Inspired by the World Series and the two presumptive MVPs from either league facing off.

What if the NBA gave out MVP awards for the regular season for both the Eastern and Western conferences? Who do you think would've been, say, the last ten pairs of MVPs?

Would anyone's legacy be greatly impacted if they could've added an MVP or two that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten?

Would it generally make sense, or would we end up with a lot of undeserving MVPs coming from a much weaker conference, where the winner is in reality like the 6th best player in the league?

Any notable pairs where the clear best two players get awards, like this year's MLB? (obvious example being Bird and Magic)

Alright what is the deal here? I know it’s only a few games in, but it is year 2 of Dame + Giannis and their pnr game still looks awkward. I see weak screens and way too early slips from Giannis and im looking for an explanation. Like who is to blame here coaches, players, front office? and what do the Bucks need to do to improve on their details. Any discussion is appreciated thanks :)

When I decided to write something about Memphis to start the season, I assumed it would be something about Ja Morant (looking no less athletic than the last time we saw him, even if he can’t hit a jumper), or Desmond Bane, or rookie giant Zach Edey, or the return of Jaren Jackson Jr. to his proper role as a weakside shotblocking menace.

And I will almost certainly touch upon some of those storylines in the future. But today? Today belongs to Jay Huff and Scotty Pippen Jr.

If you haven’t heard of Huff, I don’t blame you. The 26-year-old had logged a combined 31 NBA games and 164 minutes before this season. My earliest memory of the bearded one is watching Shaedon Sharpe atomize him at Summer League a few seasons ago — the TV broadcast proclaiming, “Huff does have the ability to protect the rim” right before he gets baptized is perfect comedic timing.

But the announcers weren’t wrong. Huff was the 2023 G-League Defensive Player of the Year, averaging 3.1 blocks per game that season, and that’s shone to start the season. Huff looks like a guy who wears flannel to work and enjoys hazy IPAs, not like someone with the length and quickness to recover and block a full-speed Jalen Green: [video here]

In his short NBA career, Huff has averaged 2.3 blocks per 36 minutes — an excellent mark. He’s even shown a little agility on the perimeter, although a larger sample is needed to see if that’s sustainable.

While Huff has long been a good defender, it’s his offense that has popped off the screen through four games. Huff has shown off his athleticism with an array of reverse dunks (he loves reverse dunks): [clip here]

Want another? Here’s my favorite. Huff makes a beautifully timed cut and then reverse dunks on two people: [dope clip here]

That slam got virtually no acclaim, which is tragic. Reversing on top of defenders is like an eclipse on Leap Day; you just don’t see it much.

As exciting as his handful of jams have been, Huff’s range has been even more critical. Huff has been lights out from three, canning 10 of his 17 attempts through the season so far. Huff shot 37% from deep in the G-League last year and 40% the year before, so low volume caveats aside, this isn’t completely unexpected. His comfort level with the ball is notable: [clip here]

How does a guy who can protect the rim and space the floor need four summer leagues and three years in the G to get his literal shot in the big leagues? That’s a better question for NBA team executives than me. We still don’t know if his rebounding or ability to guard in space will hold up over time, but Huff couldn’t be off to a better start. His ability to stretch the floor without sacrificing defense has given Memphis a nice curveball to the old-school Edey (and might make for an intriguing paint Drano for Morant as the season goes on).

It’s also allowed Memphis to try some funky combinations, including a three-big lineup with Santi Aldama (a fellow super-sub who has been thrust into a starting role in three of four games this season; he has been a story all his own) and Brandon Clarke. What fun!

Huff’s minutes have been an early joy of the season so far, and Memphis just rewarded him by converting his two-way deal into a guaranteed contract (yay!). But he’s not the only Memphis vagabond to make the most of his time. Scotty Pippen Jr. (yes, the son of that Scottie Pippen) has put in work as the backup point guard after bouncing around on two-ways for a few years like an unloved pinball.

Pippen, a favorite of mine since his days at Vanderbilt University, has consistently combined ferocious on-ball defense, deadeye shooting, and burgeoning playmaking with the new confidence that only his own guaranteed contract can bring. In fact, Pippen’s 8.3 assists per game rank fourth in the NBA, and he’s doing it in just 25 minutes per night!

Pippen’s game, in a nutshell, can be summed up by this backcourt steal and dish to a trailing Huff for a triple: [clip here]

That aggressive mentality pays off in the half-court offense, too. Pippen drives into the paint nearly 11 times per game and leads the league in assists off those forays. His ability to collapse the paint and kick out for triples kept Memphis’ offense afloat even as Morant, Jackson, and others have missed games and played limited minutes.

Sometimes, that confidence can lead to some oopsies. Pippen isn’t a big dude (6’1” on Giving Tuesday) and can run out of passing lanes when audacity overwhelms caution: [clip here]

But Pippen is putting up playmaking numbers rivaling almost any guard in the league (including a 12-assist game in a big win against Orlando and a 10-assist effort last night), and he should only get better with more experience running the show. For the Grizzlies to find him essentially off the scrap heap last season feels like cheating.

When the Bears ripped off back-to-back second seeds in 2022 and 2023, depth was a huge key to their success. They’re banking on that this year, too. The Grizzlies have a brutal schedule to open the season with six games in just nine days, and after last year’s injury-ravaged horror-film of a season, coach Taylor Jenkins stated early on that Memphis would manage the starters’ minutes. That’s led to increased room for the reserves to play well and earn confidence.

