August 29, 2025 • 58 mins
Jason answers mailbag questions about his NBA player rankings including why he has Golden State Warriors guard Stephen Curry ranked higher than New York Knicks guard Jalen Brunson and why he would have Indiana Pacers playmaker Tyrese Haliburton ahead of Brunson if he were healthy. He also discusses Dallas Wings rookie Paige Bueckers compared to Indiana Fever sophomore Caitlin Clark, why the Miami Heat closed games with Dwyane Wade and LeBron James together despite the analytics showing the team was better with D-Wade off the floor, how he got into sports media, whether LeBron James or Michael Jordan is a better shooter, and more.
#Volume
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The volume. All right, welcome to Hoops Tonight. You're at
the volume.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Happy Friday, everybody. Hope all of you guys are having
a great week. Today's mail bag Day. I have all
sorts of great questions from you guys who are gonna
be bouncing all around the league, some player ranking stuff,
some stuff that's outside of player rankings as well, some
stuff that has nothing to do with basketball, and we'll
be getting to all of those questions today. You guys
have the drip before we get started. To subscribe to
the Hoops and I YouTube channels. You don't miss any
more of our videos. Follow me on Twitter, I underscore jcnlts.
(00:38):
You guys, don't miss show announcements. Don't forget about a
podcast few wherever you's your podcast under Hoops Tonight. It's
also super helpul if you leave a rating and a
review on that front. Jackson's doing great work on social
media feeds on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. Make sure
you guys follow us over there, and then, last but
not least, keep dropping those mail bag questions in the
YouTube comments. If you want to get a mail bag
question in these shows, all you got to do is
go into our full episodes in the comment that's right
(01:00):
mail bag with a colon that so I can sort
it out from the comments and they'll write your question there.
If you disagree with the player ranking, if you just
have a question about anything around the league or anything
at all, just drop it in our mail bags. All right,
let's talk some basket of a lots of Jalen Brunson
questions today that we'll be getting into. What is the
argument for current Steph over Jalen Brunson. Brunson has been
(01:22):
flat out better than Steph for the past two seasons,
during both the regular season and the postseason. Considering the
clear year over year regression for Steph, estimating him to
be better than the player who's been better for two
years seems unfair. A small sample with Jimmy is nowhere
near enough to put him over JB, especially when you
take a sample about that size of Brunson's best play
is better than that Steph sample. So, first of all,
(01:44):
there are several specific things here that we're going to
continue to run into with Jalen Brunson. Jalen Brunson dribbles
the basketball and has the ball in his hands a
lot more than Steph Curry does and a lot more
than most NBA players, which allows I was Jalen Brunson
to put up preposterous statistical performances over and over and
(02:04):
over again. I'm not trying to undersell what Jalen Brunson
does here, I'm just saying on the list of guys
who their impact is going to reflect more on the
box score versus guys who their impact is not going
to reflect on the box score as much, Brunson's closer
to this end, and guys like Steph Tyres Halliburton, the
offensive engine types, they're going to be more on the
(02:27):
other side of the spectrum. And a couple of specific things.
First of all, you want to know why they took
off when Jimmy Butler entered the equation because there's no
offensive talent on that roster. Okay, I'm sorry, But like
Andrew Wiggins and Brandon Pajemski and you know young Jonathan
Kaminga who literally no one in the league seems to
want right now, these are not the same offensive talent
(02:49):
that Karl Anthony Towns is, that Michale Bridges is, that
ogn Andobi is. There is a substantially better offensive set
of talent that he's playing with, which is making life
easier for Jalen Brunson. And as soon as you brought
Jimmy Butler into the equation, the Warriors immediately took off
and became a top ten offense again. Despite like even
(03:10):
Jimmy is a pretty limited offensive player and that still
wasn't a very good offensive roster, Steph immediately vaulted them
into being a top ten offense in that stretch. And Steph,
just by having the counterbalance of the star and the
belief in his team's ability to accomplish something started producing
at that top tier superstar level again. Now, if you
want to know why specifically I look at Stephen Curry
(03:30):
as a better basketball player than Jalen Brunson, it's simply
that he is a much better offensive engine. Even to
this day, it doesn't reflect as often on a Golden
State roster that is so devoid of offensive talent, But
Steph's ability to consistently draw two to the ball, both
in pick and roll and just running off of offball
action unlocks so much easy stuff for that team. Another
(03:54):
really easy way for me to put this is, I
believe if you just plucked Steph and dropped him on
the New York Nick and had him play with Michale
Bridges and Og Andnobi and Karl Anthony Towns and all
of those guys. I believe the Nicks become a better
basketball team. I think that Steph is a better defensive
player as well. I think that like guys, like you'd
think after watching what happened with Jannison, the Bucks, the
(04:18):
last couple of years with Steph and the Warriors, the
last couple of years hell with Lebron and Ad and
the Lakers, and how they underachieved over the years. Guys,
you gotta have a great roster to be good in
the NBA. It is harder than ever to succeed purely
based on the strength of superstar talent. You have to
(04:39):
have both. You have to have superstar talent and you
have to have strong support. And again I would argue
the New York Knicks underachieved this year outside of just
simply the Celtics series. They got killed by every good
team in the regular season and generally underachieved. They looked
mediocre against the Pistons, and they got beat by the Pacers.
They just happened to beat the Boston Celtics in this
(05:03):
couple weeks stretch where they struck lightning in a bottle,
the Knicks underachieved. I look at that Warriors team as
a team that is basically full of a bunch of
mediocre role player talent and Steph Curry, and he was
able to keep them afloat long enough for the Jimmy
support to come, and they were looking pretty damn good
and beat a two seed before Steph Curry's hamstring went
(05:26):
in large part because he had to carry such a
heavy load. Like to me, it wasn't even a debate.
I think Steph. I think Steph is a better basketball
player than Jalen Brunson right now. And again, like there's
gonna be a lot of this kind of stuff with
the box score. I have another one related to Tyrese
Haliburton here in a bit. Jalen Brunton's gonna put up
insane box score stats because he is an elite scorer
(05:46):
that dribbles the air out of the basketball most games.
That is going to lead to some really high box
score performance. And we can't grade a player simply on
box score performance. And I'll save the rest of it
when we get to the Tyress Haliburton piece, Hi Jackson
and Jason. Chopping it up with you two on playback
and watching this channel for years has made me a
better basketball fan. Thank you for all your hard work
(06:07):
and knowledge. My question is what can Brunson add to
become a top five player. I get Halle has the
bragging rights after their series, but after games one and two,
Brunson was averaging thirty nine point five points eight assists
on fifty two percent from the field, another example of
those like big box score numbers that I was talking
about that took place in losses. My concern with putting
(06:29):
Halle over Brunson is I've seen Brunson go on a
four game playoff stretch averaging forty two points in ten
asists on fifty percent. I'm almost certain Halle couldn't do
that if he tried, as much as Hallie does facilitate
TJ and Matherin going off has nothing to do with Halle.
Same with Siakam dominating ISOs or Nie Smith hitting six
contested threes. He was pretty bad in the finals, and
even though he reached them, Brunson would not struggle that
(06:51):
much back against the wall. I know what it looks
like for Lebron, Joki, Giannis, Sga, Brunson, etc. To put
on herculean efforts even in losses. I just feel like Halle,
if he's required, if his teammate, if his teammates are
simply cold for a series, he wouldn't be able to
reach that same herculean level on that the other elite
offensive engines could reach because of his inconsistent scoring. How
(07:12):
much should a high scoring floor factor into who's better?
First of all, if you guys remember what I said,
I said that Halliburton, if he was healthy this year,
would have ranked ninth. So that's literally just one spot
ahead of where Brunson would have landed if Halliburton was
in this list. So I view the gap as extremely small.
And as I've said, you could really argue any of
(07:33):
these guys ahead of each other all the way up
to number five. Like I'm sure there are Knicks fans
out there who literally have Brunson at five. I mean you,
when you were listing your offensive engines, you literally listed Lebron, Jokic,
Giannis Sga, and Brunson as in you have him basically
as the fifth guy, right, So like you could argue
him that high. I'm not going to make that case,
but like I do think that these things are up
(07:55):
for debate, and I do think your position is absolutely defensible.
I just view, again, at the risk of repeating myself,
I just view Halliburton as a better offensive engine, and
the case for it is simply that the Pacers offense
functioned at a higher level than the Knicks did in
the playoffs. I disagree with the idea that the Pacers
went off without Halliburton. Their offense cratered this year in
(08:18):
the playoffs when he was off the floor, It's like
thirteen points per one thirteen in changes, like almost fourteen
points worse per one hundred possessions when he was off
the floor versus on. It also dipped substantially in the
regular season and in the playoffs each of the last
two years.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
And by the way, the.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Same goes for Brunson. The on off numbers for Jalen
Brunson are crazy as well. But the point is the
Pacers don't just score the basketball with or without Tyre's Halliburton.
He is integral to their success. Halliburton breeds a more
free flowing offense that generates more easy shots and does
a better job of keeping everyone else in rhythm. Jalen
(08:56):
Brunson was surrounded by every bit as much offensive talent
as Halliburton, Karl Anthony Towns, Mikhale Bridges, O g n Anobi.
That's a hell of a trio to put next to
Jalen Brunson, but it just never looked that easy for
the Knicks. When Halliburton was on the floor, the Pacers
scored at a rate four points per one hundred possessions
higher than the Knicks did with Brunson on the floor,
(09:18):
and in the Pacers Knixt series, the difference was twice
as large. The Knicks had a one to fourteen offensive
rating with Brunson on the floor in that series, the
Pacers had a one to twenty offensive rating with Halliburton
on the floor. Brunson is a better passer than he
usually gets credit for. I think that that's worth mentioning,
But he does dribble the air out of the basketball,
(09:39):
and the offense doesn't flow as well as it does
with Tyre's Halliburton. Their play styles, the way they play
with Haliburton trying to get rid of the ball as
soon as he can in possessions to the first open guy.
That's naturally going to end up with Jalen Brunson putting
up more impressive looking box score numbers. Even though we
can acknowledge Brunson's obviously a better score, there's obviously an
(10:01):
approach difference that's gonna lead to an even bigger difference
than those box scores. Yeah, in theory, Jalen Brunson's ability
to score in the clutch should make him a better
option at the end of games than Tyrese Halliburton. But
this year head to head in that series, Haliburton was
four for seven in the clutch and hit a shot
(10:21):
that literally stole a game at Madison Square Garden, and
Brunson was three for nine and the Pacers won the series.
And they won in twenty twenty four to two, albeit
obviously with some injuries playing a role. So in short,
Jalen Brunson has had his opportunities to prove that he's
better than Tyrese Halliburton at running head to head offense
or excuse me, at running NBA offense in a head
(10:44):
to head matchup, and yet in each of those situations,
Halliburton's offense has just performed better, and Halliburton outperformed him
in the Clutch this year in the Pacers Advance both times.
It's just really hard for me to make that case.
Now back to your first question, what does Brunson need
to do to get into the top five? I'm actually
(11:06):
going to read another quote from another YouTube comment from
the same video, this one from Jonathan Raymond on point
as usual diehard Knicks fan, and I have felt over
the last few years, Brunson is one step below the
top five and that will come from unlocking kat and
Og And it's really that simple. One of the things
that Tyres Haliburton does is he brings the absolute best
(11:30):
out of Andrew Nemhard and Aaron E. Smith and Ben
matherin In, Pascal Siakam and Miles Turner. If Jalen Brunson
can figure out to get to that next level as
a playmaker and as a game manager to where he
can literally bring the most out of those guys, then
he can not only leap Halliburton, but yes, absolutely get
(11:50):
up into the conversation there for that fifth spot. But
I think he's a while away. I think he's aways
away from there. That's something he's going to have to
figure out. This is related to the Denzel Washington question.
I don't think Denzel is talking about gatekeeping sports or
other fields from people haven't been professional and said field.
He's more referring to the steven A's and Skips of
the world to just give their opinions for entertainment, whether
(12:10):
they are positive or negative, without actually backing why they
feel that way and what in the field in question
brought them to that conclusion. Heck, even as you mentioned before,
just because you're an athlete or professional doesn't mean your
opinion should value more. Case in point, Shak or Chuck,
who never seemed to actually give an in depth argument
and just go off how they feel based off of
obvious biases, versus someone like yourself who has had professional
(12:32):
playing career. I haven't played professionally. I just played in
college and did not make the NBA. But you still
do your research and take time to come up with
objective and fair takes that you really can't argue, and
you even acknowledge your biases and point them out to
the audience to let them know that not everyone will
feel the same way. Kyrie spoke about the same thing
a while back about protecting basketball from those who just
(12:53):
want to spew opinions about the game instead of actually
trying to understand why and how basketball works. So I
think it gets a little more complicated because I agree
with you in the sense that there are certain guys
where it's like when I hear them talking about the game,
I'm like, yeah, this isn't necessarily good for the game.
Where I disagree is like, I just think things are
infinitely better. It used to be if you went back
longer into the past, it was mostly that sort of thing.
