Hoops Tonight - NBA Mailbag: Should Jokic & Nuggets target Butler? Warriors hosed? Luka vs. Giannis

Gap and place your bet. Current Super Bowl winners on DraftKings right now the Detroit Lions at plus two sixty and the Kansas City Chiefs at plus four to twenty five. And here's a gift for all new customers. Bet five dollars to get one hundred and fifty dollars in bonus bets if your bet wins. Download the Draft King Sportsbook Gap and use code hoops that's h oops. That's code hoops for new customers to get one hundred and fifty dollars in bonus bets if your bet wins. When you

bet just five bucks, Happy Holidays from DraftKings. 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 to four six seven three six nine. In Connecticut, help us available for problem gambling Call 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. Bet must win to receive award. Bonus bets expire one hundred and sixty eight hours after issuance. For additional terms and responsible gaming resources to dkang dot co slash b Ball. All right, welcome to Hoops Tonight. You're at the volume. Happy Friday, everybody helpe. All of you guys had a

great week. Friday's mailbag Day. So I've got like thirteen fourteen questions that you guys dropped in the comments over the course of the last week that we're gonna be hitting, bouncing all around the league. You guys know the drill before we get started. Subscribed to the Hoops Tonight YouTube channels you don't miss any more of our videos. Follow me on Twitter at underscore JCNLTS. You guys don't miss

show announcements. Don't forget about our podcast feed where if you get your podcast under Hoops Tonight, don't forget it's helpful if you leave a rating and a review there. We also have brand new social media feeds on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook for the Hoops Tonight channel. We're releasing more content throughout the year. Make sure you follow us there.

And the last but not least, keep dropping mail back questions in those YouTube comments so we can keep getting to them on Fridays throughout the rest of the season. All right, this first question one I actually think is super fascinating and I'm excited to get into it a little bit. Hello, Jason, Who has a better chance of winning an NBA championship in the next three to five years?

Is it the Rockets or the Magic Very interesting on a couple of different levels, because there's a bunch of variables involved, Like, for instance, one of the variables, Orlando's in the Eastern Conference, so it's less likely that they'd have to win four playoff rounds against elite teams, whereas for Houston they will almost certainly have to beat four

consecutive elite teams to win a championship. Also, Houston is far more likely to make a more aggressive trade because they've got kind of a logjam in their rotations, some guys that are awkward fits. You'll wonder about a guy like Jalen Green and if he's ready to lead this roster. And so I could see a team like Houston panicking is the wrong word, but just pushing their chips in Earlier.

That said, in terms of the organic talent that they have in house, I think Orlando is more capable of reaching the championship level in house without having to make some sort of all in trade than Houston is. So, for instance, when I look at Houston and I look at their core pieces, I know what Shangon is. I think Shangoon would be. I talked about this a little

bit in the Thursday Show. But if Shangguon becomes a better jump shooter and a little bit better on defense, I think he can be the second best player on a championship team if you pair him with an elite like perimeter player that he can play two man game with. I think that's a really solid foundation. But if I look at Jalen Green, a guy that I think still has potential to reach a pretty high level in this league, but he's pretty far away from that at this point.

Jabari Smith Junior, I think is a very good player all around, but he's certainly not that number one option type of perimeter talent. Fred Van Vliet isn't that guy either, So like, and you know Reachepperd. We got a question about Reachepperd later in the show, but read Shepherd. We don't know what he's gonna be yet, but it doesn't look like he's gonna be a number one perimeter initiator, right.

So Like as I look at Houston, it's like I have this thing that I understand really well in Shingoon, but the rest of the guys, it's like, who are they gonna be? Like what about a Men Thompson? Like like, I don't know what a Men Thompson's gonna be, but he could in five years be a really high level offensive player because of his feel for the game if he polishes things up on a skill level. So, like Houston in house talent, not quite sure what they're gonna

be yet. Orlando, I feel like Palo Franz and Jalen Suggs are are as as sure a thing as you'll find for like a core big three to build around. Now, Jamal Mosley and those guys are going to have to figure how to play for each other and with each other better than they have as they've been underachieving on the offensive end relative to their talent. But I do think the in house talent with Orlando makes more sense.