And although the Grizzlies suffered a late-game collapse in Chicago without Ja Morant last night, they’re still 2-2, with two matches against Brooklyn sandwiching games against a struggling Milwaukee squad and an uncertain, nervous Philadelphia team. If they can make it through this opening stretch at 4-4 or 5-3 without needing to open up the throttle, that’s a massive win for their long-term outlook.

Eventually, the schedule will stabilize, and the starters will assume a bigger role (I won’t shed tears for Jake LaRavia’s minutes ticking down). Pippen won’t be a top-five assist guy forever, sadly, and Huff will probably miss a three-pointer at some point. But the two have shown that they’re ready and able to assume as large a workload as necessary, and that’s far more important for the Grizzlies than most.

Give this a read, will post daily on which NBA players have the highest and lowest +/-. Its not all about points. Let me know if you guys have any interesting perspectives on analytics within the NBA.

https://open.substack.com/pub/lastnightsports/p/10282024-nba-review?r=4njend&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

With Zach Lowe on hiatus it seems until his espn contract runs out, and no idea what happened to The Athletic NBA show pods (tampering, basketball buds, DA and Marcus) it’s feeling like a much leaner year for NBA podcasts. Still listening to Windhorst and enjoying The AllCity NBA pod with Legler - but do people have any other recommendations / power rankings of their own fave pods ?

I personally am not to high on the Suns this year. I think their team is good but I feel like there are to many teams that I would pick above them (plus there is Durant’s worsening health in the past 5 seasons which could hurt them if he’s out for a 10-15 game window) I feel like Booker might want to ask out if the Suns are not a top 4 seed and get bounced in the first round. If he does the Rockets would be the perfect team to trade for him.

In terms of young talent, the Rockets have

AP

Jalen Green

Jabari Smith Jr

Amen Thompson

Tari Eason

Reed Sheppard

Also when you add the fact that AP and VanVleet are locks to start they don’t have minutes for all of these guys to develop which means they might want to cash in some of these young players for an established top 15 player in the league like Booker. However, the real factor as to why I think the rockets would want to do this is because they elected to trade the picks they got for Harden back to Brooklyn in exchange for the picks that the Nets got in the Durant trade. I personally feel like the Rockets were planning for this because why would you trade the nets picks when they look like a lottery team for the next 4 years. If you have the Suns picks, you have all the leverage in the trade if you want to get Booker since they need their picks back if they trade Booker and go into a rebuild.

My personal mock trade would look something like this:

Rockets get Devin Booker

Suns get their picks back, Jalen Green, Tari Eason, and one of Reed Shepard or Amen Thomson

Would love some feedback on this mock trade and your overall thoughts on the Suns as a team in the comments

Today 537 players fill the leagues rosters, with 125 international players. But back in the 90s not more than 25 players came from outside the US. International players have technically been a part of the league since the beginning. Henrey Biasatti, Italian born Canadian played for Toronto Huskies back in the 1946-47 season, but international players were rare back then.

I think leagues views of international talent began to change in the 80s after Hakeem made it to the first overall pick in the 84 draft.

In 88 Olympics Soviet Union won a gold medal against South Korea, Arvydas Sabonis who played in the team went on to have a successful career at the NBA level.

Impact:

- Three-Point Revolution: Players like Dirk and Luka helped turn the NBA into a three-point league. They’ve shown big players can shoot from deep, so now teams focus on spacing and shooting.

- Playmaking Big Men: Nikola Jokic, a point-center, has made it popular for centers to be playmakers. This shift means more passing and ball movement, giving teams new ways to score.

- Defense and Rebounding, Impact on Defense: Players like Rudy Gobert and Giannis have influenced how teams value defense. They’re versatile and dominate on defense, pushing teams to look for players who can guard multiple positions.

This was from an interview with Troy Justice:

With many international players dominating, I’ve heard fans wonder: Is there something that international players are doing that American-born prospects aren’t? How does an international prospect’s path and development differ from an American player’s path?    

Troy Justice said “One thing I'll mention and this is an international concept: For example, in Africa, there’s a saying, ‘In the jungle, it's the hungry lion that hunts best.’ And I really think it's the concept of really having to come in and prove yourself. There's humility, No. 1. There is a desire and hunger. So the work ethic is very strong — and I'm not saying the domestic players [don’t work hard], I'm not speaking negatively about them, but I'm just speaking directly to the characteristics I see in international players. You know, the work ethic, the desire. And I would say they are incredible learners, very humble in the way they approach it. So they're great listeners, they take coaching very well in the sense that it immediately translates into change and improvement in their game — from IQ to skillset. 

“And then finally, you typically see that they're really great team players. They're team-first players, with very little ego usually and they’re very professional in their approach. Also, I would say that they're family oriented and community oriented. A lot of them come from places where this core value that sits within them allows them to not be self-focused or self-centered, but to be other-focused. And I think that allows them to be great teammates.” 

From the 2011 draft, where players like Enes Kanter and Jonas Valanciunas were chosen early, foreign players have really made an impact. Today international talent have become a big part of the league with players like Jokic and Giannis.

A lot of times when I see people talking about why the Jazz never won a ring with Stockton and Malone, it boils down to either Michael Jordan or Hakeem Olajuwon. I never really see anyone talk about the Jazz themselves though, and I want to explore that further. I think it comes down to four possible culprits.