(13:16):
Now we have a little bit of that sort of thing,
and we just have a ton of people who love
the game passionately and cover it with their hearts and
soul and just.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Do an amazing job.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
I think where it gets tricky is like, I think
one of it goes deeper than the stephen A and
Skip part of this. I think I've seen this from
NBA players. I think NBA players want people who love
the game to cover it, but I just think they
want no criticism at all. Ever, I think it's all
fair in game. I think it's all, you know, like
(13:47):
kind of fair game for them until you start being critical.
And that's where I disagree, because, like, I think it's
important for us to be able to criticize NBA players,
Otherwise our analysis carries no weight if this just turns
into a propaganda channel where we talk about how teams
(14:08):
play and we dive into the weeds and we do
all that technical stuff that people love the analytical side
of it. But then I come on here after like
Julius Randall in game four, for instance, against Oklahoma City
when he like straight up no showed the game and
was like bad body language and just throwing up bullshit
catch and shoot shots and just not playing very well.
Like one game after he was like we're at home now,
(14:31):
Like what am I gonna do? Get on here and
not say that Julius Randall like was awful and didn't
back up what he was talking about in the previous game,
Like I can't do that and then come up here
with a straight face. Like what gives the legitimacy to
both sides, to the praise and to the criticism criticism,
(14:53):
is that the other exists. Praise without criticism is just propaganda.
Criticism without praise is just shit talk. And one of
the things that I've tried to do, even with the
players that I don't particularly like. Like, you guys know
that I'm not a huge fan of Russell Westbrook, but like,
I like to think that over the course of the
entire era, including in the with the Lakers, when he
(15:13):
would play well, I would come on the show and
I'd be like, Russ was good tonight. Here was a
sequence where Russ was awesome. When Russ did this, this,
and this, he helped his team win the game. I
would talk about that. It was important to me that
my criticism of Russell Westbrook didn't come devoid of any
praise when he would do something good, because again, Russell
(15:35):
Westbrook was a player who would make good plays and
would make bad plays, And that was the conundrum with him.
You know, that is so vital to this having any integrity.
If I'm gonna actually come up here and talk about
the game and be perfectly honest, it requires that I
both praise NBA players and criticize NBA players. And I
(15:57):
feel the same way about different types of out there. Again,
if you're strictly in the I'm teaching about NBA offense.
So for instance, like Craneous, when he's like breaking down
different sets and counters, he's going to sit there and
just break down what this is, what this means, how
(16:18):
this works. That's one thing, right, But even Crane, just
when he covers the Lakers, he'll bring up when he's
being critical of the Lakers' coaching staff or doing something
that he disagrees with, it is important for you to
balance criticism with praise and vice versa, to add integrity
to your work. And I think that that specifically is
where it gets tough. And that was the sentiment that
I was picking up from Denzel. I think he felt
(16:40):
as though, like, you shouldn't be allowed to criticize any
of these guys if you haven't been in the seat.
And while I agree that it's like a weird dynamic,
it's weird. It's weird for me, sitting in my basement
in Denver, Colorado, a non professional basketball player, to criticize
(17:00):
basketball players that play in the NBA. I get that
it's a weird dynamic, but I kind of feel as
though it is absolutely necessary in order for there to
be legitimate basketball analysis. And as we talked about in
that mail bag or in that episode on Monday, there
are last week on Wednesday, excuse me, you need to
(17:21):
have a certain amount of people who cover the game
that didn't play, because so many of those people love
the game every bit as much. I'm not even talking
about me. I'm talking about people who like never played,
who love the bat, who love the game of basketball
so much that they pour their heart and soul into
it and into the study of it, that are willing
(17:41):
to legitimately go through the work and be honest and
cover the game with integrity. I see, like I talked
about in that video, I've seen NBA players, legitimate NBA
players and former NBA players criticize other NBA players and
they're like flatly wrong, like where they'll just go on
stage and they'll be like so and so does this,
(18:02):
this and this, and he's weak as hell because of
this or whatever it is, and I'm like, that's not
even true about that guy. Like if you actually took
the time to watch the game, you would know that's
not true. Hell, there are some things sometimes you'll hear
some player say stuff and it's like just go to
their basketball reference page and like actually look at their
stats and you'll see that you're wrong. Like that sort
(18:23):
of thing happened all the time because in many cases,
those are players that are already millionaires, that have already
become one of the very best in their profession, which
was playing the game, and now they're collecting a check
to talk about it, and their heart's not in it.
And because their heart's not in it, they're not putting
in the same effort that some of these people out
there that also love the game a ton but didn't
(18:45):
play professionally or didn't play at all, And now they're
channeling their love in work ethic because maybe they don't
have the natural talent that some of these NBA players have,
they're channeling that energy into their study of the game
and they're producing, in my opinion, super high quality work
(19:06):
that has integrity. That guys who cover specific teams, who
will talk about parts of their team that are not
getting discussed nationally that deserve more attention, or at the
same time criticizing people on the team when they're not
doing their job and they're not pulling their end of
the they're not holding up their end of the bargain.
Like to me, it's just complicated, and it's a part
(19:27):
of it's a part of what makes the landscape work
is that we have a mix of players who love
the game, who still have their heart in it, who
still do incredible work, mixed with people who are not
in the game, who never played, who love it as
much as anybody else in the world, and who is
just as entitled to cover the game the way that
(19:50):
they do, but they cover it with integrity, and they
bring that mix of praise and criticism that is always
backed up by the hard work and the study that
comes from behind. The people do all the other lanes
that we talked about, like analytical study, the guys who
do tactical breakdowns for people, the guys who do reporting
(20:11):
on the league. It's just a very complex ecosystem that
I think is better than it's ever been. And that's
why I'm defending it and why I'm defending the people
out there.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
I just have.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
I have so many buddies out there and people that
I are that I admire from afar who just do
really high quality work who didn't play in the NBA,
and I think it's ridiculous that any would want in
sinuate that they're not, you know, that they shouldn't be
allowed to or that they shouldn't be in the situation
that they're in. The rivalries the marching bands, the upsets.
(20:40):
Saturday's just got way more fun. College football is back.
Think you know the game. Put your college football knowledge
to the test with DraftKings Sportsbook and turn your picks
into big payouts. From live betting during the game to
rivalry week odds boosts, and so much more. DraftKings Sports
Book has everything you need to stay in the action
from kickoff to the final whistle, whether you're betting on
(21:01):
your go to team or making moves mid game as
the momentum shifts. Saturdays are yours to own with DraftKings
sports Book. Number three, Ohio State is hosting Texas on
Saturday the thirtieth. They are now a two point five
point favorite at home. Here's something special for first timers.
New customers. Bet five dollars and get two hundred dollars
(21:21):
in bonus bets Instantly download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and
use code hoops. That's code hoops, that's h oops for
new customers to get two hundred dollars in bonus bets
instantly when you bet just five bucks. In partnership with
DraftKings Sports Book, the Crown is yours. Gambling problem called
one eight hundred gambler. In New York, call eight seven
seven eight hope and why, or text hope and Why
(21:43):
to four sixty seven three six nine. In Connecticut, help
is available for problem gambling called eight eight eight seven
eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit CCPG dot org.
Please play responsibly on behalf of Boothill Casino and Resort
in Kansas twenty one plus. Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction.
Void in Ontario. Bonus bets expire seven days after issuance.
(22:04):
For additional terms and responsible gaming resources, see DKG dot co.
Slash audio. Hey, Jason, I was watching the Nerd sash
pot a month ago and they did an all time
NBA draft, and I would like you to do a
twelve NBA roster all time, obviously with the first six
being the best of the best.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
But the lower tier all star role players.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
For your bench. Figured it'd be cool since we're in
the offseason. Keep up the good work, brother man. Thank
you for supporting the show. I'm not gonna do this
right now, but I just was gonna announce because Jackson
and I were talking about it.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
The first thing we're doing in the.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Week after the player rankings are finished, is we're gonna
do list week. So we're gonna do a bunch of
different lists. I wrote down like six different examples, like
the five best champions of the last twenty five years,
or like the five best perimeter defenders of the last
twenty five year, stuff like that. We're gonna do like
different lists that we're gonna hit over the course of
(23:00):
that week, and we'll get to have a lot of
fun as we get into the tail end of the summer.
We're also planning on doing some playback stuff, especially in
late September. I think we're going to try to pick
three really big NBA playoff games from my time being
a basketball fan, and we're going to rewatch them and
just kind of hang out. So that'll look for something
along those lines in late September, but I will announce
(23:21):
it as.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
We get closer.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Got a WNBA question, not a question about the rankings,
but WNBA related Pagebeckers has taken the w by storm
this season for her rookie year. She doesn't have a
cultural and ratings impact as much as Kaitlyn Clark. My
question is, how would you compare and differentiate page to Kaitlin?
Who would you pick to build a team around. Who's
better in a vacuum, who would be their NBA comparison?
(23:45):
As a Lakers fan, we are spoiled to have you, Pete,
Crangis and Trevor cover our team with in depth data,
schematic cap and narrative analysis. Love all those dudes, They're
all awesome. I couldn't agree with more with you about
the quality of work that they do, and thank you
so much for the kind words about our show as well.
Page is absolutely crushing it and the fun thing is
that she's doing it with short range scoring, which is
(24:08):
insanely impressive. We talked about this a lot with Jalen
Brunson in his video. But if you can find a
way to be like consistently reliable as a shot maker
closer to the basket, that will drive scoring that is
variance proof. Page is shooting fifty percent on jump shots
inside of seventeen feet and she's doing it on massive volume,
(24:29):
one hundred and nineteen attempts percentergy there are only two
players in the entire WNBA who took at least one
hundred jump shots inside of seventeen feet to this point,
Page and Ajia Wilson and Page is hitting them at
a six percent higher rate than Aja Wilson is. You
got to remember too, like fifty percent from that range
for WNBA players.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Insane.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Scoring efficiency in general in the WNBA is lower than
the NBA, right, just because of the difference in athleticism. Now,
whether or not Page can achieve the cultural resonance of
someone like Caitlin Clark, it's gonna come down to the
same concept that we've been talking about NonStop on the
show over the last couple of weeks. Can you drive
offensive success for your team beyond yourself. Kaitlin Clark stepped
(25:16):
into the WNBA and the fever offense literally exploded. She
drives like a Steph Curry esque gravity from defenses that
generates a ton of openings, especially at the rim. And
she could take it to an even higher level because
she does so much more of her work. I shouldn't
say not at a higher level, but she does it
with more versatility in the sense that she does a
lot of her work on the ball as well, which
(25:38):
is kind of like Steve Nash esques. It's like Nash
mixed with Curry. It's crazy, and Caitlyn's just a supremely
gifted passer. These stats are they don't even make sense.
Over the final fifteen games of the season last year,
the Indiana Fever posted the number one offensive rating in
the WNBA by a mile. They had a one to
(26:01):
ten offensive rating and second place was the Liberty at
one oh six. So she literally stepped into the WNBA
and made the best offense in the league by a mile.
That's being an offensive engine. That's making life easier for
everybody on the team. And that's why I gravitate towards
that type of player. And I'm not trying to come
(26:22):
at Page Becker's here. She's a rookie and she's kicking ass,
and I actually I'm really stoked that we might have
a rivalry between these two over the years. I think
that'd be great for the league, especially two very different
types of players. But it's just an example of if
people are wondering why Caitlyn resonates at a higher level,
that's why Caitlyn is like a transcendently great offensive player,
(26:43):
potentially the best offensive player to ever go into the WNBA.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
She has to.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Achieve that first, but that's the potential that she has.
This year with Caitlin largely out of the lineup, the
Fevers offense has come right back down to earth. And
yet when Caitlyn's been on the floor this year, even
banged up Caitlin, their offensive rating has been up at
one oh nine, which is right up at that level
where they were at last year at the end of
(27:07):
the season. The second piece of it actually comes down
to a fallacy that I saw on a YouTube comment
the other day that I want to dive a little
bit further into. It was in the KD video when
we were talking about the score versus offensive engine archetype.
I can't remember the exact comment, but he said something
along the lines of, I can't believe we've somehow convinced
ourselves that scorers are inferior when the greatest player of
(27:31):
all time was a score And I laughed because on
one hand, like the goat thing is very up for
debate for anybody aside from the people who you know,
literally are of a certain age group that are old,
like older and more invested emotionally in that era. Outside
of that group, it's pretty up in the air, Like
it's a lot of people who think it's lebron right.
(27:53):
But even if we set that aside, if you go
through most all time lists, there's not a whole lot
of the traditional scorer archetype. It's like Kobe and MJ.
And then it's a lot of really versatile players and
bigs outside of that that make up a lot of
top ten lists, a lot of guys like Magic Johnson,
a lot of guys like Steph Curry and Lebron, Nikole Jokic,
(28:14):
guys along those lines, right, Also, the guys who are
at the top of the all time lists aren't any
one thing.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
Yeah, MJ is either.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
The best scorer ever or the second best scorer ever,
depending on who you ask, but he was undoubtedly a
better passer than someone like Katie was. I mean, he
had a season in the NBA where he averaged eight
assists per game. So, yeah, MJ is the scoring archetype,
but he's so much more of a basketball player than
just breaking it down simply to scoring versus offensive initiation. Similarly,
(28:49):
guys like Lebron and Jokic and Steph, Yeah they're offensive engines,
but they're also fucking awesome scores. Lebron literally is the
all time leading scorer in NBA. His has hit more
playoff buzzer beaters than anybody in the history of the league.
