a different standard, and that to me is a problem because players can't adjust. So a couple of things. I think there are two significant problems with the NBA officiating.

One, not enough refs that actually have a basketball background who actually understand what basketball games are like. I think that's the primary driving force behind the fact that we have so many non-basketball plays that get rewarded with free throws. The refs don't know any better. They're so by the book that they can't realize when something that's not really a basketball play

is taking place in front of them. All you have to do is look out there on the floor and you can tell that there's a lot of officials that probably haven't touched a basketball in any sort of meaningful way in their life beyond the officiating circuit, right? So, like, that would be my thing. I think if they just were like,

hey, let's target former college basketball players and maybe some former pros that played overseas and stuff and try to find, like, real basketball players to officiate games, they'll just have a better understanding of how basketball games are supposed to flow. They'll have a better understanding of what is minimal contact versus what is meaningful contact.

I think that would go a long way. And then ego is definitely a part of it. It's just, I think anytime you give authority to people, you're going to have issues with certain personality types that struggle to handle authority. And yeah, there's no doubt that there are officials out there that think the show is about them. But I don't know how you really deal with that.

I don't know if that's something you can coach out of them. I don't know if that's something that you can evaluate out of them. I don't know if that's something you can find out. during the hiring process, but that would be the other piece of it is trying to find out a way to just have referees understand their role in NBA games, which is not anything to do with them. It's everything to do with the basketball game. Next question. If you were the Lakers coach from the start of the season, what would you do for them to win more games in the regular season?

So, first of all, we talked a lot about D'Arvindham. I want to be clear. Some of this is on the players, especially after the in-season tournament. This was a big fear of mine that I was actually – Logan or her, or has a lot. Head of content here is a huge Lakers fan. And him and I were talking about this the night they won, the in-season tournament. We were like, this team has some potential to really let go of the rope here. Because it's a sense of accomplishment for a group that struggled with regular season motivation.

And they promptly turned around and like lost to the Mavs again. They had no business losing. They went and lost to that Spurs team that hadn't won in like a month or whatever before. Like it, they just immediately tanked after that. So I want to make sure that the players get some of the blame here because they certainly have not played to their own capability on the floor. But Darvinham has made two critical mistakes this year, in my opinion. One, his overbelief in Torian Prince.

Regardless of what the configurations of the starting lineup have looked like, when Tori and Prince has been healthy, he has started. And like, he's the one guy that hasn't been held to the standard of, like, Anthony Davis and LeBron obviously have that leeway. But outside of that, Torian Prince is the only other guy in the roster where it's like, no matter how you play, you're going to get your 30 minutes, you're going to start. And it's confusing to me because Tori and Prince has already started more games this year than he did in the previous three years combined. Tori and Prince has always been a off-the-bench kind of mid-minute type of guy going against bench players,

and Darvin Ham has just miscast him. And that misread on the roster has led to the Lakers playing a starting lineup with Torian Prince at the three. Austin Delo, Torian, LeBron, AD. it's one of only 22 lineups this year that have played at least 200 minutes. It's the second worst in the group. Not easy to do with how well LeBron James and Anthony Davis have played huge, huge indictment on Darwin Ham and his rotation decisions. And then secondly, overtinkering with the rotation.

Mixed in with all of this, he's been trying all kinds of shit. And as a result, there's been no consistency for young players in their minutes and young players really, really struggle to play well consistently when they don't know when their minutes are coming from, when they don't feel like they have a spot locked down in the rotation. And so overtinkering and an over-belief in Tori and Prince, I think, are the major things that disrupted this season. And for the record, schematics were never going to be Darwin-Ham's strength.

That's not what they hired him for. Next question. In your opinion, what should the Hawks do? They are currently 20 and 27 and have looked bad for the majority of the year, yet still have one of the best offensive engines in the game in Trey. Should they completely reset the roster or continue to try and build around Trey? So a couple things. Really big silver lining out of this year has been the rise of J-E-D-E.