Karl Malone: His efficiency took a hit in the playoffs and he had some bad gaffes (missing back to back free throws in the '97 Finals and getting stripped by Jordan in the '98 Finals).

John Stockton: Malone's efficiency dropped off in the playoffs, but that was because he had to shoulder the scoring load. Stockton wasn't a prolific scorer, not even in his prime. He also got burned on the defensive end, Kenny Smith and Terry Porter shot very well against him in the 90's.

Jerry Sloan: Nobody denies that Sloan was a good coach, but he was pretty old school, even by 90's standards. The Jazz pretty much never shot threes despite having some decent shooters in Stockton and Hornacek. His offense was fairly predictable, and he was stubborn when it came to adjustments.

The Front Office: By the time Utah put a decent supporting cast around Stockton and Malone, they were both in their mid 30's.

I could see an argument for all four of these, but what do you think is the main reason?

Hello everyone and welcome to our new weekly feature.

In order to help keep the quality of the discussion here at a high level, we have several rules regarding submitting content to /r/nbadiscussion. But we also understand that while not everyone's questions will meet these requirements that doesn't mean they don't deserve the same attention and high-level discussion that /r/nbadiscussion is known for. So, to better serve the community the mod team here has decided to implement this Weekly Questions Thread which will be automatically posted every Monday at 8AM EST.

Please use this thread to ask any questions about the NBA and basketball that don't necessarily warrant their own submissions. Thank you.

I think Dame would be the most expendable- most value and not the best fit on this roster. But Khris trade? Brook? Bobby?

Listen, it’s clear the Bucks need a retooling. Stay in this boat, we win some and our veterans get old, then the Bucks have a very good Giannis who will likely ask for a trade.

The assets acquired from a Dame deal could help build a future where Giannis has a genuine contender around him in Milwaukee

I seriously doubt that anything big will happen until the off-season though.

Is there another major trade on the way? What do you guys think. If you think I’m crazy let me know. I know I’m being reactive, but it’s clear we just aren’t a top-team anymore.

Playoff basketball in the NBA is a different beast. Teams face off repeatedly, allowing for instrumental coaching adjustments. Only the league's best teams play, leading to more competitive games. There are countless avenues to explore comparing playoff to regular season basketball. In this analysis, I’ll focus on just one: shot selection.

I've adapted this write-up from Substack and hopefully you can enjoy it as intended here. I don't make any money off of you visiting links, as it's purely for fun! Links to sections with image and sortable charts, not necessary but for those who are interested:

• Changes in scoring due to shot location
  • Key Examples
• Changes in shot selection
  • Benefits of changing shot selection
• Practical Applications & Next Steps

Changes in Scoring due to Shot Location

The two ways to improve shooting efficiency are to improve shooting percentage or take higher-quality shots. Improvements in shooting percentage are relatively easy to quantify. Assessing the quality of a shot is a bit trickier1. In this analysis, I focus on the impact of shot selection2 on points per shot.

Consider three different points-per-shot metrics:3

• Regular-Season (RS locations, RS Shooting %)
• Playoffs (Playoff locations, Playoff Shooting %)
• Expected Playoffs (Playoff locations, RS Shooting %)

Regular season and playoffs are true points-per-shot values. The expected playoffs metric shows what points per shot would be if players had maintained their regular season shooting percentages. By comparing the three metrics, you can calculate changes in points per shot due to shot location vs other factors (non-shot location).

When investigating the points per shot table, one thing stands out: change in scoring, due to shot location change, is very close to zero. At the median, different shot locations only account for 10% of the change in scoring. This supports the idea that most players are not taking a different mix of shots in the playoffs.

Key Examples

If shot location isn’t the driving factor for changes in playoff scoring, what is?

Alec Burks (DET & NYK): +0.473 points per shot

Alec Burks is a great example of both offensive scheme and volume. Last year, he played 43 games in Detroit, before being sent to the Knicks. In Detroit, Burks was a key contributor on offense5. In New York, he was more of a role player, with less scoring responsibility.

In the playoffs with the Knicks, Burks took a shot every 2.4 minutes. This compares to the regular season where he took a shot every 2.1 minutes6. Although this 20-second difference may not seem like a lot, Burks benefited in two major ways from playing with better teammates.

First, Burks could get more open looks on the Knicks due to his teammates garnering more defensive attention. Second, Burks’ role with the Knicks had less of a scoring focus. As a role player, he could focus on getting quality looks and let his talented teammates share the scoring burden. This might explain why he took fewer shots per minute.

Jalen Suggs (ORL): -0.180 points per shot

Suggs is a great example because although he shot from roughly the same locations, his points per shot decreased. This can be attributed to better defense or worse shooting percentage. I’m going to make the case that both are at play here.

Defense undoubtedly goes up a notch in the playoffs, with more talent and higher intensity. This might help explain Suggs’ dip in scoring efficiency.

The other prominent factor with Suggs is inexperience in the playoffs. 2024 was Suggs’ first-ever playoff series7, and playoff experience does matter8. Be it nerves, unfamiliar pressure, or anything else, this may contribute to the slightly worse scoring efficiency.

