The Ringer NBA Show - The Biggest Trends and Lessons From the 2024 Postseason | Group Chat

Episode Date: June 5, 2024

Justin, Rob, and Wos come together on the eve of Game 1 of the NBA Finals to discuss some of the biggest trends and lessons from the playoffs. They talk about the versatility of the Mavs frontcourt, the importance of depth, lower seeds making the Finals, and more. Buy tickets to our live show in Los Angeles here! The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit http://www.rg-help.com to learn more about the resources and helplines available. Hosts: Justin Verrier, Rob Mahoney, and Wosny Lambre Producer: Isaiah Blakely Social: Eduardo Ocampo Additional Production Supervision: Ben Cruz Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, football fans, we know that the NFL offseason can seem long and dark, but the Ringer NFL show is here to shine a light on all the big training camp developments and front office news around the league. Join me, Shield Capadia, and a rotating cast of Ringer favorites that includes Noura Preciati, Stephen Ruiz, Austin, Gail, and Lindsay Joan throughout the summer months, and stay up to date on what your favorite team is cooking up for the 2024 season. subscribe to the ringer nfl show on spotify or wherever you get your podcast and follow ringer nfl on instagram and ticot and at ringer nfl on x and youtube and welcome to group chat i am justin verrier

and joining me big waz and we got boston bob mahoney broadcasting live from bean town what's up rob i don't know how i feel about that nickname i mean how i feel i don't know how i feel i don't know Boston Bob Mahoney? The Boston part is okay. The Bob is where I'm really, my body is rejecting it, just hearing it. I'm having an allergic reaction. Why are you a rob and not a Bob, Rob?

And not a robber. He's destined in the stars. We don't make these decisions for ourselves. They're thrust upon us. And, you know, basically from birth, I've been a rob. So here I am before you. Now being Christ in Boston, Bob. I guess I'll accept it reluctantly,

but look, I am indisputably in, Boston for the NBA finals. We're thrilled about it. Yeah, we're broadcasting on the eve of game one of the NBA finals between the Mavericks and the Celtics. Rob, you're in there in person. You haven't been there long, but like, give us a taste. What are the sights and sounds on the ground in Boston right now? You know, the city is bubbling just. I feel like I was stand-up weather man. Look, it's beautiful out here. Boston in the summer needs no endorsement from me. The weather's been gorgeous. Had dinner with our coworkers last night, Michael Pina and Howard Beck, had a delightful Italian food experience, which, you know, Boston's North End, certainly plenty of opportunity for that. I'm really psyched.

As far as opening venues for a game one of the NBA finals, the Boston crowd is kind of exactly what you want and the ambiance of that building and the history of that building. This is just such a great place to kick off a series like this. And there's so much we can get into in terms of the intrigue, but honestly, the crowd and the bile and the vitriol towards Kyrie Irving and all the storylines that are wrapping up in the series, this is exactly where we want to be. Was, how's your anticipation meter going? I know we're both from afar here, but are you ready for game one tomorrow? I'm really excited because, like, the few people that I've hit up to be like, what's your sense of the series, right? Because, like, most people think it's going to be

very competitive and very close. Most of the series. Most of the series, most people think it's going to be very competitive and very close. most people are just like, like, I think Lucas playing incredible, but like how can you go against Boston's collective talent? That seems to be the consensus. It's like, yo, Lucas on a role. He seems to be on a mission.

He's extremely dialed in. But Boston's collective, you know, just skills is just going to win the day. That's what people seem to think. Yeah. People I talk to have been just yelling at us. Why are you talking so much about the Mavericks? The Celtics won 60 however many games.

They're a juggernaut. But I feel like we gave the credit to the Celtics when we did our pod over the weekend. So that is our full preview podcast. If you want to go back and check that out, and how much has changed since then. It seems like Christops is pretty much a sure thing to be playing in this game one. We don't know how much what the minutes look like. But anything else that we're missing going into this first game, Rob?

That was really the only big variable was if there was any change. chance KP was going to miss game one. Variable. Yeah. Variable. You don't just get to claim that word in every one of its usages from now on. But don't die? That's not how this works.

But we do get some clarity on that that he's going to give it a go for game one. Boston is still being pretty cagey about, and Chris Staps is being pretty cage about how he actually feels. And if it's anywhere close to kind of a full go versus, you know, see what you can do and see how you feel out there. I suspect at this point he's going to be more or less pretty mobile. But as we've seen from Chrisaps in the past with other injuries, the difference between a fully healthy Chrisaps-Pors-Zengis

and a partially healthy Chris-Haps-Wor-Zangis is monumental. So there's a lot of range there for the Celtics to get less than what they need from him, frankly. He's such an important player and presence in this series. For sure. Yeah. So go back and listen to our podcast over the weekend. Got five variables and whatnot for you.

to chew in on. But we're going to go, since we already tackled the here and now, we're going to go big picture for today's episode. We're going to step back, look at the trends and the lessons from this postseason. We did this, I think a couple games into the finals last year, but I'll be honest. This is one of my favorite subjects, topics for digging into just pods and otherwise, and the finals is a pretty good time to do so. I think probably because, as you guys might have been the same, probably red money ball at a very formative age. And so like the market. inefficiencies that drive some of the success in the league and whatnot, I find quite fascinating. And I just want to talk it over with you guys because I think also what happens is I think

we call things trends around this time and then like half a season goes by and it's like, oh, actually, no, we just kind of overdid it there. So I think it's worth a conversation and kind of hash things out. Well, especially when the data point for those trends is often one team did this and it worked. Right. And so it's so much about how much of it is that team or that player versus is there something here to actually mind? But, Waz, this is what they call us in for. You know, everyone else, they're thinking too small. We're blowing it out.

We're seeing the full board. We have the whole galaxy in front of us to unravel and unwind. We're seeing the forest for the trees over here on group chat. And I'm damn proud of it. The trees for the forest? Which one are we doing? I'd never know what people are saying. Yeah, you want to see the forest.

The trees is, yes. You're too granular with the trees. Yes. Yes. I agree. I agree. But I think maybe forest is even too small. Oh.

We're zooming out. We're seeing the whole continent. You know, we're seeing the whole Google Maps. Yeah. This is the satellite view, baby. Yeah. I remember the last time the Celtics were in the finals when Boston Bob was back in Boston.

Everyone was talking about continuity. That's the way to do it. I'm just like, isn't that just how people have built teams for 50 odd years at this point? Like I remember editing. JAA Adonde columns when the spurs were in the finals about like their continuity. I'm just like, this is just what people say when teams stick together for a while. Well, there's those waves of stars coming together, super teams come together, some of them win.