So would that be the case. Who has a better chance of winning an NBA championship in the next three to five years. I'm gonna say Orlando, but I think there's always that chance that Houston just gets super aggressive, jumps in and gets some superstar. They put him on that roster with that elite defense and with Shangun kind of anchoring things as the other half of that partnership, and I could see Houston getting it done. So again,

both teams have the chance. Orlando might more likely to do it organically, and because of that, I think they're more likely overall, because that's the other part too, is hard. It's gonna be hard to convince the superstar to really want to go to Houston too, so they might have some limitations and what they could do on a trade anyway,

Thank you Jason for the video. A mailbag question what do you think so far this season of the league parody between the two conferences, let's say strictly the first six teams of each conference. It looks like the Magic, Knicks and Calves have all taken leaps and the Rockets, to me, are not going to sustain this level of success. Oka See is Legit is very much legit. Though, let us know, thanks again for the great content. A couple stats of eighteen teams in the NBA right now that

are five hundred are better. Eleven of them are in the West, so it's evened out from where it was at the start of the year, but still a substantial advantage there. In ninety seven head to head matchups, the West is fifty six and forty one so far this year. It's a fifty eight percent win percentage. It's pretty high. My contender rankings as of right now. If I was ranking my top four, Boston is a clear number one to me. Okay, See is a clear number two, Dallas

is a clear number three. Number four is up in the air, but I think I'd go Dallas or Denver, excuse me. So like for me, if I'm ranking the top four championship contenders, I still have three Western Conference teams in there. But if I go to five and six, I think I go New York Knicks, and then I think I go Cleveland Cavaliers. So three of the top

teams and the best team are in the East. So with that being said, I think the top of the East is every bit as good as the top of the West, if not a little better because of that Boston factor. But there's no doubt that the depth of talent, the depth of star talent, the head to head stuff, it's all pretty clear that the Western Conference is substantially stronger and tougher on a night in, night out basis

than the Eastern Conference. Despite Chet being out for a considerable amount of time, the OKC Thunder have still been comfortably the best defensive team in the league. With this being said, do you think Chet's impact defensively isn't as big as we thought? A couple things. First of all, there's a difference between like big picture defensive ratings stuff and like how good are we when the Chips are down defensively against an elite offense in a high leverage situation? Right,

So here's the thing. The Thunder are super good defensively on the perimeter that is the most important spot to be really good defensively. Also isay, Hartenstein provides a pretty high floor defensively. We're gonna there's a conversation that we're gonna have here in a few questions that centers around what the most valuable type of role player is and

we're gonna be bringing up Hartenstein as an example. And like he's not an elite defensive player, but he's very good in drop coverage, you can defend a little bit on switches, and he's a good rebounder. So like overall, like a guy like that is a decent foundation for them to go around defensively. Like, for instance, like with you having an elite perimeter defense, a guy like Hartenstein is like everything you need in order to continue to

like build out a strong defensive foundation. That said, when Sheet comes back, the unique thing with Chet is he's both he is an elite rim protector that bothers a lot of stuff around the rim while also being a pretty quick perimeter athlete who can cover ground and can cover ground well. So like the thing is is like OKC is maintaining a high level defensively because of all of their perimeter talent and because of the foundation that

Isaah Hardenstein helps them establish. But at the end of the day, their defensive ceiling, which you really would only see in a high leverage situation against an elite offense, is just so much higher with Chet because he gives you the best of both worlds, elite rim protection with the flexibility to fly around on the perimeter. Jason, can you please explain to me why it was even a thought that crossed the mind of Steph Curry to shoot the ball with so much time left on the clock.

At the very least, a timeout should have been called by the coach before the shot was taken, or as soon as Gary Payton collected the rebound. Someone pointed that out in the comments yesterday was a good point, which is that Gary Payton, when he dived on the floor, that was probably when things should have been stopped with the timeout. A lot of it's happening very fast, though, and I talked about this a little bit yesterday. First of all, to answer your question what crossed his mind

is pretty simple. He had Dylan Brooks on him, and he had an opportunity to get a decent look that would have not only ended the game, but it would have been another moment a Dylan Brod expense, which is one something that Steph has plenty of, right, So that's part that's really the motivation behind it. But I talked

about this in the show yesterday. I thought of all the mistakes that Golden State made down the stretch of that game, that was one of the smaller ones because it's a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface. In short, he takes the shot and it's a scrum for the defensive rebound, and Golden State ends up committing

the foul with five and a half seconds left. Let's say you wait and you go till one or two seconds left on the shot clock when you shoot, so four or five seconds on the game clock, shot goes up. Let's say that it's a bad shot because Steph waded deep into the clock. Let's save Houston cleanly defensive rebounds it and calls a timeout. They're probably getting the ball with two or three seconds left. So the difference is let's say that the defensive foul doesn't get called, the

defense of the rebounding foul doesn't get called. The one that ended up leading Jalen Green the two free throws, and let's say email Udoka just calls a timeout. There's five and a half seconds left, okay, whereas the alternative

is maybe two or three seconds left. So I'm talking about the difference in three seconds, which, yeah, that's gonna change how capable your team is of getting a stop, because two or three seconds a guy's catching, he's ripping, he's making one or two dribble move, and then he's going into a shot. Four or five seconds, I can drive and kick once or twice, right, So yeah, there's no doubt that it's easier on your defense if you