Changes in Shot Selection

Next, I am interested in changes in shot selection from the regular season to the playoffs. To do this, I cluster9 players based on shot location, irrespective of shot outcome. I cluster with three observations for each player:

• Regular season 1 (all games)
• Regular season 2 (against playoff teams)
• Playoffs

I am interested in players who appear in the same cluster for Regular season 1 and Regular season 2, but in a different cluster for Playoffs. By including two regular season observations, I can control for defensive skill10.

Shot distribution chart by location for each cluster are found at this link for those who are interested.

When investigating the above chart, some natural groupings appear. Think of these as areas of general areas of focus for a player, compared to their peers:

• Restricted area (Cluster 0)
• Above the break 3s (Cluster 1)
• Corner 3s (Cluster 2)
• Midrange & Paint (Cluster 3)

Out of the 86 players in the data, 18 (25%) were identified as having different shot locations in the playoffs11 :

Benefits of Changing Shot Selection

In game theory, a common occurrence is a Mixed-Strategy Nash Equilibrium (MSNE). MSNE is where players randomize their strategies, to maximize their payoff when playing against an opponent12. I believe that in basketball, shot selection is an MSNE. Players are incentivized to take shots from different locations on the court. This keeps the defense guessing and maximizes the shooter’s expected payoff13.

I also believe that the MSNE in the playoffs can change. To illustrate this, I’ll use the example of LeBron James. LeBron switched from a more perimeter-centric player to taking more shots in the restricted area in the playoffs. Why might LeBron drive to the basket more? Consider the benefits of each style of play.

Benefits of driving to the basket:

• Less reliance on an open look
• Higher chance of free throws awarded

Benefits of perimeter play:

• Lower level of physical exertion
• Lower injury risk

Even if the two approaches yielded the same points per shot, there are advantages to employing each.

In the playoffs, it might be harder to get an open three due to the improved defensive game plan and intensity14. Even with the same points per shot, this may decrease shots attempted, which in turn may decrease scoring. When driving to the basket, there’s also a higher likelihood of being awarded free throws.

In the regular season, teams don’t play multiple times in a row, and there is less emphasis on a specific game plan. This might let LeBron get more open looks15, increasing shooting volume (and overall points scored). Mitigating injury risk and physical exertion may also be of higher priority in the regular season. Appearing in more regular season games could outweigh the extra benefit of getting to the free-throw line.

Practical Applications & Next Steps

The biggest benefit of this approach is the framework for understanding where changes in shooting are coming from. Using this framework, with a few additions, one could build a great model for predicting changes in shooting efficiency. This would be a great addition to any team’s player evaluation process.

Incorporating player tracking data is a clear next step. Quantifying close-outs, contests, defensive rotations, and defensive intensity would be great additions. Eventually, instead of just two terms (location and non-location), a model could include 4 or 5 terms with each including a specific cause for change. There could also be an error term. You could assess the quality of this model by comparing this error term to the player’s volatility in shooting, and calibrate it accordingly.

The more I watch his game and even time with team USA the more I feel like the guy just had a great half of the year that unfortunately got wrecked due to injury but, it’s great in more of a system sense that he did well within.

I’m not saying he isn’t going to be great but I kinda look at the last year when he played well as the unveiling of like a new east coast MDA 7 second offense not yet seen. He was pushing pace and finding guys in transition CONSTANTLY. He clearly knows to get the ball zipping around and finding the right guy when defenses are shifting and off balance.

This is also not saying he’s anything like Nash.

This is saying what he did in retrospect as we watch him now as more of a fluke run that caught most of the league off guard. I know the pacers have only played 2 games and are 1-1 but what I saw was more indicative of an average to above average PG, not best in the league first team.

The game 1 win against arguably the worst team in the league Pistons he had 15 points on 6-18 with a disgusting 1-9 from 3. He only contributed 4 assists which isn’t too shocking considering he took the most shots. More of the stark comparison is then on the other side in Cade who despite having a significantly worse roster around himself managed 28-8-5.

I think Cade is a better player than Hali but they each have the teams around them determining our perception on their quality.

Am I crazy wrong in this or was last years half year performance pre injury a fluke and Hali ain’t really the future top 1-3 pg in the league?

Shit even Lamelo looking nice to start the year…

I keep hearing people saying defense back then was godlike compared to today. After watching game 1 of that 1996 finals (bulls vs supersonics), I just don't see it. Sure it may have been a tiny bit more physical but overall, the defense didn't stand out or look anything special. In fact, I saw a lot of uncontested shots in this 1 game alone. I even saw a guy WALK to the perimeter and shoot a wide open 3.

What did stand out to me tho was how basic both teams' offense were. It's basically just drive > Can't get to the paint? > pass to some guy on the perimeter then drive > Can't drive again? > pass to the guy in the corner. If defense back then wasn't anything special against this type of basic offense, why are people saying the 1996 bulls would beat the 2017 warriors? Am I missing something here? Please someone explain it to me.

PS I legit forgot hand-checking was a thing until writing this post.

I’m not saying that all these guys are cooked or anything. They’re not even past 30 yet. Any one of them could still win a ring for another many years. This isn’t me hating on them specifically but they represent a time period of the league that I think is coming to a close. Their main window as the de facto guys that run the league (in terms of accolades and expectations, not talent) is getting really tight. Giannis dominated around 2018-2021, Jokic dominated around 2021-2024, Embiid has also been a top player during this time frame as well. Of course these are still some of the best players in the world, Jokic is still the best imo, Giannis is 3, and I could see any of their teams making the CF or further this year, but at the same time all of their teams have lots of question marks about their future in their current iterations.

