The Ringer NBA Show - Mailbag: Old Cores, Harden vs. Wade, Basketball Books, and More | Group Chat

Episode Date: December 29, 2025

Justin, Rob, and J. Kyle Mann are here to wrap up 2025 with an end-of-year mailbag. They answer your listener questions about how to change late-game fouling, old cores in the NBA, James Harden vs. Dwyane Wade, and much more! (00:00) Intro (2:30) FanDuel ad break (3:16) Figuring out a listener’s favorite player (9:55) Spurs playoff outlook (18:16) Fouling late in games (24:18) Old cores (29:43) Player development (42:55) Houston Rockets (54:47) Difficult players/teams to talk about (1:02:18) Hugo González (1:09:21) Harden vs. Wade  (1:19:48) Favorite announcers (1:27:26) Roster-building exercise (1:35:22) Favorite basketball books Send your questions to [e-mail]! Hosts: Justin Verrier, Rob Mahoney, and J. Kyle Mann Producers: Isaiah Blakely and Victoria Valencia Production Supervision: Ben Cruz Social: Isaiah Blakely and Keith Fujimoto The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit www.rg-help.com to learn more about the resources and helplines available. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello and welcome to GroupShat. I am Justin Verrier and joining me, Rob Mahoney, Jay Kyle Mann, recording this in the liminal space between Christmas and New Year's, which means I lost track of the time, the day, and my pants no longer fit. What happened to your pants?

Well, I was just watching Yang Hanson, so that was partly the case. Holy moly, this guy. Get out. You know what? I have many regrets already. The podcast just started. but sometimes you got to let Justin get his rocks off. You know, I just find that that helps us get the,

get the energy shifting right out of the gate. Thoughts and I keep shifting around. Blood flow too. Your brain's going to work. I've just been cramming cookies, man. Left and right. It's just been my diet for about two to three days. Well, walk me through it.

What's the cookie of choice? I got a pre-made box from a fancy bakery out here. And I just went through that. Because, you know, tis the season, you pay $50 for like 15 cookies. You're goddamn right. It is, Justin. It's a beautiful thing, honestly. I love the surprise of a variety box.

You stayed out in Portland? You didn't like go home and have any ants making you cooking? So you're just kind of importing it through like the freshness of a bakery set up kind of thing. Unfortunately, the pandemic showed me the beauty that is staying home and away from your family during the holidays. I will still see them. I'll go at off peak times. But like, I think this is the perfect time.

you get away from the chaos. This is the most Justin Barrier take I've ever heard. But also, Kyle, I got to say, you can replace the warmth of your friends and relatives with enough warming spice. If there's enough nutmeg in that cookie, I think you can fake your way through it. How many milligrams are we talking about? Is that what you're talking? Is that the kind of cookie we're talking? Leave it in the comments, I guess, you know, if you have an appropriate dosage.

All right. So today's adventure here, we're going to do a holiday mailbag. Thank you for sending all of your. questions. And I took a brief look at them, but Rob, it seemed like we got a lot of them in there. They were overflowing. So if we do not get to your question, we apologize. There's just literally only is so much time. So we're going to hit as many as we can. Incredibly thoughtful questions, incredibly diverse questions. I can't wait to get into it. The Ringer NBA show is presented by Fandul. Fandle's got it all. Same game parlay's quick bets for jumping in live and your way so you

could build the bet that fits your play. Plus, don't miss out on holiday offers and surprises all month long. Fandul app or head to fandul.com slash ringer MBA to get started. 21 plus and present in select states or 18 plus in present in D.C. Kentucky or Wyoming. Gambling problem. Call 1-800 gambler or visit RG-Help.com. Call 1-88-789-777-7-7 or visit ccpg.org slash chat in Connecticut. All right, why don't we just get going?

We've got like what. 10 to 15 questions here. We'll move as swiftly as possible. But as per usual with our mailbags, Isaiah Blakely, our trusted producer is here. to deliver your questions. Yeah, so first one is from Angus. One of the best things about group chat is your ability to latch on to the oddball NBA characters,

which is why I want to leverage your collective hoops knowledge to help find a player that will make my brother fall in love with professional basketball. Some key notes on my brother. James Winston is far and away, his favorite NFL player because of his goofiness paired with his monocum of real talent. My brother is 21, so ideally we'd find someone whose career is just ramping up.

chunkiness is a plus a young Zeebo or Barkley would have captivated my brother before you consider a Zion type it would really help you can find someone who is likely to routinely play yeah

I mean chunkiness is always a plus when is it not a plus I guess we need to put your pants on it depends what you're looking for though I feel like the cross section of bullet points here points to one player no it does well before we

get to that, I should clarify. Angus did mention in his email that he and his brother would go watch Derek Queen play at Maryland. I assume that's who you're talking about, JV. This is a trick then. He's setting us up because he knows the answer. These Maryland folks are very, very excited. Stephen Ruiz. I mean, he's

locked and dialed in. And frankly, I don't blame them. They haven't had a lot, you know, it's been a long time since Lonnie Baxter came through those doors. Obinaeasy's son, Isaiah probably knows about this. This is a deep cut. You guys probably don't know who that. His son is a high, high top recruit. Anyway, I feel like we walked into a trap with this

because Queen's the obvious answer. I mean, he's immensely talented. He is, I would say, appropriately goofy, per the James comp, just getting rolling, just getting started in his NBA career. And also, like, maybe the closest thing you will find to the young Zbo body type in the modern NBA, which is otherwise kind of all but extinct.

Yeah, I had a tough time, like, finding guys outside of Queen that fit the billing, because even if you wanted to get rid of one checkmark or another, but there aren't a lot of, like, offensive-minded chunky boys out there. Like if you wanted to fit Shengun into the role of the baby Yokic, he's kind of already far along in his career. So if you're 21, you want to start at the ground floor,

you kind of miss the boat. Shangoon's only 23, though. I think if we want to take Queen off the board, that is the obvious answer. I don't want to overthink it. It's probably just Derek Queen. But if we want anyone else, I would say Shangoon, who is not quite chunky, but definitely a little funky.

Well, we've got the, I really enjoyed an think it's super accurate. I think we have the Charmander. I might screw this up. Charzards. What's the middle one? Charmielion, dog. Don't embarrass yourself.

Dude, I played Pokemon Go for 10 days, so I will never embarrass myself. You're a artist. The bullfotor. What is the middle one I found? Anyway. Eonisor. No. I'm just going to leave you on an island on this.

Ivy soar is the middle. Yeah. He was like in the middle of a busy road. And I almost crashed and died. And that was actually when I stopped. No, there is an interesting thing going on here where Queen is the low rung and then Shingun's the middle and then the most of all,

which if we weren't having to check the ramping up thing, we're in a really delightful time where the most amusing character, I think, one of the most amusing characters and also the best basketball player on planet earth happened to be the same person because when you get, he's dialed it back a little bit. Like earlier in his career, I really enjoyed when Yokic was kind of coming into his own

you know, the team was evolving around him. He would just do hilarious things. Like, he would do the thing where, like, the ref would, you know, hit him with a tea. And he'd be like the parent who, or he'd be like the kid who got grounded. And then the parents like, okay, three months. And he'd just throw a fit and storm off the court. Just, he'd always get to the point where you'd have, like, welling tears in his eyes. He'd flop around and flail around a lot.

I just, he's not doing that as much. But he's still really funny with the horses and things like that. So if we weren't doing the ramping up thing, I would say it'd be Yolkitch. But you can't. If someone asks you who should be my favorite player, you can't name the best player in basketball. It's antithetical to the exercise. Can I throw out like a curveball here?

If you want to buy very low and just not expect a lot as a return. I was watching Noah Penda the other day in Orlando. Welcome, Justin. Okay, three things. Defense, pretty sick. Two, nickname Kung Fu Panda. Come on. But I was trying to, I was trying to,

I was trying to fool Fing for Gagnon. on here and I think we should take that over Kung Fu Panda. I don't know. This one really fits though. It's fair. Because three, like there is a neat little old school old man back to the basket game coming out. It might only happen for 10 minutes a game, but if you really want to invest, I think that is the by-low stock. Look, I'm as sicko as it gets. I cannot in good faith recommend to anyone that Noah Panda be their favorite NBA player in order to try to convince them to watch a lot of NBA basketball. For one, he's just not playing enough. And I think this is a strong argument for Derek Queen too.

Another guy who passes the Zion test that Angos was talking about has not missed a game yet in his NBA career, which is huge. So I think Derek Queen really is the obvious answer, even though it is probably like immoral on some level to recommend somebody be a Pelicans fan. But in this case, I think you latch on to Queen and hope for the best. He wears braces also. And also, you know, if we also didn't have to do the thing about playing, you know, Kenneth Lofton, there's a reason he was such a big. Kenneth Lofton, Jr. is a reason he was such a big star. So it's a damn shame because he's a cult hero too. But yeah, Queen.

Well, he's also a college player now. Kenneth Lofton Jr. Is that not real? Oh, they got me. I got God. You got God? You got God. Kenny Lofton got sent back to college?

Yeah, because after the Baylor kid, there's all these like things flying around. Like, oh, this guy might go back or this guy. And I apparently believe all of it, which I think speaks to the state of college basketball right now, because I do buy that guys can do that, but apparently not. Well, this is your chance, Justin. Cut it or own it. You know, this can stay in. All right, we're just floating on.

This stays in. Welcome back to college, Kenneth Lofton Jr. Why don't we go to the next one? I just want to shut out, Isaiah Stewart and Nasree. Could also be fit the body type at least and fun to watch. But, yeah, Queen's definitely the answer. But Nas slimmed down, right? Yeah, he did a little bit.

Do we really want to tag him with the chunky? Yeah. Yeah. I actually thought about beef stew too. He definitely is like if you've been following for a couple years, he's the kind of player he would latch on to. It's just hard. I feel like defense first guys are hard as an entry point

if we're trying to really pull someone into the NBA game. Next question is from Tessa. The Spurs have pretty definitively beaten the Thunder now. Is this mainly a matchup problem? Are the Spurs good enough to challenge the rest of the West for the one seed? Is there any chance they can skip the traditional season or two of getting playoff experience and take a shot at a title

this year. Yeah, I mean, I think how could you not, after watching all of those games, not come away thinking that the spurs are pretty uniquely positioned to test the thunder? They have the length in just the right places. I think the ball handling and the security with it to drive through some of the creases

in OKC's defense, which is almost impossible to do. There's just a lot going for San Antonio in that matchup in a way that if they did see each other in a playoff series, I don't that I would bet on the spurs, but I would bet on the spurs to make some trouble. I think I flagged it to you guys. We might have, when we were together, that that was one of the big things that I noticed

was like the fact that the Castle and Harper were getting paint touches with the live dribble, dare I say, driving the basketball, not to get too jargony there and going a circle. But yeah, they have unique antidotes to what OKC does in positionally. And, you know, so on that front, yes, they're just a bad matchup for them. or a good matchup, however you want to say it. And historically, that's pretty strange to see a reigning, young, healthy title team have another team have their number like that.

I was asking Bill about it. And he threw out the 86 Rockets, which I guess was probably a specific memory for him, which is Ralph Samson. There's sort of an analog there. So that's reaching way back. I haven't watched those games or anything. But in terms of them, I do think that they deserve credit. I was thinking back about our title pie.