have less time in that situation. But you also have to look at the flip side of the coin, which is we're playing the result here. Steph got a decent look. Steph probably would not have gotten a decent look if he dribbled the clock out. All you had to do is watch that game and look at all of the shot clock violations, the airballs, the blocked shots at the end of the clock, like Golden State was really struggling at the end of the clock. So you have to

weigh that in your head. The difference in trying to get a stop with two seconds left, first five seconds left, versus I've got a pretty good look against Dylan Brooks right now, or I can work the clock down more right, And I'm just saying that it's more complicated. So the real issue there is that probably shouldn't be called the defensive rebounding foul like or a foul on the defensive

rebound like that. That was where the issue was, Like like like let's say the exact same situation takes place, but emy Udoka just gets a time out, Houston still has to go down and score, which is something they really struggled with. So like again we're just playing the results here. Steph happened to miss there, happened to be a fucking awful call, and so Houston ended up winning,

and so now we're hyper analyzing the process. But there were just way more clear mistakes that were made by Golden State down the stretch of that game, like Pojemski and Draymond hitting at rebounds instead of grabbing rebounds, Draymond biting on the pump fake with Alpern, Shangun Pods ducking under a pick against Fred van Vliet, like shot clock violations, like there were bigger issues that Golden State had than Steph shooting a few seconds earlier and taking a decent look.

Hey Jason, great content you've been putting out lately. Appreciate your takes on the NBA this far thus far, just a fun one for you. I know you said Steph is your second favorite player, so as a huge Steph fan myself, I'm wondering your thoughts on this. If you could put Steph in his current form on any team right now and replace their starting point guard, how many teams would automatically be a bona fide championship contender. Would it just be the big hitters like Boston or OKC

or plenty of more teams. I would love to hear your take as a Dubs fan who knows Steph is still playing at a high level but our roster construction is so mediocre. It'd be so cool to hear how many teams you think would be contenders proving Steph is still one of those guys if you had a strong roster around him. I know it's all hypothetical, but it's

fun to discuss. Keep up the great work. Greetings from Australia, So I'm gonna change the question a little bit because if you just swap out for point guards there, there's gonna be a lot of teams that like that have like like role player point like for instance, like if I could just swap D'Angelo Russell for Steph Curry, the Lakers are a championship contender, right, But that doesn't mean that like uh, like it's a realistic type of swap, right. So I looked at team if you swapped out their

best player, Boston I think for sure. And that's not a Tatum commentary. It's just that that Celtics roster is insaying Oklahoma City for sure. That's not a Shay commentary. Oklahoma City's roster is just insane. Cleveland for sure. I just think they have a really high floor on both ends of the floor. There's a backup shot creator there, really good defense, really good coach, a lot of athleticism on the perimeter. That makes sense to me. And then

the New York Knicks. I just think Steph is a better basketball player than Jalen Brunson, And I think that that is a type of environment that if you dropped Steph in he would immediately Like I'm not sure how much he'd raise that level because Jalen Brunson has closed the gap on him in recent years. But I do think Steph is better. So those are the four teams for sure. And it's just, you know, it's complicated because

I actually don't think the Warriors roster is bad. They just are missing one very important thing, which is a reliable secondary shot creator. That's a very strong roster in so many different ways. They just need a reliable twenty plus point per game forward that can help support Steph Unlock. High level two man game with Steph gives Steph an option in high leverage physical situations when teams deny him the basketball, which has been a consistent issue. Right. So yeah,

those four teams. Hi, I love your analysis of the NBA because you took you look for the overarching concepts that are not talked about enough, which is why I

want you to talk about the following topic. What do you believe is the most valuable archetype of role player except the three and D wing for Biggs, the five out like the five out big like a Heart and Stegn, the stretch big like a Turner, or the more traditional rim protector like a Kessler for guards the three and D like a KCP, the playmaker like Conley, or a scorer like Malik Monk. Thank you for your content and

keep up your grind. Thank you all for all of the kind words that you guys have been leaving in the comments. They do mean a lot to me. So I'm going to change three and D wing into a

more qualified term. So, I think the most highigh level role player in the NBA right now is the perimeterive player that is very athletic, that can guard multiple positions both on and off the ball, while also being a competent off ball score and a connective piece on offense, meaning they make quick decisions and they make good reads. Those are the kinds of players that every team should be hunting and trying to hold onto as much as possible.