Additionally, there are some other examples of teams that had their primary window during this same era of the early 2020s but have fallen apart or are starting to. Kawhi and PG Clippers- cooked, over with. Jimmy Butler Heat- looking pretty cooked. I’m a fan of this team but let’s be honest their days of battling Tatum’s Celtics in the ECF are over with and Jimmy is probably gone after this year. This one has been over with for a few years now but the Nets trio all split up and have all settled into more seasoned vet roles to younger superstars (I guess besides Harden outside of his time with Embiid lol?)

It just feels like the league is going to be run by Tatum, Luka, SGA and Ant moving forward. I mean just a year and a half ago the Nuggets looked like a potential dynasty, the Thunder were still soft-tanking, the Wolves were an 8th seed, the Mavs were out of the play in, and the Celtics were coming off yet another disappointing exit after expecting to be in the Finals again. Now it’s generally agreed upon that the Thunder, Mavs, and Wolves should run the West at least early on this year although it’s not safe to count the Nuggets out at all, the Celtics look like they might be the next dynasty. And I recognize how ironic that is after what I just said with the Nuggets but I just feel like it’s different. It’s crazy how fast things change. And of course this can change really fast too but the next 4-5 years will be mainly these players competing for MVPs and Titles. IMO this change already happened this past year when there were the conversations about how all the main players left in the playoffs past the second round were 25 or younger.

It reminds me of when you think back on the 2010s and realize how quickly the league transitioned from the Heatles and the Spurs to the Cavs and the Warriors dynasty.

I'm asking this in large part because of comments regarding Westbrook after last night's game, with a few picked out so you can see what I mean:

Nuggets are a proud new member of the “We can make it work“ Russell Westbrook experience

He is the final piece of the end of a dynasty

Welcome to the Westbrook experience

Westbrick always has been and always will be a certified loser who is responsible for his teams never succeeding. Stole Harden's MVP because Steven Adams let him steal 2 uncontested rebounds a game.

There's obviously this sentiment that certain players - despite decent stats and reputation - just doom your team to mediocrity (or worse, are an active detriment whenever they're on the floor), but I'm not totally certain of the rationale. I've heard it said about Harden, Sabonis, Embiid, and Carmelo and have come to take "losing player" to mean some combination of "can score, but demands a lot of touches and isn't efficient," "bad defender," and "disappointing in the playoffs."

Is there anyone notable who's managed to beat this image? Is this more of just a recent thing, or was it also said often about earlier superstars who were chuckers and negative on D (Iverson, maybe?) or never won a ring despite plenty of playoff opportunities (Malone, Stockton, Ewing)? Conversely, there are certain role players, such as Jrue Holiday and Derrick White, who seem to be seen as valuable assets and "winners" by everyone, so I'm just curious about what contributes to this and who some other good examples are.

I recently saw a commercial about a guy's wife telling him how he can watch up to 4 games at the same time with NBA League Pass. I scoffed at the idea, thinking, "Who the hell can genuinely enjoy watching 4 games at one time?" I proceeded to check the games schedule on the NBA app to discover that there there are at least 8 games being played every other day, and most of them can only be watched with NBA League Pass. The blatant drive for more money and distraction of the masses is taking the joy out of the game.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. Also not sure which flag to use.

Mods, if you nuke this thread, would you mind mentioning where would be a better place? Scrolled through some sidebars on NBA subs but I couldn't find one for just general chatter.

I've never been to a basketball game and I don't know much about the sport. I'm going to get my husband some tickets to a Blazers home game (Moda Stadium). Hoping to spend about $100.00- $150.00 per ticket.

Here's the stadium. It looks like some of the mid-level seats are much cheaper than the sections around them. Sections 222, 205, 207, 210, 211, 212, a few more, are in my price range. But the sections next to them that are parallel/perpendicular to the court are 2x to 5x their price. 216, 112, and similar. Like $325.00 - $500.00.

I'm assuming the ones I can afford have shittier visibility, but does anyone who is familiar with the stadium know if there's something blocking them, or... basically, how shit are they? Does the angle actually obstruct vision that much?

Am I better off getting nosebleed seats that are directly facing the court? Moda is big, and those high seats are pretty far away.

Thanks guys.

Title, basically. I started thinking about this after looking into the Thunder's Westbrook and PG trades in the 2019 offseason: George got moved for Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, five first round picks, and Danilo Gallinari (who later became a second round pick). Westbrook got back Chris Paul, two first round swaps, and two first round picks. Westbrook then was traded to the Wizards for John Wall and a pick, who later was signed by way of the MLE to the Clippers. This led to them being unable to keep Isaiah Hartenstein, who then proved his value with the Knicks (a team that couldn't re-sign him because of cap limitations) and went on to join - yep, you guessed it - the Thunder. It's also worth mentioning that Chris Paul was given to Phoenix in exchange for another first and trade pieces like Kelly Oubre and Ty Jerome, who turned into extra second round picks such as the one used to draft Aaron Wiggins.

A couple of bad moves by the Rockets and Clippers are, either directly or indirectly, responsible for creating a powerhouse with a ridiculous collection of future assets--especially when you consider Paul being transferred between those two a few years before. Is there anything else like this that can be pointed to as the make or break moment for a contender, some trade or set of trades from a few years ago that ended up having huge ripple effects?