Did you guys think back about that at all before? Oh, I think about the title pie all the time, Kyle. Well, I mean, I can't take any credit because I only give them 2%, but they were my dark course, keep an eye on them kind of thing, because there was just like, there's a lot to respect there. In terms of their, like, ability to level up, the thing that is scariest about them is they still have a ton to figure out because when I watch them in crunch time,

specifically in that Knicks game, you can see they're kind of, they're just not fully realized. They're not the full-involved Pokemon version of themselves, because I think Harper has levels to go to. I think Fox has more kind of synergy to figure out with Wimby. There's a lot more to unlock, I think, for them. This is easily the most Pokemon-heavy podcast

we've ever done, and we're like 10 minutes into it. Not the last. Let's keep it going. We're dropping the second act. I dare you. Well, they are interesting foils, the Spurs and the Thunder, because the Thunder have this deep bench

of perimeter defenders, unlike probably anything we've seen, at least in modern basketball. And then now the Spurs come, roaring in with three of the better creators I've seen put together, all playing in synchronicity and kind of still feeling each other out. And so there is a real clash there. Then obviously you have the Wembe factor where you have the reigning title winners basically admitting that we just don't really know how to figure him out. And I ultimately wonder if this is

a J-dub and supplementary to that, a Chet question, because J-Dub just hasn't looked at the same player he was in the finals. How much of that is because of the injury still length? He obviously missed a ton of games to start with, but he's only played 12 games at this point, and only three of them have gone over 20. And I feel like this is a clear case, not to, like, reduce it to like the bare level of conversation here where it's like, if Shea isn't Shea, and obviously Wembe presents a unique deterrent to him because he's going to do a lot of that work in that midrange, and Wembe just soaks up a lot of that space, Jade Up has to be the guy you turn to in order to make

shit happen, and he just hasn't. And so I think the timing of this is interesting, Rob, where it's like, on the one hand, yeah, they need to figure this out and it is pretty concerning. But have they hit J-dub at the right time where he's not at his peak? And can you find some sort of caveat or shine a little bit of ray of light if you're a thunder fan and say like, well, we're not at our final form this season. For sure. I mean, I think they definitely can. And not only that, Mark Dagnall loves this shit. Like, this is the best result for him in terms of coaching a team that's as good.

is the Thunder and trying to keep them engaged, having the boogeyman in the closet to say, well, you guys didn't do shit against the Spurs in three games. Like, that's a really powerful motivator, especially if San Antonio stays this high in the standings. If they end up in the two or three seed, then all of a sudden you have this really compelling counterpoint for people like us to consider as far as the Thunder's opposition, but also for the Thunder themselves to kind of mull about as they figure out what kind of team they want to be, how they execute against the Spurs, what are the remedies that weren't there that

could be there, whether they come from Jay Duff. or otherwise. Yeah, I think something too that was going on in that game is, and we talked about this a little bit with Wimby, where Wimby, if he's going to play back in that sort of weak side zone in a way that really no one else on earth can do and really no one else has ever been able to do. If he's able to do that, he just implies that your first option is not going to be

yet because you're just ramming into this, into this tidal wave of a person. So that means you're going to have to get to your second action in some way because it's hard to involve him in it. And so another thing that's important here is that, you know, the Thunder aren't shooting the ball well. So when we're getting swing, swing or noped away from Wemby, the next pass to the next shot or drive or whatever it is,

those shots haven't been going in. You kind of lean towards, they'll shoot it a little bit better. The other thing is A.J. Mitchell has missed two of these games. AJ Mitchell is somebody who's giving them a whole lot of second side pop and scoring and things like that. So I was teasing Tyler or Parker when I was in L.A. Because he kept saying they were going to become the underdogs.

And I was just like, you know, boohoo on the yacht. for him, but it is kind of interesting to speak to the Dagnol thing. Like, yeah, they have some, they have some juice there. And it's a unique situation where they can motivate them because it's like, hey, I'm not speculating like you played poorly and still won. You guys got your asses kicked and embarrassed. So they have a lot to sort of work with and improve, I think. I think it's the type of thing you don't want your young team to have to deal with the pressure

of throughout this season. It's different if you are the dynastic warriors and you're just like, you're kind of built for this in a certain way. These are still a lot of young players. Practically everyone outside of Shea still has something to prove here. And so I think you're right, Rob. Dagnall probably wants this. But I also think as a team to get out of the spotlight and start to like craft a little

bit more and work on the fringes where they really need a little bit more help, I think actually benefits them over the long run. Yeah, I think it's a healthy thing for the Thunder. As far as the Spurs, every big picture indicator right now says they are a really serious team. I think they're the kind of team that based on what we've seen, feel like they could beat anyone, including the Thunder potentially. Could they beat for anyone's, is more or less my question. And this is really one of the things you see with young teams and what made the Thunder's run so exceptional. I feel like when you see young teams go on playoff runs, the postseason moves so fast tactically.

Like it is constantly shifting and evolving. And you're asking players with sometimes like marginal NBA experience to that point to make big, huge. game-altering decisions in real-time on the floor. And younger players just lag a little bit in making that adjustment. So either they can adapt and it just takes them a little longer or they just can't make the adjustments they need to because they don't have the skills or like the interface for it yet. I wouldn't be surprised if we see that kind of playoff front from the Spurs where they are

promising, maybe they upset or beat someone who's really formidable in the first or second round, but ultimately run up against that same developmental curve that basically all young teams do. Yeah, we're not that far away from the back-to-back losses against Golden State, where Steph just made things happen and that proved to be the difference. I often wonder if we're getting more toward a rock paper, scissors sort of Western conference playoffs, which I think we always expected, but has been like coming more and more now, where the matchups are really going to dictate certain success. And so I think that's a good thing for the sport, but I also think it's hard to prognosticate forward because a lot of these teams are on the same basic tier. I think we're

talk about that a little bit later. And I do think the matchups might dictate at the very least who's getting to the West finals. And so I can see the spurs getting beat by a more veteran-laden team, but I can also see them giving a push for our team, maybe not beat the Thunder in the series, but probably push them harder than some of these other teams we're going to talk about. All right. Let's go to our third question, Isaiah.

Yeah, the next question is from Peter. I love the NBA, but the games are unwatchable down the stretch. I'd love your reactions from my preferred solution. I think teams should be able to decline a foul and take the ball out of balance. This gets rid of a hack of shack and fouling down the stretch over and over again. I'm sure there would be trade-offs, but it would solve a huge problem with the current game. What do you think? Well, what's funny is when we did our last pod, I was actually asking people down at the arena

for their ways to, like, what are they going to gripe about? What would you drag about if you're on this pod? And everyone said the same version of the same thing, which is the officiating or just the amount, of reviews that go on there. And this kind of like pinpoints that, I'll be honest, I don't feel like Hackashack is much of a thing anymore. It happens sporadically,

but it feels like it's being used more tactically. The interesting thing as well that's happening kind of on the fringes here is so following up three is getting a lot of attention. I think because it's happened in very prominent places. The Spurs game during the Cup was the prime shining example of that.

But John Hollinger's had an interesting column and the athletic suggesting that following up three is actually dying. And his suggestion was like maybe teams should start following up two as opposed to three. And so on the one hand, I'm like, oh, they should just get rid of intentional following late because they could clear all of this out. But I don't know. Like there's almost like so many wrinkles to this now. It's almost becoming like a tactical battle in its own right.

What do you think, Rob? I mean, the tactical battle is definitely there. The question is, is it good entertainment? Like, is it good for the flow of basketball? Really, I think what's good about Peter's solution, about declining fouls and just taking side out if you want, is it makes the end of the game look like basketball again. Who would take that? It would probably have less value unless you're sure you can get a three. I think the idea is you are playing clock, right?

And I think this is sort of the tradeoff. If you implement this idea where a team that is fouled can decline to take the free throws and just take side out, basically anytime they want, what you're going to do is you're going to turn, I think, the last five-ish minutes of the game, to keep away. Like, it just, like, prevent offense will just take over the last part of games, and you'll shift into that mode in a way that, look, like, at lower levels of basketball, I think you could get away with something like this. NBA players are too good at just, like, tossing the ball around to each other, and their handles are secure enough where the chaos factor is just not going to be as

prevalent as you would say, like, a team getting pressed in March Madness. It's just not the same effect. And so while I love the idea, I'm not sure that the intended effect would really be worth the squeeze. I think what's really driving me nuts about the end games. Did you guys watch the end of the Orlando Denver game? I missed that one. What happened?

Well, at the very last, in general, when you said it was officiating was just in general, kind of the problem, Justin, is that what you were hearing from the Rose, the Motor Center? Yeah, I think that's largely fans' reaction to everything these days. Like, I'm someone who just, like, thinks of the officiating his background noise. I realize it, like, plays a big effect.

Mark Cuban's whole life mission is to make sure everybody knows what it in fact it has on people. But I do think the amount of reviews we're getting almost compounds that initial impulse that people have. Yeah, I mean, well, there was a play where I just don't really, the defensive players are just being put in the position where I don't really know what they're supposed to do because I think it was Anthony Black. No, it wasn't Anthony Black. It was, I mean, Ruer who was guarding Bain at the time.

He might even Payne Watson, but he was straight up and like moving backwards and Bain was coming into him and Bain just kind of swept across him and got the foul call and it was just like I don't we're in this kind of tyrannical offensive player era I feel like in terms of like what the defenses are allowed to do I feel like we kind of all thought that it was swinging back the other way a couple I don't know a year or so ago after that crazy boom I guess it was the Luca game where he went wild scored whatever that number was but that to me is something that's got to get figured out because players are just too smart these days about just they're too smart about creating abnormal or just unnatural movements to create that contact and get to the line.

I think it's just creating weird results. Bain's really good at it. It's like you can't knock these guys who've practiced it and got really good. I just think we're going to have to have a new era of just how to legislate this and how to officiate it and figure it out. Yeah, I think you hit on two of the key things there, which is one, like how do you legislate against human behavior? Because guys are going to adapt, teams are going to adapt, coaches in particular are. going to nitpick everything. And so they find these little wrinkles in order to bring out the best of it. It's kind of like one of the fun things I love about just all sports where it's like a bunch of nerds in a room come up with an idea. They put it in legal S. And then all of a sudden like humans find a way

to do whatever they can with it and take it into ways that other people can't see. But the other part of this is like how do you legislate intent? Because like going back to the, my idea of like, if you just took away intentional following all together. Let's say like if you intentional follow in the final two minutes, whatever you want to say, and you get two shots in the ball or something like that. It's just like the penalty is so harsh that nobody will do it. Well,

how do you start to determine what is an intentional foul versus not? But I do think the end of games are getting very... Minority report tech. That's good. But I do think the end of games are getting sludgy as hell. It's unwieldy. Yeah. That has to be one of the top things this summer when they go to the competition committee.

For sure. Like, if the battle is trying to get people to watch full games, the most exciting part of your game better be watchable. And right now, like, to Peter's point, it's really not. Like, it is the worst part of games in some cases trying to just get through the last three or four minutes to the exciting part being the potential game winner. Yeah. All right. Should we do the next one? Yeah.