And then it's, okay, this is the model. We're rushing together. You use the cap spike. You do all these things. You build your team really quickly and you win. And then in the other years, teams with continuity tend to win. And we, yeah, guys like us sit up here and overestimate and overvalue and overstate. Oh, there's only one way to do this.

So hopefully we can kind of thread the needle today between these are things that are working now between and this is the only way to do things in the modern MBA. Totally. Well, let's start with the opposite of continuity and talk about some of the best additions for the Dallas Mavericks, two of the ones that everyone's been talking about pretty much since the trade deadline, talking specifically about Daniel Gafford, Derek Lively. Lively was already there, obviously, but Gafford came aboard. I'm calling this for the first one. 48 minutes of vertical hell. And first of all, shouts to our guy Gordon Gradian for the old Spurs reference. You really botched Graydon Gordian's name on that.

That was tough. That was tough. Graydon, we apologize. Well, Justin apologizes. It's been about a decade since I've had to make that callback. So you'll have to excuse me. Not enough continuity leading into that one. So the idea is that the Mavs are playing two-seller.

centers in rotation, quick bursts for a full game, which is different than what we've seen before. Obviously, guys have backups, centers have backups, but the fact that they invested so much in two guys, I think, is unique. Clearly, it has been a difference in this postseason. Rob, what do you think about this as an overall strategy? Do you think this is new? Do you think this is different? Do you think this is something that might get replicated as a result of the Maverick success? Yeah, it feels a little bit like what's old is new again in the sense that it's not uncommon for teams to have rimrolling centers, obviously. The market for centers has always been so variable.

And that's where things have gotten tricky. We've seen kind of the mid-level centers get paid. The guys who can kind of be stars sometimes, but aren't reliable enough to be on a yoke-edge and bead level. That's in a lot of ways the trickiest area of the bracket. Maybe like a vuchy-Main. A vuchy-Mane is a great example. Someone who's good enough to get paid

and carry a team to something, but not good enough to take you all the way. and what that does downstream in terms of who else you spend money on, maybe you don't spend as much on a backup center because you think that guy is good enough to hold down the spot. What Dallas has done, and I think what other successful champions have done, including, we should say the Mavs last time they got to the finals, kind of do this tandem situation,

two good centers who can hold down that spot and trade off responsibilities, and if one gets in foul trouble, you can go to the other and vice versa. But you're not having to break the bank in terms of what you're spending on the cap or in this case what you're trading, what you're giving up on the trade market. You're able to kind of have your cake and eat it too. And I think these are in my mind the two ways to do this. Either you have the high-end superstars or you kind of have guys in this range who are good centers and are good reliable players but aren't compromising you in the way you build

the rest of your team. I've thought about this a lot watching Dallas because watching Dallas go from a team that's been piss poor on defense the entire Luca era to what they've been in the playoffs. Not last time they went to the conference finals, though. Like that was a good defensive run too. Okay, that was a good, that wasn't this though, Rob. No, this is different. This is different.

You couldn't count on them to beat up on quality offenses with regularity, right? So yes. And protect the rim like this in particular. That's new. They were not piss poor. But nobody would ever say their defense was a strength in the whole Luca era. It's like, all right, this is a good enough defense, but it's not like, oh, we're winning games on this. We're beating teams pretty handily when Lucas shooting 20% from three because we're snuffing out the other team's offense, right?

So I've spent a decent amount of time thinking like, damn, like, how did we get here? And then you realize the two big man thing where it solves one of the main big man problems that we have is that you can't, a big man to go all out for 40 minutes. You just can't. He's going to get tired. You can't expect him to, you know, screen the hell out of people, roll hard even when he's not getting the ball, get his ass back on defense, do the verticality stuff,

switch. Like, you can't ask them to do that for 40 minutes. So it's like, oh, okay, I know what to do. I'll get two of them. You know, obviously neither one of them are getting crazy start or money. And that's how I'll fill out my entire rotation. and everybody's like, oh, this is a genius plan. Let's do with this.

Then I introduce a variable to you guys, which I guess is a theme of the show. Let's say one of these big men is DeAndre Aiton before his contract. How does that go? This platooning big man by committee. It doesn't go. It's just straight up not going to happen. So like having these two guys who are willing to play this way,

meaning four minutes at a time, balls to the wall, tire myself out, I know I'm going to get the blow, and then come back in four minutes later and do the same thing. Like, it takes a certain type of play to be at a certain type of place in his career, and then it takes a coach to actually coach it in Jason Kidd. And then, you know, people like me got to sit back and be like, I wonder how long this lasts before folks start saying, you know what, I could be a start and sending.

You know what? I could get dominating money. You know what? I probably am somebody who deserves that. I wonder about that. So that's why I think about this as a long-term strategy. It's hard for me to conceive of it being that. I mean, all these championship teams and finals teams in a way, Justin,

have to catch that sort of lightning in a bottle, right place, right time. Like, PJ Washington is available right when you need him. Daniel Gafford is available right when you need him. Derek lively is this good as a rookie somehow, and it all kind of clicks. Yeah, and I would expect lively to be. imported to the starting lineup full-time next season. You know, if not, maybe even in the series, he's just been the better of the two. But I think Waz hits on something that's interesting there.

I think, yeah, you could talk about the staggering of the two of them and then playing them in short bursts. I think there is a fitness element to this, just running the bigger plotting centers in the league out there, like the Rydigo Bear types into the ground. So it's just like a strategy when it comes to literal minutes. But I also think the types of guys that they've been using is pretty instructive. here, in part because I think offensively, I wonder how much a lot of their success offensively is that they have been activated by two playmaker lob guys in the back door with Kyrie and

Luca. And so is this as much as fitting guys around those two as it is these types, the vertical spacing rim protector types? So there's that element to it too, Rob. Well, particularly when you think about what do you need to have on the floor around a pretty traditional center who can only kind of score around the basket for the most part. The easy answer is playmaking. And you can do that with having literally one of the best passers in the world like Luca Donchich. Or honestly, you can do it with a good passer who just attracts a lot of attention as a

score like Jalen Brunson, for example. You know, like the reason Isaiah Hardenstein and Mitchell Robinson worked to the extent that those guys were healthy enough to play together is because you have an offensive thread is attracting so much attention that they can dump off. where we've seen teams that rely on this sort of size have trouble is when the lead playmaker or the lead point guard doesn't quite have enough to find the bigs in those spots and then things start getting clogged up.