He has twelve seasons averaging over twenty seven points per game.
(29:10):
That's what like when you're talking about the goat case
with Lebron, it's completely unfair to not also characterize him
as one of the best scorers to ever touch the basketball.
We talked about NICOLEA. Jokicic and his reliable short range
scoring and how indomitable he can be there. Steph Curry
obviously can reach incredible heights as a score and the
(29:33):
same goes with Caitlyn Clark. She's arguably already the best
offensive engine in the WNBA, as we discussed, and yet
during that fifteen game stretch where she was leading that
kick ass Indiana offense, she was also second in the
league in scoring, averaging twenty three points per game on
(29:54):
sixty percent true shooting. The one person above her was
Asia Wilson, and Caitlyn was three percent more efficient and
true shooting. At that point. Caitlyn was a kick ass scorer.
And by the way, I'm not denigrating scoring as a talent.
It's vitally important to win basketball games. I'm saying that
(30:15):
I personally am going to gravitate towards players who can
both score and generate tons of high quality offense for
their entire team, even if they're not quite as good
at scoring as the best pure scorers in the world.
And again, lastly, because I don't want to under sell
Page here because he's kicking ass, this would be a
(30:36):
really fun rivalry to take the stage in the WNBA
in the coming years. To have like a Steph Curry
meets Steve Nash level point guard in Caitlyn Clark versus
the surgical scorer type in Page Beckers. That could be
a ton of fun and more awesome basketball players is
always a good thing for us. Next question. In twenty twelve,
(30:59):
the Mimy Heat had a higher net rating with Lebron
on the court without Weide than when they were both
on the court together. However, they all they closed all
of their games with Lebron and Wade on the court together. Naturally,
it seems like an obvious decision to close games with
all your best players on the floor, But what is
the value of doing so if your statistically works. Love
the show, keep it the good work. Thank you so
much for the kind works. This is an interesting question
(31:21):
on a couple different levels, because on the one hand,
Wade and Lebron were a clunky offensive fit, and it
was a big part of how they lost the first year,
and it is a big part about how in general
over those years they became more of like a defense
to transition group because Lebron was an offensive engine who
inverted spacing or who created natural spacing for the shooters,
(31:45):
meaning like inverted spacing, are guys that bring rim protectors
away from the basket, guys that bring guys out to
the perimeters. So like Jokic does it because he is
a center and has to be guarded by centers, he's
pulling centers away from the basket. And then Steph by
coming off of screen action forcing centers to show would
open up space around the basket. They generate openings for
read and react sequences at the rim. Guys like Luca
(32:08):
and Lebron the rim pressuring big forwards that can pass.
They bring everybody in and generate all the crazy spray
outs to shooters. Right, and so for a guy like Lebron,
you know he would have benefited from a star that
was more of like a perimeter shooter. For example, like
Lebron and Kevin Durant, for example, would have been an
unbelievable basketball fit if they would have been able to
(32:30):
play together. Kevin Durant is a bad example because he's
the most seamless fit with anybody in NBA history. Hell,
he was amazing with Steph too, But like a just
a straight up, like an excellent jump shooting a player
at that position would have been like a Ray Allen
for example, in his prime, would have been a better
(32:51):
natural basketball fit with Lebron than a Dwayne Wade. Right now,
they made it work because of how good they were defensively,
and over the years, Lebron built enough chemistry with d
Wade as a cutter where they were able to make
things work and they were so good defense to transition.
It all functioned, But there was definitely a little bit
(33:12):
of a kind of like diminishing return there in terms
of having two playmaking downhill scores kind of playing alongside
each other. Now in terms of like the decision to
close games like that, you weren't gonna bench Dwayne Waye.
It would come with so many ripple effects in terms
of the chemistry and confidence of the team, And ultimately
I think they were just invested in constantly trying to
(33:32):
figure it out because the best version of that team
was always going to be Wade and Lebron on the
floor together. They just needed to figure it out, and
they did. I thought they, you know, under the circumstances
with Wade immediately getting hurt and immediately having his knee
really bog him down, and with the clunky spacing in
the first year in twenty eleven, they got two championships,
and I think that that sounds about right for that
(33:55):
particular group of talent. I think the only way they
would have won more is I d Wade would have
stayed healthy the whole way through. Hey, Jason, love your content.
It's looking like eight of the top ten players on
your list will be in the Western Conference. Clearly, the
West is much deeper than the East. What would you
do to help balance the conferences? There's really nothing you
can do. And there's also a bad luck element to
(34:15):
this too, because if Tyre's Haliburton's healthy and Jason Tatum
is healthy, those are two guys that I have in
the top ten. Tatum's in the top five for me
if he's healthy, So like there's that piece of it.
Damian Lillard being hurt nukes any chance for the Bucks
to be a real threat. Honestly, Joel Embiid getting hurt too,
Like if that had all stayed together, if Joel Embid
(34:38):
could have stayed healthy, you'd have an awesome Sixers team,
an awesome Celtics team, an awesome Cavs team, an awesome
Pacers team, an awesome Bucks team.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Like you have a lot of really good teams at
the top of the Eastern Conference.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
You just have Dame knocked chopped the Bucks off at
the knees, Haliburton chopped the Pacers off at the knees,
and Tatum chopped the Celtics off at the knees. So
you basically have now and I left the Knicks off
that list earlier as a sixth team, but now you're
basically limited down to ow Embiid in the Sixers obviously
got chopped off at the knees too, So now you
(35:13):
basically just have the Calves and Knicks left at the
top of the conference. And honestly, what'll be fun is
it'll give us an opportunity this year to see some
more playoff basketball from some of the younger talent in
the East. I think we'll get to see Trey Young
and the Hawks get another shot at this. I think
we'll get to see Cad Cunningham potentially get to a
second playoff series, a second playoff round. I think we're
(35:34):
going to get to see some of that element there,
get some exposure for some of those guys. The Orlando
Magic is another example of a team that could benefit
from that, but it's just bad luck, injury luck, and
there's not really anything the league can do about it.
Next question, Lebron was better than Steph last year. Even
(35:55):
in their head to head matchups. Lebron hit more clutch
shots and led his team to victory, while Steph was
often not hyper fit from the field when the Warriors
needed him. When Lebron is playing on an injured foot,
Steph was better, but Lebron is playing like a shell
of himself. He just had no choice but to play
because of the play in situation. Lebron was definitely better
than Steph for pretty much the entire Olympics as well.
And while Lebron does slack on defense for possessions, he
(36:15):
has a gear on defense that Steph has never been
able to approach in his career. Like you can't take
points for Lebron's mediocre defense at times when Steph's defense
is consistently mediocre even when he tries. Teams constantly attack
Steph on offense while rarely, while very rarely, do teams
run plays to attack forty year old Lebron, and Lebron
still runs the defense at times even when he's not
actively in the play by calling out plays and telling
(36:38):
players where they need to be. Draymond does all of
that for Steph. So if you were going to make
a case for while Lebron was better than Steph over
the last couple of years, I think you broke it
down really well. So I want to give you credit
for that. I think there are a couple of specific
things I've pushed back on, So, for instance, like Lebron
being better in the head to head matchups, the Lakers
have had a better roster over the last couple of years,
(36:59):
So I think it's just worth mentioning that basketball's easier
when you're surrounded by more talent, and so I think
that that played a big role in the head to
head matchups. Secondly, I do think Lebron reached a higher
level last year in that stretch from late January to
early March than Steph did at any point last year.
(37:20):
But Lebron was only there for sixteen games, and for
the rest of the year. There's just that Steph offensive
engine thing. We're still to this day. When he's running around,
they're still sending two guys to him, and all these
guys are getting these open shots. And again, a pretty
limited roster for the Warriors, just adding Jimmy Butler but
losing Andrew Wiggins in the process, a bunch of mediocre
(37:42):
role player talent. Steph took those guys, I think twenty
and seven after the All Star Break with the number
one defense in the league and the number seven offense. Again,
I do think that Lebron very briefly hit a level
last year that was higher than anything Steph did last year.
But for the totality of when they were available as
basketball players, I did have Steph just to touch higher.
(38:03):
And for the record, you guys will see where Steph
ends up on this list. I don't have him much
higher than Lebron, but I do think especially over these
last couple of years, basically since twenty twenty three, I
mean even in twenty twenty two, I thought that Lebron
to me, stopped being able to consistently reach the top
tier when Solomon Hill dove into his ankle in twenty
(38:25):
twenty one, which, by the way, is right about the
same age that Steph is right now. So we'll see
if Steph can maintain it. And who knows, maybe Lebron
is a big forward who can rely on size and
strength and intelligence. Maybe he'll pass Steph again in the
next coming a couple of years, maybe that'll happen. But
right now, to me, that supreme gift Steph has to
just run in circles and fuck things up for a
(38:46):
defense by getting two to the ball. That to me
just kind of keeps him just that hair's bread the
head of Lebron in the meantime. But again, I think
you made a good case. Next question, why is it
that you grade Steph a LBJ on past year's success
instead of focusing on what they're currently doing. This is
from a troll who's always commenting underneath the videos. But
(39:07):
I don't really know what to say other than to
say that Stephen Lebron both made second team All NBA
last year, so everybody seems to think that they were awesome.
Except for you, So I think that's something that you
need to evaluate. Hey, Jason, I can't express enough my
appreciation for your show. You've helped me discover a love
for analytical basketball and I and have completely changed my
perspective when watching the NBA. Thanks for everything you do.
(39:29):
Curious about your past experience with media and whether you
studied journalism or something communications adjacent. How did you develop
the skills for script writing and public speaking. It's evident
that a lot of effort and experience goes into your work,
and wonder about how the evolution has come about over
the years. So my pathway into sports media was different,
(39:51):
and like I don't want to say, I hate when
anyone says that, like, oh, this is the way to
do it, because there's always just a different.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Way to do it.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
There's a million different way I used to crack into
this space. I remember when I was starting with the
educational background. My educational background was I was naturally good
at math, and so I ended up getting into a
lot of like pre engineering stuff and engineering focused stuff.
I have an associates and pre engineering from Utah State University,
(40:19):
and I hated math. I just was good at it.
The classes that I had the most fun in when
I was in college were my English classes. And when
you're just talking about like doing research and forming an
argument and laying out your argument analytically and you know,
in the form of writing, that was where I had
(40:41):
the most fun when I was in college. So, like,
it's funny because when I look back now, I actually
wish I would have studied English or studied something along
those lines, because I just think I would have had
more fun while I was in college.
Speaker 1 (40:52):
The math thing just really.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
Bummed me out while I was there most of the time,
which was a bummer because like, again, I was good
at it, and I had the problem of like everybody
telling me I should do math, Like my high school
math teachers are like, you need to do engineering. Here's
the classes you need to be taking, here's the program
you need to go into.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
Like I got into the.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
University of Arizona School of Engineering like as a freshman,
and I like hated it so much that I immediately
flunked out of the UBA because I just I've legitimately
hated it and all I wanted to do was play basketball,
And I was just going down and playing pick up
basketball every day. And I just I was not mentally
engaged by math or by engineering at all. I've told
(41:32):
this full story with Ethan Strauss on his podcast before,
but the very short version of it is I was
bad in school until I was on a basketball team
in college, a juco team, and I was loving it,
having the time of my life in practice. And one
day I got called into the office by the eligibility
coordinator and he was like, yo, dude, your grades are
fucking terrible, Like how are you going to play? Like
(41:54):
we can't get you on the floor. And I was like,
oh shit, yeah, Like you can't just not go to
class and get to play college basketball. It's not how
it works, right. And so I sat down with the
guy and I was like, what do I need to
do to get eligible? And he's like, all right, well,
first of all, you're not playing this semester at all.
This was the fall semester. And he's like, if you
want to play in the spring, you've got to take
(42:16):
a full sixteen unit load over winter break.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
And I did.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
I took sixteen classes or sixteen units worth of classes
that winter break and got or no, it wasn't sixteen,
it was twelve whatever. Four classes is four three unit classes,
so I had to take a full twelve unit class
load over like a three week period over winter break,
got a's and all four of them got eligible for
(42:41):
the next semester. I had to take a full semester
load that semester, and then I had to take it
again another full load in the summer because the way
that it worked was like you had to average your
first two years together in order to form your like
GPA for the following season. So I had to like
make up all of my shitty not paying attention and
(43:04):
not putting in the work in school by taking extra
classes over the winter break and over the summer break,
basically the two full class loads during that time. And
it was funny because if you like look at my
schooling history, I legitimately was one of the worst students
you've ever seen. And then I became a good student
(43:26):
the minute someone sat me down and was like, you
can't play basketball unless you get your school together. And
it just goes to show you. Like I talked about
this with Ethan in that show. It's something I kind
of hate about myself, but like I have a really
strong work ethic when I'm doing something that I love,
and then I can be pretty lazy when I don't
(43:46):
care about it, and I hate that about myself. I
wish I had more mental fortitude to be able to
motivate myself to do things that are harder in life,
and I really hope that doesn't come back to bite
me in the ass one day. But like, fortunately that
I have been able to find things like this that
have kept me focused and have kept me energized and
have allowed me to bring work ethic to the equation
(44:08):
and actually pour my heart and soul into something and
do quality work. But I was definitely not a good
student up until I had to be, and then I
just did what I had to do to get through school.