What do we got, Isaiah? Next question is from Jeremy. This might be the saddest question you've ever received. In a complete reversal from your young core rankings, I did some research on old cores. Not surprisingly, options were limited, but which senior citizens' cores are you choosing for the next three years? Golden State, Al Horford, Steph Curry, Jimmy Butler,

Draymond, and Seth Curry, or the LA Clippers, Brooke Lopez, Nick Batoon, James Harden, and Kauai Leonard. This is fucking bleak, Jeremy. This is a bad vibe toss-up, basically. Just very tough. Right, because the Clippers, there's nothing good happening that year, except unless the random Kauai performance that you bothered to tune into,

or you stomach down by watching one of these games. But the Warriors, as we're recording this on Sunday afternoon, just lost in an OT game, which might have been one of the worst losses of the season. Because they were up, like, a couple points before the end of regulation. Yes. And they got absolutely blown the fuck off the court in overtime. complete implosion from Golden State against Toronto, which we should say, Scotty Barnes,

one of the games of the year in terms of 25 boards? Absolutely insane stuff from him. Not so insane stuff, or maybe just insane in a bad way from Golden State, who, like, they are prone to this. Like, if we want to buy Golden State as our old core of choice, it comes with the occasional implosion, whether it's Raymond Green on the bench or it's the team on the court.

Like, they just, they are not very stable. They may be better than the Clippers in a lot of ways, but they're not very stable. I mean, being old, in basketball is inherently to lose your consistency. I found this firsthand because I always joke. It's like you have days where you feel like yourself and then you have days where you just feel like you can't do it anymore.

You better quit. Is it just their oldness at the heart of it? Or is it the, I mean, because people like to kind of blame it down the line with their supporting cast. Steph remains amazing. Draymond definitely offensively has kind of shirked off. And then you have your kind of, or just what slouched off. And then you have your butler kind of picking his spots thing.

They don't really have the luxury of him doing that. I don't know. Is the oldness at the heart of the inconsistency is kind of what I'm wondering. It's kind of all the above with them. It's the unreliable supporting cast. It's the fact that they're older guys. Like, Steph is the most reliable of them by far. And in theory, he should be the one most susceptible to being old,

just given that we've never seen a player his size this old be this good before. And yet, Steph is, you know, really the thing you can kind of write in pen. Jimmy Butler will or won't shoot on a nightly basis. Draymond, Will or won't be an offensive liability on a nightly basis and you just can't have this many question marks at once and yet as you're saying, Kyle, the older you get, the more of the question marks just seem to pop up.

They also have the trauma induced by like the longevity of these relationships, at least with Draymond and every single one of his teammates and is now his head coach. So perhaps that's a negative in the core rankings here. But I think this, if we're going to answer the question, this is pretty

clear cut. I think the Warriors are by far better. It's got to be. Oh, yeah. If you want to make a depth, like, play for the clippers, for instance, they also have four guys listed here. And even the Warriors have five guys. So it's really tough to make the case for the clips. It is true. I mean. More a whole apple. Yeah. Yeah. I just think that Steph, whatever he's going to be over the next three years, I'm down for

whatever that is. And there's always going to be a place for that, the greatest shooter of all time, controversial statement. So, I'm going to take the one that is probably going to be better, probably going to be more reliable, and definitely going to be more fun. And that's the team with Steph Curry on it. I guess the question, if we want to take it a step further, is who has the best old core in the entire league? I don't know if there are any other teams that even come close here. Like, I guess you could say the Nuggets. It depends on where you draw the line.

And we should mention if you want to go back and listen to our young core rankings, which we hope you do because we spent many, many hours recording those. it was under 25 was the cutoff. I've already seen people complain about things and still not get that part. But it depends on the word you want to draw the line here. I spoke directly to camera and told people, do not complain about the age cutoff. And yet, here we are. Listen to Rob, guys.

Please. Yeah, but it's tough like 34, 35. None of these teams even come close. Yeah. So Jeremy's cut off for the record is he looked at teams 34 and a older. And he listed a couple other ones in his email, just for reference, like Philly with Paul George, Eric Gordon, Kyle Lowry. Portland, I mean, kind of, because of Dame and Drew Holiday would be the counterpart there.

Sacramento with Russell Westbrook and Demard de Rosen. That's kind of it. Like, there really aren't that many teams that are indexing this hard on old guys anymore. Right. Because Denver is only Yonis and Tim Hardaway Jr. And they don't even make the 34 cut. How old Stim R. R.way Jr.? 33. Wow. Okay. All right.

He's a young man yet. He's not 34. I remember the days where he was like bouncing between the hawks and the Knicks and everyone wasn't sure if he was going to stick in the league. Now he's here like 20 years later. Honestly, pretty reliable in that he is unreliable, but you know, when you need him, sometimes he turns up. So maybe the Warriors are just have the best old core in the league.

Congrats to them. Yeah, good job. Golden State. take a lab, take a bow. All right, when we do the next one. Next question is from Jordan. I would love all three of your thoughts on what I think is one of the most mysterious

and beautiful things about NBA basketball, and that's individual player development. What are the factors you think that determine how and when certain players make leaps first those that don't? Kyle, I think this is your question, but first I want to know if you agree that development is mysterious and beautiful.

Oh, it's absolutely mysterious. I mean, you're just, you're talking about human beings and whether or not they succeed or not. I mean, yeah, there are millions of variables. And coming into the draft, you know, every single year, I kind of have little boxes of, you know, they're hypothetical and they're not real boxes. I should do this for real one time and just for a video and just put their names in the boxes. But somebody is a really... We can do an unboxing video of like people's boxes.

The prospects of which like bucket they've been put into, honestly. Good bit. I support it. I'm running that down. Hold it up. Yeah, anyway. No, I mean, for some guys, I think the first one that you sort of sort players into is, are they context dependent?

And I think about that a lot because there are players who come into the league who, if left of their own devices, can sort of, you know, they need that accountability. They need to be guided. They need to be structured, coached. And then there are the guys who could go to the worst team in the league and impact the culture immediately. You look at like a Tyrese Halliburton went in there and just overhaul.

that with his personality with the way that he played. He's one of those guys. LeBron comes in immediately, not just the way that he plays, the way that he leads. So those types of players, and then you worry about other types who don't get that guns, and that can cause them to spiral

during a key time in their career. I mean, instead of me just rattling off a whole bunch, I'll stop there and just let you all just jump in because this is one of the things I think about all the time. I mean, because it is mysterious and beautiful, to be honest with you, like this is one of the fuzziest parts of basketball is who will make that jump,

who will take that step and who won't. I think it's a great question. I think from a technical standpoint, because Kyle, you covered a lot of almost like make up more like the overall framework of your game and how mutable or immutable it is. From a technical standpoint,

I think we've seen consistently there's really one thing that defines almost every player who takes a big jump, especially on offense, and it's ball handling. Every single time, it's ball handling. Even when you think it's shooting,

it's getting to your spots by being able to handle the ball, Even when you think it's driving, it's the security to, like, attack and get in the lane and find the crevices. I just think, like, your security and getting where you need to go on the court is the number one thing that takes you from being a fun rookie who's averaging 13 or 14 a game to a potential All-Star who's averaging 24 a game. Yeah, that's a good one. Not to, like, put this in the reductive box, I guess, but consistency is typically the thing. Yeah.

Not to make this a Portland century. situation, but like, we're at the point. How much money you got in your pocket for that swear jar? That's the question. I got some change. Okay. I got gas earlier. Shaden Sharp, clear example where we're in another one of these vortexes where he seems like he

could be taking a leap. And what was funny is like people started talking about this and I hadn't been at the game for a little while. And I started asking everyone. I was like, oh, did I miss Shaden like taken off? Like, do you believe this? And I got the same response from everybody who watches the team, which is basically give it more than a week, right? Because he has these weeks.

Can he turn a week into a month? Can he turn a month into two months? Because that's been his biggest problem. Now, his other problem is doing anything other than scoring. But if he could just score at a consistent rate for multiple weeks, that's a check mark. And I wonder, Kyle, if, like, that still matters, even when we think of, like, the more technical aspects. Dayton, man, so much, so much, like, J.R. and him to the point where if you watched J.R. on a

certain night, like, going back to, like, his, like, nuggets. stays. If you'd watch him on a particular night, you'd be like, God damn, is that the best player in the league? Like, so phenomenally talented. And then a couple nights you just start to realize, like, oh, yeah, you like kind of doesn't, maybe totally doesn't understand why he did well that

night or whatever it is. Yeah, consistency is huge. You know, maybe you don't jump on on a player after like three games like I did with Kishan George and Isaiah really got discussed with me for that, I know. But if you think, Rob, I think you really nailed it with a hand

thing because so much ripples out from that. You know, your individual, you're scoring and everything, developing your touch. Learning the game is so important because your handle is so intrinsic to that because I always view it like, you know, there's the CPU usage thing on the computer. This is the comparison I always make where, you know, you'll look at it and you'll be like, this program is taking up this much amount of your CPU. And it's like, when your handle improves, it really, the less you have to think about those things if you watch like the masterful ball handlers like, you know,

well, Kyrie or CP3 or Steve Nash, those guys, they're not thinking about their dribble. They're able to process. What that does is that allows you to process the game and think about it at a high level. And then that's what superstars are able to do. They're able to get to their spots comfortably and not have to worry about like ball security and things like that.

So I think that's, that is a key thing, both for physically getting where you want to score and also your mental ability to sort of get your team where they need to go. I think you can take that idea and kind of extrapolate. from it too in terms of how many things can you take off of a young player's plate so that they just get to focus on if this year maybe it's like how they're reading their passing progression, right? Like their reads in the pick and roll.

I always start with a point guard. It's like, do you have space? Do you have actual shooters around you who will let you get into the lane to they make the progression? I mean, great case. And Cade was making some advanced reads kind of against the grain even before the spacing was there. But it was also so evident that he was running into the wall every single time he got to a certain

point in the pain. And so it's like, do you have the space with the shooters? And frankly, like, do you have a big man who does big man stuff? Like, we'll set a hard screen who will actually roll, who will rebound for you, God forbid. Like, these little things, I think, give you the shape of, okay, this is what a real basketball team looks like around this young player. And then that young player will use that for traction and, like, begin to take real steps in their game. Yonge set some really hard screens today, just enough why. All right.

It did. How about the rolling? Did he do any rolling? He rolled. Did he get a pass once? I don't remember it. Well, that could be a wider blazers issue. Maybe they're freezing him out.

And then another thing that's important to is just the opportunity, you know, reps, opportunity. You know, I've read about this, that I'm a big believer in, like, low-stakes reps, whether or not you get that in the G-League or summer league or wherever it is, just seeing those repetitions. And, Rob, are you talking about having a guy standing or just having competent role players stand in and help you.

Because you just spin your wheels. If you're like getting guys that aren't making contact on a screen or it's just, it's crowded. So there's that. And certain guys need more of those reps than others. You know, the spurs have been really good about using their G-League team to help those guys to develop and make those leaps.

So or the organizational thing, it's all this just crazy chaotic, you know, all these variables floating in the air that have to kind of come together. But they're really driven by the person, honestly. The guys that are motored to get. get better, separate themselves. There are a lot of, like, Denny's a guy who made a huge leap.