You don't know how good he's going to be yet, but you know he's going to be really good. Specifically, the exciting stuff has been the on-ball creation. He's at 1.1 points per possession in pick and roll, including passes. He's had 13 points on 13 ISOs. He's getting 1.25 points per post up this season. He's been good in spot-up situations, knocking down the reason attacking closeouts, 1.1 points per spot-up possession. So he's got real potential there.

That's a big silver lining. It's a little bit of a redundancy with DeAndre Hunter, and that's going to be something they'll have to figure out. So the question is, when you zoom out, if we agree that this core is broken and this particular structure of the team is not working, and you want to keep Trey, and you want to keep Jalen Johnson, you kind of have to go down the roster, because you're already so bad that, like, there's no point in you having quality role players on your roster that are worth more to other people than they are to you. And so it's like, we know they're trying to trade DeJante Murray, but it's like, are you going to trade Klinkepella? Are you planning on resigning

Sadiq Bay? Because if you're not planning on resigning Sadiq Bay, you should probably trade him, so you don't lose him for nothing this summer. What about DeAndre Hunter? He plays the same position as Jalen Johnson. What are you going to do with that? Are you going to, are you going to consider moving DeAndre Hunter? Like, how does he fit into your plans? He's 26 years old.

He kind of more or less is what he is in the NBA at this point. But he plays that big forward position, right? Who can kind of help as a low man. I don't really look at him as a three very much. I don't think he's good enough as like a screen navigator and with perimeter speed to really be a three. So that's the question. What are you going to do with the rest of these guys in the long run?

Now, as I've said, the Utah Jazz to me are a good example of what you want to be while you're rebuilding. You want to be young and you want to be fun. Go trade them for other young players that are in their early 20s that have some big picture potential and draft compensation. If you're going to be bad, at least be young and fun. Don't be bad while having a bunch of veterans on the roster. That to me is super counterproductive to a rebuild.

And so we'll see what they end up deciding to do at this deadline, but I wouldn't be surprised if they move several of their role players between this deadline and this offseason. Next question. How do you think the KD Warriors would be doing up to now if they stayed together post-2019 finals loss? Is there a world where you could see them losing down the line to a Denver or another team that rose up,

or do you think they would be on the verge of winning five straight? So it's tough because the time. 2020 Lakers were really good. They were an outstanding defensive team, and LeBron and Anthony Davis were playing really well on offense. So that would have been a fun battle to see. I probably still would pick the KD Warriors to win that series just because that was the most talented lineup that I've seen in my time watching

the NBA, but that would have been a fun one. The 2021 and 2022 seasons were wide open. I mean, the Warriors actually won one of those titles. So, like, I think the Warriors win both of those relatively easily if KD stays. so like certainly two additional ones, maybe three, although that 2020 season would have been tough. 2023 when Denver comes up, that's where, like Denver, I think, is a truly special team of Golden Stakes ilk, and Golden State has experienced some decline since then. So starting 2023 is I think where it would have faded out. But I would have been, let's just put it this way. Like they got one more without KD.

If KD stays, they get at least one additional one and then maybe one more after that. Next question. given the strength and talent across the league, should the Lakers realistically have a discussion about trading LeBron and AD to fully start a rebuild? So I don't think they should trade AD. I think that that's a guy that they should look to build around. But, like, yeah, if they're not interested in contending anymore, trading LeBron is an option.