And so that is absolutely the single skill that unlocks this sort of possibility. If you have guards or wings who can draw attention, then you can leverage this in a way that gets you deep into the playoffs. If you don't, you end up kind of like the Orlando Magic, a team that has a similar sort of staggered, approach, you know, Wendell Carter and Mo Wagner, I thought played really well in the first round for the most part. But that offense isn't quite unlocked in terms of its playmaking yet.

And so you're almost there and you're on the cusp of something that could be really formidable, but not quite. Yeah, I think another part of this too is it seemed like before this, there was a kind of a mini evolution of front courts where we saw a lot of two big lineups playing and I think Al Borgford and Robert Williams were at the forefront of this in part because and there were a bunch of examples like Allen and Mowbly for Cleveland, Adams and Jaron Jackson Jr. With the Grizzlies, there was more of a traditional big, but then you played a roving rim protector and you cleaned up on the glass because of that. And I think a lot of that was first and foremost because of the math skewing things on offense with three-pointers where you really had to

kind of pick and choose where you were going to put your emphasis if you're going to sell out and stop the easy buckets at the rim. Maybe you let the percentages dictate the shooting success to a certain extent, right? So we saw teams kind of try to make a calculated bet almost. And I almost feel like this is kind of a mini evolution of that where it's like if we have two centers going at all time, protecting the rim, then we can actually be pretty successful with that with one guy. And then we can maybe add more resources around there to also cover the perimeter. We can get into P.J. Washington's effect as well. But I almost wonder if this is a more streamlined approach to what was an otherwise same issue that was kind of an approach differently. So to me, those bigs better be able to

finish on the lob. Like, it can't be the kind of big where you dump it off and he gathers and he, no, that's not, that's not going to help you. It's going to be Derek Lively, like, literally not missing a shot in a conference finals effectively. That's the level of finishing that you kind of need. I mean, give or take a mis here or there, but you've got to be hyper-efficient, really accessible. Yeah, because that alley you dunk, right, you're going from what is, you're sacrificing, quote-unquote, spacing for the ability to put yourself in a position to get a 90% shot, right? Now, if you're handing it off to say a Zach Randolph type or just somebody who's more groundbound,

that's like a 60-something percent shot when he catches it in there, you know, amongst the trees and with the little guys digging in, that's a wholly different proposition. It's like, should I be making a sacrifice at the three-point line for that percentage of shot? Like, your guy better be able to vertically space, better be able to, you know, suck in extra defenders who are worried about that lob threat, right?

And so that's a very important component, in my opinion, as well. And the tradeoff on the other side, if you're someone who can take away even a few of those baskets on a consistent basis, playoff basketball is hard, man. And these teams have reinforced and these runs have reinforced it. When games are coming down to two and four points or going into overtime, the fact that Daniel Gafford was able to turn away three shots at the rim or alter a handful of shots at the rim,

that's a game-changing difference. Yeah. I was also kind of looking around too, and as much as we think that there are just a bunch of bouncy, vertical spacing big men, there aren't a lot that do it this well. Like the Clint Capella type, I remember, it seemed to be in vogue at a certain point where, like, oh, everyone just needs a Clint-Compella

just to put around their ball handler who will just take too many possessions, if only to give them more spacing in a different way, right? But then it's just like how many click-capella, bouncy, athletic, jump out the gym sort of guys do we actually have? Who can catch? Which is huge.

Not the Klincapella type, it turns out. But there's a reason why when we talk about those archetypes, it was, oh, the Tyson-Channel type, oh, the Klincapella type. But if you really push the button on that and said, okay, who else, beyond Tyson-Chaylor, beyond Klingkepella?

That's a great example of a low-cost, high-risk. But Javele McGee was bad for a bunch of times. teams before he was in a very, very confined role and he was good at that very, very confined thing. Well, that was more of a Javelle McGee issue, I think. But like, isn't it always? Yeah, I know. How many contracts did that guy get just even after the Warriors, even after the Lakers, is he still getting paid by the Mavericks, I believe, because of the mid-level they gave him a few years ago? He was on an NBA roster this season. So that's crazy. Unbelievable. Yeah, everyone says that they need the Javelma geke type, but it's actually harder to get a Javelma geithy type where you protect the

rim, but also are able to be a lob threat on the other end there. So that's part of it. The NBA Finals are here in Fandals giving you the chance to win alongside the champions, because right now new customers get $200 in bonus bets with a winning $5 bet. That's $200 to use on same game, Parley's live bets, and so much more. So we're looking ahead to the NBA finals, and you guessed it. We're looking at it. We're looking NBA finals MVP odds. And this one is courtesy of our friend Rob Mahoney. He likes Jalen Brown plus 700 to win finals MVP Tatum and Luca have the best odds. But Brown's coming in third. He did have the Eastern Conference Finals trophy MVP trophy to fall back on. So you can see it happening yet again. So

let's do that. Jalen Brown plus 700 finals MVP. And there's no better place to bet all the finals action than America's number one sportsbook. Just download the app and take take a shot at an extra 200 bucks. Just go to fandal.com slash ringer NBA to get started. Fandall official sports betting partner of the NBA. Must be 21 plus 18 plus in D.C. And present in select states, gambling problem. Go 1,800 gambler or visit RG dash help.com.

First online real money winger only. $5 deposit required. Bonus issued as nominal withdrawal bonus best, which expire seven days after a seat. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook. Fandle.com. All right. Why don't we move on to the second part of this?

Because I do think it's kind of in conjunction with what we're talking about with the centers. Obviously, the other big trade that the Mavs made at the deadline was getting PJ Washington in there. I do think what we saw with kind of the dual big lineups with the Horford and Robert Williams was as much about like taking advantage of the personnel that you have on staff and just finding the perfect compliment there. A lot of this is just problem solving for your specific team. And then I think it trickles down to the rest of the league. and becomes more of a trend here. But I do think, Rob, teams have taken note of Aaron Gordon and just how much he's been able to round out what they're doing with the Nuggets,

but also specifically by pairing Nikola Yokic with the specific type of guy he needs around him to do a little bit of everything. Obviously, PJ in a different class than Gordon. Gordon's kind of fringe All-Star the past two seasons in that role. But do you think like this PJ Washington type for the sake of conversation, just kind of like a do everything big with like the size of a traditional power forward but kind of some of the more modern flourishes

some spacing can put it on the deck a little bit. Do you think that's like something people in the league are taking note of? I think you have to. And with PJ that conversation was always so interesting because he was playing on primarily a bad or underwhelming Charlotte teams where it was hard to get a great read