And those are the things that you're betting on when you're looking at guys in the draft. It's just kind of like, what's his makeup and his will to kind of turn that into butter? You said it. Question about the G League overall, though, Kyle, because now we're in a different era of the G league, it feels like, where teams are very much sending guys up and down pretty regularly. And I think that's partly why a lot of these teams are basing their G League team right near their home base. So if you're, for instance, Portland,

those guys are only traveling 20 minutes, right? The remix. The remix are getting so much. Portland in general is getting so much love from this podcast. I better get like a stipend at this point. But do you feel like things are working better? The synergies there. Do you get the sense that like the G-League feels different

than it did even two to three years ago, like a real way to develop someone as opposed to before, perhaps a competition there? Like, where are you on the G league right now? I don't know, man. It's like it's in flux because I'll hear people, NBA side, I express a lack of confidence in the G league right now. So I don't know.

Maybe it just steps and flows based on the talent that's there, which is driven by what you're talking about. Honestly, I don't know that I have a great answer for that in terms of, I do think that we're going to see, and I can see this rippling down even at the college level if we start to see more sort of synergy between teams and and brands and then like colleges and it's all it's all kind of it's really really in flux right now I feel like in terms of these things kind of developing into like a feeder developmental system maybe that won't happen maybe it will but I don't know about the G league Rob do you watch much G league ever are you have you heard people talk about this because I have heard some kind of lack of faith lately you and you've heard the opposite Justin it seems like no I haven't really asked about it though but I see teams using it differently even within the past five years but you're right and I changes everything these days where a lot of these players might start staying in college even

longer, which might suck the talent even more than you're suggesting. It's true. I think in terms of an actual developmental body, it's a checkered track record at very, very best for the G League. It's just tough for a lot of guys to get slotted into the rules that they will actually play in the NBA. And there are way too many guys who go into the G League and will just shoot and shoot and shoot when that's not what they're going to be asked to do at the NBA at any point in their careers. And so it's a lot about knowing. And I think this is where the synergy you're talking about is important just and not just in proximity, but how much are the front offices intertwined and communicating about like, what are the actual

expectations for this guy? You know, like, what is it that you actually want them to do when they get called back up to the parent club? And how can we best emulate that in the G League? And it's tough because you're not going to be able to find a Cade Cunningham to come play for your G League team so their role players can practice being role players in the Piston system for, you know, the Motor City Drive, I believe is the Pistons affiliate. Shout out to the drive. You can say anything right now and I would agree. Here's the thing though, I do think the G League is successful as just an available talent body that is domestic. These are guys like Mo Bamba just got called up by the Raptors.

That's an easy move to make. You know, you just move them over to the roster. It's a short flight. You're not asking someone to like break their contract playing in Europe somewhere. It's all very seamless and easy from that perspective. It's not really a farm system though in the way that it's developing the next great generation of players in the G League, even the next great generation of role players aren't really grown there.

It's best for role players. The Celtics, I think, are an example of a team that has really good developmental structure in terms of the guys that they've had move up. I mean, Walsh really was toiling around for a long time down there. I think it works for players like that best, obviously, because you're not really going to see NBA potential stars in non-MBAs.

Like, Summer League's the only real example of that where you're going to see them getting those kind of reps. like you're not going to really seem in the G League. The spurs, like I said, the cell takes, the thunder. It's the teams you would expect, honestly, that do the best with it. This is anecdotal, and I haven't looked into this, so cool start by me. But I don't hear a lot of success stories these days about guys going overseas and then popping into the NBA.

Like, we were on a run there where it's like the PJ Tucker's, the Pat Beverly's. They were like multiple guys that felt like per season. And I can't remember the last time a guy, even on like a high role. player level actually made the jump. And perhaps that's like... Yeah, but even then, he's struggled since coming back. You know, it's been hard to find the guys who have actually come and really gotten their footing in the NBA again.

Right. And so if teams are crafting role players directly for the need that they have in the big league club, I could see where an agent or a player might want to go that route because it's more direct pathway to getting on a team. I don't know. It makes some sense. Yeah. We should keep it moving, though.

We're like 45 minutes anyway. I think we've done four questions. All right, let's go the next one. It's the Motor City Cruise. Oh, my mistake. I apologize to the cruise. Were they ever at any point the Motor City drive? I think they were, to be honest.

I'm a little out of date on my G-League references. Is that better? I think that's worse. The cruise? Is it better to drive or cruise? You're just going and you're not going that fast? You're not going that slow. You're just kind of going along.

It is honestly. Yeah, it's a little laid back, right? It's the opposite of what I want from my developmental prospect. I want drive. I don't want you fucking cruising down there. What are we talking about? So, wait, your team's not the Red Clause anymore, right? That's one of the great tragedies ever.

It is bad. Yeah, they're just the main Celtics. But they still have a lobster, but they colored them green. Correct. Yeah. That's gross. That's an abomination. An abomination.

Anyway, next question is from Jack. Why are the Rockets consistently considered a tier above the Knicks and Spurs? I get it with Denver, but what's the case for Houston? What have they actually proven so far? Their depth feels like a real question mark, and the spacing concerns are still pretty glaring. Can I disagree with the premise? Yeah. I kind of think they're all on the same tier.

And if anything, I think like the Rockets and the Knicks are on the same tier. And perhaps the Spurs, who we just talked about might not be on that tier just yet. Like, I'm not ready to crown the Spurs as like a true. Blue title contender winner this year. I still have my doubts as most people I think would about a team that's built primarily on young players. But I think the Knicks and the Rockets are kind of right.

I would do the tiers if I'm cheering this. I would say Denver in Oklahoma City then maybe like Detroit Nix rockets on the same one and then the Spurs. So just to clarify, your first year this time does have teams on it. Just I'm thinking outside the box. Doesn't mean I'm thinking incorrectly.

Okay. I think what's happening here in terms of Jack's question is when we talk about the West, we basically always do Oklahoma City, Houston, Denver. And so the Knicks are not part of that conversation for obvious reasons. Now, will the Spurs get there by the end of the year? We'll see. I think they're making a compelling case as it is. I also think point differential is something that a lot of people look at as like a snapshot

of the league. And the Rockets have been number two in point differential by a pretty significant margin, even including this recent swoon for the entire season so far. So between that and the fact that there, They're like more athletic than a lot of the other kind of would be challenging teams. And they have a proven defense and a proven superstar. I just think that Houston has like a lot going for it that even even the Knicks might be jealous of in some ways in terms of the stability of that.

So I get why it's happening. But I agree with you that New York is probably on an equivalent tier to the rockets at this point. I think there was a little more also just in the terms of if you want to figure out the nebulous like chemistry of like why things are talked about more or less. I think that the rockets in general early in the year just had there were a little bit newer,

fresher things to talk about in terms of KD being there in terms of them figuring out the point guard thing. Whereas we kind of knew who we know who the Knicks are and it's just kind of like are you going to live up to what we expect from you or not. Denver retooling. It's just a lot of those things were more in stasis. So I understand pitting like the newness of the spurs

against the newness of the rockets. I'm with you guys. I think that the spur probably just need a little bit more. I think they're definitely in the conversation in a valid way, but in terms of leap-prugging those other teams, I understand the skepticism about doing that because I'm a skeptical person in general, but I think that's why Houston was talked about

more earlier in the season. I hope you all agree. I also, in terms of the skepticism about their offense specifically, they're a tough team to wrap your brain around because they don't look at all like a traditional offense. they're just one of the best offensive teams in the league. I don't know what to tell you at this point. Like they just are there.

Even in half court, they're top 10. And they also have God tier offensive rebounding in a way that no one else can really touch right now. And so that combination, incredibly powerful, regardless of what the flow looks like or how you feel the shooting is in terms of the balance of these lineups, they're like, they score with the best of them. And so long as that's going to be the case, they're going to be one of the best teams in the league. Plus, in terms of the depth, Tari's back. during Finney Smith finally playing. So they're starting to backfill as well as they go along. Why don't we go to the next one?

I just want to give a quick update on the Clippers old core. Kauai's got 48 with a mid of 50 in the third quarter. Yeah, we didn't even say that in Quentin are 202. That's a later question. Yeah. But the next question is from Wendell. I am a casual NBA fan in that I do not watch regular season games. I follow scores and headlines and of course

listen to every group chat pod. I then tune in and watch games once the playoffs start. How would you as NBA fans or if you were the NBA board convince me as a casual fan to watch more than just the playoffs? So I would say as the first point of order

that the NBA rewards time spent in the same way that a TV show does in contrast to a movie where you could really get into the nuance of things And I think that's also what builds a stronger bond with the individual players because 82 games is a long-ass season. And you're really getting into the nitty gritty of things. And thus, when you talk to an NBA fan, they tend to, dare I say, prioritize the more sophisticated elements of sports watching. Whereas the NFL is a very raw and visceral and violent experience, which is great, almost.

like in the way a big old IMAX movie is. But for an NBA team, you really got to be committed. And you also, I think, are rewarded from that commitment over time because I think the bond is actually stronger when you get down to it. I mean, this is so crazy. You're saying it's almost like prestige TV. That's the comparison you're making. I wouldn't, but perhaps you would. In theory you could. I do think you're spot on though, Justin. It's like you can, look, if you just want to tune in for the playoffs, you can see the results. But the regular season is where you get the context. It's where you learn what those results mean or how they mean more to you, because

if you've been tuning in for however many games of the 82 or just kind of bouncing around the league you want to do, maybe you'll become invested in seeing the Knicks get over the hump based on what you've seen from them in the regular season. Maybe you're going to see Jamal Murray and have like a new respect for the way he's played this season and be like, man, I just love his game and I want to see him do more. I can't wait to see what he does against Oklahoma City or whoever in the playoffs. You're going to have some preconceived notions if you're listening to group chat or watching highlights or doing whatever, but it's not going to be the organic like stuff that just finds you

and grabs you over the course of that time spent that then changes the way you think about what ultimately happens. I think we have an interesting thing going on with the NBA right now where I think that the volume of the product being different from the NFL, you know, you can't, the increase of video hasn't really impacted the NFL A because they're stricter about what they let people do with during the week in terms of content creators and things like that. But the NBA is very wide open. The fire hose is as big as, you know, whatever it is, the sand dune worms mouth.

It's gigantic. It's so big. And as much as you want, you can get, you can get fat or drunk off of it. And I think the access to video on a day-to-day basis with League Pass, you have the people who can go and get rewarded in the way that you're all talking about. But I really think, as somebody that can see, that shovels the watching, you know, pile. I always say that it's a pile that I shovel.

and it never moves. Like it never goes down. It's just so much all the time. I think for most people, for sickos, for people who are really, really into the details and want to get rewarded by that stuff,

that's fine. But a lot of people, a lot of people don't. A lot of people don't have the time. And I think that the sort of the, even compared to college, I just feel like the games, if a team loses a game in the NBA,

I just, you feel people more quickly shrugging it off unless it's a loss or arrival or whatever it is, they can be indicative to varying degrees. But you'll feel people shrug it off and be like, I would get a lot more of these.