And like even when I was in college. My last
year in college, I transferred from JUCO for a basketball situation.
So I wanted to go to the best basketball team
(44:28):
and so I got recruited by this team in Phoenix
called Arizona Christian University, and they were this incredible basketball team.
But it was like awful for me academically because they
didn't have anything engineering wise, and they had all these
like Bible courses, so like I had like one hundred
and twenty something college credits, but I only have an
associates degree because I pursued just basketball situations and just
(44:52):
took class loads that fit whatever that school had available
to them. So again, thankfully I was able to find
something like this. That was a big part of why
I ended up in real estate actually before I did.
This was because real estate was something where I could
essentially just connect with people and try to drive business
that way rather than needing like a specific degree or
(45:14):
needing a specific technical skill, if that makes sense. But
everything was driven for me by basketball, and in effect,
I kind of bet my life on basketball, and so
I'm very, very lucky to have landed where I landed.
But to make a long story short, like if I
had to guess where the communication skills came from, like
I credit a lot of it to just being put
in really uncomfortable situations. So like going to play college basketball,
(45:38):
being dropped off by my parents in Utah at a
juco where I'm living in a dorm with a bunch
of other people, I was like literally forced to like
learn how to engage with people and to build relationships
that like kind of forced me to be uncomfortable in
that sense, and then the second piece of it was
real estate. I think real estate was really good for
me in the real estate business. My first year and
(46:00):
a half, I was in the investment side, so I
was working on like flips and renovations and things along
those lines, right, and so I learned a ton about that.
And then when I got into the actual like resale
part of it, meaning like helping families buy and sell houses.
At that point it was like I'd meet them at
an open house, and the way I'd earn their business
(46:22):
was by connecting with them and by expressing to them
that I had an area of expertise, right obviously what
I knew about the industry from flipping, and what I
knew about the buying and selling process, right. And I
think just having those conversations over and over and over
and over and over again again, I would I would
hold like five open houses a week. That was how
I drove business when I was doing that. But when
(46:44):
I would when I was doing that stuff, I think
that just gave me a lot of really good reps,
and so I think that was a big part of it.
I think in general, like the English classes and writing
classes that I took while I was in college. I
think helped a lot, but a lot of it just
is again just me loving basketball and me happening to
land into a situation where I can channel that through
(47:07):
my work ethic because I love the game. Now, as
far as like getting into the industry, I've talked about
this on the show before, but the long and short
of it is, I don't think it's very complicated anymore.
I think if you want to get into sports media,
I think you just need to start making content. I
don't think, like, you know, it's so funny. I remember
hitting up radio stations and asking to work the board,
and like trying to write for a blog, and like
(47:29):
trying to do these things that like were the traditional
route to getting into a position. And what's so funny
about that is like, in retrospect, I feel like everything
could have gone faster if I just started making content.
The bottom line is is it's less expensive than ever
for any of you guys to go on Amazon and
(47:50):
to get a microphone and a webcam, and you can
go on Facebook Marketplace and get a MacBook for a
few hundred bucks, and you can go home and you
can put in the work. In terms of learning about
whatever it is kind of content you want to make
finding that lane and then recording and uploading to YouTube,
(48:11):
uploading to social media. They have natural algorithms built in
there that promote your content based on how many people
watch it and how long they watch it for, and
so you have the ability to create your own content,
and naturally it will get discovered.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
It just will.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
If it's good, if it's value, if it brings value
to the space, people will find it naturally through the algorithm,
and it will start to build momentum. The only things
I would say is like one, it is more flooded
than ever two, which I think is a good thing,
like we've talked about earlier. But what that means is
it's harder to stand out, which means you've got to
put in the work. So like, make sure that you
(48:48):
put your heart and soul into it, give it everything
you got. And secondly, be yourself. Don't try to be
someone else. Don't try to run in a lane that
someone's already running in because you're not going to do
a very good job of it because it's not you.
The best chance you have to be the best version
of yourself is to be yourself and channel whatever it
(49:08):
is that you love through your own personality and how
that reflects in your content. And I think if you
just do that, you give yourself a chance. And like again,
like you can do that on the side, have a job.
I did it while I was selling real estate, talked
about those open houses. You want to know what I
was doing when I was not when I was not
(49:28):
talking actively to clients, when I was sitting in houses
waiting for people to show up, I was watching film,
I was talking about the game. I was writing for
a blog. Like, those are phases where you can if
you can find a job that has some amount of
flexibility to where like when you're done with work, you
just channel that energy into content creation. Just do it
(49:49):
at home, do it on social media, do it on YouTube,
get it out there. Let the algorithm do the work.
That would be the best advice I can give at
this point. Next question, I've got a couple more quick ones.
Now that you move to Denver, should we expect you
being a Nuggets fan? No, I enjoy watching the Nuggets.
I enjoy Nuggets fans. I have nothing against the Nuggets.
(50:13):
I think they play a beautiful brand of basketball. But
I won't actively root for the Nuggets next part of
the question. I also hope you will talk more about
the Nuggets and maybe some collaborations with the DNVR guys.
I will talk more about the Nuggets because think the
Nuggets are gonna win the title this year. I have
a feeling they're gonna end up being my pick when
I finalize my picks. I think they're a much better
version of any team Nicola Jokic has had, and as
(50:35):
long as they're kicking butt, as it is always the case,
we will continue to cover the teams at the top
of the league more so Denver will naturally get more
coverage that way. As far as the DMVR guys go,
I got to meet I've met Adam before several times,
as I've mentioned on the show. He's been very kind
to my wife and I since we moved here. But
I went to Chicken Fight on Thursday night, which was
(50:56):
at this basically this place called Yelich Gardens I believe
it is what it's called. It's in downtown Denver. It's
like a basically like a kind of an older amusement park.
But I met a bunch of the DNVR crew there,
all very nice people. It's great to meet them, great
to hang out with them. Chicken Fight was basically just
like a bunch of chicken restaurants coming down and showcasing
their chicken. So got to try a bunch of good
(51:18):
local food. But I'm sure I'll be hanging out with
the DMVR guys on occasion, just because I love basketball
and there are going to be some of the basketball
fans here in town, and obviously Adam is already a
big friend of mine. But like, I don't think I'll
actively root for the Nuggets. I think that it'll just
clash too hard with my current rooting interests. And still
is digging at me that I had to come on
(51:40):
this show and work after two Jamal Murray game winners
two seasons ago. But thank you so much for the
kind words and for supporting the show. Do you think
Lebron is a better three point shooter than MJ? I
was arguing with someone in My arguments were that if
MJ and Lebron were drafted in two thousand and three,
MJ would be a better three point shooter simply due
to his shooting for mechanics. He then brought up DeMar
(52:00):
DeRozan and my counter argument was MJ is was cleaner
and more impressive athlete that didn't rely on shooting as
much as most perimeter guards. Also, Damar's jumper has a
weird hitch. I agree Jamar has like a Damar has
like a catapult forward in his shot, which I think
is uniquely good for the mid range, but not so
much for the three point line. I think MJ did
(52:21):
have a much more natural shooting release. And to support
my claim, I brought up Kawhi, do you agree with
me or him? I think bronze jumper is just naturally
flawed and it allows him to take certain types of threes.
It's a mechanics problem in my opinion, so I one
hundred percent agree with you. I think that if MJ
was drafted in two thousand and three, he would have
eventually become a forty percent three point shooter. I think
he's too obsessively competitive. I think his position group demands
(52:45):
it in the modern MBA, and I think that he
does have the shooting mechanics to be an excellent three
point shooter. So on that level, I absolutely agree with you.
The lebron thing is a little more complicated. On the
one hand, I do agree that he has naturally kind
of flawed mechanics, and I think that that limits him
on certain types of situations. Like he cross fires a bit,
which means he's really good going to his left, but
(53:06):
not so much going to his right. I think that's
a hurt him in the post a little bit, and
I think that's hurt him as a movement shooter going
to his right, like shooting off the dribble going to
his right. That said, like, one of the things with
Lebron is like he just gets really good looks.
Speaker 1 (53:20):
And one of the.
Speaker 2 (53:20):
Reasons he gets really good looks is he's still one
of the most gifted players in the league at getting
to the basket, and especially in his prime, Like you
can't press up on Lebron on a closeout because he's
just going to go right around you and break your
break your defense. So like with Lebron, it's kind of
fascinating because I look at him as being like a
guy that shoots the ball well even though he has
(53:43):
bad form because he gets such great looks. But he
deserves the credit for getting such great looks because he
gets himself opened by the threat of his downhill force.
Two more quick ones. So I report recently where it
said Reeves is apparently asking for Tyler Harrow. Question is
who you got between the two a couple of years ago.
I think it was easily Tyler. But after last season,
(54:05):
I think Reeves's IQ and confidence is at a new
level where he learned how to be effective when all
the stars are gone while also being a great second
third option next to stars.
Speaker 1 (54:13):
What do you think, Jason So?
Speaker 2 (54:16):
On the one hand, I'm a big Austin Reeves fan,
and there's a part of me that wants to immediately
scream Austin Reeves is better. But the reason why I
couldn't say that, and why I wouldn't say that until
a couple of years from now, is it's just different
when you're in the situation Tyler Harrow was in last year,
where you're at the top of the scouting report every
(54:38):
single day. That's the role that Tyler Harrow is in.
Austin's really never been in that role. Yeah, Austin had
his moments like the Indiana game last year where Lebron
and Luke are out and he just single handedly beats
the Pacers, And that is what makes me optimistic that
Austin Reeves could be a better player than Tyler Harrow,
but I don't think it's fair to just put Reeves
(54:58):
on that level and till he faces a whole season
where he's like in that sort of situation where he's
at the top of the scouting report, and he may
never be in that situation as a Laker. But I
just think it makes it complicated. Like when you were
deciding how to guard the Miami Heat last year, you
were always thinking about Tyler Harrow first, and I think
that just I think that just makes things a little
bit tougher. Tyler Harrow is certainly a more gifted perimeter shooter.
(55:23):
Austin Reeves feels like a more natural passer. I think
Austin's a better defensive player too. Austin's probably a little
bit more crafty getting to the basket. But again, it's
just really difficult to compare those two roles directly head
to head. Lastly, what is the best ski mountain? On
the Epic pass ski related question, I was talking with
(55:44):
Carly the other day. We're trying to decide if we
want to get another We got Epic passes for this year,
our first time getting full Epic passes because now we're
actually living in Denver.
Speaker 1 (55:51):
That was the whole upside.
Speaker 2 (55:52):
But Breck has always been my favorite mountain just because
we used to go with friends and family all the time.
And Breck brings the unique combination of like really versatile mountain,
meaning like there's really easy terrain for amateurs, there's all
sorts of intermediate terrain, and there's really tough terrain. They
have two high speed lifts that go up over twelve
(56:14):
thousand feet on Peak seven and on Peak eight, and
on Peak six, and they have like a groomed blue
off the top of Peak six called Reverie, which is
like one of my favorite runs in the world. You're
above the tree line, you're at like twelve thousand, five
hundred feet and you just ski down the face of
a mountain. It's incredible. Peak eight is the highest high
speed chair in the entire North American in all of
(56:36):
North America if I'm not mistaken. And then Peak ten
has a bunch of really cool advanced trains, so it's
got really versatile terrain. But then it also has this
sick town with lots of good you know, like a
really nice bar and restaurant scene. So like it's a
great place for us to go with my friends and family.
This year is gonna be different though, because we're gonna
mostly be commuting in from Denver to ski every day.
(56:57):
Like we're not gonna be staying on the mountains very much.
So I'm wondering which mountain all end up liking. The
four epic mountains there are Breckenridge Keystone, which I've only
skied once and it was in a blizzard, so I
want to try it again. Keystone is a little closer
to me too, so I'm excited to try it more.
It's like ten minutes closer, which could make it a
go to for us. Then there's Veil and then there's
(57:19):
Beaver Creek, and those two I haven't skied either of those,
so this year will be my first time skiing both
of those. So stand by, I'll tell you guys which
one I like out of those two. My favorite mountain
back there is actually Copper Mountain though, and then a
lot of people have been trying to get us to
try Winter Park, which I've never tried. Winter Park and
Copper are both on the Icon Pass, so we'll look
(57:41):
into it and maybe if we get bored with the
Epic Mountains. We might get an icon pass as well,
But if I had to say right now, I'd say
Breck just because it's so versatile. But I think my
circumstances this year are different since we won't be staying
on the mountain as much. But looking forward to my
goal this year is to get fifty days in. It's
going to make me do all sorts of crazy shit
with work, like a lot of two A days and
stuff like that, but I'll do whatever it takes to
(58:02):
make skiing happen. It's just I view this as like
a little tiny window in time before my wife and
I have kids, where where like what if this is
where we look back and go like, hey, remember when
we just skeed our asses off for two years. That's
kind of what I'm hoping this looks like. So that's
our plan at this point.