Why Because regardless of who your star is, regardless of who your shot creator is, regardless of the style of play that you embark on, that player is going to help you no matter what. Now, if I had to go with my second most important archetype of player, I would go towards a big Now, you broke down the three different types, and that's a good way of putting it. Like a stretch big, like a big that can shoot. A Hartenstein who is kind of like a do everything big,

or your traditional defensive anchor like a Walker Kestler. Right, So I gotta go with Hartenstein, the big pretty good at everything, because when I look at a guy like Hartenstein, and this is like pretty much a league average center, Like if your ranking centers in the NBA, Hertenstein is going to show up somewhere between ten and twenty depending on who you ask, right, So he's a league average starting center in this league. He is a good drop coverage big, not a great drop coverage big, but a

good drop coverage big. He's a good switch big. He is a good defensive rebounder. He on the other end of the floor is a great screener. He is a good connective piece. He keeps the ball moving from side to side. He makes great reads. He's in general, just a very quick decision maker. Right. That raises the floor

for my team on both ends of the floor. If I feel like Hartenstein is gonna anchor me on the defensive end in multiple different coverages while also cleaning up the glass while also being the folkrum that ties all of my perimeter talent together. That is a really really

strong foundation for me to build a basketball team. So again, like I would probably after I have a good amount of those guys that I'm talking about, like I want to have at least two, I'd rather have a flawed center, like a center that's I'd rather have a center is like a stretch big that has some defensive limitations, or a defensive big that has some offensive limitations, as long as I have lots of those really good perimeter athletes

that can score off the ball and connect offense. But once I have two or three of those, I really would be looking for that type of center. I think that that is a center that makes everything easier for your team on both ends of the four. I really think Jason is the best basketball commentator on YouTube, and

I love almost everything he says. But I'm never going to get on board with this take about refs that whenever they destroy a game, we just have to remind everyone that the other team should have outplayed bad reffing, which takes away from the reality, which is these shouldn't be happening and it's all the ref's fault. So look, I'm not asking you not to be frustrated, like I you know, I used to do this a lot when I was younger, and it's stupid. It's like fan police

telling you how to be a fan. Be a fan however you want, and if that involves you getting super worked up about officiating, go ahead, Like I'm like that, that's that's your prerogative as a fan. I have this feeling about officiating from personal experience with the game, like I am the guy that has always cared a lot about the player's perspective because you know, that's my background

in the game. I came up playing, and to this day I'm I'm that dude who's thirty three and for some reason is training to be the best basketball player that he can be because he just loves doing it, you know what I mean. That's so that's kind of my approach now. When I was a player in college, I had a coach who had this thought process and would talk to us about, Hey, we're on the road. There's going to be a bad call or two. We

have to be prepared for it. We need to try to build as much margin for air to make it so that that's not the case. That is something that is kind of like stuck with me. Over the years of that, I MI, my relationship with officials has actually changed a lot. When I was younger, I was a hothead. I am a very animated basketball player. I communicate a lot when I'm on the floor. Guys who've played with me or played against me know what I'm talking about.

But like, I used to get into it with refs all the time, and it was actually my wife that got me out of it, because there was I had a really bad one in Charlotte where I got kicked out of a game for double technical and we were like walking out to the car, my wife is just like, my wife is just like like this is embarrassing for me. We joke about it all the time because like as an adult now, like as a grown adult, I've become very good with officials. I legitimately can't remember the last

time I picked up a technical foul. And I have a very good communicative relationship with the officials and the games that I play now. But when I was younger, I used to just be like I just just used to get so worked up about it. Every bad call irritated me and I was arguing the res like what you see Luca do on TV like I was doing that when I was Luca's age, which is which is why I keep yelling at him to cut that shit out, because it's just it just doesn't help you, and more

important anything else, it just distracts you. It distracts you from what you're trying to accomplish, Like when you're worried about what the refs are doing, when the reality is is they're completely out of your control. All that's doing is preventing you from focusing on the task at hand. And that's really the point. And that's what came brings me back to the thought that my coach had for me when I was in college, which is, this is

a variable that is outside of our control. So the only thing that we should do is try to build in margin for error so that if this sort of thing happens, we don't get beat by it. And how do we build up that margin for air by focusing entirely on things that are in our control. The more

we do that, the more margin we have. Then the ref comes in and decides to co op the big moment at the end of the game, maybe it's you know, maybe that exact same vowl happens, but you're up five, that's a game you end up winning, right, So, like it's just about perspective, and my my perspective is always going to come from what it was like for me when I'm playing, when I was playing in the past, or what I'm playing now. That's always going to be

my perspective. But like again, I'm not telling you guys not to be pissed off as fans. If you're if you're pissed off about it, be pissed off. It's just complaining about revs is not actually going to save your team. There's an expression be an active participant in your own survival. Like the only way you can participate in your survival in a game like that is to make basketball plays that are under your control, not to focus on the officiating.