I just think there's a negative connotation that comes with being the team that traded LeBron James. And I think LeBron personally would like to retire in Los Angeles. And so that's going to be the delicate balance as like, how do you weigh, you know, LeBron's desire to stay in L.A. with your long-term goals of a rebuild. That said, there is some encouraging stuff. Everybody on the roster beyond LeBron and AD is in their 20s. So they have a lot of young players. There are guys that are still on the rise, like, Austin Reeves is going to get better. You know, Ruby Hachamura is going to get better. Like, they have some potential there. I think that always the Lakers are going to be a potential

free agent destination. And so my thing is like, I wouldn't trade LeBron because I don't think you're going to get anything back that makes you a contender. And there's a lot of negative connotations there, unless LeBron specifically asks you to trade him. And it's very possible that he turns around and leaves this offseason anyway. But I've seen a lot of talk about LeBron getting traded and the Lakers looking to fully start a rebuild. But I think it's more likely than not that the Lakers look to go all in either at this deadline or over the summer using all three draft picks.

Next question. In your opinion, what is Cam Whitmore's ceiling? First of all, he's shooting the ball insanely well, especially off the catch. And I think he's one of those like truly trained. transcendently great athletes. He's also an excellent defensive rebounder for his position. So he's got all of the potential in the world, but his on-ball stuff has been really inconsistent.

He struggles to see the floor, has more turnovers than assists this season. So, like, if he can take steps on the defensive end and then with his on-ball reps, I think that's where his real potential is. But, like, man, like, can't be upset about getting a player like that later in the first round the way that they did. Next question.

Who should start at the three for the Grizzlies? Vince or smart. So I was looking at Vince Williams this morning, and like, really it's this simple to me. The digging that I've done behind the scene says that the Grizzlies really would like to run it back with Marcus Smart next season. And, you know, Vince is an interesting young player, but I don't view him as some sort of transcendently great option. So I think you keep starting Marcus Smart at the three because next year, you're probably going to go Jabain Smart to start the year. And so it's more just a matter of continuity at that point. Next question.

Do you think the Kauai Kopp, do you like the Kauai Kauai Kahn? for what Cominga's ceiling can be. Not particularly, first of all, Kaminga is a much higher center of gravity and is much, much faster. Kawhi is more of like a methodical power player, and so I don't really see much similarity between them. Kawhi's also just a lot sharper in terms of some of his skill set stuff. That's it. Like Jonathan Kamanga just has unbelievable, like downhill speed and quickness and ability to change direction. Like, I think he has the potential to be that level of star. I just don't think it would look like Kauai.

I think, though, I think, like, top 20 player in the NBA is now officially, like, the basement for Kaminga. I just would be, I would be shocked if he wasn't, like, as good as, like, a Jalen Brown is in this NBA, who's pretty resoundingly, you know, kind of revered as around, you know, 18, 19, 20th best player in the NBA. So, yeah, I think, I don't think Kaminga is Kauai, but I do think that he can be that level of player. Next question.

A little bit of a Celtics mailbag to make up for the show. What's your impression on Jalen Brown? What has your impression of Jalen Brown been this season? His ranking slash performance improved slash diminished from the offseason to this point in your opinion. What's his potential with the team and how close is he to it? So first of all, the self-creation numbers are way up, which is typical for a young player as he continues to learn how to play at the highest level, particularly in pick and roll in

ISO. his efficiency is way, way, way up from last year. But it's concerning when you look at some of these bigger games. We've talked about the Celtics recently. They've won all these games, but their last three losses have all been against teams that are my top four contenders. When they lost to the clippers, Jalen Brown, three for 13, eight points. When they lost to Denver, Jalen Brown, six for 19, 13 points.

Lost to Milwaukee, five for 14, 10 points. For those counting, that's what, 33, 46. 46 shots leading to 31 points in their three biggest games in the last month. So I think it's hard not to be at least a little bit discouraged by that. Like it's not about what Jalen Brown can do against Billy or against anybody else. It's about what he can do against the biggest names in the sport on the biggest stages. Next question. I hear you talk about you believe once Tateham matures that he will be able to be a reliable shot maker and a go-to player in the clutch.