Speaker 1 (58:19):
But we'll see. I'll keep you guys updated all right.
Speaker 2 (58:21):
As always, I sincerely appreciate you guys for supporting us
and supporting the show. We will be back on Monday
with number six. I'll see you guys then.
The volume. All right, welcome to Hoops Tonight. You're at
the volume.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Happy Friday, everybody. Hope all of you guys are having
a great week. Today's mail bag Day. I have all
sorts of great questions from you guys who are gonna
be bouncing all around the league, some player ranking stuff,
some stuff that's outside of player rankings as well, some
stuff that has nothing to do with basketball, and we'll
be getting to all of those questions today. You guys
have the drip before we get started. To subscribe to
the Hoops and I YouTube channels. You don't miss any
more of our videos. Follow me on Twitter, I underscore jcnlts.
(00:38):
You guys, don't miss show announcements. Don't forget about a
podcast few wherever you's your podcast under Hoops Tonight. It's
also super helpul if you leave a rating and a
review on that front. Jackson's doing great work on social
media feeds on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. Make sure
you guys follow us over there, and then, last but
not least, keep dropping those mail bag questions in the
YouTube comments. If you want to get a mail bag
question in these shows, all you got to do is
go into our full episodes in the comment that's right
(01:00):
mail bag with a colon that so I can sort
it out from the comments and they'll write your question there.
If you disagree with the player ranking, if you just
have a question about anything around the league or anything
at all, just drop it in our mail bags. All right,
let's talk some basket of a lots of Jalen Brunson
questions today that we'll be getting into. What is the
argument for current Steph over Jalen Brunson. Brunson has been
(01:22):
flat out better than Steph for the past two seasons,
during both the regular season and the postseason. Considering the
clear year over year regression for Steph, estimating him to
be better than the player who's been better for two
years seems unfair. A small sample with Jimmy is nowhere
near enough to put him over JB, especially when you
take a sample about that size of Brunson's best play
is better than that Steph sample. So, first of all,
(01:44):
there are several specific things here that we're going to
continue to run into with Jalen Brunson. Jalen Brunson dribbles
the basketball and has the ball in his hands a
lot more than Steph Curry does and a lot more
than most NBA players, which allows I was Jalen Brunson
to put up preposterous statistical performances over and over and
(02:04):
over again. I'm not trying to undersell what Jalen Brunson
does here, I'm just saying on the list of guys
who their impact is going to reflect more on the
box score versus guys who their impact is not going
to reflect on the box score as much, Brunson's closer
to this end, and guys like Steph Tyres Halliburton, the
offensive engine types, they're going to be more on the
(02:27):
other side of the spectrum. And a couple of specific things.
First of all, you want to know why they took
off when Jimmy Butler entered the equation because there's no
offensive talent on that roster. Okay, I'm sorry, But like
Andrew Wiggins and Brandon Pajemski and you know young Jonathan
Kaminga who literally no one in the league seems to
want right now, these are not the same offensive talent
(02:49):
that Karl Anthony Towns is, that Michale Bridges is, that
ogn Andobi is. There is a substantially better offensive set
of talent that he's playing with, which is making life
easier for Jalen Brunson. And as soon as you brought
Jimmy Butler into the equation, the Warriors immediately took off
and became a top ten offense again. Despite like even
(03:10):
Jimmy is a pretty limited offensive player and that still
wasn't a very good offensive roster, Steph immediately vaulted them
into being a top ten offense in that stretch. And Steph,
just by having the counterbalance of the star and the
belief in his team's ability to accomplish something started producing
at that top tier superstar level again. Now, if you
want to know why specifically I look at Stephen Curry
(03:30):
as a better basketball player than Jalen Brunson, it's simply
that he is a much better offensive engine. Even to
this day, it doesn't reflect as often on a Golden
State roster that is so devoid of offensive talent, But
Steph's ability to consistently draw two to the ball, both
in pick and roll and just running off of offball
action unlocks so much easy stuff for that team. Another
(03:54):
really easy way for me to put this is, I
believe if you just plucked Steph and dropped him on
the New York Nick and had him play with Michale
Bridges and Og Andnobi and Karl Anthony Towns and all
of those guys. I believe the Nicks become a better
basketball team. I think that Steph is a better defensive
player as well. I think that like guys, like you'd
think after watching what happened with Jannison, the Bucks, the
(04:18):
last couple of years with Steph and the Warriors, the
last couple of years hell with Lebron and Ad and
the Lakers, and how they underachieved over the years. Guys,
you gotta have a great roster to be good in
the NBA. It is harder than ever to succeed purely
based on the strength of superstar talent. You have to
(04:39):
have both. You have to have superstar talent and you
have to have strong support. And again I would argue
the New York Knicks underachieved this year outside of just
simply the Celtics series. They got killed by every good
team in the regular season and generally underachieved. They looked
mediocre against the Pistons, and they got beat by the Pacers.
They just happened to beat the Boston Celtics in this
(05:03):
couple weeks stretch where they struck lightning in a bottle,
the Knicks underachieved. I look at that Warriors team as
a team that is basically full of a bunch of
mediocre role player talent and Steph Curry, and he was
able to keep them afloat long enough for the Jimmy
support to come, and they were looking pretty damn good
and beat a two seed before Steph Curry's hamstring went
(05:26):
in large part because he had to carry such a
heavy load. Like to me, it wasn't even a debate.
I think Steph. I think Steph is a better basketball
player than Jalen Brunson right now. And again, like there's
gonna be a lot of this kind of stuff with
the box score. I have another one related to Tyrese
Haliburton here in a bit. Jalen Brunton's gonna put up
insane box score stats because he is an elite scorer
(05:46):
that dribbles the air out of the basketball most games.
That is going to lead to some really high box
score performance. And we can't grade a player simply on
box score performance. And I'll save the rest of it
when we get to the Tyress Haliburton piece, Hi Jackson
and Jason. Chopping it up with you two on playback
and watching this channel for years has made me a
better basketball fan. Thank you for all your hard work
(06:07):
and knowledge. My question is what can Brunson add to
become a top five player. I get Halle has the
bragging rights after their series, but after games one and two,
Brunson was averaging thirty nine point five points eight assists
on fifty two percent from the field, another example of
those like big box score numbers that I was talking
about that took place in losses. My concern with putting
(06:29):
Halle over Brunson is I've seen Brunson go on a
four game playoff stretch averaging forty two points in ten
asists on fifty percent. I'm almost certain Halle couldn't do
that if he tried, as much as Hallie does facilitate
TJ and Matherin going off has nothing to do with Halle.
Same with Siakam dominating ISOs or Nie Smith hitting six
contested threes. He was pretty bad in the finals, and
even though he reached them, Brunson would not struggle that
(06:51):
much back against the wall. I know what it looks
like for Lebron, Joki, Giannis, Sga, Brunson, etc. To put
on herculean efforts even in losses. I just feel like Halle,
if he's required, if his teammate, if his teammates are
simply cold for a series, he wouldn't be able to
reach that same herculean level on that the other elite
offensive engines could reach because of his inconsistent scoring. How
(07:12):
much should a high scoring floor factor into who's better?
First of all, if you guys remember what I said,
I said that Halliburton, if he was healthy this year,
would have ranked ninth. So that's literally just one spot
ahead of where Brunson would have landed if Halliburton was
in this list. So I view the gap as extremely small.
And as I've said, you could really argue any of
(07:33):
these guys ahead of each other all the way up
to number five. Like I'm sure there are Knicks fans
out there who literally have Brunson at five. I mean you,
when you were listing your offensive engines, you literally listed Lebron, Jokic,
Giannis Sga, and Brunson as in you have him basically
as the fifth guy, right, So like you could argue
him that high. I'm not going to make that case,
but like I do think that these things are up
(07:55):
for debate, and I do think your position is absolutely defensible.
I just view, again, at the risk of repeating myself,
I just view Halliburton as a better offensive engine, and
the case for it is simply that the Pacers offense
functioned at a higher level than the Knicks did in
the playoffs. I disagree with the idea that the Pacers
went off without Halliburton. Their offense cratered this year in
(08:18):
the playoffs when he was off the floor, It's like
thirteen points per one thirteen in changes, like almost fourteen
points worse per one hundred possessions when he was off
the floor versus on. It also dipped substantially in the
regular season and in the playoffs each of the last
two years.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
And by the way, the.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Same goes for Brunson. The on off numbers for Jalen
Brunson are crazy as well. But the point is the
Pacers don't just score the basketball with or without Tyre's Halliburton.
He is integral to their success. Halliburton breeds a more
free flowing offense that generates more easy shots and does
a better job of keeping everyone else in rhythm. Jalen
(08:56):
Brunson was surrounded by every bit as much offensive talent
as Halliburton, Karl Anthony Towns, Mikhale Bridges, O g n Anobi.
That's a hell of a trio to put next to
Jalen Brunson, but it just never looked that easy for
the Knicks. When Halliburton was on the floor, the Pacers
scored at a rate four points per one hundred possessions
higher than the Knicks did with Brunson on the floor,
(09:18):
and in the Pacers Knixt series, the difference was twice
as large. The Knicks had a one to fourteen offensive
rating with Brunson on the floor in that series, the
Pacers had a one to twenty offensive rating with Halliburton
on the floor. Brunson is a better passer than he
usually gets credit for. I think that that's worth mentioning,
But he does dribble the air out of the basketball,
(09:39):
and the offense doesn't flow as well as it does
with Tyre's Halliburton. Their play styles, the way they play
with Haliburton trying to get rid of the ball as
soon as he can in possessions to the first open guy.
That's naturally going to end up with Jalen Brunson putting
up more impressive looking box score numbers. Even though we
can acknowledge Brunson's obviously a better score, there's obviously an
(10:01):
approach difference that's gonna lead to an even bigger difference
than those box scores. Yeah, in theory, Jalen Brunson's ability
to score in the clutch should make him a better
option at the end of games than Tyrese Halliburton. But
this year head to head in that series, Haliburton was
four for seven in the clutch and hit a shot
(10:21):
that literally stole a game at Madison Square Garden, and
Brunson was three for nine and the Pacers won the series.
And they won in twenty twenty four to two, albeit
obviously with some injuries playing a role. So in short,
Jalen Brunson has had his opportunities to prove that he's
better than Tyrese Halliburton at running head to head offense
or excuse me, at running NBA offense in a head
(10:44):
to head matchup, and yet in each of those situations,
Halliburton's offense has just performed better, and Halliburton outperformed him
in the Clutch this year in the Pacers Advance both times.
It's just really hard for me to make that case.
Now back to your first question, what does Brunson need
to do to get into the top five? I'm actually
(11:06):
going to read another quote from another YouTube comment from
the same video, this one from Jonathan Raymond on point
as usual diehard Knicks fan, and I have felt over
the last few years, Brunson is one step below the
top five and that will come from unlocking kat and
Og And it's really that simple. One of the things
that Tyres Haliburton does is he brings the absolute best
(11:30):
out of Andrew Nemhard and Aaron E. Smith and Ben
matherin In, Pascal Siakam and Miles Turner. If Jalen Brunson
can figure out to get to that next level as
a playmaker and as a game manager to where he
can literally bring the most out of those guys, then
he can not only leap Halliburton, but yes, absolutely get
(11:50):
up into the conversation there for that fifth spot. But
I think he's a while away. I think he's aways
away from there. That's something he's going to have to
figure out. This is related to the Denzel Washington question.
I don't think Denzel is talking about gatekeeping sports or
other fields from people haven't been professional and said field.
He's more referring to the steven A's and Skips of
the world to just give their opinions for entertainment, whether
(12:10):
they are positive or negative, without actually backing why they
feel that way and what in the field in question
brought them to that conclusion. Heck, even as you mentioned before,
just because you're an athlete or professional doesn't mean your
opinion should value more. Case in point, Shak or Chuck,
who never seemed to actually give an in depth argument
and just go off how they feel based off of
obvious biases, versus someone like yourself who has had professional
(12:32):
playing career. I haven't played professionally. I just played in
college and did not make the NBA. But you still
do your research and take time to come up with
objective and fair takes that you really can't argue, and
you even acknowledge your biases and point them out to
the audience to let them know that not everyone will
feel the same way. Kyrie spoke about the same thing
a while back about protecting basketball from those who just
(12:53):
want to spew opinions about the game instead of actually
trying to understand why and how basketball works. So I
think it gets a little more complicated because I agree
with you in the sense that there are certain guys
where it's like when I hear them talking about the game,
I'm like, yeah, this isn't necessarily good for the game.
Where I disagree is like, I just think things are
infinitely better. It used to be if you went back
longer into the past, it was mostly that sort of thing.
(13:16):
Now we have a little bit of that sort of thing,
and we just have a ton of people who love
the game passionately and cover it with their hearts and
soul and just.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Do an amazing job.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
I think where it gets tricky is like, I think
one of it goes deeper than the stephen A and
Skip part of this. I think I've seen this from
NBA players. I think NBA players want people who love
the game to cover it, but I just think they
want no criticism at all. Ever, I think it's all
fair in game. I think it's all, you know, like
(13:47):
kind of fair game for them until you start being critical.