I just feel like there's something about the availability and things that makes me think that the NBA should start to lean into finding places where, and I think we'll talk about this more with the broadcaster thing, finding places to drive the narrative engine of the league more effectively. Because I don't see it on national broadcasts in the way I always references, but like Bob Costas,

used to set it out. And because we had less access that the league passed didn't exist and things like that, you got this very broad, cinematic look at the league that I personally don't see anywhere unless you find these people on YouTube

or wherever it is. I think the NBA has a problem on a storytelling front because we have so much access that you can just drown in it and it can start to kind of just lose its meaning. I don't know. I think this is one of those things

we don't really talk about with football. And here I go, a guy who doesn't watch it, trying to opine up. about what's going on in the NFL. But my understanding, just face on, like, looking at social media, talking to friends, there are such clear league-wide storylines in the NFL

that people are gravitating towards and locking into. And I'm not saying everyone is in agreement, but, like, the discussion points feel a little more hashed out than with the NBA. And maybe some of that is just the sheer number of games. Maybe it's me imagining that or seeing group think on Twitter or whatever. But I feel like there is a little bit more, like, driving story. And we're a little all over the place.

You know, there's a version of the NBA for everybody, for the real X&O nerds, for the people who just want transactions, for the people who just want kind of like interteam drama or just the aesthetics of the game or whatever it is. There's a version of that league for you, but we're not coming together very often at this point. Like, there's a little overlap, but you're kind of in your own lane. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that the NFL is better at, like, carving out those storylines. I think the media apparatus, typically the ESPNs, the big boys and are setting the agenda for everyone. I don't mean the league itself. I just mean in terms of the way the league is covered. Yeah, yeah, for sure.

I see pretty similarly. I think it's just intrinsic to the way the NBA works and probably how the schedule works. And like, don't get me wrong. I think the schedule should be, there should be a big old cut taken out of it. I don't know a single person who works in the league who watches anybody who isn't like financially invested

in the 82 game schedule. saying anything other than there needs to be fewer games, that would help to a large degree. I ultimately think everything that we end up talking about in this kind of conversation ultimately boils back down to if we had fewer games, this would not be a problem. But I think, like, for all of us who watch the NBA before the decision, like this is kind of the NBA reverting back to where we were before,

where it almost, I think the decision era, the post-Lebron boom, kind of lulled people into thinking it is something that it's not. And I think ultimately people got into it for the reasons that I'm talking about where rewards repeat watching. I think that Denver game that Kyle was referring to earlier where Anthony Black went for like 38. I think is a prime example of that where we've seen him kind of struggle last year. We talked about like, oh, maybe he'll take the leap. Like could he be a player? Does he start?

Does he not? And then even this year we see flashes of it starts to like get it all together. Then all of a sudden on a random Saturday night game that I just happened to be plugged into, he was fucking awesome. And that pop of electricity hits more because of the time you invested in it. Now, should you invest that amount of time to get to that? I think that's a different conversation that I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you if you said that. But based on how things played out, I feel something more personal about black success than I wouldn't have if I just saw a guy in game 15 on an NFL field do something similar. Totally.

I think it's the little things. It's the medium-sized things. It's if you are invested and you're watching a Celtics run and you and you see Jalen Brown going for a lefty layup, it's like, see, look, look how far we've come. Look how far we've come together. And there's just no way to replace that, even if you're plugged in on social media, even if you're getting all the jokes, even if you're listening to podcasts, like you'll get bits and pieces of that stuff.

But there's just going to be a part of it that's always a little bit of contextually, a little bit of context that's missing. And again, I'm with you, Justin, the value judgment of that is different for everybody. But if you've got the time for it, I think the NBA does ultimately pay off in its product, the people who are really, really deep into it. All right. Next one. Next question is from B-Ball-Girl girl. Are there any teams or players you find particularly challenging or elusive to explain or talk about as a writer slash podcaster? I love this question. The answer for me is like almost everybody all the time. Yeah, right. Especially when someone new comes on to the scene, you're trying to figure out

how to wrap your head around what it is that they do. The ones who kind of stick for me, I've made a list of some players. I think there's a common theme here that we can get into. Cam Thomas, R.J. Barrett, P.J. Washington, DeAndre Aiton, late stage Russell Westbrook, John Collins, Moses Moody, Gary Trent, Jr. These players are doing something that is clearly valuable to a point,

but to what point? And those are the hardest players to talk about, where there's no black and white, they're good, they're bad, they're even good at this, they're bad at that. It's like on this night, they're incredibly valuable. And in the grand scheme of things, I don't know how useful it really is if you're talking about wanting to win a championship or wanting to go on a deep playoff run or have them be your franchise player or whatever. It's like it's also so specific to the moment that they are in that it's hard to make like a grand statement about who PJ Washington is as a basketball player. These the Julius Randall All-Stars?

Or is he elevated out of that group? He's way elevated out of it. He's way too good now. I love Julius Randall, but he had more point to what you're saying was in this class. Absolutely. I thought you were saying PJ was elderly. I was like, really? Oh, yeah, Julia, I think you hit on, that is a good one because I think what you're,

what you're talking about is just sort of figuring out where to draw the, the boundary of severity of criticism, like, and can create, you know, benefit of doubt with someone like a Cam Thomas because what you're seeing is someone who has going back to this. the developmental thing, opportunity plays a big part of that. And who's to say that this wide open road opportunity for Cam Thomas to go wild and shoot all the shots isn't going to serve him in another situation down the road. And watching him, you know, he has been sort of a lightning rod. And players like him who have all that open road to shoot the ball a lot, they do tend to

Zach Levine's guys like that. You know, it's like you just, that's the hardest thing at times. It's like you're tempted to draw these really severe opinions. about those players and dismiss them. And I think that can be a really tricky thing. Evaluating guys from, you know, because sometimes guys will pop into winning situations that are just right.

And you're like, Jesus Christ, Andrew Wiggins. Wow, he's doing something here. Like, those things can be really hard to dial in. Like, I don't love Cam Thomas, but he came into a game against the wolves and put up 30 and 20 minutes off the bench. Like, it was nothing. It's like, you can't discount that.

That's a real thing that happened. But what does it mean? And I think that's one of the most difficult parts of trying to analyze the game. is taking the actual literal, inescapable contributions of a player and figuring out like, does this actually matter?

Like, does a big getting rebounds actually matter if they don't actually box out? You know, this stuff is happening all the time. We should call them double rainbow players. What does it mean? Like,

you know what I mean? Is the internet that old that people won't remember that reference? Anyway. Unfortunately, maybe so. But we encounter this a lot in the top 100, and I've basically adopted the Randall rule,

which is if a player who you don't particularly, like the means for which he gets his production is producing at a level that is ignorable, unignorable, I should say. Then you have to, like, respect it. I think Vouch is one of these classic cases

where it's just like, a lot of times when Vooch isn't right, it's really bad. But if he's shooting the hell out of the ball, if he's making that offense work, you got to give it to him. If he's holding guys accountable because they just won't play hard enough,

you got to give it to him. What about when he's trying to check Yannis onto Dekumpo's end of game behavior? Do you have to give it to him? I respect it. Yeah, that windmill was bullshit. You don't do that. Come on,

unwritten rules, man. See, I'm in the, like, if you don't want to deduct on you, maybe don't be losing that badly camp. But, you know, there are losers of all kinds. Well, my side door answer to this question is something that Kyle was kind of alluding to before, which is dominant teams, especially later in the season. Because the one thing I hear constantly from people is like, you don't give this team enough respect.

Or, like, why don't you talk about this? team. And my answer is honestly, at a certain point, like a team like the Nuggets a couple years ago in their title run, like, what more is there really to discuss once they've established that they're so good that you really are nitpicking at that point? And for a national show like ours, like, you know, a couple like productive minutes from Bruce Brown out of nowhere, like, that's not going to make the marquee. It's not going to make our outline. And so it ultimately comes down to our favorite word, Rob, which is the driving force for all

interest, especially in stories. I say this all the time. What is it? Breakfast? Tension. Tension. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. Where's the tension? Because we learn all through narrative. All of the fucking blog boys had a revolt over

narrative inflicting the game, but like narrative is how we discuss things and how we learn things and how we develop like what is intrigue. And so if there's no tension, then there really isn't much to talk about. And that's why we're not saying the team isn't great. I'd love to talk about. We'll talk about them all the time in the playoffs. But if they're just cruising and they have 60 wins in March, there's not much there to really

diagnose. You can talk about what makes them good. But at a certain point, it's just like, Kays and Balls is pretty sick, huh? AJ Mitchell, we love them. You know, like, you can just run down the rosters or run down like, oh, they're good at this thing. They don't turn the ball over. They get to the pain a lot, whatever it is. I think, Honestly, those teams are definitely elusive. I would say media-wide, too, a team like the Spurs has been super elusive where the Wembee vacuum when he was out of the lineup, or even when he was coming back and playing, like, you know, working himself back against the minutes limit, people were just talking about it

as if it was like a Wemby-dominated game all the time. The Spurs are winning so many different weird ways every time they play that if you talk about them definitively as being one thing, I just think you're probably wrong about it. And so it's like, how do you even wrap your arms around a team like that? When they've had injuries, they've had guys in and out, we know so little about who they are as a whole. And yet, in these lineups, they are scorching teams with offense. In these lineups, they play super small. And these lineups are playing Luke Cornett and Victor Webbenyama together.

Like, they're all over the place in a way that I think is super fun, but also pretty difficult to actually explain. So you're saying that like a player can be so odd and so good that it can kind of create like a cognitive event horizon, basically. there's no doubt about that. Like, I just think if there is, for one, if there's a star on the team, it sort of blots out a lot of the actual explanation for what's happening, which sometimes is related to the star, often maybe is related to the star. But sometimes it's just like, I don't know, Harrison Barnes shot like 80% this week. And the Spurs won four games.

Like that's just a real thing that could happen and factor into a pretty significant part of their season. Right. And that's the flip side of like allowing ESPN or someone of that nature to dictate like interest, which to a large degree they do even still, where it's like if Wembe's not there, they're just going to ignore it and not really like foul the story as it was ebbing.

You will on group chat because we get into the nitty gritty there. Look at that. Just listen to us and nobody else is really the takeaway. Problem solved. There we go. All right. Next one.

Speaking of nitty gritty, this question from Michael, I'm a lifelong Celtics fan and I want all your Ugo Gonzalez takes. What do you guys think of Ugo? How does this play? and the play of the triumvirate of him, mine,

and Walsh, change things for the future of my beloved Celtics. Yeah, I really want to hear from one person and it's the man who saw Hugo Gonzalez in the flesh tonight on a basketball court right before his eyes.

Justin, I mean, were you moved? He's pretty sick. They were closing down the stretch with the four starters and Hugo Gonzalez. And he has that thing

where it's like, there are degrees of pests. Like, you have the guy who's just going to be all, effort out there. And then you got the guy at the high end who's just like really working the lines of like what is acceptable. And this dude will just like fucking shove guys who are twice his size just in order to get a foul back, which he did against, I believe, Tamanukamara in order to

get to the free throw line. Like he's a baller and like you can't really teach what he has, which is very exciting, which is just, I guess it's grit and determination, not to be real ex-Stinian about this, but he has that sort of Joe Maz sort of quality, which is not surprising to see him succeed under this coach under this team. I think the other thing he has is just sort of the element of surprise.