but as a Celtics fan, I've seen no signs pointing to that. Tatum has also been a rhythm player, and he just almost, and he just almost never seems to rise in the clutch. So here's the thing. I still tend to think Tatum's on the younger side of this, and there's just enough encouraging stuff over the years to not be done between some of his big playoff games in that 20-22 playoff run before he got to the finals, between like,

even last year at the end of that, heat series. He was really good up until when he turned his ankle in game seven in games like five and six. He was really starting to figure out some of the methodical playoff half court kind of surgery stuff. And so, again, I understand that it can be discouraging, but I think most of that comes from the fact that he's already been in the league for a long time, but he is relatively young. So I just think it's way too soon to be off of the Tatum train. Next question. If the sons won 15 in a row, would you mention them in a show or wait until they lose a game to talk about how terrible they are. This one is actually funny to me because I literally

just ignored a couple of their losses in a row and then we reacted to their death lineup like what, literally the week before last. So it's actually just not true. But this is a consistent theme I get from a bunch, especially Celtics fans, they're on this all the time. Like, here's the deal. I don't specifically target games, teams, wins or losses. I just don't. I don't know what else to tell you. I wake up in the morning. And I, well, first, first, of all we plan the schedule in advance, but I wake up in the morning and I cover the games we scheduled to cover, and I will schedule specific games that are marquee matchups. And so, like, yeah, it's like with Celtics fans, you didn't think I was going to cover

the Clippers game? You didn't think I was going to cover the Nuggets game? You didn't think I was going to cover the Bucks game? Like, those are games we marked like a month in advance that we were going to cover. Of course I'm going to cover those games, right? You know, like, and like, as a matter of fact, I went, then what I'll do is when I see a significant outcome, kind of like Blazers' Bucks, and when I see something interesting after the fact, then we'll choose to cover it. So, like, for instance, when the Sons had that wild comeback with Kevin Durant at Center,

which is something they hadn't done all season, we changed our schedule to get the Sons on the show because it was time to talk about something new and interesting that took place with that team. So, like, for the record, I get this from every single team. I have Laker fans that don't like the way I cover the team. I have Warriors fans that don't like the way I cover the team. Like, this is part of just kind of the job.

Like, there's just people that don't like the way I cover the game, and it is what it is. but like I promise you guys that I'm not targeting any specific thing. Like it's so funny with the Celtics, they've been on the top of my power rankings most of the season. They've been my second best championship contender all season. I moved them up this year. They started at three behind Milwaukee and I moved them up to number two over Milwaukee.

Like I'm not anti-Seltics, anti-suns, anti-any of that stuff. Like I'm a big Lakers fan and I do not think they're a contender unless they can rip off a stretch where they look great. My belief in them as a contender is solely based on LeBron James, Anthony Davis, Austin Reeves, and their capability of making a trade. Like I don't really overreact to any sort of like regular season outcome. It's just kind of the way that the show is laid out.

But like I have a lot of fans that get discouraged about how and when I talk about their teams, but I promise it's not anything that's happening on purpose. It's just kind of the way things shake out. Next question. What is Donovan Mitchell's ceiling if he continues to, to improve as a good point of attack, close out, and playmaking defender. Love your show always. Thanks for the support. I thought this has been Donovan's best defensive season as a pro.

He's, at the point of attacking, he can get a little over-aggressive and have some issues there, but especially in help and recover situations, he's been amazing because he's just so fast that he can really dig down and then get out to shooters and chase them off the line and make defensive plays as a help defender. But even above and beyond that, his defensive playmaking has been huge, as you mentioned. like his ability to jump passing lanes and read things before they happen using his basketball IQ to his advantage has been super helpful. That and his his playmaking on offense, I think, are the two biggest swing factors for his potential. But I view him as like in that like,

I think he's in that like 15 to 20 range pretty like consistently as like his upside. Like I don't necessarily think he can ever crack into like the superstar tier, but I think he can be in that tier right below those guys if he stays committed to the defensive end. and he continues to make strides as a playmaker. Next question. Kaminga is getting real minutes, and it already looks like a top 25-30 player in the league. What's to say he can't be a top 15 player by next year?