And that's where I disagree, because, like, I think it's
important for us to be able to criticize NBA players,
Otherwise our analysis carries no weight if this just turns
into a propaganda channel where we talk about how teams
(14:08):
play and we dive into the weeds and we do
all that technical stuff that people love the analytical side
of it. But then I come on here after like
Julius Randall in game four, for instance, against Oklahoma City
when he like straight up no showed the game and
was like bad body language and just throwing up bullshit
catch and shoot shots and just not playing very well.
Like one game after he was like we're at home now,
(14:31):
Like what am I gonna do? Get on here and
not say that Julius Randall like was awful and didn't
back up what he was talking about in the previous game,
Like I can't do that and then come up here
with a straight face. Like what gives the legitimacy to
both sides, to the praise and to the criticism criticism,
(14:53):
is that the other exists. Praise without criticism is just propaganda.
Criticism without praise is just shit talk. And one of
the things that I've tried to do, even with the
players that I don't particularly like. Like, you guys know
that I'm not a huge fan of Russell Westbrook, but like,
I like to think that over the course of the
entire era, including in the with the Lakers, when he
(15:13):
would play well, I would come on the show and
I'd be like, Russ was good tonight. Here was a
sequence where Russ was awesome. When Russ did this, this,
and this, he helped his team win the game. I
would talk about that. It was important to me that
my criticism of Russell Westbrook didn't come devoid of any
praise when he would do something good, because again, Russell
(15:35):
Westbrook was a player who would make good plays and
would make bad plays, And that was the conundrum with him.
You know, that is so vital to this having any integrity.
If I'm gonna actually come up here and talk about
the game and be perfectly honest, it requires that I
both praise NBA players and criticize NBA players. And I
(15:57):
feel the same way about different types of out there. Again,
if you're strictly in the I'm teaching about NBA offense.
So for instance, like Craneous, when he's like breaking down
different sets and counters, he's going to sit there and
just break down what this is, what this means, how
(16:18):
this works. That's one thing, right, But even Crane, just
when he covers the Lakers, he'll bring up when he's
being critical of the Lakers' coaching staff or doing something
that he disagrees with, it is important for you to
balance criticism with praise and vice versa, to add integrity
to your work. And I think that that specifically is
where it gets tough. And that was the sentiment that
I was picking up from Denzel. I think he felt
(16:40):
as though, like, you shouldn't be allowed to criticize any
of these guys if you haven't been in the seat.
And while I agree that it's like a weird dynamic,
it's weird. It's weird for me, sitting in my basement
in Denver, Colorado, a non professional basketball player, to criticize
(17:00):
basketball players that play in the NBA. I get that
it's a weird dynamic, but I kind of feel as
though it is absolutely necessary in order for there to
be legitimate basketball analysis. And as we talked about in
that mail bag or in that episode on Monday, there
are last week on Wednesday, excuse me, you need to
(17:21):
have a certain amount of people who cover the game
that didn't play, because so many of those people love
the game every bit as much. I'm not even talking
about me. I'm talking about people who like never played,
who love the bat, who love the game of basketball
so much that they pour their heart and soul into
it and into the study of it, that are willing
(17:41):
to legitimately go through the work and be honest and
cover the game with integrity. I see, like I talked
about in that video, I've seen NBA players, legitimate NBA
players and former NBA players criticize other NBA players and
they're like flatly wrong, like where they'll just go on
stage and they'll be like so and so does this,
(18:02):
this and this, and he's weak as hell because of
this or whatever it is, and I'm like, that's not
even true about that guy. Like if you actually took
the time to watch the game, you would know that's
not true. Hell, there are some things sometimes you'll hear
some player say stuff and it's like just go to
their basketball reference page and like actually look at their
stats and you'll see that you're wrong. Like that sort
(18:23):
of thing happened all the time because in many cases,
those are players that are already millionaires, that have already
become one of the very best in their profession, which
was playing the game, and now they're collecting a check
to talk about it, and their heart's not in it.
And because their heart's not in it, they're not putting
in the same effort that some of these people out
there that also love the game a ton but didn't
(18:45):
play professionally or didn't play at all, And now they're
channeling their love in work ethic because maybe they don't
have the natural talent that some of these NBA players have,
they're channeling that energy into their study of the game
and they're producing, in my opinion, super high quality work
(19:06):
that has integrity. That guys who cover specific teams, who
will talk about parts of their team that are not
getting discussed nationally that deserve more attention, or at the
same time criticizing people on the team when they're not
doing their job and they're not pulling their end of
the they're not holding up their end of the bargain.
Like to me, it's just complicated, and it's a part
(19:27):
of it's a part of what makes the landscape work
is that we have a mix of players who love
the game, who still have their heart in it, who
still do incredible work, mixed with people who are not
in the game, who never played, who love it as
much as anybody else in the world, and who is
just as entitled to cover the game the way that
(19:50):
they do, but they cover it with integrity, and they
bring that mix of praise and criticism that is always
backed up by the hard work and the study that
comes from behind. The people do all the other lanes
that we talked about, like analytical study, the guys who
do tactical breakdowns for people, the guys who do reporting
(20:11):
on the league. It's just a very complex ecosystem that
I think is better than it's ever been. And that's
why I'm defending it and why I'm defending the people
out there.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
I just have.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
I have so many buddies out there and people that
I are that I admire from afar who just do
really high quality work who didn't play in the NBA,
and I think it's ridiculous that any would want in
sinuate that they're not, you know, that they shouldn't be
allowed to or that they shouldn't be in the situation
that they're in. The rivalries the marching bands, the upsets.
(20:40):
Saturday's just got way more fun. College football is back.
Think you know the game. Put your college football knowledge
to the test with DraftKings Sportsbook and turn your picks
into big payouts. From live betting during the game to
rivalry week odds boosts, and so much more. DraftKings Sports
Book has everything you need to stay in the action
from kickoff to the final whistle, whether you're betting on
(21:01):
your go to team or making moves mid game as
the momentum shifts. Saturdays are yours to own with DraftKings
sports Book. Number three, Ohio State is hosting Texas on
Saturday the thirtieth. They are now a two point five
point favorite at home. Here's something special for first timers.
New customers. Bet five dollars and get two hundred dollars
(21:21):
in bonus bets Instantly download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and
use code hoops. That's code hoops, that's h oops for
new customers to get two hundred dollars in bonus bets
instantly when you bet just five bucks. In partnership with
DraftKings Sports Book, the Crown is yours. Gambling problem called
one eight hundred gambler. In New York, call eight seven
seven eight hope and why, or text hope and Why
(21:43):
to four sixty seven three six nine. In Connecticut, help
is available for problem gambling called eight eight eight seven
eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit CCPG dot org.
Please play responsibly on behalf of Boothill Casino and Resort
in Kansas twenty one plus. Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction.
Void in Ontario. Bonus bets expire seven days after issuance.
(22:04):
For additional terms and responsible gaming resources, see DKG dot co.
Slash audio. Hey, Jason, I was watching the Nerd sash
pot a month ago and they did an all time
NBA draft, and I would like you to do a
twelve NBA roster all time, obviously with the first six
being the best of the best.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
But the lower tier all star role players.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
For your bench. Figured it'd be cool since we're in
the offseason. Keep up the good work, brother man. Thank
you for supporting the show. I'm not gonna do this
right now, but I just was gonna announce because Jackson
and I were talking about it.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
The first thing we're doing in the.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Week after the player rankings are finished, is we're gonna
do list week. So we're gonna do a bunch of
different lists. I wrote down like six different examples, like
the five best champions of the last twenty five years,
or like the five best perimeter defenders of the last
twenty five year, stuff like that. We're gonna do like
different lists that we're gonna hit over the course of
(23:00):
that week, and we'll get to have a lot of
fun as we get into the tail end of the summer.
We're also planning on doing some playback stuff, especially in
late September. I think we're going to try to pick
three really big NBA playoff games from my time being
a basketball fan, and we're going to rewatch them and
just kind of hang out. So that'll look for something
along those lines in late September, but I will announce
(23:21):
it as.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
We get closer.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Got a WNBA question, not a question about the rankings,
but WNBA related Pagebeckers has taken the w by storm
this season for her rookie year. She doesn't have a
cultural and ratings impact as much as Kaitlyn Clark. My
question is, how would you compare and differentiate page to Kaitlin?
Who would you pick to build a team around. Who's
better in a vacuum, who would be their NBA comparison?
(23:45):
As a Lakers fan, we are spoiled to have you, Pete,
Crangis and Trevor cover our team with in depth data,
schematic cap and narrative analysis. Love all those dudes, They're
all awesome. I couldn't agree with more with you about
the quality of work that they do, and thank you
so much for the kind words about our show as well.
Page is absolutely crushing it and the fun thing is
that she's doing it with short range scoring, which is
(24:08):
insanely impressive. We talked about this a lot with Jalen
Brunson in his video. But if you can find a
way to be like consistently reliable as a shot maker
closer to the basket, that will drive scoring that is
variance proof. Page is shooting fifty percent on jump shots
inside of seventeen feet and she's doing it on massive volume,
(24:29):
one hundred and nineteen attempts percentergy there are only two
players in the entire WNBA who took at least one
hundred jump shots inside of seventeen feet to this point,
Page and Ajia Wilson and Page is hitting them at
a six percent higher rate than Aja Wilson is. You
got to remember too, like fifty percent from that range
for WNBA players.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Insane.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Scoring efficiency in general in the WNBA is lower than
the NBA, right, just because of the difference in athleticism. Now,
whether or not Page can achieve the cultural resonance of
someone like Caitlin Clark, it's gonna come down to the
same concept that we've been talking about NonStop on the
show over the last couple of weeks. Can you drive
offensive success for your team beyond yourself. Kaitlin Clark stepped
(25:16):
into the WNBA and the fever offense literally exploded. She
drives like a Steph Curry esque gravity from defenses that
generates a ton of openings, especially at the rim. And
she could take it to an even higher level because
she does so much more of her work. I shouldn't
say not at a higher level, but she does it
with more versatility in the sense that she does a
lot of her work on the ball as well, which
(25:38):
is kind of like Steve Nash esques. It's like Nash
mixed with Curry. It's crazy, and Caitlyn's just a supremely
gifted passer. These stats are they don't even make sense.
Over the final fifteen games of the season last year,
the Indiana Fever posted the number one offensive rating in
the WNBA by a mile. They had a one to
(26:01):
ten offensive rating and second place was the Liberty at
one oh six. So she literally stepped into the WNBA
and made the best offense in the league by a mile.
That's being an offensive engine. That's making life easier for
everybody on the team. And that's why I gravitate towards
that type of player. And I'm not trying to come
(26:22):
at Page Becker's here. She's a rookie and she's kicking ass,
and I actually I'm really stoked that we might have
a rivalry between these two over the years. I think
that'd be great for the league, especially two very different
types of players. But it's just an example of if
people are wondering why Caitlyn resonates at a higher level,
that's why Caitlyn is like a transcendently great offensive player,
(26:43):
potentially the best offensive player to ever go into the WNBA.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
She has to.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Achieve that first, but that's the potential that she has.
This year with Caitlin largely out of the lineup, the
Fevers offense has come right back down to earth. And
yet when Caitlyn's been on the floor this year, even
banged up Caitlin, their offensive rating has been up at
one oh nine, which is right up at that level
where they were at last year at the end of
(27:07):
the season. The second piece of it actually comes down
to a fallacy that I saw on a YouTube comment
the other day that I want to dive a little
bit further into. It was in the KD video when
we were talking about the score versus offensive engine archetype.
I can't remember the exact comment, but he said something
along the lines of, I can't believe we've somehow convinced
ourselves that scorers are inferior when the greatest player of
(27:31):
all time was a score And I laughed because on
one hand, like the goat thing is very up for
debate for anybody aside from the people who you know,
literally are of a certain age group that are old,
like older and more invested emotionally in that era. Outside
of that group, it's pretty up in the air, Like
it's a lot of people who think it's lebron right.
(27:53):
But even if we set that aside, if you go
through most all time lists, there's not a whole lot
of the traditional scorer archetype. It's like Kobe and MJ.
And then it's a lot of really versatile players and
bigs outside of that that make up a lot of
top ten lists, a lot of guys like Magic Johnson,
a lot of guys like Steph Curry and Lebron, Nikole Jokic,
(28:14):
guys along those lines, right, Also, the guys who are
at the top of the all time lists aren't any
one thing.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
Yeah, MJ is either.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
The best scorer ever or the second best scorer ever,
depending on who you ask, but he was undoubtedly a
better passer than someone like Katie was. I mean, he
had a season in the NBA where he averaged eight
assists per game. So, yeah, MJ is the scoring archetype,
but he's so much more of a basketball player than
just breaking it down simply to scoring versus offensive initiation. Similarly,
(28:49):
guys like Lebron and Jokic and Steph, Yeah they're offensive engines,
but they're also fucking awesome scores. Lebron literally is the
all time leading scorer in NBA. His has hit more
playoff buzzer beaters than anybody in the history of the league.
He has twelve seasons averaging over twenty seven points per game.
