Hoops Tonight - NBA Mailbag: Issues w/ NBA Media, KD's Next Team, Celtics All-Time Greats?

Sportsbook app and make your pick right now. The Oklahoma City Thunder have supplanted the Boston Celtics as the favorites to win the title on DraftKings at plus two to twenty five, with the Celtics right behind them at plus two thirty five. First time, here's something special just for you new DraftKings customers. Bet five dollars to get one hundred and fifteen bonus bets instantly take it to the

rack with DraftKings sports Book, Every point counts. Download the Draft Kings sports Book app and use code hoops that's hoops, that's code hoops for new customers to get one to fifteen bonus bets when you bet just five bucks only on DraftKings.

of interesting questions from you guys. But before we get into the questions, I want to give some thoughts off the top about the state of NBA media and the comments from Lebron James the other day after his kind of back and forth that he was having with the press about just like other players and media shitting on the state of the NBA. So that's gonna be interesting.

We're releasing content throughout the year. The last but not least, keep dropping mail back question so we can hit them throughout the remainder of the season. All right, let's talk some basketball. So I've talked about this concept a lot. It's a really difficult dynamic that the media and the

players have. I've thought about this a lot because I imagine what it would be like like if I was playing in the NBA and I was working my butt off behind the scenes and doing everything I could be the best basketball player I could be and I had some dude in his guest bedroom with a bunch of stuff on the shelves behind him, who's not an NBA player, who is telling me what I'm doing wrong, and I get that that leads to a visceral response. There's a

certain amount of this dynamic that is unavoidably weird. And I've always wanted to like sit with an NBA player and just ask them about it, and I haven't really had the chance yet. I've the one interview I did was with Haime Haakes and it was a short form interview and we were focused on some other stuff. I didn't really get a chance to get into it, and

who knows, maybe one day I'll have that opportunity. But like, it's an interesting dynamic, and I understand and sympathize with that kind of instinctual revulsion that so many of these players have towards the NBA media. I think it's complicated because one of the things that specifically frustrates me is this idea that it has a lot to do with

guys like me who are not NBA players. When when I'm watching an NBA media and the vast majority of the negativity comes from former players, Like it feels to me like the shitting on the NBA and the current players comes from the guys on inside the NBA, not

just that, but all of these player pods. It feels like every single week, every single day, I'm scrolling through Twitter and it's like Gilbert Arenas said this, or like this other guy said that, or you know, uh, Chandler Parson said this, and it's like another NBA player relatively recently retired who's just openly shitting on an NBA player. And sometimes I'm looking at it and I'm like, that's

not even true, you know what I mean. Like I saw a dude the other day talking about how like Lebron James has struggled with shot making his entire career. I'm like, the guy who's the all time leading scorer is the guy that you think struggles to make shots?

Like what are we even talking about here? And I think it leads to a there's a weird dynamic with former players too, where like they're already accomplished and they've done so many amazing things for the game of basketball, and their media career is kind of like just another

like hendage on the back of it. But it's not something that was their fiery passion from day one, like so many of the media professionals you meet out there, and so as a result, there's a lot of like that kind of surface level insulting coverage of the league that you see, And like it's kind of a reality because those guys would be the guys who would be

best equipped to teach people about the game. But like, I get how if they just spent twenty years devoting their entire life or an seeing amount of time to the game, that they might want to take an easier approach in their post career media experience, right, Like, I understand all of that. I get it. It's complicated. But even among non NBA players, I see irrational criticism. I see stuff that I think goes too far. I'm not

sitting here and saying that I think it's perfect. I was thankful for the way Lebron phrased his response in that threat of tweets where he talked about how is important for us to break down and discuss when players fail. This is a dynamic I talk about a lot on the show. If I came on every day and all I ever did was just tell you about how great and amazing every NBA player is. It is propaganda. Even further than that, it's not reality.

there's always a loser. And discussing how a team wins or how a team loses forces you to discuss weaknesses, forces you to discuss flaws and mistakes, and so like, I think it's a very important part of this profession to also balance your praise with a certain amount of criticism. I think it's inherent and so it's this dynamic that's unavoidable because I totally sympathize with the players who are doing all of the work and are actually playing basketball

at the highest level. These are the very best people in the entire eight billion person world at their profession being criticized by people that are not even in the same stratosphere as them. I get it, but it is unavoidable because of the realities of the profession my approach to it, and this is just my feeling on it is like Lebron said, break it down.

on the Lakers. I I had a day where, like, dude, I was so frustrated with him, and I was younger, you know, it was three years ago, but like, I had a day where I came on the show and I said, Russell Westbrook sucks. I said it in the context of his frustration with the fans, and I was explaining why the fans feel the way they feel.