on who he was going to be in high leverage series in big moments against really top class competition. Hard to know. Is he going to be able to do? be like a versatile wing? Is he going to be primarily a four? Is he going to really be a factor protecting the rim at all? In which I would say to the Mavs some extent, but that's not really what he's asked to do. He is more of a space defender. He's more of an on-ball key perimeter defender for them, even guarding opposing point guards and shooting guards. That versatility

has always mattered, and that's where I do see the Aaron Gordon comp for him is, okay, we have the flexibility on defense to move Luca and Kyrie wherever they need to go that makes the most sense for them. And Derek Jones Jr. and PJ Washington can be assigned to the key threats, basically wherever they are

on the floor. But walk me through the Aaron Gordon comp because when I think about Aaron Gordon, I think about him almost in the Andrew Wiggins kind of mold

of this is a guy who's in a finite role, but when it comes time and in a big, in a conference finals or a championship series, he can pop off and have a huge scoring impact

or have a big all-around impact in a particular game. PJ is definitely more of a stand-in-the-corner kind of guy, and that's incredibly valuable, but it is a little bit more rigid at times. Yeah, I think about it more from the size and probably the defensive aspect of it. If you're looking at like the evolution of since pretty much the Warriors era, you're looking probably at that four spot is the one that's gone most of the change, undergone most of the

change, where it's like you size down to get more shooting on the floor and you saw teams go to more extremes extends to even Harrison Barnes, for instance, who at this point is like, more of a four than anything at this point. That's kind of the more typical type yet that you're seeing was. But then you saw teams size up almost to counter that where it's like, yeah, we get the dual big situation. Not only is that going to help us defensively on the class, but maybe we could pound some teams, right,

with just the size and obviously the nuggets have been at the forefront of that. But then, like, Gordon and Washington seemed to be right in the middle, right, in that sweet spot where it's like you're not sizing down, but you're not necessarily sizing up. So we're actually getting back to a more traditional sense of a power for just from a build type. But he has some of the more modern aspects to his games, like we were saying. So you're kind of getting that sweet spot in the middle. Does that seem like a difference for you, as we're kind of like charting and mixing and matching some of these guys?

I think it owes guys in tandem too, but for different reasons, right? With Gordon, it's like this guy has size, has athleticism and has skill. He's not perfect, right? He can't shoot it in a way that you would ultimately want, but this guy handles it. He passes it, knows how to cut. Like, this guy's a really smart player while also bringing this size and athleticism.

If you could bring him to a context where his shooting doesn't completely tank your operation, now you've got a superstar role player, right? But he can't be a superstar role player in a context where his shooting and spacing is actually need. And so that's what I think where it gets, where I think teams have sort of figured out that you need to emphasize the size and skill. Like, figure out the size and skill. And then it's like, okay, let's make sure he's in the context where he's, we're not emphasizing those things that he's not so good at.

I honestly think of the Miami Heat sort of process. Like whenever you hear ex-Heat players talk about their role on the heat is like, Spos said you need to do this and this. That's it. Right? And like as long as you're... And those two things are, listen to what I say and pass your conditioning test. Those are the two things you have to do.

Right. And then with PJ, it's the same thing. This guy has size. He has athleticism and he has skill. Like nobody's saying he's like Kyrie with the ball handling, but he can put it on the floor. He can make an open shot. Like this guy has skill. But guess what?

At his opening press conference, Niko Harrison Distam, was like, yo, he didn't show defense in Charlotte. I have the confidence that he'll show it here. And that's another thing that I will say specifically about defense. I think if you have a quality program and you bring a guy with athleticism and some skill and size, you should have the confidence that you get him there on defense. And one of my core memories to this fact is the 2008 NBA finals where I watched Paul George, who people don't remember this.

I'm older than a lot of people listen to this. But like before the KG and the boom-toe era of the Celtics, Paul George had a horrible reputation, particularly on defense. Like, it was getting to the point where people were like, Paul Pierce you're talking about. Paul Pierce, sorry, did I say Paul George? Yeah. Sorry.

Paul Pierce had a- When did Paul George have a terrible defensive reputation? Sorry, Paul Pierce had a horrible defensive reputation. KG gets in there. They get a winning program in there. Not only does he turn around his defense and his rep. And honestly, it was to the point with people like, yo, maybe this dude is kind of a loser kind of guy,

who only cares about his numbers and getting buckets and isn't a winning team kind of oriented guy. Not only did he change that around, I watched this dude strap Kobe up in the finals. That's a thing that happened from a guy who had the worst reputation on defense to like, no, he's one of the best defenders at his position. in the league. And I think that's a lesson to take away where it's like, if a guy has the fundamentals and you have a program that you believe people will give you buy-in on your culture and your approach, I think if people show bad defense in the past, have some faith that they can do better in the future.

Yeah, you have to trust who they are as competitors in the way that the Mavs will sometimes trust Luca to do exactly that. It's not going to be a great defender. He's certainly not on the level of Paul Pierce guarding Kobe in the finals. No, he ain't that. But you'll see individual matchups that he starts to take a little more seriously. You'll see the effort in games that matter. You can see enough to get the maps to the NBA finals. And that's what you need from a star of that caliber. And so, yes, part of it is knowing the guys who are on our team who are not good defenders,

what are the conditions and situations where that can level up and they can step up and be competent defensively. And then there's the other part you're talking about, Waz, which is how do you identify players on other teams, the PJ Washington types, who are not guarding well for those teams on a consistent basis, how can you reconceptualize what they do to make sense for your team? And I think the Mavs have done that both with Washington and Derek Jones, who, look, Derek Jones was guarding a lot of Biggs in Miami and in Chicago before he came to the Mavs. They brought him into be a perimeter go-to stopper.

And you can argue the efficacy of that. And like, you know, is he an all-defensive level player? Like, maybe not. Maybe he's not quite on that caliber. But he absorbs a ton of minutes in high-value assignments. he's tough on those guys. He chases around screens. And it's a similar thing with PJ where, yeah, he's not the best rim protecting for like a small ball five.

They basically never play him at small ball five, although that could change in this series. They rely on him to be a perimeter defender and a stopper with that size and that Aaron Gordon type strength on the perimeter that you're talking about, Justin, where that's the flexibility that matters, I think. When you're thinking about modern NBA team building, and a lot of it is coming from the athleticism. Just to put a finer point on it, PJ Washington is not playing this way if he's traded to the Wizards or if he's traded to the Hawks. It's not happening. It's not going to happen. This context, this coach, this star player, this opportunity to win big matters in that equation. The feedback loop of competitive basketball is so strong.