(29:10):
That's what like when you're talking about the goat case
with Lebron, it's completely unfair to not also characterize him
as one of the best scorers to ever touch the basketball.
We talked about NICOLEA. Jokicic and his reliable short range
scoring and how indomitable he can be there. Steph Curry
obviously can reach incredible heights as a score and the
(29:33):
same goes with Caitlyn Clark. She's arguably already the best
offensive engine in the WNBA, as we discussed, and yet
during that fifteen game stretch where she was leading that
kick ass Indiana offense, she was also second in the
league in scoring, averaging twenty three points per game on
(29:54):
sixty percent true shooting. The one person above her was
Asia Wilson, and Caitlyn was three percent more efficient and
true shooting. At that point. Caitlyn was a kick ass scorer.
And by the way, I'm not denigrating scoring as a talent.
It's vitally important to win basketball games. I'm saying that
(30:15):
I personally am going to gravitate towards players who can
both score and generate tons of high quality offense for
their entire team, even if they're not quite as good
at scoring as the best pure scorers in the world.
And again, lastly, because I don't want to under sell
Page here because he's kicking ass, this would be a
(30:36):
really fun rivalry to take the stage in the WNBA
in the coming years. To have like a Steph Curry
meets Steve Nash level point guard in Caitlyn Clark versus
the surgical scorer type in Page Beckers. That could be
a ton of fun and more awesome basketball players is
always a good thing for us. Next question. In twenty twelve,
(30:59):
the Mimy Heat had a higher net rating with Lebron
on the court without Weide than when they were both
on the court together. However, they all they closed all
of their games with Lebron and Wade on the court together. Naturally,
it seems like an obvious decision to close games with
all your best players on the floor, But what is
the value of doing so if your statistically works. Love
the show, keep it the good work. Thank you so
much for the kind works. This is an interesting question
(31:21):
on a couple different levels, because on the one hand,
Wade and Lebron were a clunky offensive fit, and it
was a big part of how they lost the first year,
and it is a big part about how in general
over those years they became more of like a defense
to transition group because Lebron was an offensive engine who
inverted spacing or who created natural spacing for the shooters,
(31:45):
meaning like inverted spacing, are guys that bring rim protectors
away from the basket, guys that bring guys out to
the perimeters. So like Jokic does it because he is
a center and has to be guarded by centers, he's
pulling centers away from the basket. And then Steph by
coming off of screen action forcing centers to show would
open up space around the basket. They generate openings for
read and react sequences at the rim. Guys like Luca
(32:08):
and Lebron the rim pressuring big forwards that can pass.
They bring everybody in and generate all the crazy spray
outs to shooters. Right, and so for a guy like Lebron,
you know he would have benefited from a star that
was more of like a perimeter shooter. For example, like
Lebron and Kevin Durant, for example, would have been an
unbelievable basketball fit if they would have been able to
(32:30):
play together. Kevin Durant is a bad example because he's
the most seamless fit with anybody in NBA history. Hell,
he was amazing with Steph too, But like a just
a straight up, like an excellent jump shooting a player
at that position would have been like a Ray Allen
for example, in his prime, would have been a better
(32:51):
natural basketball fit with Lebron than a Dwayne Wade. Right now,
they made it work because of how good they were defensively,
and over the years, Lebron built enough chemistry with d
Wade as a cutter where they were able to make
things work and they were so good defense to transition.
It all functioned, But there was definitely a little bit
(33:12):
of a kind of like diminishing return there in terms
of having two playmaking downhill scores kind of playing alongside
each other. Now in terms of like the decision to
close games like that, you weren't gonna bench Dwayne Waye.
It would come with so many ripple effects in terms
of the chemistry and confidence of the team, And ultimately
I think they were just invested in constantly trying to
(33:32):
figure it out because the best version of that team
was always going to be Wade and Lebron on the
floor together. They just needed to figure it out, and
they did. I thought they, you know, under the circumstances
with Wade immediately getting hurt and immediately having his knee
really bog him down, and with the clunky spacing in
the first year in twenty eleven, they got two championships,
and I think that that sounds about right for that
(33:55):
particular group of talent. I think the only way they
would have won more is I d Wade would have
stayed healthy the whole way through. Hey, Jason, love your content.
It's looking like eight of the top ten players on
your list will be in the Western Conference. Clearly, the
West is much deeper than the East. What would you
do to help balance the conferences? There's really nothing you
can do. And there's also a bad luck element to
(34:15):
this too, because if Tyre's Haliburton's healthy and Jason Tatum
is healthy, those are two guys that I have in
the top ten. Tatum's in the top five for me
if he's healthy, So like there's that piece of it.
Damian Lillard being hurt nukes any chance for the Bucks
to be a real threat. Honestly, Joel Embiid getting hurt too,
Like if that had all stayed together, if Joel Embid
(34:38):
could have stayed healthy, you'd have an awesome Sixers team,
an awesome Celtics team, an awesome Cavs team, an awesome
Pacers team, an awesome Bucks team.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Like you have a lot of really good teams at
the top of the Eastern Conference.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
You just have Dame knocked chopped the Bucks off at
the knees, Haliburton chopped the Pacers off at the knees,
and Tatum chopped the Celtics off at the knees. So
you basically have now and I left the Knicks off
that list earlier as a sixth team, but now you're
basically limited down to ow Embiid in the Sixers obviously
got chopped off at the knees too, So now you
(35:13):
basically just have the Calves and Knicks left at the
top of the conference. And honestly, what'll be fun is
it'll give us an opportunity this year to see some
more playoff basketball from some of the younger talent in
the East. I think we'll get to see Trey Young
and the Hawks get another shot at this. I think
we'll get to see Cad Cunningham potentially get to a
second playoff series, a second playoff round. I think we're
(35:34):
going to get to see some of that element there,
get some exposure for some of those guys. The Orlando
Magic is another example of a team that could benefit
from that, but it's just bad luck, injury luck, and
there's not really anything the league can do about it.
Next question, Lebron was better than Steph last year. Even
(35:55):
in their head to head matchups. Lebron hit more clutch
shots and led his team to victory, while Steph was
often not hyper fit from the field when the Warriors
needed him. When Lebron is playing on an injured foot,
Steph was better, but Lebron is playing like a shell
of himself. He just had no choice but to play
because of the play in situation. Lebron was definitely better
than Steph for pretty much the entire Olympics as well.
And while Lebron does slack on defense for possessions, he
(36:15):
has a gear on defense that Steph has never been
able to approach in his career. Like you can't take
points for Lebron's mediocre defense at times when Steph's defense
is consistently mediocre even when he tries. Teams constantly attack
Steph on offense while rarely, while very rarely, do teams
run plays to attack forty year old Lebron, and Lebron
still runs the defense at times even when he's not
actively in the play by calling out plays and telling
(36:38):
players where they need to be. Draymond does all of
that for Steph. So if you were going to make
a case for while Lebron was better than Steph over
the last couple of years, I think you broke it
down really well. So I want to give you credit
for that. I think there are a couple of specific
things I've pushed back on, So, for instance, like Lebron
being better in the head to head matchups, the Lakers
have had a better roster over the last couple of years,
(36:59):
So I think it's just worth mentioning that basketball's easier
when you're surrounded by more talent, and so I think
that that played a big role in the head to
head matchups. Secondly, I do think Lebron reached a higher
level last year in that stretch from late January to
early March than Steph did at any point last year.
(37:20):
But Lebron was only there for sixteen games, and for
the rest of the year. There's just that Steph offensive
engine thing. We're still to this day. When he's running around,
they're still sending two guys to him, and all these
guys are getting these open shots. And again, a pretty
limited roster for the Warriors, just adding Jimmy Butler but
losing Andrew Wiggins in the process, a bunch of mediocre
(37:42):
role player talent. Steph took those guys, I think twenty
and seven after the All Star Break with the number
one defense in the league and the number seven offense. Again,
I do think that Lebron very briefly hit a level
last year that was higher than anything Steph did last year.
But for the totality of when they were available as
basketball players, I did have Steph just to touch higher.
(38:03):
And for the record, you guys will see where Steph
ends up on this list. I don't have him much
higher than Lebron, but I do think especially over these
last couple of years, basically since twenty twenty three, I
mean even in twenty twenty two, I thought that Lebron
to me, stopped being able to consistently reach the top
tier when Solomon Hill dove into his ankle in twenty
(38:25):
twenty one, which, by the way, is right about the
same age that Steph is right now. So we'll see
if Steph can maintain it. And who knows, maybe Lebron
is a big forward who can rely on size and
strength and intelligence. Maybe he'll pass Steph again in the
next coming a couple of years, maybe that'll happen. But
right now, to me, that supreme gift Steph has to
just run in circles and fuck things up for a
(38:46):
defense by getting two to the ball. That to me
just kind of keeps him just that hair's bread the
head of Lebron in the meantime. But again, I think
you made a good case. Next question, why is it
that you grade Steph a LBJ on past year's success
instead of focusing on what they're currently doing. This is
from a troll who's always commenting underneath the videos. But
(39:07):
I don't really know what to say other than to
say that Stephen Lebron both made second team All NBA
last year, so everybody seems to think that they were awesome.
Except for you, So I think that's something that you
need to evaluate. Hey, Jason, I can't express enough my
appreciation for your show. You've helped me discover a love
for analytical basketball and I and have completely changed my
perspective when watching the NBA. Thanks for everything you do.
(39:29):
Curious about your past experience with media and whether you
studied journalism or something communications adjacent. How did you develop
the skills for script writing and public speaking. It's evident
that a lot of effort and experience goes into your work,
and wonder about how the evolution has come about over
the years. So my pathway into sports media was different,
(39:51):
and like I don't want to say, I hate when
anyone says that, like, oh, this is the way to
do it, because there's always just a different.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Way to do it.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
There's a million different way I used to crack into
this space. I remember when I was starting with the
educational background. My educational background was I was naturally good
at math, and so I ended up getting into a
lot of like pre engineering stuff and engineering focused stuff.
I have an associates and pre engineering from Utah State University,
(40:19):
and I hated math. I just was good at it.
The classes that I had the most fun in when
I was in college were my English classes. And when
you're just talking about like doing research and forming an
argument and laying out your argument analytically and you know,
in the form of writing, that was where I had
(40:41):
the most fun when I was in college. So, like,
it's funny because when I look back now, I actually
wish I would have studied English or studied something along
those lines, because I just think I would have had
more fun while I was in college.
Speaker 1 (40:52):
The math thing just really.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
Bummed me out while I was there most of the time,
which was a bummer because like, again, I was good
at it, and I had the problem of like everybody
telling me I should do math, Like my high school
math teachers are like, you need to do engineering. Here's
the classes you need to be taking, here's the program
you need to go into.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
Like I got into the.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
University of Arizona School of Engineering like as a freshman,
and I like hated it so much that I immediately
flunked out of the UBA because I just I've legitimately
hated it and all I wanted to do was play basketball,
And I was just going down and playing pick up
basketball every day. And I just I was not mentally
engaged by math or by engineering at all. I've told
(41:32):
this full story with Ethan Strauss on his podcast before,
but the very short version of it is I was
bad in school until I was on a basketball team
in college, a juco team, and I was loving it,
having the time of my life in practice. And one
day I got called into the office by the eligibility
coordinator and he was like, yo, dude, your grades are
fucking terrible, Like how are you going to play? Like
(41:54):
we can't get you on the floor. And I was like,
oh shit, yeah, Like you can't just not go to
class and get to play college basketball. It's not how
it works, right. And so I sat down with the
guy and I was like, what do I need to
do to get eligible? And he's like, all right, well,
first of all, you're not playing this semester at all.
This was the fall semester. And he's like, if you
want to play in the spring, you've got to take
(42:16):
a full sixteen unit load over winter break.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
And I did.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
I took sixteen classes or sixteen units worth of classes
that winter break and got or no, it wasn't sixteen,
it was twelve whatever. Four classes is four three unit classes,
so I had to take a full twelve unit class
load over like a three week period over winter break,
got a's and all four of them got eligible for
(42:41):
the next semester. I had to take a full semester
load that semester, and then I had to take it
again another full load in the summer because the way
that it worked was like you had to average your
first two years together in order to form your like
GPA for the following season. So I had to like
make up all of my shitty not paying attention and
(43:04):
not putting in the work in school by taking extra
classes over the winter break and over the summer break,
basically the two full class loads during that time. And
it was funny because if you like look at my
schooling history, I legitimately was one of the worst students
you've ever seen. And then I became a good student
(43:26):
the minute someone sat me down and was like, you
can't play basketball unless you get your school together. And
it just goes to show you. Like I talked about
this with Ethan in that show. It's something I kind
of hate about myself, but like I have a really
strong work ethic when I'm doing something that I love,
and then I can be pretty lazy when I don't
(43:46):
care about it, and I hate that about myself. I
wish I had more mental fortitude to be able to
motivate myself to do things that are harder in life,
and I really hope that doesn't come back to bite
me in the ass one day. But like, fortunately that
I have been able to find things like this that
have kept me focused and have kept me energized and
have allowed me to bring work ethic to the equation
(44:08):
and actually pour my heart and soul into something and
do quality work. But I was definitely not a good
student up until I had to be, and then I
just did what I had to do to get through school.