Do you think Anthony Edwards shot diet is somehow holding the Timberwolves back even though he's been crazy efficient or is it more of a lack of spacing that is affecting their offensive cohesion maybe also causing Anthony Edwards lack of shots at the rim. So one of the things you'll notice about the first of all, I don't think to answer the question very quickly. Anthony Erwards is still shooting in the mid forties on eleven attempts per game.

It's still the Anthony Edwards three point shot is one of the most efficient shots that the Timberwolves could ever generate in their offense. So I don't have any issue with him taking them. If he starts missing, then we can have another conversation. But it's not something I'm worried about. As far as the build for the Timberwolves, there's this concept that's been happening a lot in the NBA we just saw last night where it's like, Okay, where are

we hiding shanng goom oh? If we put him on Gary Payton, then we don't have to worry about some of the stuff that Draymond can do on the role. You know, Gary Payne's a lesser shooter, so we can hide him there, right Or like Jason Tatum guarding a center in Porzingis guarding Derek Jones Junior in the NBA Finals, every team is constantly looking for an opportunity to put

their weakest defensive player onto a non shooter. Every team is looking for an opportunity to help in other matchups by coming off of guys that they don't view his threats. The problem is Jada McDaniels is a guy that can knock down a three, but probably won't. Julius Randall has had has shot the ball really well at times this year, right, So, like, I'm not trying to pretend like you can't shoot, but he's a guy that most teams on the game plan

are thinking, he's not Michael Porter junior. We can close out on him, and then Rudy Gobert can barely even catch the basketball when he's in any sort of traffic, which any good defense is going to put you in traffic. So the real problem is is that there are just a lot of options when you're playing against Minnesota to tinker with matchups, leave guys open, pack the paint. It's just inherent in their roster construction. Something I've been complaining

about NonStop. Anthony Edwards is addressing it by becoming one of the best jump shooters in the league. And that just goes to show you another reason why I think Anthony's going to be one of the best players in the NBA. He already is one of the best players in the NBA, But why he has the potential to be a true top top, top tier super in the long run is because he has the competitive nature to be like, I can't get to the room with this group. I need to just get really really good at knocking

down threes. But yeah, that's why I've been preaching so much over the years. Like, I would love to see a team take a guy like Anthony Edwards and accentuate his superpower, which is his ability to be anybody in the world off the dribble. So hopefully eventually they do that, hopefully before he loses his athletic burst. Thankfully, Anthony's super young and there are many years to figure this out. But like, my thing is, as long as Jaden McDaniels

and Rudy Gobert are your foundational three and five. Unless Jayden McDaniels just becomes a deadly forty two percent catch and shoot three point shooter, I don't think you're gonna see a situation where Minnesota's spacing improves tangibly. Do you think Jalen Brunson gonna be the best player in a championship series? Absolutely? I mean last year's Celtics are the perfect example of that. Now, Jason Tatum's playing at a top three or four level this year, but last year

he wasn't, and he sure as hell wasn't in the playoffs. So, like, the point is, if you put Jalen Brunson on a roster with that type of talent, they absolutely can win the title. The Knicks, it remains to be seen if they have that much talent. They especially on the defensive end, haven't really put that together. But like, I think the Knicks are championship contender this year. Is certainly a top six championship contender this year with him on this current roster.

So if put him on a better roster, I certainly think that he could do it. So I would say absolutely, Hey, Jason, can you explain in your opinion and basketball reasons why one the Rockets aren't using Read Sheepherd as much and two why you draft him at all when you paid Fred Van Vliet thinks keep out the good work a couple of things. Read's been struggling a little bit with size and athleticism in the NBA. That'll take time for

him to figure out. I think it's an adjustment for anybody to go to that level, and just in time he'll figure out how to compensate that with sharper fundamentals. And Reid's a good athlete himself. He just just to find a way to leverage it properly right Star. As the rotation goes, in general, the rotation is it's just very shrunk for Houston. They have a ton of good players, it's a bit of a log jam. The reason why you make a draft like that, you draft like that

is look at the roster. You have a Men Thompson who maybe has big picture offensive potential, but right now is a defensive player, Tarry Easton defensive player, Dylan Brooks defensive player, Javari Smith more or less a three and D guy, Shane Gun offensive player but plays at the center position. As you start to kind of like work your way down the roster, Fred van Vliet and Jalen Green are pretty much your only two primary ball handlers. And Jalen Green is a guy that might not fit

this timeline. Fred van Vliet is a guy that's almost certainly going to go out in a trade if you end up making a star trade, and so where that advantage is present is like let's say you make a trade for a star wing like let's just say brandon Ingram for instance, Let's say that they go get brandon Ingram. If they go get brandon Ingram and you trade Fred van Vliet, suddenly you're down a guard up a forward. That could be a position where Reed Shepherd suddenly gets minuted.