Like if you're a team that's fighting for something, guys will fight for that. Totally. I think the one thing he's always had in his bag is that he is skilled for his size. And if you look at kind of the evolution of modern basketball, you could call the Steph Curry Warriors kind of the major inflection point. But even before that, it's bringing skill to the masses, right? It's not just specific positions. We're getting skill everywhere. And we size down specifically because the guys with skill was shooting were smaller. And so that's why teams sized out, right? But now we're seeing it. come pretty naturally to guys of PJ Washington's size, who is a typical power forward size, as we mentioned. Also, some of the bigger men, like, even look at Derek Live with the fact that he can pass and do a little bit of everything. I think he'll do more as he's longer in that Dallas Maverick system. Maybe we'll see him step outside and hit a corner three eventually. I think that is kind of what we're starting to see across the board here.

And so if anything, it's kind of a leveling out of where we were. It's just guys are just more skilled and talented than they were in the past. So it's like it's the old meet in the new, pretty much. I just got a little sad, y'all, thinking about what could have happened if Anthony Randolph found the right team, y'all? Oh, my God. Just imagine what could have been if the right situation, the right fit, the right chemistry, the right coach, the right teammates would have happened. Maybe he could have flourished in that kind of way. I would argue he did. It was just in the Euro League. And it was with the Slovenian national team. You know, he's found the right spot for him ultimately.

Lucas teammate before. Can I introduce a kind of a wild card element to this conversation? As we're talking about the Do Everything Fours, the guys who have all this skill who are versatile, I would like to present to you Carl Anthony Towns, who I found to be both essential in a lot of these ways for the wolves and also limiting for them. It kind of puts a different lens on this conversation where he plays like one of these skeleton key power forwards in a lot of ways. And yet, when he came up against that high-level Mavericks defense and his shot stopped

falling, it became a really limited player really, really quickly. And I think that it's so interesting with these guys who have somewhat versatile games, what is the thing that you fall back on the most? And for Towns, that is his shot. And for Gordon, it's probably more his defense and his playmaking. For PJ Washington, it probably is similar to towns where it's like more about the corner three and whether he's hitting on that. and how he's doing at the point of attack.

But the fact that Towns is in a conversation like this, and I think he deserves to be, it puts an interesting lens on him as a star. Like, he's a different kind of star for the wolves. See, for me, the Towns thing is that he's overqualified to be a PJ or an Aaron Gordon, obviously. Absolutely, absolutely. But he doesn't have the band with basketball IQ-wise

to be an actual bona fide star. He just doesn't have the decision-making he's just, he can't consistently win on the decisions that he's forced to make as, you know, one of the pillars forced with carrying the offensive load. You know, and then on defense, I mean, come on, man, some of the boneheaded, ridiculous.

Like, the stop-fowlish shit became a meme. That's the thing. He's not really a power forward. He's more of a skills center who got shoved into that role because the wolves built their team about being very big, right? Look who he guarded against the Nuggets. He was primarily guarding Nikola Yokic, and he did a pretty good job at the very least matching that heft.

But when we go to the team like the Mavs, who's built a little bit more traditional, kind of like, I mean, the Celtics are in the same general vein where it's like bigger wing types. Like that seems to be what is having success, whereas like the wolves approach is almost too specific. It's like they went super big so they can counter super big, but they're more susceptible when we're going in a team kind of in the middle zone. Maybe so. And this is kind of how these two conversations tie together because Towns is in that range of centers where if he is your star standalone five, you have limitations on defense.

You have the limitations on playmaking that we're talking about if he's like a big post up threat. He's in that space where you kind of have to find and make room for a player like that. And I think what's good about the PJ Washington, Aaron Gordon types, you don't have to make so much room for them. They understand who they are. They understand how to wait for their moments and like rise to those occasions. And Towns is in a slightly more awkward space in that you, like, he's too talented to do just that.

He is, he is a more particular kind of piece for the puzzle. You're not a conference finals team with Carl Towns as your center, period. That's just not going to happen. Unless you have a LeBron. and his prime, like some insane level star next to him that is playing at Hall of Fame star level next to him to basically paper over his deficiencies. I don't see how this guy at center,

like even his successes against Yokic, yeah, Rudy was roaming behind the play. That could make him, like, let's just say you're a prototypical NBA power for it. Let's say it's like Julius Randall. roaming off of Yokin's post-ups on Carl Towns. Like, nah, son. Nah, son.

Yeah. I do think Towns is more on the star end of things, both in terms of just like how he plays, but also like the fact that he's a little bit more manicured. You need to fit things around him as opposed to the guys we're talking about Gordon and Washington. Are the guys you fit around the stars because they're more stars in their role, right?

They're the guys that you add. to assist him with Luca and Kyrie already in place to do a little bit of everything. And honestly, that's the value of having someone like Gordon, when you need him to step up. I bring up the game I saw in Portland where he just like flashed as a small ball five, completely took Scoo Henderson out of the game. And it's just like he could have that level to him and like do more, but you don't want him to do more because actually this is the nice spot for him

where he's like the fourth option. And I do think that's kind of the next part of this whole conversation we're having, which is number three on the list here is just going all in for some of these teams, but doing so more with depth. We had the Celtics who went out and got Christops and Drew Holiday,

kind of more on the star end of things. Obviously, both of those guys have been All-Stars in the past, but have kind of diminished in recent years to the point where they're more in that kind of Aaron Gordon fringe All-Star level. I do think that the Mavs, once again, probably the shining example of this,

where they went out and got guys who are just like solid as hell rotation guys who play specific roles to complement what you do. And I wonder, Rob, if that's kind of another sneaky trend that we're talking about here where it's like, one, you want to go all in and take advantage of the moment

when you have someone like Luca. But it actually isn't about getting another star, getting a big three, like the Hedos era. It's actually about rounding out what we do. Yeah. I'm really curious to see how, to flash forward, this could change the way teams operate at the deadline next season, right?

The teams that are kind of on the cusp that are really close that are feeling really competitive. I just think that the West in particular is so balanced right now where if you're, if you even think that you're kind of in that mix, as the Mavericks prove themselves to be, you should trade for Daniel Gafford or PJ Washington. Like you should invest some draft capital to make that work. If you're a team like the Oklahoma City Thunder next time around, I think it probably is time to push some of those chips in and see what you can get, even if they're going

to be short-term chips. There never is going to be an absolute perfect time to go all in. But as you're saying, we're seeing teams do it in a more balance. And I would say, like, secure way. You're not pushing in so much to get a star. You're pushing in moderate assets to get good NBA players who can help you right now. And that might be enough to get you through the Western Conference. It may not be enough to take a decent Eastern Conference team and make them competitive with the Celtics. That margin seems a little bit bigger. But out West, I think there's lots of room for teams to do basically what Dallas did. Yeah.