Like he, the way he reads, especially on offense, he's a defense first player, the effort, the hounding. They're very important qualities. But like, he's not a pure shooter and he's an unpredictable cutter. And so I don't know that he's ever going to get to the point where he's like putting up

15 a game. Like, that's just not really what he does for the most part, but he's going to get six very opportune points at a time where it really feels like it fucks up your shit or if it fuels a run or does whatever. Like it feels backbreaking when he does stuff. And I think that's in part. He's like a pretty savvy cutter. He's a good finisher. It's like all those things coming together sort of make him an element that's really hard to pin down even for a Celtics team that, you know, they should be more predictable than they are. And yet teams seem to really have trouble at Blazers accepted apparently actually stifling them. I think when you look at, I was kind of, you know, Minot and Walsh and Ugo, I was like,

we can't really say, I don't know if they're quite to tear twins level yet in terms of, you know, but I was like to bother some brothers. I was trying to think of something that, you know, some kind of nickname for them. But Spanish Conchar was another thing that I was thinking about. Rugo, it's kind of, I don't know. It sounds like a good. Conquistadors. Anyway, Ugo might not even be Spanish. I just know he played for Real Madrid.

But, you know, 41.4% on Catcher Truth, the shot looks better than it did a year ago. He's getting better. Like I said, the developmental stuff, I know they love him to death. He just is one of those guys, like, hands in. He's very accurate. I said Conchar because Conchar had this incredible, like, steel. coming into the league. He was just really like an expert right place, right time.

I don't know if he's like one of like a younger sibling or something like that. You'll see that from younger brothers a lot. Like they just are really unafraid of contact. They're really physical. His footwork is really good in the paint. Like when he's driving to the basket, he decels. He takes bumps. I think if you're going to

spin this out and talk about to what Michael asked about like how are they going to how is he going to factor in? I think once the Celtics become a little bit more whole and the system and the organism is sort of more functioning the way it normally does. I think that you're going to see that cutting. I think you're going to see that transition speed. I think everything that he does is scalable up, even if he never becomes, you know,

somebody who's like a primary ball and he doesn't have to because for the foreseeable future, I think the Celtics have pieces they're going to enable him in a good way. It would be really cool if all three of these guys are part of the Celtics, like near-term future once Jason Tatum comes back whenever that is or the team kind of turns, over and reshapes itself a little bit. That would be really cool. Absent that, Ugo feels like he's, Hugo and Jordan Walsh, I say,

are kind of at the front of the line. Josh Minot finds his way into the doghouse now and again, gets yonked around in the rotation a little bit in ways that it makes it really hard to believe that he's like entrenched himself. But he's had moments where he looked that way. He's had moments where he looked like he might be a fixture. And if nothing else, I think the balance of those three

is really fun and is really one of the defining parts of the Celtic season so far in terms of what they found triangulated between the three of them. And how many times have we talked about teams that get to this position where they're devoting so much cap space to two to three players, needing these guys on the fringes in order to play 10 to 15 to 20 minutes, and being able to manufacture them is the type of difference-making sort of organizational skill that really could make the difference between a team competing for a title

versus just being an all-soul ran. You look around the league, like a lot of teams are trying to find a Josh, might not for 10 minutes or Jordan Walsh to guard your like primary guy. And so like if Taden comes back, like, I'm getting into the wild. They've lost the Blazers today. So this is a bad time to be saying this. But like I'm kind of buying into the wild fantasy about this year because the East is still wide open.

I think they would have to play above their heads in order to get there. Tadon would have to look great pretty much immediately. But it's like it's in within the realm of possibility that something good could happen this season for the Celtics. Yeah, and look, regardless of a loss of the Blazers or whatever, Hugo Gonzalez came in and gave him 30 good minutes in a game like this. Huge net win. Like, he's way ahead of the curve.

Jordan Walsh has been awesome this season. Josh Minot, I've been impressed in moments. I just love these guys. I love the way they play. I love the energy. The focus can be a little all over the place. Hugo, I think, has done a good job of kind of reining in just like pure activity and instead chaneled into like really productive directions.

He's also a great, like, there's that lazy. high school basketball player move where when someone tries to drive by you, you kind of matador them and then poke the ball away under their arm. It's like sneaky, very good at it against the best basketball players in the world. I don't know how that's happening, but I love watching it. He annoys the piss

out of people with they throw lazy entry passes. That's something that has really entertain me about him because NBA players just tend to, I'm not trying to, they tend to think everything's a foul, you know, so like, I don't know, there was a play against Brandon Ingram where he just doesn't make catch as easy and I like

guys like that. It's a very kind of Caruso carusonian quality that it's just an annoying extra thing for a team that has high hopes. Isaiah, do you have a Ugo jersey yet? Are you just waiting getting a tattooed to your body? Not yet. Once he's like finals MVP, that's we'll get it done. Yeah.

I'll buy you that tattoo. Beautiful. We're doing it live on stream. There's really no doubt about it. Next question is from Sloan. My twin brother and I would appreciate if you guys would help educate the youth with this debate, Hardin versus Wade. I believe Hardin is better than Wade. I believe ring culture has made people undervalue how good players are in the regular season. While my brother tells me Wade is a top three shooting guard, but neither of us watched him play in his prime as we were too young.

Please explain who you think has had a better career. This question messed me up. I'm going to be honest with you. I went through a full on crisis with it. Can we just do a little show of hands before we really dive into it about where we're landing with this? I think after some serious soul searching, my answer is Dwayne Wade. Do you guys feel strongly one way or the other? I was hardened and I feel pretty definitive about it.

How are you? I kind of, I think I kind of tilt a little towards Wade, but there's so many factors to this. I think the first one is eras in terms of them playing the position. Wade was on track to become a heavy load. He was kind of playing as the pick and roll revolution

was starting to ramp up. He starts to have injury problems. I think you compare them at their peak. Well, let's just look like earlier in their career, I wrote this down. I mean, they are kind of polar opposites in the fact that Wade was sort of revolutionary in his, the art and sort of beauty

in the way that he would get to the middle of the floor. He was a better finisher. And Harden, on the other hand, revolutionized, like, accessing space behind you in terms of to create your jump shot, which, you know, that plays into there were way more three-pointers. Like, if you look at Wade in his first five seasons in the league only in tempted 3333s, for contrasts, Steph Castle, not considered a great shooter. In his rookie year, he shot 333.3.

So just to give an idea of how different the position. is. So, Ares, I think, is the first thing that kind of came to mind for me. The game's totally changed. And James Harden, to your point, is a huge reason why. Like, we credit Steph as being the one-man three-point revolution. There's a reason why Hardin is just like right there at the top of the all-time three-point made leaderboard. And it's a crazy thing what he has managed to do in carrying an offense and really at the height of his powers was a one-man engine for the most efficient offenses in the league. There's just no way, like, arguing around that. James Hardin has been an awesome player for an incredibly long time.

I think this might just boil down to playoff success versus what you're describing right there, whereas Hardin did play a critical role, if not like, minus Steph, one of the key roles in modernizing basketball to where it is right now. Like, it's the side step stuff. It's just the threes and layups, like whole shot chart. That was popularized based off of his Rockets. teams, or at least they took it to a logical extreme that no other team had. And so, like, I think he's almost discredited a lot for that because people have such a distaste for that style of play. Like, we talk about, like, the Luca types with disdain at a certain point because it's so, like, it's, it's kind of compounded with ball hoggery to a certain extent. And so I think, like,

that's part of it, but also the playoff stuff kind of corrupts that. But I look to longevity is another part of this as well. And Wade's last like four years or so, practically after he left Miami the first time, we're pretty spotty at best. I think he got one All-Star bid after that. And that was just like the farewell one that they gave to him and Dirk. Whereas Hardin just made the All-Star team last year. Like, I think he could still play for another three to four seasons after this at what level. I'm not sure. But like, I think Hardin is going when we look at the body of work, it's going to be pretty hard to go against unless you just weigh the playoff success so much against. them, which if you do, I can't really argue

that he's been historically spotty and almost to a point where I don't even know what the peer is. I don't know what the comp is for someone at that level. But God damn, I just look at like what he's meant to the game in terms of how it is actually played. And to me, that matters a little bit more than Wade who excelled at

a style that was just played at the time. Yeah, I think Cardin is definitely more influential. There's really no debate about that at all. For Wade, you're right, there is like a peak first longevity argument because not only is Hardin still putting up like 26 and 8 right this minute, even if it's for a Clippers team that doesn't matter, Justin, he's already played more games than Dwayne Wade ever did.

And this, I think the spottingness argument in the playoffs gets very interesting for me when you just think about the differences in their lowest moments of their careers. And for James Harden, it's like no shows in critical games, like just does not perform in some of these games where his team absolutely needs him to perform. on the other hand, he has been historically a kind of Ironman that Dwayne Wade never was. And so Dway's lowest moments were often like later in those years being a little immobile off the ball or just being unavailable at various times. And so it's like, how do you weigh being on the court and underperforming against being

on the court and getting old or being on the court or not being on the court at all? Like those are hard things to square against each other. I think what ultimately wins me into Wade's camp is one, that only only, that only only, nine Wade season, I would put up against the best James Hardin season. And so it's like if we're talking peak versus longevity, I think the Wade peak is about as good as individual superstar creation

has been over the last 25 years. He's been right there with LeBron, with Steph or Westbrook or Hardin or wherever you want to think about in that category. It's been awesome. Luca and Yolkidge as well. Plus the playoff resume, which to me is not a rings argument so much as just like the 06 run is one of the great

crunch time closing pushes that we've seen. maybe ever. And overall, like, does show up in those moments in a way that Hardin, as we just alluded to, like didn't necessarily. And so the reliability, the peak and the fact that Dwayne Wade showed he can be the best player on the 06 team and also this like definitively the second best player on the Heedles team, that modulation in a way that Hardin, I think has been a good soldier in trying to do that at various times, including right now with Kauai Leonard, but just hasn't been as successful in being the second best player on a highly effective team as

Dwayne Wade was. And so if you can do all that and be a proven champion three times over, that's a very compelling case to me. Better two-way player. No question about it. You know, Wade at his peak was super disruptive getting him passing lanes. He was a trigger, a transition trigger on his own. Maybe one of the, I mean, he's in the argument for best, like help, help rim protector for his position ever. I mean, you're talking about, Jordan you're talking about a very, very short list of guys. Rob hit it with the toggling.

Had more, you know, had a second life after the primary stuff doesn't work out where he became an, he became an excellent cutter. It became somebody who really utilized those things, was ready to go early in his year. And you talked about them at their peak, you had to kind of go per 100 or per 75 to get sort of the style of the eras to kind of line up, but their efficiencies are really similar. Another thing, too, is that, like, I think the talent that they played with is another factor that you have to do here because, you know, Harden at the beginning plays with that the baby thunder, Harden at the end with that, with that Nets team that was good that never really got off the ground.

Wade also kind of had the benefit of playing with some really, really great, really talent, you know. If you look, I went back and I was watching an 05 game. He at one point was on the floor with Shaq and Alonzo morning, you know, and he played with Biggs that like Hardin just never did. It's a complicated conversation. I still would lean. I can't think of any instances where Wade just, like didn't show up. Big game player, big moment player. They're just very different. So I think you

have to kind of calibrate it to find a middle ground to compare them in a way. I wish Hardin had just gotten one. Like if Chris Paul doesn't get hurt against the Warriors in the West Finals, like do we look at Hardin's entire career? Do we think of all of his missteps in part because that is the narrative of his career? Whereas we don't think that with Wade because he's known as a winner. Now he's he's done that by being more consistent in those moments, I don't want to take that away from him. But to a certain extent, we do kind of funnel into what we expect of the player

and what we think of them in the broad sense, especially the longer and longer we get away from Wade, than anything else. And so it is kind of like your mind, like how do we remember people at the same sort of time? Well, you know what that is, Justin? Tension, baby. Storytelling.