So it's one of those things where like inevitably Houston's gonna make some kind of consolidation trade, maybe not for at star, but maybe first Star, and in that case, Reay Shepherd's opportunity will open up. But again, like he's struggling a little bit with size and athleticism, give him some time. He just hasn't really had as many reps as you would like to see as well. Right, we have five more yo. Jason loved the show. It's probably

my favorite basketball show currently. I have yet another yokch topic. So the discourse lately has been that Yokic's output has been so high because his teammates, namely Jamal, are just bad lately, and so he has to do everything reasonable, no doubt. But I have been considering the opposite, which is maybe his teammates are being affected by not his usage,

but the fact that he dictates everything. What I meant to say is what I mean to say is I was perusing time of possession stats, not usage, and I noticed something. The Nuggets have had three real playoff runs together, twenty twenty, twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four. They were competitive in two of them, twenty twenty and twenty twenty three, and those playoffs, specifically, Yokic's averages touches per game where

one hundred and three Murray's were ninety. In the twenty twenty three playoffs, Jokich was at one hundred and eleven and Murray was at ninety last year's playoffs. In this regular season so far, the split is closer to one

to fifteen for Jokic and seventy for Murray. So I say all that to ask you this, do you think there's any possible validity to the assertion that maybe Jokic getting one hundred and fifteen touches per game and although the stats are insane and the onus is all on him and Murray their point guard only getting seventy, not to mention Michael Porter Junior and others being relegated to spot up standing around guys, again, do you think that

Jokic's play to play dominance is contributing to his teammates being out of rhythm, poor play, whatever, and just the team's overall issues in general. Obviously, he needs to touch the ball a lot regardless. My main question is has it gone too far? Is the discrepancy between him and especially Murray two wide? And also why do you think

that is. Do you think it's just because the team sucks so he's just doing everything, or do you think maybe Murray needs to be forced back into the same role he played in twenty twenty and twenty twenty three. Same for Michael Porter Junior and Aaron Gordon. Would love to hear thoughts. First of all, thanks for the kind words and the support. Here's the thing. I don't think Yo Kicch's touches or his usage affects the team in a negative way at all. Whatsoever. He's out a ball stopper,

he is a ball mover. He is dictating a lot, but he's doing it as the part of the process of generating advantages. The point is this is not Luka Doncic dribble the ball off the floor, wait till thirteen or fourteen seconds on the shot clock, spread ball screen, kick out pass with four or five seconds on the shot clock for a guy to maybe take a catch and shoot three or drive to close out one time. Denver is constant motion side to side, trying to get

guys involved, trying to create advantages. Jokicch touches the ball a lot. He is the fulcrum that makes everything work. But very rarely is Yokich just dribbling the air out of the basketball or just standing there with the basketball

for extended periods of time. The big reason why the touches are shifting is just because Jamal is not playing well in a basketball and there's a natural flow that takes place, like you'll find like you'll find that like if you come out to start a game and that your point guard hits like a pull up three in a ball screen, and then hits a floater in a ball screen and then hits another three and like a transition situation, and he's got eight points in the first quarter,

Like he's in rhythm and he's feeling good, and that team might play through that guy more throughout the game. If he misses that first pull up three, maybe he doesn't take the floater, misses the transition three, Maybe you play through other guys for different for other parts of the game. That's not to say you go away from that guy entirely, but basketball games tend to like kind of naturally find the player that's in rhythm. That's just kind of the way it goes. Smart smart basketball players

will do that. They'll just get the ball to the guy who's in rhythm. There's gonna be a natural dip in Jamal Murray's touches because he's not playing well. You don't want to stop feeding him entire but they haven't. He's still getting seventy touches a game, as you said, But like you'll see, if Jamal gets it going, if he gets back into form, his touches will increase commensurate with that. I'm just saying from my like, I'm watching Jamal not move as well. I'm watching Jamal not get

as much lyft on his pull up jump shot. There's there's a lot more that goes into Jamal Murray's struggles than just he's not getting enough touches, is my point. And the last dead giveaway for this is, have you guys looked at the offensive rating when Yo kitch is on the floor? Denver is scoring. It's like it's like almost one hundred and twenty four points per one hundred possession when Yo Kitch is on the floor, despite all

these guys struggling. So it's like the opposite of the LaMelo ball thing, where like with the Lamel ball, he's putting up monster numbers but the team can't score. Yokic is putting up monster numbers. And Denver is historically great offensively when he's on the floor. So like, I don't think the issue is anything to do with Jokic. It's just he has accentuated, leveraged his own greatness to cover

for his teammates who are out of rhythm. As his teammates come out of that funk, and Jamal has a tendency to play his way into shape and peak at the end of seasons, as Jamal gets his shit together, Jokic will parse back his touches and you'll see that one fifteen number come back down to one oh five or whatever, and you'll see Jamal Murray's ebbs go back up. It's gonna be on him to dig himself out of that. Joki is gonna keep setting monster screens for him, keep

running two man game for him. He still gonna get opportunities the lead second units. Jamal is gonna get all the opportunity in the world to figure it out, but at the end of the day, he's got to be the one that figures it out. What's up, Jason, big fan of the show. I've been seeing a few people on the internet talk about a potential Jimmy Butler the trade to Denver for Michael Porter Junior in a pick.