If you're trying to win the championship, though, like, I'm pretty much convinced now that there was a time maybe like four or five years ago where the emphasis on skill, meaning guys that can pass and shoot and move and were cerebral, like that was the sort of advantage. I think everybody's caught up. in that regard. And now you need size and athleticism. Like this postseason has convinced me that you got to be big,

you got to be strong, you got to be fast, you got to be physical. Because everybody's at the point where they're taking enough threes, where they're generating enough quality looks from there, where, you know, the offenses are sophisticated. Even the wolves who like have had,

had one of the most, you know, basic sort of offenses like, Nas Reed and Carl Towns were firing that thing up. And it's firing that thing up. You know, calmly, I would like to see fire it up a little bit more. But, like, they were, as traditional as their size was, like, they had guys that were willing to, like, all right, I see daylight. This three is going up.

To me, man, if you're trying to win a championship, you better be going in the direction of, like, becoming bigger. and stronger and faster. Like obviously skill still matters. I'm not an idiot. But I think the physicality part, man, like watching Dallas, watching the wolves, even out east, you know,

watching the Knicks get as far as they did. It damn sure wasn't on beautiful, skillful basketball. I think it was on physicality and brute force a lot of it, honestly. Physicality, yes, but size no. Right? Like they were undersized, even relative. to the pacer's, you know, it's a lot of Josh Hart as an ostensible power forward, like making it work in some of those lineups.

But OG as biggest help were size. Yes. And when Mitch and Hartinstein were playing, like, they were playing bigger than Philadelphia was. They was beating up on Joelle and B. That's what I mean. Like, obviously, like, yeah, our fringe is like, that's where they got cooked. But, like, I think if they were still able to have their size advantages, you know what I mean, like, still be physical with OG, still have Mitch.

while having Hartenstein, like they would have beat the Pacers, in my opinion, right? And so to me, that's what I think they need to be doing. Teams need to be doing. I wonder if the answer is you just need to have a little bit of everything. I think you need to be more matchup proof than you have in the past, particularly in the West. Like, look at the playoffs we just witnessed where it felt like there was a little bit more teams beating other teams based on who they were facing rather than the inevitable champion getting to to that point, right? There's a certain level of inevitability with the NBA that the best teams

typically make it to the end point, whereas now, especially in the Western Conference, but I wonder in the East as well as those teams kind of get a little bit more healthier as they load up this off season, Philly in particular, like I do wonder if it's going to be a little bit more rock paper shoot than it has been in the past, where it's like, I wonder if the Mavs had just enough versatility, enough depth to go at a variety of teams. But I also wonder if they got the Nuggets. Maybe the Nuggets are in the finals, but the Nuggets happened to encounter the wolves before they got to that point. I want to talk about that, but can we revisit Rock Paper Shoot real quick? Yeah. What's going on? What's going on with that? I just want to make sure

it wasn't just better regionalism. I thought they was doing something different in Connecticut than they was in Queens. I was like they got their own thing up here. We're traditional us out there. Dallas is a fun team to talk about in this regard because going through the thunder and the wolves back to back, that's about as different as high-level playoff opponents will get in terms of their personnel and style of play. And the fact that Dallas was able to kind of maneuver to get through both of them, I would say to varying degrees. Honestly, in some ways, Dallas had a harder time with OKC than it did with Minnesota. And you can forecast that into these finals in the sense that the Thunder and the Celtics have a lot more in common than the Celtics and the Wolves do.

and what that could mean for Dallas in this matchup. But I think that's been true, generally speaking, for a long time, right? Your ability to be matchup proof, your ability to be adaptable, it kind of ties all these conversations together. Like, yeah, you want to have 48 minutes of good big man play, but maybe you also need these do-it-all four types who can be flexible and versatile and give you lots of strategic options. Maybe you also do need some small ball flexibility here and there for the teams that really

demand it of you. You do have to be able to do everything and play every. way. And most importantly, you have to be able to push the buttons that stress other teams out in that way and test the limits of their team building. That's maybe the most important part of this. Yeah, I would say two recent things that might have kind of messed with the sample that we have here is one, I think it's tougher to get through the regular season than ever before. On the one hand, you have more opportunities to make it into the postseason with the play in tournament. But I do think like regular season has been come tough where you can't just coast through. You can't

just load up on superstars and then wait until you get to the finals and then your rotation slims down and all of a sudden you're playing like seven rock solid guys when you had to wade through the Norris Cole minutes and whatnot earlier in the season. I also wonder if like this trade deadline in the off season before we saw a lot of teams getting in while the getting was good before the door closed with the second apron and the new CBA where it's like you saw a lot of activity. I mean, we didn't get a lot of deadline activity. It was actually one of the worst deadlines in recent history at the point where Alex Burke occupied our thinking for at least 20 or 30 minutes on a podcast probably. This and the deadline is crazy. That dude was popping up for 20 plus

in the NBA like in the playoffs. Like, Alec Berks became one of the most important nicks on the floor. They had to wait until they only had like seven guys to play him. Take that up with Tom Tibino, all right? But like we saw a lot of action. Siakum, got done. OG got done. We saw a lot of trades leading up to the deadline.

I do wonder if a lot of teams loaded up as much as possible because they knew it was going to become really damn difficult later on.

Yeah, and what does that mean for the sort of super team model that is kind of passing out of fashion right now? I would say Phoenix is probably the closest thing.

Yeah, they're done. You're done. But, I mean, we'll see what happens with Philly this summer. There are some teams that are in a position to make a run at a third star

with the kind of resources that they have going into the offseason. Phoenix, though, like, did not have the bodies to be competitive. And I think we're seeing, again, a lot of these conversations coalesce where they didn't have the size,

they didn't have the depth, they got swept off the floor against a bigger, deeper team and the wolves. The Clippers are kind of a more nuanced conversation. I don't, like, if Kauai Leonard gets hurt, I don't think it matters

if you have two or three stars. You're kind of cooked. So I don't know if that's exactly their problem. They don't have a super team. There's nothing super about that team. I mean, they certainly look like it in January. Let's say that.