If you're going to talk for a living, you're gonna say stupid shit. It's not the first time I said something stupid, it won't be the last time I say something stupid. But as a goal for all of us, and as a goal for myself, I just want to if I'm going to be critical of a player, make sure that it's based in evidence, in something that I

can defend. I want to be able to if I'm saying Bradley Beal is really struggling off ball, both as a rebounder and as a help side defender, I want to make sure that I've watched the film and I have a clear feeling in my head based on my pursuit of evidence that what I'm saying is based in reality.

That doesn't mean it's perfect. There are disagreements, right. One of the most common things I find when I'm talking with NBA personalities, is like this guy thinks so and so is a good defender, and I think he's a bad defender. This guy thinks so and so is a reliable playoff performer. I disagree whatever it is. Like a lot of this is subjective, but if you're at least putting in the work and you're making an evidence based case, I think criticism is good. It's part of how we

learn about the game. You want to understand why this team is struggling to do this. It's important for us to dive into why. Helps all of us learn And it's just the reality of sports. Sports is nasty, Sports is competitive. Sports is not just like a big love fest. That's not what it is. It's mean, guys talk shit, there's cheap shots, there's blood, sweat, tears. It's complicated. So

like I think we all embrace that. But as it comes to our coverage of the game, I think it's important that criticism is based in evidence and not just like slanderous. And it is one of the funny things I see because like it does kind of like great at me a little bit, the way that it's portrayed as like an issue that can be solved by just getting certain types of people into the profession. The types of people has nothing to do with whether or not you played the game. I played the game I played

in college. I have a lot of playing experience. That's not why this show is what it is. The show is what it is because I love basketball, and because I put in the work behind the scenes. And yeah, my playing experience is something I relate to sometimes and I might drop a reference in there based on my experience playing the game that helps to a certain extent. I've met people that never pick up a basketball that are brilliant basketball minds that I learn every day from.

And I've sat across from dudes that I play basketball with every day that are very good basketball players that I'm talking about an NBA team, and I'm like, dude, I just don't agree with you. That to me, that I think the gate keeping surrounding NBA media about the idea that you need to have like a certain amount of basketball experience is foolishness. I think that it's about a love and a respect for the game that will manifest in hard work that will lead to quality educational

content and entertaining content for all of us. All right, let's get to our mailbag questions. Could Stanley Johnson help the Lakers in this difficult stretch With Ruey's injury, the Lakers wing rotation is pretty shallow. If they wave Reddish and sign Goodwin, which is expected at this point, they could sign Stanley to a two way to give them a couple of shifts per game. They could also check his fit with the team for a potential minimum contract

next season. Loving the coverage of the Lakers on the show lately, keep it up, Jason, I'm really curious to see how they handle all these different roster situations as well,

because it gets even more complicated with Trey Jemison. Like, if Trey Jemison is your backup center behind Jackson Hayes, like he needs to be rostered if you trust him more than you trust Alex lenn to be your ass kicking center, and you need a guy on the roster where if like if Ruy goes down, or if like a small ball group doesn't work in a specific matchup, that means you got a roster Jemison too, And it's

gonna be complicated. It's gonna be complicated because I do think Jordan Goodwin is like basically a like their tenth man or whatever in their rotation, and a guy that they're gonna need to need to use even when they're fully health at times if they end up converting one of those guys, I think Stanley is a perfect fit. I think he's a great small ball type of forward. He's been shooting the three ball substantially better in his time in the G League over the last couple of years.