But, I mean, you're so right. It's like, did you overcome this thing or does it hang around your neck? And I think we're still at the point with Hardin where all of those flaws, all of those shortcomings, all those games he didn't perform in, they just kind of hang over him and around him all the time. And Wade doesn't have any of that stuff.

For Wade, it is champion without LeBron, champion with LeBron, critical part of some of the most important Olympic teams ever put together. Like, all that stuff kind of factors in. And ultimately, I think what we're circling around is they are kind of in the same tier of consideration. It just depends on what you value and what your tastes are. Also, in all due fairness,

one thing we haven't really talked about at all. James Harder just one of the best passers in modern NBA history. And Dwayne Wade's like, you know, he's really cool, really cool playmaker in the pick and roll at all. Wade's high in the playmaking sense, but not quite the surgeon that Hardin might be like the best low angle passer ever. Like he's way, way up there on that. I think if you want to talk about the best the best passers since the year 2000, he's at least top 10 might be making an argument for top five. And that like, again, that is very compelling in and of itself. as we've been going through this discussion,

I've just been replaying the Clippers getting blown off the floor in game seven last year just because they wouldn't get back in transition to the point where they had to come up with a T-shirt for it. So maybe I need to completely change my answer. Maybe so. No, it's just one tiny little tycoon. If we're going to just teach,

if there are young people listening to this, Dwayne Wade is one of the most aesthetically pleasing basketball players to watch of all time. Like Rob said, 08.09, go watch it. that's your homework. Just the, or just so fun to watch. Especially when he was young.

So anyway, Google de-weighed euros and just sit there for a couple, a couple minutes, couple days. If you want, your pants won't fit afterward. God damn, Justin. All right, next one.

Okay. This question is from Samantha. Who are your favorite announcers and what criteria do you base this decision on? For me, they need to be their fun. or informative. Legler has been awesome. He brings actual insight. Stan Van Gundy says at least three hilarious things per game. Should they focus more on engaging the audience or paraphrase a

New York Times food critic Ruth Reichel? Do you think their announcing should make you feel like you were there at the game? Hell yes, Samantha. Really speaking my language. I mean, here's a question. Do you guys just point out that I think this is like at least two women who have, of given questions to our mailbag? It seems like flirting with Rob. Yeah, I didn't know if this was New York Times quote. Look, I think it's a compelling question. I think it's a great framing.

Do you guys want something different from a national broadcaster versus a local broadcaster? Let's start there. Like from a Legler or a stand van versus, you know, someone who is just a work-a-day color commentator for the Portland Trailblazers, for example? Not necessarily. I just want the right combination of entertainment value, knowledge, and also I think like the vocal quality, like the timber of their voice, like a deep baritone or whatever it is that just like really like hits you in the feels. Like I want that from all phases. Maybe perhaps if you're watching a local broadcast, you want to be careful about not being too homerish because that used to be a huge problem.

where like I think half of the league past broadcasts basically work for the team at this. I mean, they all technically worked for the team, but like they were carrying water regularly. Full on state media. It was, it's gotten a lot better. But yeah, I think you want someone who knows the team intimately and maybe roots for them at the right moment. Like when a big shot happened or a big moment happens, you want them to like give the appropriate amount of enthusiasm. But for the large part, Rob, I kind of just want the same sorts of things. I want an entertainer.

Yeah. I think I don't even want to feel like I'm at the game per se. I just want to feel like I am part of a communal event watching the game. You know, when I think about like the Mike Breen double bang on that step three against OKC, I didn't feel like I'm in the arena. I feel like I'm in a sports bar. Like that's the kind of vibe you won is like, how am I being pulled into something off of my couch or out of my context and feeling connected to other sports fans?

I think obviously Breen is great at that. Harlan is great at that. That's really more of a play-by-play kind of job in terms of capturing the moment. and then for color, it's just more about like putting all that into thought, into humor. And I think the idea of informative or funny is a pretty fair framing.

Like, you really do just want one of those two buckets and the best of the best, do a little of both. Yeah, and, you know, if we're separating out into play-by-play, just a few names I would add.

I think there's like the Schmaltz thing that really is nice. Like I think Mike Toriko makes me feel like I'm watching something really important. I enjoy when he's on their brain. Buller Jack, I think, is somebody, one of the local guys.

And I also think Colabro, I think is pretty solid in terms of his highs in terms of like the energy. I think Eric Collins goes in there too. But just in terms of, I mean, one of my favorites is Ion Eagle. I've just really enjoyed him. And I think he's one of the guys who entertains, he's not heavy handed with his, with his entertaining stuff. But I also think he's one of the more talented, heavy like entertainers. Because I thought back to this, like, during the NCAA tournament a couple of years ago. And he's one of these guys that bounces back and forth.

Coke Zero wrote this really cool. convoluted ad read that they wanted the broadcasters to read on air. And people who watch calls basketball are going to know what I'm talking about. And so you saw these guys try to read it. And there was like this inflection that you just saw them bumble it over and over and over again. I An Eagle was the only guy who read it and had the comedic sense to understand the rhythm of it and execute it. So I think there's something about that. So shouts to him on that.

And in terms of just, yeah, it varies. I mean, I really, I've always been a really big fan of Brent Bear. I like him a lot. Marcus Johnson on the local broadcast, like him a lot. Legler Informative, but Stan Vane is my favorite. I know it was mentioned in the comments.

He's like the NBA's uncle. He's like the uncle, like you go over and you sit with him for like 20, 30 minutes, and he tells you like two or three stories. And like, he's like, what do you know, it's just,

he's just perfect. He's great. Which is why Hubie was great too. Yes. He pulls you aside and like, he informs you, like he coaches you along, but doesn't do it where he's like,

talking down to you at all. And Stan has that quality, which is why I agree. I think I and Eagle and Stan Vann are the runaway, like, duo out there. Yeah, I think the dream is you're eating your vegetables, but it feels like you're drinking a beer with a friend or with an uncle in this case, right? It's like, how do you make that approachable? How do you make that feel like a process you want to be a part of? It's a tough job. Like honestly, play by play in itself immensely difficult staying on top of the action, color and finding the right moments to interject with exactly that balance of levity and insight, very, very difficult.

Even for coaches and players who know a shit ton about the game to not be over-explaining, to not be walking us through every single thing. I think Sarah Kustak does a really good job of explaining the game on a super legible, like, level, but without over-indulging, without getting too flowery, without getting too, like, technical

in terms of what she's walking through. Jim Pete does a really great job of that, too. We're in a pretty good era, as you were talking about, just, in terms of the local broadcast. There are still some that maybe you don't need to argue every foul call in favor of your team. But I think the balance is getting better and better.

My favorite thing about Hubie towards the end was, number one, he seemed to get overwhelmed by whenever he would be like, oh, oh, oh, like he would do that. If somebody drove, whoa, wow, that was great. And then he had this template to be, here's a guy who, blah, blah, blah, came into the league shot 35% improved over.

He had this like real rhythm that he would do it and then if guys were like reckless driving in anyway, yeah, he, I miss him. Yeah,

love TV. Can I do some final shoutouts before we move on in terms of broadcasters that I really like? Mark follow on play by plant Dallas one of the best in the business. Collaboro where I talked about

Matt Devlin in Toronto does a great job. Reverend Knight on the Memphis broadcast I really like a lot. You know, I'm just really finding I used to be a mute the league pass experience.

kind of guy because the state of things was that bad. And I'm finding I'm unmuting more and more and just really soaking up the color these days. I wish, though, we had more guys like Breen who level up from the local broadcast. I mean, MSG is probably one of the biggest broadcasts out there, but go from local to national and go back again. Because the experience is like seeing the nationally touring band at a local club to a certain extent.

I guess Michael Grady's getting to this point where he's on the national. I think he's very good. There's a reason why he's had a quick assent. from like sideline on Brooklyn to where he is now. But I do like that because Breen just takes on a different quality. He's a little bit more laid back. And obviously he's had the relationship with Clyde forever. So he's like,

he's just a little bit more sinking into a comfortable chair. And so I would like Stan Van to go from like magic to the national broadcast and back again. Because we think he's kind of unhinged now on a national broadcast. Can you imagine what he's letting fly about like no appendip postups? God. I just need Diet Coke. in full effect.

Just really rocking out his magic roots. Talking policy on broadcasts and things. Yeah. Love Stan. All right. Let's keep it moving. Next question is from Ben.

You are a GM in picking out or picking to fill out your roster win this year. Do not factor in injury history or salary or positional's need. Assume perfect health and plenty of caps face. You have a need for all positions

choose between. Kevin Durant or Kwai Leonard. He had 55 tonight. Lukea or Yanis, Jalen Brown, or Donovan Mitchell. So we're getting rid of injuries. Yeah.

Injuries toggled off. And so Kauai Leonard is still an incredible basketball player when he plays. Kevin Doreen, unfortunately, is 37. Kauai, not in his prime per se, but still grasping to the point where he could dominate a game, much like he did tonight. Yes.

I mean, everything about how we talk about Kauai is shaped by when he is available and when he isn't and how much money he makes and the bird. that that puts on a team for a guy who's that unavailable. And if you wipe all that stuff away, he's just a fucking buzzsaw. Like, he's just awesome on the court basically every minute he plays. So crazy to think that anyone opposite Kevin Durant would feel like a slam dunk pick. But I think I feel I can pick Kauai Leonard pretty easily under under this either or.

Yeah. Yeah. If he's healthy, he's still a solid, great two-way player, still a big time shotmaker. Yeah, it's just, it's kind of a shame in a way. So that one, that one is not hard. Yeah. So the next one, Luca or Janus, I went Luca. I also went Luca. Interesting.

I was thinking more two-way on this one because I was thinking if I had my shot maker and my answer to follow, I love Luca. This was tough for me, but the idea of having Kauai and Janus, I'm down. Okay, this is a question. So you're taking these guys in tandem. I was saying we're discrete situations. Were you thinking about that way too, JV? I thought we were in a vacuum.

Okay, so let's, yeah, separate vacuum, Kyle. Would you go Janus or Luca? No Kauai on your team. Sorry. Oh, well, then, yeah, Luca then. Yeah, okay. I'd love to give it a monologue here about how Luca needs to shut the fuck up because his complaining is getting untolerable yet again.

Getting? It's just been at the same level for like five years. I think he coasted on the good vibes he got post-trade because he was such a sympathetic figure. Everyone kind of just forgot about it or at least pushed it aside. and now it's just like, get back on fucking defense. Good Lord. But Janus, he's kind of in this era of being a little petulant himself.

So it's not like he really gets a lot of points in that category. But I would still go, Luca. The offense is unbelievable. It's very fashionable this week to be taken those shots at Luca about the, like complaining about the officiating, about his defense, about how he plays on or off the ball, whatever it is. I don't know. I mean, look, I get it. All that stuff has been true, as Kyle said, for basically his. entire career. When it comes down to it, I love Janus, love everything about the way he plays.