They got super contracts. Yeah. If that's not a super contract, I would love a super contract. Let's see if we can shoot over the line on that one. Yeah. So we saw a lot. I mean, the Mavs are kind of an outlier in this regard. A lot of teams also aren't doing things with free agents anymore. And so I think Philly is kind of like the team I'm watching going into this off season, whether or not they will zag back the other way. Because Kevin Pelin had a really interesting piece on ESPN going into the conference finals where he looked at kind of how low. each team was built and only six rotation players in the conference finals came via free agent

signings. Two of them were on drafted free agents, Nas Reid, Samhouser. And so like clearly these are teams built a different way than we had seen previous when like even Brooklyn and the clippers as is as was alluding to. A lot of teams are just getting the guy via the draft or via trades as we've seen in doing it differently. But the CBA is going to come for all of them. Like we're talking about the thunder is kind of like a model for success. I can't wait for the CBA to come for them. But they have to already be careful about who they add as that fifth starter because they're going to have to pay Jalen Williams, Chet, Holmgren, in like two years, and those maxes come

earlier than than you think. So like in a way, I think like everyone's going to have to worry about this if they have enough great players to pay what they deserve. Sure. But to me, that gives them two years. to pay people that are high-quality role players. And then when those contracts kick in, all right, we're getting rid of those.

We're now developing guys next to our grizzled second contract stars, which I think is a beautiful place to be in, honestly. But it is good. They will have to eventually pivot to filling out their role-put, in a way that the Nuggets tried to do this year. Where it's like, yo, we're not going to be extra extra extra extra extra extra

with our complimentary players, say our bench guys. We're going to try to develop guys. And, you know, one day the OKC Thunder will be there too. Teams are shook about the second apron, though. I got to tell you. Like, I think it probably is. But either way, it is having the intended effect, right? Even if it's teams operating out of fear, like they are being more conservative with

some of that decision making in a way that makes me look at these NBA finals. in which Derek lively could be one of the most important players on the floor for the Mavs. I don't know whether to think of lively as part of any kind of trend, any kind of data as far as like maybe you can draft the right rookie and they can be a part of a winning team right away. They can be a meaningful contributor to a finals team. I tend that he's probably more the exception that proves the rule in this way. But if we're talking about going all in.

Donchich, dog. Yes. But here's my thought, was, is like if we're talking about teams that they should go all in, there was a lot of pressure

on the Mavs to trade that 10th pick for a veteran who would help them now to make an all-in type move. Oh, right. For DeAndre Aiton, perhaps. For whoever you may want to propose. He was tied to the Mavs.

I'm not just saying that because I like talking crap. Like, he was actually a guy that people were saying the Mavs might go after. That's why I made that joke. That was a real thing. real rumor and a real target, but it turned out that Derek lively was the better win now move than probably whatever veteran they would have gotten for that pick. It's interesting. Yeah,

I tend to think young people just aren't able to contribute much, if anything, but specifically in the NBA. Yeah, society. Society is well. But specifically in the NBA. I mean, we see this every year. There aren't a lot of plus rookies. When you look at the ledger, it's like one or two. I think it helps to lean into more of a role playing type like live. where he had a very defined role and maybe he could expand it over time where it's like if you needed like a 3 and D sort of guy maybe

but if you get into like more of the ball handling range guys who are actually like managing certain possessions then it gets a little trickier but I like that idea in general like do teams especially in this draft where it's allegedly light on top end talent you lean older because you want

to get that guy a little farther along it's an interesting idea I don't think teams should do it for the record but I think some teams will talk themselves into it, into the idea that those rookies will help them right now. The fifth year, red shirt, senior, just because you think he's going to contribute to your playoff run. Here's what I'll say about these apron, um, pussies, right? Yeah.

Okay. First of all, I add that too soon. Build up a team that's actually, actually a competitor, contender. Then worry about, oh, man, we can't keep this contender together. but for the apron. Build up an actual contender first before you start being scared about an apron, fam. How about that?

Should we get that on a T-shirt? Apron pussies? Throw that out at the live show. Well, speaking of apron pussies. No, I do think if I'm going to try to salvage this, I do think Carl Towns and the wolves are kind of the inflection point, I guess, for how much this matters.

Tim Connolly reportedly came back for another year at the very least as they figure out that ownership situation getting paid a hearty amount of money. So shouts to him for cashing in on whatever discord is going on between Arod and Glenn Taylor. But whether or not they abort on towns just for the sake of saving money, I think is going to be a real test case for that. There's no reason that they should just completely scrap this team. maybe get a different type of player at that salary in order to get like more playmaking for instance.

I could see that. But if it's for anything other than that, it's specifically because of the CBN because of the tax penalties. Last one though, we're kind of talking around this. We already kind of tapped into it. But lower seeds making the finals and just general parity overall. I mean, we already talked about like 15 different teams who are kind of in the mix here. So you can kind of tell that we're in a different era.

But I think lower seeds making the finals, we're kind of in like just a, Halcyon days here where last five years we had the heat twice at the number five seed in the bubble and the number eight last year which I can't believe that fucking happened even a year out from now. I can't. They play the Boston Celtics in the conference finals.

All right. Perhaps the student to be NBA champion Boston Celtics. Right. And then you have the Mavs this year which I think Dan Feldman had this stat in one of his newsletters that's in the past five years we had three such teams.

I think five and below in the finals. In the first 73 years of NBA basketball, we also had three, the Rockets twice, and then the Knicks. And then even the Knicks were an eight seed who made it in large part because of the strike and just that jumbling up the amount of games that they were playing that year. So I do wonder if like this is as clear in evidence of parity as anything. Well, here's the thing. Like if you want to zoom all the way out, I think about two-thirds of the,

the champions in NBA history have been number one-seeded teams. The fact that we're getting this kind of variability over the last five years, not in terms of who's winning necessarily, because look, Denver was a number one seed last year. Boston is the number one seed and could easily win these NBA finals. Maybe it's just a continuation of that general theme. But the fact that the teams that they're beating are fifth and eighth seeds feels like a dramatic shift.

Usually this is the turf for at least a two or three seed. I think only two teams ever have won the title as a fourth seat or lower. We have staring in front of us now for the second year in a row, a realistic chance for a team to be the third on that list. That is notable. That is different. Like there is a sea change happening in terms of the way teams are making their way through the bracket, or perhaps regarding the strength of the teams at the top of these conference

and the general parody that is putting them there. By the way, this isn't accidental. This is by design. This is what Adam Silver wanted. All of these cap rules and cap restrictions, it's all in service of having a harder cap so that the teams at the top can no longer hoard the talent and therefore remain at the tippy top by spending.