What do you think the basketball reasoning is behind that potential trade and how do you think Jimmy Butler would fit in with Denver. Also, maybe it would be dope if you had a series where you broke down basketball reasoning behind potential trades that could possibly happen. Love your content, bo, Hope you stay blessed. Thanks again for the kind words and for supporting the show. I've been pretty bad at covering like hypothetical trades in the time leading up to

the trade deadline. We'll try to figure that out better this year. It's a little too early. There's most players aren't even eligible to be traded till December fifteenth. We might get a panic trade before then from a team like Golden State, but like usually it'll be like mid January that we start getting really serious about looking at the trade market. But if you guys have any ideas for how you want to cover that, let me know and we'll dig into it, because I would like to

get better at covering the trade deadline up. I've always been like pretty good at like, Okay, this trade happened, let me talk about the basketball of how this works. I have not as creative as most trade machine workers are, you know what I mean. Like I see guys post trades on twin or I see some of my favorite NBA podcasters talk about him on their shows, and I'm like, I'm like, I clearly just don't have enough of that

like time to just sit down and just conceptualize. I haven't devoted enough time, is my point, to conceptualize different trade opportunities and things along those lines. It's just something I need to get better at because inevitably it is an important part of this industry because people love to think about potential trades. So it's something I'll try to get better at. In the big picture, as far as

Jimmy Butler goes, i'd be concerned about trading. Michael Porter Junior for Jimmy Butler because Michael Porter Junior feels a very very important role in terms of skip pass scoring, Like he is your off ball scoring that compliments everything. Jimmy shooting the ball really well since he came back from his injury. But he's not the kind of guy that's going to be guarded the way Michael Porter Junior does, or he's or to make teams pay the way Michael

Porter Junior does on those skip passes. I wouldn't trade for Paul George, but let's say that it's Paul George totally different story. He's an upgrade of Michael Porter Junior that can do a lot of similar things. Right, So, like, if you could upgrade a player in that mix for somebody that kind of is a like fit, I'd go for. I'd be careful with like tinkering too much with the fit, because remember, part of what made that Denver team so good in twenty twenty three was it was a perfect

fitting starting five. Maybe not all the guys that you'd rank super high in a vacuum as basketball players, but each one of those guys fit a specific role so perfectly. Jimmy Butler probably would inevitably find a way to impact the game and play well alongside Jokic, But I do think there's more clunkiness in that fit. Then we realize that they need shooting. They need guys who can shoot. That's the kind of thing that Denver is going to

be looking a lot at in the trademarket. Hey, Jason, you always say that it's easier to cover defensive shortcomings rather than offensive ones with role players, which I agree, But do you also think that the ceiling is higher on a perfect team or on a player like Luca, or as a player like Giannis with his defense more effective with a hypothetical perfect team around him. Love the show and I appreciate your analysis over the legacy media.

Keep up the great work. So I still think that I take so let's take Let's take Boston for instance, Like if I put Giannis or Luca on Boston, They're winning the title no matter what, Like both of those for the same reason that Tatum's winning the title with them, Like they're just they're the best roster, right. Uh, Tatum does a lot uniquely to make all that work. I'm not trying to undercut that. I'm just trying to focus on this specific debate between Yannis and Luca. So let's

remove Tatum from the equation for a second. Just imagine, when I refer to Boston, I'm referring to just the most talented roster in the league. Okay, that fits a lot of modern basketball concepts. I think. I think if you put Luca with Boston, they'd be devastating offensively, just like flat out devastating, and they'd still be so good

defensively because of their ability to cover for him. With Yannis, Yannis would Jannis would still put up monster numbers in a in a roster like Boston, and he would still unlock a super high ceiling with them. I just don't think he'd be able to reach the level of offense that Luca would be able to reach with that group. And yeah, Boston would still be really good defensively, but