In general, does anyone feel that the likelihood of expansion is being considered by teams and long term contracts. I’m wondering if teams are taking into account the expansion draft as an amnesty for players on bad contracts who may be attractive for a brand new team that needs to fill stadiums with ample room to inherit overpriced players.

This is not an overreaction to the opener and I am generally excited about KAT being a Knick’s fan, but I was just thinking about his future $60M per year salary and the second apron. Does anyone think that if it goes sour with KAT or he just isn’t where the Knick’s need him to be to contend, but he’s still relatively healthy, the Knicks make him available for the future expansion draft?

If that was part of the calculus for the front offices in the league, it would open up lots of options (in terms of freeing up cap space in the future). Does someone know of specific cap rules regarding expansion drafts and requirements to keep certain players?

Raising the NBA foul-out limit to 7 in overtime accounts for extra playing time, maintaining competitive balance and preventing key players from fouling out in critical moments. It enhances the fan experience by keeping stars on the court, aligns with foul limits in other leagues, and compensates for player fatigue. This change would ensure fairer, more exciting games, especially in multiple overtime periods, without drastically altering the nature of the sport.

In my opinion, nobody wants to see 2 benches competing for a game that enters overtime (looking at you clippers/suns). People pay to see the stars win in crunch time. Anybody agree or disagree?

Edit - To clarify, if a player fouls out in regulation, they are not allowed to come in for overtime. They must record their 6th foul in overtime to be eligible for a 7th foul.

Disclaimer: This is not an overreaction to last night's win. I have been thinking this for a while, last night just gave me the confidence to post.

I think one of the most underrated/underrecognized performance boosts a player can get is the post-championship boost. A lot of all-time greats have experienced it - more so than a lot of people realize. Steph, after winning a chip in 2015, despite losing fmvp to IGGY, put together the first ever unanimous mvp season in NBA history and had a serious case for MIP despite winning MVP the previous year. Heading into the 2015-16 season, most rankings had Steph below people like Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, and Chris Paul. ESPN had him 4th behind AD and KD, ahead of Paul. Look how ridiculous that ranking looks in hindsight. After winning his first chip in 2012, LeBron dropped what should've been the first unanimous mvp in NBA history and probably his greatest regular season, absolutely annihilating all doubt that he was the single best player in the league (prior to this, people were still saying Kobe, Wade, etc were the best, especially after the 2011 meltdown - just look at any social media thread, public ranking, GM Survey, or talk show from back then). Look how absurd that looks in hindsight; its ridiculous to even think people were saying he wasnt the best. It's not just LeBron and Steph - Larry Bird won his first chip (without FMVP) and proceeded to 3peat mvp right after. Kobe's first finals were horrendous - he averaged 15pts on 36% FG, but after winning it, he truly ascended to the Kobe we know today. There is a ton of historical precedent for this improvement. Now consider that Tatum was probably the superstar most affected by mental burden - it was very clear it was weighing on him and undermining his confidence. I think with that mental burden removed, he's set for a massive jump in ability, especially in the clutch.

Another thing that is overlooked with Tatum is just how young he is. Since he and his team have been very good for very long, the discourse around him has become (prior to the chip) "when is he finally gonna get it done?" or "he's already failed too many times," or "he's proved he can't get it done" and it's made us forget that this is a young kid who is the same age as Shai - whose loss in the playoffs everyone chalked up to having a young core, and reacted to by saying "oh he's still young, he has time" - and who everyone expects to make another jump next year. Why is this same logic not applied to Tatum? He's still extremely young with very clear things to work on and he is just as likely to take a leap. He has already worked on and, based on yesterday, apparently made a huge improvement to his current biggest weakness - his inconsistent jumpshot - and it's going to massively help him. (I'm not just talking about the outlier shooting performance he had yesterday, his shot visibly looks better).

On top of all of that, he probably has the biggest incentive/drive (not the same as pressure) to prove something to his doubters and to all fans following the FMVP loss and the complete disrespect he got at the Olympics, and all the people who started slandering/hating on him during this time. I honestly think by the end of this season he's gonna cement himself as a top 5 player without any doubt and we're gonna be looking at him very differently. In a couple years time we're gonna look back at the discourse today and all the people calling him not top 10 and we're gonna laugh and find it ridiculous. What do you think of this prediction?

The season is here!

Which means we will re-enact our in-season rules:

Player comparison and ranking posts of any kind are not permitted. We will also limit trade proposals and free agent posts based on their quality, relevance, and how frequently reoccurring the topic may be.

We do not allow these kinds of posts for several reasons, including, but not limited to: they encourage low-effort replies, pit players against each other, skew readers towards an us-vs-them mentality that inevitably leads to brash hyperbole and insults.

What we want to see in our sub are well-considered analyses, well-supported opinions, and thoughtful replies that are open to listening to and learning from new perspectives.

We grew significantly over the course of the last season. Please be familiar with our community and its rules before posting or commenting.