And then do you think he can improve enough by the time the playoffs roll around to make the Warriors or championship contender? So I think he has top 15 potential. I do think we're a couple of years away from that. I think that this kind of thing does take time, and you've got to remember how good the top of the league is. Like if you looked at, I can't remember exactly who I had in my 15 to 11 last year, but it was like Jamal Murray, Anthony Edwards, I want to say it was like Damian Lillard,

I want to say Shay Gildes or Alexander was in that group. I can't remember all the guys off the top of my head, but like those are all really good players. Like top 15 players in the league are really good. So for Kaminga to pass those guys, it's going to take a long time. You know what I mean? And I think a big part of it will be Steph KD and LeBron kind of like phasing out of that list, right? like even Anthony Davis if he continues to have injury issues. So I think he will crack his way into that list.

I just think we're probably a few years away from that. And then as far as whether or not he can improve enough by the time the playoffs roll around to make the Warriors a championship contender, that 100% comes down to the deadline and what they can get back. Do I think Jonathan Kaminga is going to be a deeply impactful playoff player right away? No, because he has weaknesses and the playoffs expose weaknesses. They will double team him in the post. He's getting a ton of single coverage in the post.

they will double team in the post and test his floor vision and his ability to handle ball pressure. And then, in addition to that, he's been shooting the ball really well lately, but teams are going to dare him to shoot in the postseason, which will test his confidence and his trust in his shot. So he might play well. I'm not trying to say it's off the table, but like I would be really, really surprised if a player of his age just walked into the postseason and elevated the Warriors as a secondary star into championship contention.

I think it's going to come down to what they can get back at the deadline. All right, we have three more questions, and then we're out of here for the night. If the Nuggets don't win the finals, excluding injury, what do you think would be the primary reason for it? I think it all comes down to Jamal Murray and Nicola Yokic's shot making. Nicola Yokic's jump shot has been down a level from where it was last year. I know Nuggets fans have been like, its field goal percentage is so good. No, no, no. A Nicole Yokic jump shot is worth like 15% less than it was worth last year.

That's just a fact. That's what the numbers say. That's just what has happened when he's taken jump shot. So I'm not, I think Yokic is the best player in the world. I would be surprised if the Nuggets didn't win the championship. This is not a criticism of the Nuggets. This is just a statement of a fact. When Nicole Yokic is taking a jump shot this year, it has been worth 15% less.

That is what the results have been. Now, whether or not that becomes an issue, we will see. I think there's been a lot of other upside with the Nuggets. I think they've defended better as a regular season team. I think in general, all of the other four role players on the team, team are a little bit better, a little bit sharper. I think the nuggets are a better version of last year's team, but if they were to lose, I think it would be Jamal Murray and Nicole Yoakich missing a bunch of jump shots. I think that would be how they would lose. And you said excluding

injury for the record. Last two questions. Hey, Jason, where do you get some of these advanced, really helpful and cool statistics you use in your takes? Is there a website? Some of them are very specific, and I was wondering if there's a place online where you can input a certain stat that you use and it just gives it. So I think that for free stuff, MBA.com's website is really useful. You can actually get some play type data in there too. Shot dashboard is really useful. Like go to the MBA.com website and just kind of go through all the drop-down menus

and just look at all the stats and just see what is there. There's a lot that you can get to for free. Now, my higher-end stuff, I use a website called Synergy, and they are an analytics platform in a film sorting platform. Actually, the same platform I used to use when I played basketball in college for scouting, I would like, they'd be like, hey, Jason, you're guarding this player tomorrow night. I'd go on Synergy and I'd watch every single one of his clips and I'd see a breakdown. Okay, he drives left 77% of the time.

He drives right 23% of the time. When he goes left, he spins back to his right, you know, 56% of the time or whatever. And it, like, would help me build a scouting report for my defensive assignment. And like, so I have some familiarity with the platform. but it's a very, very expensive platform and I'm very, very lucky to have access to it. And so, again, like for a basketball fan, I think the most useful website actually is the NBA.com website.