I think Luca does the single most important thing at basically the highest level you can do it. And if you're doing that, I'm going to take you against most players, frankly. The last one is pretty interesting. Juicy. For this one, I almost need the context of the team. Whereas if I am starting from scratch, I think Eileen Mitchell because I think he could be a number one score. In the way that Brown has this year, but I think Mitchell can do better. If I need Brown as my number two, if I know I'm going to get somebody else to fill that void, he obviously slots in better. And so I guess if we're in this vacuum, I would lean Mitchell, but I truly want Brown because I'm hoping to get someone better than both of those guys. If you do pick Mitchell

and you're presuming that he's going to be your first option, like you're picking up a fairly flawed first option, historically speaking, a guy who we've seen be hyper-productive but run up against the wall pretty hard. Is that even a good argument against someone who, as you said, Justin, it's been similarly productive for a better offense this season and also has shown he can be a really good second option, something Donovan Mitchell, at least for a long time now, has not really been asked to do. So frankly, who knows how successfully he would do it. Maybe that's unfair to Donovan. It's just, I feel like I've seen him be a headliner. And I don't. always love the results.

And with Jalen Brown, I'm open to the possibilities and yet again, kind of circling back to the Wade Harden thing. Like, I like a guy who can play both slots. I like someone who has the balance in their game to do that. Plus, the Jalen Brown defense is a not a significant part of this, too. I'm interested by the idea of Mitchell being somebody who, in most situations, is sort of the presumed primary, but his optimal spot really is playing in that secondary role. He just hasn't had the opportunity because if you think back about his career,

just like even in Cleveland, I don't know that that was necessarily the original plan. I don't know. It's hard to get back to like the Garland Ascension mindset, like what it was a couple years ago or what their original thought process was. But yeah, Donovan, Donovan in the right situation. Like, Jalen just happened to be with Tatum,

who's like the obvious implied number one there. So, yeah, maybe it creates this illusion that they're not on the same level, but they actually are. So in terms of the two-way stuff, if we're assuming we're going to get another good, I probably I would lean Jalen. Here's a question.

If you were to pop Evan Mobley onto each of their situation, so it was Evan Mobley plus Mitchell, Evan Mobley plus Brown. Okay. Which twosome would you prefer? I don't think that Donovan Mitchell and Evan Mobley have amazing pop-off-the-screen chemistry per se. No. And so I think I would take Jalen Brown and Evan Mobley

as like the crux of a really physical, well, sometimes physical in Evan Mobley's case, but ultimately a good catch-all kind of defense. is. Yeah. The defense would be the selling point because I would, I mean, if you think about Jalen and Mowgli's offensive chemistry,

I don't really, I don't really, I don't know. They don't really interlock at all. You'd have to have a pretty, a pretty solid connector out that I would think between those two. I feel like all this, I feel like I'm knocking Donovan Mitchell as we go through this.

Donovan Mitchell is an awesome score. And as far as like we're going through the finer points of his game and ultimately like what holds him back sometimes, his great sin was really he was awesome out of the gate and was charted on a course of like, well, we just need to give this guy the ball and get out of his way pretty much from the jump of his career. It's hard to hold that against him,

especially when I never watched Jonathan Mitchell play and feel like he's a selfish player. Like I know he shoots a lot. I know he has the ball in his hands a lot. To me, it usually comes from a place of pretty clear need in terms of what his team is asking him explicitly or implicitly to do. So it's not really his fault, but his game is a little more scoring oriented.

And yet I don't know. that I want him to be the go-to score on a team that I'm hoping to take to a championship. This is also a really tough time to be answering this question where the Cavs are underachieving where Mitchell is surrounded most of the time by three other all-stars plus a bench

of like pretty interesting guys at this point. I know like all of them are playing at once and all that, but at the same time like the Celtics are overachieving because Brown was finally given the opportunity after sacrificing for so long to have his like star moment. and he's lived up to the expectations of it.

Like him playing free is a different experience than he's playing with Tatum, but I enjoy it probably more because it is really just like the unfiltered version of him. And so it's just like rewarding the guy who did it right versus the guy who isn't getting it done with a wealth of opportunity. It's really hard to have this right now.

But I agree with you. We're probably underselling Mitchell because he's having an unbelievable year. This is probably the best year of his career this part of the efficiency off the charts. But there is something always nagging about him where it's just like

it's just not quite right and I don't know what it's going to take for it all to clear together. Yep. That's a fair point. All right. Last one. Last question is from April. Do you have any favorite basketball books that you would recommend?

I just finished when the game was ours by Jack McMullen. It was as the kids say, gas. My dagger of loving bird so reading the book made me feel closer to him. I just want a clip of Isaiah saying, as the kids say, gas. Isaiah, do you say that? Mr. Charisma?

Yeah, I'm mixed it in. Yeah. I wouldn't in this context per se. That's a bit clunky, but like, yeah, some stuff's gas. Oh, wow. What was the last book you read? I didn't add to her jumping in here. I want to know the last book Isaiah read that was gas.

What do we think? I'm going to have to cut this. I'm not the biggest reader in the world. Great gas fee was gas. Yeah. So I think I have different answers for this. I know Rob was like just stick to one, but I'm not going to do that. So I think the seminal NBA book is breaks of the game.

And I think all of us could recommend that just instantly because it's not only just one of the best NBA books ever written, but also I think the go to text if you want to introduce basketball to someone. Yeah. Are we counting this for the swear jar, by the way? I didn't even mention where it took place. I mean, but you're applying it. I would even go more specific on that one. think the Kermit Washington stretch of breaks of the game is the best stretch of any basketball, maybe sports book, where he explains the entire context of him before the incident.

I think it's just, it's fairly peerless in terms of basketball writing, I think. I do think it could also be lumped into like the best journalism books in recent history. Like, it's that good. I definitely opened my mind to Halberstam and I've gotten a bunch of books as a result of that. So I do wonder, if you're trying to like get someone into basketball, to harken back to an earlier question. I do also wonder if you want to get something a little bit more modern in order to really put them in the place and time that we are now.

It's tough because there aren't a lot of books being written to the degree that they were even like 10 years ago because no one gets access anymore. But the book that I'm referring to for me that really did it for me was seven seconds or less, which is a Jack McCallum book about The Sons, which was not only good in its own right, but like unfettered access where he was like literally on the bench listening to the huddles of assistant coaches, which is why. for me to think about right now, considering that people are struggling

to get like one-on-ones with players and interviews. But also like one of the best, most like perfect time in place, like just the most fun team in recent history and the right time in order to talk about that team.

So for me, that was that book. And if you want that version of that now, the closest thing I think you can get to is the Return of the King with Winhoris and McMiniman. Just because like, if,

someone's getting into basketball, they're probably interested in LeBron, and that's probably the best pullback the curtain of that era. Amazing calls all around. But, you know, how bad? I mean, there's no shortage. To your point, like, they're being released and published in fewer numbers these days. And I would say the books that come out now, which are still quite good, are overwhelmingly more biography. It's more like deep dive on one particular star. That's a great way to get that slice of life or slice of the game or the personality that is kind of defining the way basketball is played right now.

one of my favorites all-time The Art of a Beautiful Game by Chris Ballard extremely my shit to say the least like Chris is one of the best sports writers ever full stop right there and he loves basketball like a pickup basketball sicko through and through

and that's what makes the book so good because it's just like a nuts and bolts straight into it look at what makes the best players the best at what they do like why was Steve Nash able to see see this is what I'm talking about JV knows ball like what makes Steve Nash able to see everything on the floor what makes Dwight Howard one of the best rebounders of all time what made Kobe Bryant wired the way he was it's like what if you just dedicated a whole chapter to each of these individual things and went item by item through what is defining the game at that time one of the best ever do it one of the best basketball books ever written these are these are excellent picks you can't really miss with them I would add just as it like a history talking about an inflection point of the way the game was taught and coached

the time. This is one of the most, this is like someone recommending Citizen Kane for movies, but I mean, season on the brink, I had read that just this past summer because I knew I needed to. I was blown away just by how informative. And it made me kind of be obsessed with Knight for a little while, actually. Like I was like going on, I had my algorithm got, got weird for a while because I was like watching IU coaches shows from the 80s where I was just like something will be referenced. I was just like, man, it just renewed my fascination with with Bobby Knight. I want an anecdote here really quickly. It's like when I was a kid,

my mom knew the public library and I would, she would sometimes cover from my mom for a little bit and like, let me chill at the library for an hour, a couple hours. And it got to the point where I so predictably would go sneak and read bad as I want to be the Dennis Rodman biography that it got to the point where she would hide it from me or she would tell my mom or I remember specific occasions where I would go sneak and try to read it.

and Sue Thomas was her name. She would be like, Kyle, you better not be reading the Rodman biography again. So that happened a lot. I wanted to shout at a couple. I've got them kind of here, actually, coincidentally. Just like if you're wanting to just learn, like really, really,

basketball and paper by Dean Oliver is really incredible. We have brought our buddy, Kirk Goldsbury wrote a really good. We have a lot of good ERA's books, spaced out Mike Prada's, Pradesh book. And then my buddy Ben, Thinking Basketball is a really good book. So we have a lot of really good books on that front.

I think we're in a really strong time for that. I will say, like, reading these books definitely takes your fandom to a different level. It's almost like you've committed to the bit, right? Like, you're interested in a hobby, but when you start picking up books, especially nowadays because nobody picks up books, like, you're really committing to a lifestyle because it just, like, really deepens whatever fascination you have with something. I guess I'm selling books now. Like, you should read kids.

But no, I just, I feel like when I think back to like when I really became like a fan of sports and first and foremost, it was money ball because that just blew my mind. And all of a sudden I was like in a different level. And then when I like really adopted basketball is like my identity, I guess at this point, it was like getting into books. Bill's book is front and center in that and just a couple other ones like that breaks of the game. And so like, yeah, if you really, to harken back to the earlier question about getting into basketball, if you are interested in this lifestyle. I hope you are if you listen this podcast. Pick up a book, kids. It's reading Rainbow.

I would love a Justin Barrier read-along segment or stand-alone podcast. I would be down. Fire. He's just by the fire. I would say to you. Smoking jacket, let's fucking go. I feel like we could do this.

I'm down. Now. Could we expense the smoking jacket? No doubt. I approve. As your manager, I approve. That's it. Isaiah.

Thanks so much for being our voice of God throughout this entire pod. No problem. I just want to beat the I don't read books allegations. Boys Among Men by John and Abrams. That book was good. Yeah, that book is good. We love John. All right, that's it for us.

We're off on Wednesday because it's New Year. So happy New Year's, everyone. Bring it in. We're bringing it in. We're not ringing it in, right? Pop up a court for us. Yeah. I think you could do both. You can ring, you can bring. Do whatever you like, you know, in the privacy of your own home. That's right. So we back Sunday and then we're on a regular.

their schedule as per usual. Thank you to Isaiah Blakely for walking us through this exercise and for producing us all year round. Thank you to Victoria Valencia for the same. And thank you to Ben Cruz for the same as well. So we'll talk to you on Sunday. See you next time. Must be 21 plus and present in select states for Kansas in affiliation with Kansas Star Casino or 18 plus in present in D.C., Kentucky or Wyoming. Gambling problem. Call 1-800-Gand-Hall dot com call one 888 789 777 or visit ccpg.org slash chat in connecticut or visit md gambling help dot org in maryland hope is here visit gambling help line m a dot org or call 800 327 5050 for 247 support in massachusetts or call 18778 hope n y or text hope n y in new y in new york