Adam wanted this to be closer to the NFL playoffs where it feels more unpredictable. Obviously, we know that the Indiana Pacers under no circumstances could win the championship. this postseason. We knew that going in. But we thought the Bucks had a chance, if healthy. We thought the Celtics, we knew the Celtics had a chance.

The champs, the defending champs, obviously the top three seeds in the West, like all of those teams, Luca being who he is, like this was all part of the plan. And then, you know, like a lot of owners was just like, yo, man, I like the idea that I got this built-in excuse to not spend as. much as humanly possible when my team is good. Do you like how the playoffs went though? Like, do you, as a viewer, do you think it's successful to have more teams in the mix? I think me personally, as an NBA fan, psychopath, like, going into the Wolves and MAVS series

where I just had no idea what was going to happen. Same with OKC and MAVs, no idea what was going to happen. I thought that was exhilarated. I have no idea what's going to happen in the finals. Like, I love that now. Do I think casual people would rather, like, have Patriots or a Lakers or Miami Hedles to root against? Yeah, and know who needs to be taken down? I think it might, the casual fans might lean in that direction.

But me personally, going into the playoffs and every series, I'm just like constantly being surprised and constantly discovering new things about these teams and players, I personally enjoy it. Yeah, I think the way to bridge that in an ideal world is you have this sort of parody, but you have a healthier Eastern Conference side of the bracket, right? You can alleviate

some of those concerns for casual fans if Yannis is on the floor, if Jimmy Butler is on the floor, if all of the healthy complement of stars are actually out there. It's like, oh, I may not be super familiar with the heat season, but like, I know this guy. I know these competitors. I know these stars, and those can be kind of your anchor

points for the audience you're trying to bring in. Yeah, it's going to be interesting because I do think the East bounces back next year and maybe we will get that. But then it gets into the whole kind of broader conversation about what the NBA actually wants because as we've seen, the ratings pop when it's Warriors Cavs, but like for the hardcore fans like us, like seeing the matchups kind of play out in this way is kind of fascinating. I love not knowing what was going to happen in a way that we hadn't seen before.

Unfortunately, the playoffs as a whole, I would say most of the series were more duds. and unbalanced in ways that we weren't expecting. But like, that just might be roll of the dice and probably gets us into the inevitable conversation of how many regular season games these teams are playing. I ultimately default to that being the major sticking point. Like, do you want to see your superstars healthy and ready to go at the end of the season in the highest level spotlight situations? Like play fewer games, but we're never going to get to that point.

It's ever happened. And so this might be a nice little middle ground. I do think where we got this year was we ended up with a lot of series. where there were two and three awesome games. And then the rest of the series was not very good. And there's even a very competitive matchups, there's typically one or two blowouts that we forget about in the midst of it.

But there just wasn't a lot, like there was top to bottom awesome for an entire series. We just didn't really get that. I think, look, yes. I don't think we got like one, games one through seven, nail biters or whatever. But the drama of Nix and, And Sixers was insane.

Yeah. And Nick Pacers, for that matter, was also awesome. Delivered like an insane amount of drama. And what I would ask you guys to me, and this is ultimately what I wonder the most about the league is, because it's my belief that we're still chasing the high of 2016. And like, I don't know how to fuck. What is the scenario under which,

we get that much juice in an NBA playoffs matchup. Like the insane amount of drama associated. Maybe it's just we got lightning in a bottle and we can't achieve it. And like Steph Curry, you know, and LeBron being two of the most famous athletes on the planet at the damn time that this is happening. But I'm like, could we ever get to a point

where, you know, Aunt Edwards or Luca West representation, is playing against somebody in the East where the story is this like and the matchup is this incredible? I don't know. I think it takes superstars first and foremost, which they don't make them like Stefan LeBron anymore. So we have to be conscious of that. So we're dealing with a different level of celebrity even. But I also think it's repetition and familiarity. Right. Like that built over time to where the point we're at number two and number three. It's like a Rocky movie at that point. You know the characters and you know the stakes and you know the drama and it's colliding in a way that's just thrilling. And honestly, if like we get more Dallas Celtics, I think this

finals could be potentially incredible. If this lives up to the mark and we get another one of those. Let's go. Let's go. They have like the Kyrie back in Boston. You have KP back in Dallas. It kind of has all the benchmarks that we're looking for in that sort of thing. That's why I mean, I don't really I'm not the business of forecasting the ratings of these things, but I have a feeling. there's going to be a lot of intrigue in these finals. I think one, the matchup deserves it, and the basketball will be very good and very interesting. But it has those stars.

It has some of the most famous active NBA players in the world. And players who attract such like fervent fan bases, I would say particularly on the Dallas side with Luke and Kyrie, and then one of the most engaged team fan bases in the world in the Celtics. Is the incredible team? Is the Kyrie fan base fervent? That's the descriptor we're going with there. I like that.

It is that. is, yeah. They're active. Look, having as a human being who has written a Kyrie Irving-based story on the ringer.com this week, I'm very aware of the Kyrie Ervinian's fervent. What about the Jamestown folks? Were they fervent? That's at Big Waz on Twitter.

If you just want to let Waz know what you think about that. Yeah, listen, Abram Pussies out there, we want superstars. All right? Stop depriving us. That's the takeaway from this hour-long big picture discussion. But this was fun. We'll do it again another time, probably next postseason or maybe even before that.

So this weekend, we're actually going to be recording after Game 2 on Sunday. So look out for our prod then. We have been recording on Saturday. So it'll be more Sunday night into Monday morning. Thank you to Isaiah Blakely. Thank you to Eddie Ocampo for making one of the best Instagram videos of all time that even Rob had to appreciate. Thank you to Ben Cruz.

We'll be back this weekend for game two and enjoy game one. We'll talk to you. Must be 21 plus and 18 plus in D.C. In present in select states, Fandul is offering online sports wagering in Kansas under an agreement with Kansas Star Casino LLC. Gambling problem, call 1,800 gambler, or visit Fandul.com slash RG in Colorado,

D.C., Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and Vermont. Call 1-800 Next Step or text Next Step to 533-42 in Arizona. 1-88-789-77-7-7 or visit ccpg.org slash chat in Connecticut. 1-8009 with it in Indiana. 1-800-522-470 or visit KSgamblinghelp.com in Kansas. 1877-770 stop in Louisiana. visit MD gambling help.org in Maryland.

Visit 1-800 gambler.net in West Virginia or call 1-800 522-470470 in Wyoming. Hope is here. Visit gambling help line, ma.org, or call 800-327-50 for 24-7 support in Massachusetts or call 187-8-Hope-N-Y or text Hope N.Y in New York.