I think they'd be really good defensively even with Luca. So, like it's complicated, but the gist of it is, a perfect basketball team around Luca I think has like transcendently great offense, whereas a perfect basketball team built around Giannis still would have some limitations offensively when things really really grind down. But Again, here's the thing, Giannis has played better than Luca this year, So like I'm talking more about an idealized version of Luca that hasn't really come

to fruition yet this year. Now, I believe it will. I believe Luca will demonstrate that he's still at that level over the course of this season. He played pretty well up until that Oklahoma City game in the last couple of games that he had played. But yeah, like to Jannis's credit, he's outplayed Luca at this point in the season. So I'm more referring to these players in a vacuum, kind of like the idealized versions of themselves

outside just the scope of this season. Last one, hey, Jason was wondering what you think of different defensive concepts man three two two three zone, occasional traps. They seem to be the only defensive formations anyone will play, so much is invested in new offensive concept However, I think

defense needs innovation with these concepts. So there's you know, I was thinking about this earlier, like every defensive scheme has its upsides in its downsides, and most of the time whether or not they work has to do with personnel. I'll give you an example, The Lakers tried doing a lot of switching this year. I am generally a person who likes switching, but that has to do with what kind of roster I have. The Lakers are a roster that is going to struggle with switching because they don't

have really versatile defensive players in their lineup. So all teams have to do is get Ad into the action, get him switched, pull him out of the play, and then look to attack elsewhere. And they have and they have tons of advantages. Or just get a shot up over Ad and you're going to get the offensive rebound because there's not enough size on that back line to clean things up. That is a roster that probably should

be running a lot more drop coverage. Why because that keeps Anthony Davis near the rim, prevents him from switching out to the perimeter, allows him to solve problems there. At the very least, you can try to gear the shots towards things that your game plan would prefer to give up, like mid range attempts, kickouts to mediocre shooters, things along those lines. Right, But the point is switching has an upside. The upside of switching shuts down screening

actions lower ask physically on your defensive players. The downside of switching is you can give up rebounding mismatches and you can give up size mismatches to attack one on one. Another upside of switching is keeps you out of rotation, right, but again the downsides that come with rebounding, and also I think that one of the things switching to is it breeds laziness in a lot of ways because it is so much easier. Right traditional coverages like drop to

varying degrees, a low drop coverage. It can work really well if you've got an elite point of attack defender who can get over the top of screens in funnel into your big But if that guy starts getting caught on screens, there's a big weak point there in the short to mid range. Right, Okay, well, what if we

go with the high drop coverage. Well, with the high drop coverage, we take away that little opening there in the mid range, but now we open up the pocket pass or the skip pass, depending on whether or not the low man comes over. Zone zone defense can disrupt rhythm. Zone defense depending on the configuration, can take things away like the paint or the three point line, but it's

really difficult to rebound in zones. Professional basketball players are much better at solving zones than younger basketball players are. Point being, there's upsides and there's downsides. Ball pressure and aggression. Trying to force turnovers. Upsides speeds teams up, makes them uncomfortable, disrupts rhythm. Forces turnovers can help you get out in transition. Downside, a lot of aggression at the point of attack can lead to dribble penetration and to you being in rotation

a lot, which can lead to offensive rebounds. So the point is is like every defensive concept has upside and has downside, and so what you want to do as a team is you want to find two or three concepts that you can do that accentuate your talent. And if it accentuates your talent, then it'll probably work well. Boston, for instance, a lot of switching, especially with Horford right, but then they try to protect Porzingis as much as possible by running drop with him and putting him on

the weakest above the brakeshooter on the other team. They have schemes that match up really well with their personnel. Like we talked about with the Lakers. I would like to see them, over time maybe go away from switching. Not because I don't believe in switching. I do believe in switching. I just don't think that's the right roster for switching. I think that's a roster that needs to be running more drop coverage. So that's kind of the point.

Ball pressure. A team like the Lakers really shouldn't ball pressure. They're not athletic enough, and so if they do, they're just gonna get beat off the dribble right, and then they're gonna be in rotation where they're slow and they're just gonna get beat right. Teams like Houston, Oklahoma City, they've got all these athletes on the perimeter. They should be pressuring the ball. If they don't pressure the ball,

it's a waste. Right. So, like defensive schemes are not, you know, world beaters, they are not the end all beat all. It's it's a combination of like the scheme, matching with the personnel, and sharp execution. And if you don't put all three of those together, it's not gonna have any success to begin with. All right, guys, it's all have for today as always to sincerely appreciate you for supporting me and supporting the show. I hope all

of you guys have a great weekend. We'll be reacting to the n Season Tournament semi final games as well as the Power rankings on Monday. I'll see you guys then the volume whats So guys. As always, I appreciate you for listening to and supporting Who tonight. It would actually be really helpful for us if you guys would take a second and leave a rating and a review. As always, I appreciate you guys supporting us, but if you could take a minute to do that, I'd really appreciate it.