We’d like to address some common complaints we see in modmail:

1. “Why me and not them?” We will not discuss other users with you.
2. “The other person was way worse.” Other people’s poor behavior does not excuse your own.
3. “My post was removed for not promoting discussion but it had lots of comments.” Incorrect: It was removed for not promoting serious discussion. It had comments but they were mostly low-quality. Or your post asked a straightforward question that can be answered in one word or sentence, or by Googling it. Try posting in our weekly questions thread instead.
4. “My post met the requirements and is high quality but was still removed.” Use in-depth arguments to support your opinion. Our sub is looking for posts that dig deeper than the minimum, examining the full context of a player or coach or team, how they changed, grew, and adjusted throughout their career, including the quality of their opponents and cultural impact of their celebrity; how they affected and improved their teammates, responded to coaches, what strategies they employed for different situations and challenges. Etc.
5. “Why do posts/comments have a minimum character requirement? Why do you remove short posts and comments? Why don’t you let upvotes and downvotes decide?” Our goal in this sub is to have a space for high-quality discussion. High-quality requires extra effort. Low-effort posts and comments are not only easier to write but to read, so even in a community where all the users are seeking high-quality, low-effort posts and comments will still garner more upvotes and more attention. If we allow low-effort posts and comments to remain, the community will gravitate towards them, pushing high-effort and high-quality posts and comments to the bottom. This encourages people to put in less effort. Removing them allows high-quality posts and comments to have space at the top, encouraging people to put in more effort in their own comments and posts.

There are still plenty of active NBA subs where users can enjoy making jokes or memes, or that welcome hot takes, and hyperbole, such as /r/NBATalk, /r/nbacirclejerk, or /r/nba. Ours is not one of them.

We expect thoughtful, patient, and considerate interactions in our community. Hopefully this is the reason you are here. If you are new, please take some time to read over our rules and observe, and we welcome you to participate and contribute to the quality of our sub too!

Discord Server:

We have an active Discord server for anyone who wants to join! While the server follows most of the basic rules of this sub (eg. keep it civil), it offers a place for more casual, live discussions (featuring daily hoopgrids competition during the season), and we'd love to see more users getting involved over there as well. It includes channels for various topics such as game-threads for the new season, all-time discussions, analysis and draft/college discussions, as well as other sports such as NFL/college football and baseball.

Link: https://discord.gg/8mJYhrT5VZ (let u/roundrajaon34 or other mods know if there are any issues with this link)

Megathreads:

We will post links to mega-threads here as they are created throughout the season.

Extension Eligible Day has passed, and some guys have locked in life-changing money. In contrast, others have chosen to play the season out, effectively betting on themselves to secure generational wealth after a big season.

I worked with Malik Beasley during the same career window. It was one of the best learning experiences of my career in terms of understanding the league.

Rookie Extension vs. Restricted Free Agency

When the player is extension eligible (EE), only the team the player is currently on can make them an offer. However, during restricted free agency (RFA), any team can offer them a deal.

While who can offer the player a contract changes depending on EE or RFA, the most significant factor stays the same during both:

The player's current team is in the driver’s seat the whole time, not the player.

Teams have significant leverage over the player because they ultimately have the final say during EE and RFA.

• EE—There is no marketplace for players outside their current team, which increases the team’s leverage to the max.
• RFA - The player can receive offers and sign with another team. However, the player’s current team retains the right to match any contract offer signed and keep the player. Team leverage isn’t 100 here, but it’s not so far away.

While RFA is a better market than the EE summer, it isn’t robust. Most RFAs do not receive many offers from opposing teams due to fear and optics. This is why players relish entering unrestricted free agency (UFA). If they reach UFA with a market, it most likely means they’ve been under someone’s thumb for quite some time.

RFA is the kid’s table at Thanksgiving, while UFA is the Adult’s.

Usually, the RFA and the team resolve the situation without a formal offer being submitted from another team. This summer, Isaac Okoro and Cleveland performed this time-honored tradition.

Most offers during the EE window are for three reasons:

1. A show of good faith to a player to earn favor in the future. Think MAX players.
2. The team believes it can get a discount before the player hits RFA. The team bets that the player will outperform the upfront guaranteed money over the contract's life.
3. Strong relationship with the player’s agent or agency.

Max players who are EE get handled when the window opens; those deals are no-brainers.

Non-max extensions usually go down to the wire. This is where things can get hairy, and feelings can get hurt. It’s the Logan Roy world of deal-making: “Why are they smiling?! It’s not good if they’re smiling.”

NBA teams aren't charities; they don’t just give out money. They do it because (they believe) it will benefit them to get the deal done early.

From a team perspective, they should only sign guys to two types of extensions: these big discount lowball offers and proven superstar max extensions.

1. Max - When the window opens, Max players who are EE get handled; those deals are no-brainers. The agents, players, and fans will go wild if they don't.
2. Value - Players already producing at the number to which they are signed in their extension. It should only be an upside for the team here.

These non-max extensions usually go down to the wire. They can either prepare a team to compete in the future or handicap them with bad money that they didn’t need to commit to anyway.

This is where things can get hairy, and feelings can get hurt. It’s the Logan Roy world of deal-making:

“Why are they smiling?! It’s not good if they’re smiling.”

Championship teams are built during this shrewd process. You have to win big on the margins to reach the ultimate goal. Golden State did it with Curry, Boston did it with Brown, and the next wave of champions will almost certainly not emerge from giving up big money a year early to players who are not already playing at a max level.

The best NBA teams aren't charities; they don’t just give out money. They do it because (they believe) it will benefit them to get the deal done early.

An Offer You Can’t Refuse:

Usually, it's not bad if someone is willing to give you millions of dollars. However, there is one spot where the team has more leverage than at any other time, and the player is almost forced to accept the deal, even if they would rather bet on themselves- the role-player extension.