I'm personally a fan of Stanley. He came through Tucson, Arizona's super nice guy, played against him and with him several times when he was here. I would love to see Stanley be a Laker. I think he'd be a great fit. I know you're a big Celtics advocate, and I do rate them, but I feel like when the lights shine brightest and a full strength team really matches

them toe to toe, they do struggle. You talk of the Celtics settling for shots when under pressure, but do you think they lack b MT at the highest level? Not sure what that means, you know how Butler thrives in that situation, and so does Steph and Lebron. It's that killer instinct, which I think Tatum lacks as the leader of the team. I keep reflecting on how the Cavs and Pacers were all severely injured in last year's playoffs. In the previous playoffs, they did struggle against the Heat

and the Warriors. So part of me thinks the Celtics are still unproven at the highest level. Where thoughts Jason, So there's a small part of me that agrees with you in the sense that, like I have consistently said, and Celtics fans know this, I've consistently said, I do not view this Celtics team as an all time great type of team. They were a dominant regular season team last year in a historically weak Eastern Conference, and they caught favorable matchups on their way to the postseason. That

doesn't mean that they're not the best team in the league. Still, I do think Boston is the best team in the league. I just don't think they're the twenty eighteen Warriors. And there were a lot of Celtics fans after last year's postseason who were saying that they're like the twenty eighteen Warriors. I don't view them like that. But as I zoom out and I look at all the teams. Yes, their record is not as good as Cleveland or OKAYCS. It'd be weird if it was. Those teams are an entirely

different motivational cycles or parts of their motivational cycle. But as I look at them, I go, do they have versatility on defense? Different schemes they can use. Yeah, they can keep Porzenkis at the rim and run you know, more traditional drop coverages and and and be kind of

physically imposing in that way. But then they also have switching groups where they can switch one through five, and like every single one of the five defenders is a good strong defender, and like they can put together tons of groups that space the four really well. They have a bunch of different dudes that can create shots. They have different types of shot creators for different types of matchups.

And as I look through them as strictly as strengths and weaknesses type of team in the playoff context, I just think they're better than Okay see in Cleveland and Denver and the Lakers and the Knicks. And I think they're better. That doesn't mean that they're Yeah, like guys, I don't think they're the Katie Steph Prime, Clay Prime, Draymond Andre Gudala Warriors. I don't think they're that team. I don't That's that will be determined in the long run.

If they get into this postseason and they rip through the Knicks, and they rip through the Calves, and they rip through whoever comes through the West, then we can start having a conversation about whether or not they're one of those all time great teams. I've said this before. All time grade is determined by multiple dominant playoff fronts.

But like I do think that, like just we're having a different type of debate in terms of where last year's team ranks historically and among these thirty NBA teams this year, who is the most well equipped to succeed in the postseason. Should the Lakers prioritize going for the two seed or do you think JJ will instead risk some losses by testing out different lineups and rotations to see which players could be useful for the playoffs and

to keep his core players healthy and fresh. I would be one hundred percent focused on health within the context of trying to win games. Like for instance, like Austin probably could have played last night. I think they have a high enough foundation to be able to win a certain amount of games. Two seed would be great for home court, Like if you ended up in a two to three matchup with Denver, it'd be great to have home court. But like, I'm not particularly worried about home

road necessarily as long as the Lakers are completely healthy. So, like to put it simply, I think they should try to win as many games as possible, but never play a guy who's in any sort of significant discomfort in terms of managing health and just their their bodies.

your thoughts are in this. This is something every team does, is what the Lakers do with Luca. This is what the Nuggets do with Jokic as they're trying to establish a rotation. Most teams with their very best player are either going to play their start the entirety of the first quarter, the entirety of the third quarter, and the second half of the second quarter, and the second half of the fourth quarter. So to take a break to

start the second quarter and start the fourth quarter. An easy way to put it is, if you sit six minutes in the second and sit six minutes in the fourth, you're still playing thirty six minutes. You don't want to rest. You don't want to be routinely playing your guys more than thirty six minutes in a regular season game, right, So some teams will tweak that a little bit and they'll move that second six minute stretch to spam the first and second quarters and to span the third and

fourth quarters. This is what the Lakers do with Luca. Take him out with like two minutes left in the first, bring him back with like eight minutes left in the second. But like that is pretty typical for teams to want to get off to a really strong start and set the tones, so they play their star the majority of the first quarter and the majority of the start of the second half, and then it's like we're going to try to cover you during this stretch in the early second,

early fourth. In clutch time, you come in six seven minutes left and you fire the rest of the bullets in the chamber and we see if we can get this thing. Also, if you look at it, there's different phases of the game where the starters play. Typically beginning of the first quarter, end of the second quarter, beginning of the third quarter, end of the fourth quarter. That's what all the starters on the floor. End of first, early second, end of third, early fourth, or almost always

bench groups. So regardless of whether your stars playing with the first set of bench groups or the second set of bench groups, it's still bench groups. Those are opportunities where you need to show that you can have your bench guys outperform the other team's bench guys. And if you have played Jokic or played Tatum to start the fourth quarter, you'd have to sit him at the end

of the third quarter. And if you sit him at the end of the third quarter, you could have the same problems that you're complaining about in the fourth quarter. Context got to sit these guys in the regular season, or you're gonna wear them out. When evaluating a young player's skill set at one point, at what point in their career does it go from hasn't shown it yet to isn't capable of it? To me, this has a lot to do with the actual foundational set of skills.