And like even when I was in college. My last
year in college, I transferred from JUCO for a basketball situation.
So I wanted to go to the best basketball team
(44:28):
and so I got recruited by this team in Phoenix
called Arizona Christian University, and they were this incredible basketball team.
But it was like awful for me academically because they
didn't have anything engineering wise, and they had all these
like Bible courses, so like I had like one hundred
and twenty something college credits, but I only have an
associates degree because I pursued just basketball situations and just
(44:52):
took class loads that fit whatever that school had available
to them. So again, thankfully I was able to find
something like this. That was a big part of why
I ended up in real estate actually before I did.
This was because real estate was something where I could
essentially just connect with people and try to drive business
that way rather than needing like a specific degree or
(45:14):
needing a specific technical skill, if that makes sense. But
everything was driven for me by basketball, and in effect,
I kind of bet my life on basketball, and so
I'm very, very lucky to have landed where I landed.
But to make a long story short, like if I
had to guess where the communication skills came from, like
I credit a lot of it to just being put
in really uncomfortable situations. So like going to play college basketball,
(45:38):
being dropped off by my parents in Utah at a
juco where I'm living in a dorm with a bunch
of other people, I was like literally forced to like
learn how to engage with people and to build relationships
that like kind of forced me to be uncomfortable in
that sense, and then the second piece of it was
real estate. I think real estate was really good for
me in the real estate business. My first year and
(46:00):
a half, I was in the investment side, so I
was working on like flips and renovations and things along
those lines, right, and so I learned a ton about that.
And then when I got into the actual like resale
part of it, meaning like helping families buy and sell houses.
At that point it was like I'd meet them at
an open house, and the way I'd earn their business
(46:22):
was by connecting with them and by expressing to them
that I had an area of expertise, right obviously what
I knew about the industry from flipping, and what I
knew about the buying and selling process, right. And I
think just having those conversations over and over and over
and over and over again again, I would I would
hold like five open houses a week. That was how
I drove business when I was doing that. But when
(46:44):
I would when I was doing that stuff, I think
that just gave me a lot of really good reps,
and so I think that was a big part of it.
I think in general, like the English classes and writing
classes that I took while I was in college. I
think helped a lot, but a lot of it just
is again just me loving basketball and me happening to
land into a situation where I can channel that through
(47:07):
my work ethic because I love the game. Now, as
far as like getting into the industry, I've talked about
this on the show before, but the long and short
of it is, I don't think it's very complicated anymore.
I think if you want to get into sports media,
I think you just need to start making content. I
don't think, like, you know, it's so funny. I remember
hitting up radio stations and asking to work the board,
and like trying to write for a blog, and like
(47:29):
trying to do these things that like were the traditional
route to getting into a position. And what's so funny
about that is like, in retrospect, I feel like everything
could have gone faster if I just started making content.
The bottom line is is it's less expensive than ever
for any of you guys to go on Amazon and
(47:50):
to get a microphone and a webcam, and you can
go on Facebook Marketplace and get a MacBook for a
few hundred bucks, and you can go home and you
can put in the work. In terms of learning about
whatever it is kind of content you want to make
finding that lane and then recording and uploading to YouTube,
(48:11):
uploading to social media. They have natural algorithms built in
there that promote your content based on how many people
watch it and how long they watch it for, and
so you have the ability to create your own content,
and naturally it will get discovered.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
It just will.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
If it's good, if it's value, if it brings value
to the space, people will find it naturally through the algorithm,
and it will start to build momentum. The only things
I would say is like one, it is more flooded
than ever two, which I think is a good thing,
like we've talked about earlier. But what that means is
it's harder to stand out, which means you've got to
put in the work. So like, make sure that you
(48:48):
put your heart and soul into it, give it everything
you got. And secondly, be yourself. Don't try to be
someone else. Don't try to run in a lane that
someone's already running in because you're not going to do
a very good job of it because it's not you.
The best chance you have to be the best version
of yourself is to be yourself and channel whatever it
(49:08):
is that you love through your own personality and how
that reflects in your content. And I think if you
just do that, you give yourself a chance. And like again,
like you can do that on the side, have a job.
I did it while I was selling real estate, talked
about those open houses. You want to know what I
was doing when I was not when I was not
(49:28):
talking actively to clients, when I was sitting in houses
waiting for people to show up, I was watching film,
I was talking about the game. I was writing for
a blog. Like, those are phases where you can if
you can find a job that has some amount of
flexibility to where like when you're done with work, you
just channel that energy into content creation. Just do it
(49:49):
at home, do it on social media, do it on YouTube,
get it out there. Let the algorithm do the work.
That would be the best advice I can give at
this point. Next question, I've got a couple more quick ones.
Now that you move to Denver, should we expect you
being a Nuggets fan? No, I enjoy watching the Nuggets.
I enjoy Nuggets fans. I have nothing against the Nuggets.
(50:13):
I think they play a beautiful brand of basketball. But
I won't actively root for the Nuggets next part of
the question. I also hope you will talk more about
the Nuggets and maybe some collaborations with the DNVR guys.
I will talk more about the Nuggets because think the
Nuggets are gonna win the title this year. I have
a feeling they're gonna end up being my pick when
I finalize my picks. I think they're a much better
version of any team Nicola Jokic has had, and as
(50:35):
long as they're kicking butt, as it is always the case,
we will continue to cover the teams at the top
of the league more so Denver will naturally get more
coverage that way. As far as the DMVR guys go,
I got to meet I've met Adam before several times,
as I've mentioned on the show. He's been very kind
to my wife and I since we moved here. But
I went to Chicken Fight on Thursday night, which was
(50:56):
at this basically this place called Yelich Gardens I believe
it is what it's called. It's in downtown Denver. It's
like a basically like a kind of an older amusement park.
But I met a bunch of the DNVR crew there,
all very nice people. It's great to meet them, great
to hang out with them. Chicken Fight was basically just
like a bunch of chicken restaurants coming down and showcasing
their chicken. So got to try a bunch of good
(51:18):
local food. But I'm sure I'll be hanging out with
the DMVR guys on occasion, just because I love basketball
and there are going to be some of the basketball
fans here in town, and obviously Adam is already a
big friend of mine. But like, I don't think I'll
actively root for the Nuggets. I think that it'll just
clash too hard with my current rooting interests. And still
is digging at me that I had to come on
(51:40):
this show and work after two Jamal Murray game winners
two seasons ago. But thank you so much for the
kind words and for supporting the show. Do you think
Lebron is a better three point shooter than MJ? I
was arguing with someone in My arguments were that if
MJ and Lebron were drafted in two thousand and three,
MJ would be a better three point shooter simply due
to his shooting for mechanics. He then brought up DeMar
(52:00):
DeRozan and my counter argument was MJ is was cleaner
and more impressive athlete that didn't rely on shooting as
much as most perimeter guards. Also, Damar's jumper has a
weird hitch. I agree Jamar has like a Damar has
like a catapult forward in his shot, which I think
is uniquely good for the mid range, but not so
much for the three point line. I think MJ did
(52:21):
have a much more natural shooting release. And to support
my claim, I brought up Kawhi, do you agree with
me or him? I think bronze jumper is just naturally
flawed and it allows him to take certain types of threes.
It's a mechanics problem in my opinion, so I one
hundred percent agree with you. I think that if MJ
was drafted in two thousand and three, he would have
eventually become a forty percent three point shooter. I think
he's too obsessively competitive. I think his position group demands
(52:45):
it in the modern MBA, and I think that he
does have the shooting mechanics to be an excellent three
point shooter. So on that level, I absolutely agree with you.
The lebron thing is a little more complicated. On the
one hand, I do agree that he has naturally kind
of flawed mechanics, and I think that that limits him
on certain types of situations. Like he cross fires a bit,
which means he's really good going to his left, but
(53:06):
not so much going to his right. I think that's
a hurt him in the post a little bit, and
I think that's hurt him as a movement shooter going
to his right, like shooting off the dribble going to
his right. That said, like, one of the things with
Lebron is like he just gets really good looks.
Speaker 1 (53:20):
And one of the.
Speaker 2 (53:20):
Reasons he gets really good looks is he's still one
of the most gifted players in the league at getting
to the basket, and especially in his prime, Like you
can't press up on Lebron on a closeout because he's
just going to go right around you and break your
break your defense. So like with Lebron, it's kind of
fascinating because I look at him as being like a
guy that shoots the ball well even though he has
(53:43):
bad form because he gets such great looks. But he
deserves the credit for getting such great looks because he
gets himself opened by the threat of his downhill force.
Two more quick ones. So I report recently where it
said Reeves is apparently asking for Tyler Harrow. Question is
who you got between the two a couple of years ago.
I think it was easily Tyler. But after last season,
(54:05):
I think Reeves's IQ and confidence is at a new
level where he learned how to be effective when all
the stars are gone while also being a great second
third option next to stars.
Speaker 1 (54:13):
What do you think, Jason So?
Speaker 2 (54:16):
On the one hand, I'm a big Austin Reeves fan,
and there's a part of me that wants to immediately
scream Austin Reeves is better. But the reason why I
couldn't say that, and why I wouldn't say that until
a couple of years from now, is it's just different
when you're in the situation Tyler Harrow was in last year,
where you're at the top of the scouting report every
(54:38):
single day. That's the role that Tyler Harrow is in.
Austin's really never been in that role. Yeah, Austin had
his moments like the Indiana game last year where Lebron
and Luke are out and he just single handedly beats
the Pacers, And that is what makes me optimistic that
Austin Reeves could be a better player than Tyler Harrow,
but I don't think it's fair to just put Reeves
(54:58):
on that level and till he faces a whole season
where he's like in that sort of situation where he's
at the top of the scouting report, and he may
never be in that situation as a Laker. But I
just think it makes it complicated. Like when you were
deciding how to guard the Miami Heat last year, you
were always thinking about Tyler Harrow first, and I think
that just I think that just makes things a little
bit tougher. Tyler Harrow is certainly a more gifted perimeter shooter.
(55:23):
Austin Reeves feels like a more natural passer. I think
Austin's a better defensive player too. Austin's probably a little
bit more crafty getting to the basket. But again, it's
just really difficult to compare those two roles directly head
to head. Lastly, what is the best ski mountain? On
the Epic pass ski related question, I was talking with
(55:44):
Carly the other day. We're trying to decide if we
want to get another We got Epic passes for this year,
our first time getting full Epic passes because now we're
actually living in Denver.
Speaker 1 (55:51):
That was the whole upside.
Speaker 2 (55:52):
But Breck has always been my favorite mountain just because
we used to go with friends and family all the time.
And Breck brings the unique combination of like really versatile mountain,
meaning like there's really easy terrain for amateurs, there's all
sorts of intermediate terrain, and there's really tough terrain. They
have two high speed lifts that go up over twelve
(56:14):
thousand feet on Peak seven and on Peak eight, and
on Peak six, and they have like a groomed blue
off the top of Peak six called Reverie, which is
like one of my favorite runs in the world. You're
above the tree line, you're at like twelve thousand, five
hundred feet and you just ski down the face of
a mountain. It's incredible. Peak eight is the highest high
speed chair in the entire North American in all of
(56:36):
North America if I'm not mistaken. And then Peak ten
has a bunch of really cool advanced trains, so it's
got really versatile terrain. But then it also has this
sick town with lots of good you know, like a
really nice bar and restaurant scene. So like it's a
great place for us to go with my friends and family.
This year is gonna be different though, because we're gonna
mostly be commuting in from Denver to ski every day.
(56:57):
Like we're not gonna be staying on the mountains very much.
So I'm wondering which mountain all end up liking. The
four epic mountains there are Breckenridge Keystone, which I've only
skied once and it was in a blizzard, so I
want to try it again. Keystone is a little closer
to me too, so I'm excited to try it more.
It's like ten minutes closer, which could make it a
go to for us. Then there's Veil and then there's
(57:19):
Beaver Creek, and those two I haven't skied either of those,
so this year will be my first time skiing both
of those. So stand by, I'll tell you guys which
one I like out of those two. My favorite mountain
back there is actually Copper Mountain though, and then a
lot of people have been trying to get us to
try Winter Park, which I've never tried. Winter Park and
Copper are both on the Icon Pass, so we'll look
(57:41):
into it and maybe if we get bored with the
Epic Mountains. We might get an icon pass as well,
But if I had to say right now, I'd say
Breck just because it's so versatile. But I think my
circumstances this year are different since we won't be staying
on the mountain as much. But looking forward to my
goal this year is to get fifty days in. It's
going to make me do all sorts of crazy shit
with work, like a lot of two A days and
stuff like that, but I'll do whatever it takes to
(58:02):
make skiing happen. It's just I view this as like
a little tiny window in time before my wife and
I have kids, where where like what if this is
where we look back and go like, hey, remember when
we just skeed our asses off for two years. That's
kind of what I'm hoping this looks like. So that's
our plan at this point.
Speaker 1 (58:19):
But we'll see. I'll keep you guys updated all right.
Speaker 2 (58:21):
As always, I sincerely appreciate you guys for supporting us
and supporting the show. We will be back on Monday
with number six. I'll see you guys then.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.