They have a ton of data on there that you can get for free. You just have to familiarize yourself with it and learn how to use it. Last question. I'm a guitarist and I can't help but notice your PRS and strap behind you in your videos. Your favorite player, band, and what kind of music do you play and are you in one?

So I am not in a band. Guitar is just a hobby of mine. My favorite guitar player is John Mayer. My favorite band is Dead and Company. Also, shout out Dead and Company. I went to their final show in San Francisco last year, and now they're doing a residency at the sphere in Las Vegas. They're going to do like 14 shows there,

which I'm super excited about because, like, first of all, Vegas is relatively close to me, so I'll be able to get up and see one. But I'll get 14 more shows worth that. Dead & Company is really interesting because they are a, they're a jam band. So every version of their song is different. So like if you like Scarlet Begonias, every time you hear Scarlet Begonias,

it's like a different version of Scarlet Begonias because all of the instrumental over it is different than the last time you've heard. And so when I get 14 more shows and they're all three-hour sets, like I'm just getting a ton more Grateful Dead music in my life, which I'm very, very excited about. We'll definitely try to get up there

for one of those shows at The Sphere I did just buy a new guitar. This is my third PRS. This is a PRS Silver Sky maple neck. This is one that I've really wanted for a really long time. I have a Mexican Stratocaster. It's the one hanging right behind me. And it's a nice guitar,

but it's got kind of like this nitrouselulose coating on the fretboard that I don't particularly like. And then any of the non-American-made guitars kind of have some quality stuff that's not quite up to par. Like this one in particular, the frets are not really. really sanded down very well on the fretboard. So like when I play for a while, that one actually really hurts my hand. I've had this one for about a month now, and I absolutely love it. This is my

favorite guitar that I've ever had. It's super versatile because it's got a three pickup setup, so you can actually get to five different pickup combinations. Any of you guys who've played a triple single coil will know what I'm talking about. The maple fretboard is a little treble heavy, so I'm always rolling the tone knobs down on this one. But I kind of like that as an upside because it's a flexibility thing, because then when I want the treble, I can just roll the tone knobs up. The fretboard on this one is a seven-inch radius, so it's more curved than others. You can kind of see it if I, like, point it towards the camera. But this one has been really fun.

I've really enjoyed this one. And it's one I've wanted for a really long time because it's actually the John Mayer's signature guitar from Paul Reed Smith, and it's their one triple single coil that they make. But that's my third PRS guitar that I have. They're my favorite brand. They have, like, to me, the best combination of, like, looks and and like playability. And, you know, they don't have some of the history that Gibson and Fender have,

but I just, I just think they're really great guitars. So that's why I plan. I have plans when I'm older. I want to be one of those weirdos who like plays when I'm in my 50s with some cover band. I have plans to do that in the long run, but I am not good enough yet. And so I have to, my plan is is basically like I lean into basketball pretty heavy. I still practice guitar when I have time. And I'll play like, I'll play like an hour.

hour in a sit down and I'll do that like three or four times a week. And that's obviously just not enough to get really good at it. But I've been doing it for like 10, 15 years. So like I have become a decent player for fun, but like I'm not good enough to play on a stage. But my game plan is, is like when my body fails me and I can no longer pour my heart and soul into the game of basketball as a player, that's when I'll shift all my energy in terms of practicing into the guitar side of things, just because I love it. It's like like skiing guitar. in basketball. Those are like my three favorite things to do in terms of hobbies. And when basketball's gone, there'll just be more time for the other stuff.

All right, guys. That is all I have for today. We're going to be back with the nerdsesh guys tomorrow. As always, I appreciate you guys, and I'll see you that. The volume. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smigel and Friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel. help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform?

We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque.

Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the I-Hard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at it podcast.

From 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. With our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s.

84 was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.