A couple of examples. If I'm looking at If I'm looking at a guy like Palo Boncero or a guy like Jalen Green, I feel like Paolo even if he struggled from now till the day he turned thirty. He's so big, he's so strong, he has so much natural talent that if it clicked for him, like he had a really good summer in the gym working on his jump shot and a change in approach in terms of not settling for as many bad mid range jump shots, and he kind of clicked a little bit more as

a playmaker. Over a five year span. He could be massively underwhelming and then explode in his thirties because he has such a strong foundation. It's why I quit on Jalen Green. Yes he's a frustrating defensive player. Yes he plays tunnel vision on offense, yet it's frustrating when he beats his man off the dribble and then tries to throw up some crazy fucking layup in around like four help defenders.

to the table that was really problematic for teams. He's gotten healthy now and he looks incredibly fast, like problematically fast, Like teams can't handle him fast. And so like if we got three four years down the line and he still had his playoff struggles and started to see some decline in his quickness, then I would be concerned.

potential issues they can present. I think the Caves would be ridiculous to write them off completely. I just think they have some entry points that can cause them problems. So the Calves are a big one. I think that they'd have to keep an eye out out of the West. It's the Lakers and OKC that I'd be worried about. I think they match up really well with Denver because

of their ability to consistently get them in rotation. The Lakers and the thunder both have the ability to pretty routinely play them into their worst tendencies, which is like ISO's difficult over the top shot making because of those teams and the way they stunt and sag and and find ways to kind of make them feel like they're playing in a crowd even when they're playing one on one, then the Lakers. They have the ability to match up

attack Boston and Oka See has a speed advantage. I think that manifest for OKAC, especially on the defensive end. They can stay up underneath Boston and keep them in front and turn them into contested jump shooters. Those are the three teams that I'd be particularly worried about, but I would pick Boston against all three of them. Two more, what team would be the best fit for KD next year? Since we know he's not going to be in a Sun's jersey next year, where should he go? I think

Houston would be his best move. But what do you think? Houston and Oklahoma City are the two teams that scare me for that type of trade with Kevin Durant. Houston because they can anchor him with just a rock solid defense and a ton of physicality, a good coach, just like it's a physical, ass kicking team that KD can lift over the top. We talked about that a little bit when we talked in our Sun segment yesterday. Oklahoma City, if they were like, screw it, let's go get KD.

I think they would be an immediate, like massive championship favorite like head and shoulders over the field. He fits a position group that they're a little thin at at the power forward. You can imagine him next to Chet and Shae. It's just a ridiculously strong foundation. They can throw the Suns a million draft picks to figure it out for a team that probably would like to pivot anyway.

best basketball part of the net. Thank you, Thank you for the kind words.

Anthony Edwards first step, pull up shooting and strength. Jason Tatum doesn't really have an A plus trait necessarily, but I do think his overall skill set is so good that it's that type of imposing for teams like you just can fill so many different holes in any specific matchup. Tyre Smaxi's speed, I think is a real game changing talent, Kevin Durant's size and shooting, Luka Doncic size, shot making

and playmaking, Anthony Davis defensive versatility. Kate Cunningham eventually should be able to do a rough facsimile of what Luka Doncic does. Lebron James rough facsimile of what Luka Dancic does, And I think Lebron's been one of the best two or three defenders in the league over the last you know, thirty games or so. Zion Williamson is dribble penetration in rim finishing, Victor Weimin Yama's length, I defense, Steph Curry the threat of his shooting, Joel Embiid's size and scoring,

his footwork, his ability to move his body. Palo I think eventually could bring a combination of size, strength and scoring that is a potential there for So what does I give you? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen. So that's eighteen guys that bring that type of issue. I'm setting a pretty low bar, Like there's obviously like four or five of those dudes that are at another

level above everyone else. But those are the guys that I think bring a specific talent that is an A plus talent that could be a foundational trait for an elite basketball team.