Here is the formula to look out for (this is not a mathematical formula).

Proven Rotation Player/Potential Starter + No Path To Starting + Good Team = Bad Spot

Moses Moody signed this type of extension for three years and 39 million. On the surface, this is great; he’s locked in 39 million, which, by the time it’s all said and done with taxes and fees to the union and his agents, will be around 18 million.

When I saw this extension on the ticker, it stood out. It reminded me of Malik and my college teammate Ed Davis, who were in similar situations during the extension-eligible period of their rookie contracts.

All three thought they were good enough to start. They had shown they could be starters in the league, but they were all in a situation where their current team didn’t want them as the long-term starter.

Malik, Ed, and Moody received offers at an average annual value correlated to a top 8 rotation money: 13mm, 10mm, and 6mm.

The following season, after Ed turned down an extension offer that would have put him in line with a top-level rotation player, he received 18 DNP-CD; the season prior, he only had one DNP-CD.

For Malik, it was eight DNP-CD and five games with under 10 minutes played in 51 games with Denver after he turned down top-level bench money. The season before, he played 81 of 82 games, missing one game due to the birth of his child.

If Moody turned down this offer and entered the season looking to bet on himself, he could have suffered the same fate as Ed and Malik: Get hidden deep on the bench behind Hield, Melton, Podziemski, Wiggins, and Payton II.

Sometimes, it's impossible to bet on yourself, even if you want to; this is when teams know they can lowball the player and tank their playing time if needed.

Bad "Jalen" Rookie Extension of 2024:

Jalen Green: Why???

This one makes zero sense. Where is the upside? If he plays great, he'll be out of the contract before you get the payoff of him being under team control at a lower-than-market-value number because of the PO.

If he doesn't play great (as he has throughout his career), you'll be in for big money (which has to play) at a time when you have a surplus of young players who should be on the court.

Jalen Suggs: Sorry, I'm not in on the shooting. I do not like the mechanics enough to say he's a lock to be a consistent 40% shooter. (I've been a shooting coach for NBA players for the past seven years). I believe there will be a regression back to 35'ish this season.

He also doesn't provide enough off-the-bounce as a playmaker for that number.

What makes both of these the worst deals to me is the rush?!? Why do you need to get both of these guys on the deal a year early when you have TOTAL control of what goes on after the season?

Yes, someone could throw a poison pill deal at them, like Tyler Johnson or Allen Crabb. But more than likely, these numbers wouldn't change if both players produced at the same level this year, and honestly, I think both of them will decrease their value after the season.

When discussing a player's defensive capability, we never talk about how well a player can protect the ball or control the pace of offense. A really good floor general with high usage rate can shut down the transition offence of the opposing team. This is like taking away 15-20% of the points of the opposing team.

This is the reason why the worst defensive teams are almost always the teams with the highest Turnovers Rate. This also explains why players like Jokic, Luka, prime Nash didn't pass "the eye test", but would still have positive defensive advanced stats and their team were better defensively when they were on the Court.

Utah owns a swap with Cleveland and Minny in 2026. But their own pick is protected top 8 assuming they keep the pick this year.

That means a simple analysis says if Utah finished outside the top 8 next season the swaps are ignored regardless where the other teams finished.

But let's suppose the world collapsed and Cavs funded in the lottery and luck had them win a top 4 pick. Then Utah finished 13th for good luck and would convey to OKC. Could Utah trade another FRP plus assets to OKC getting their pick back and then be eligible for swapping with the Cavs?

Is there a deadline for this to happen?

I remember a few years ago when I was watching on league-pass, I'd occasionally come across a feed that wasn't a local or national broadcast, but was a couple guys actually discussing a live game from a strategy and tactics perspective, in much more depth than you'd ever get from other broadcasts. I don't remember what it was called, I never searched specifically for it, but I always really appreciated it when I stumbled onto it.

Is that still a thing, and if so, what is it called, and is there a list of what games it will feature?

If it's not currently thing, is there any chance that it gets resurrected under the new broadcast deal? Hell, I'd enjoy it even as a delayed-game thing where, say, once a week (or more) a game from the previous week is rebroadcast with this approach.

Simple Rating System (SRS) is, as the name suggests, a quick-and-dirty way of ranking teams. It is essentially point differential adjusted for strength of schedule.

However, as far as I'm aware, no-one has tried to produce it for the playoffs, until now. Using a method I experimented with last postseason (with mixed results), I looked at the last 40 champions.

Importantly, this reflects the players who actually played. If opponents miss games through injury, this is (imperfectly) accounted for through their regular season Boxscore Plux-Minus.

The basic idea is that winning by larger margins against stronger teams is better. Champs who relied on being clutch will not typically rank highly by this method.

Anyway, that's enough blathering from me. Here's the interesting part:

For some quick summaries:

• top 10 offences - '01 Lakers, '91 Bulls, '17 Warriors, '16 Cavs, '87 Lakers, '96 Bulls, '13 Heat, '86 Celtics, '12 Heat, '92 Bulls
• top 10 defences - '04 Pistons, '96 Bulls, '99 Spurs, '90 Pistons, '03 Spurs, '08 Celtics, '07 Spurs, '15 Warriors, '97 Bulls, '14 Spurs
• top 10 overall - '96 Bulls, '17 Warriors, '91 Bulls, '01 Lakers, '97 Bulls, '14 Spurs, '86 Celtics, '12 Heat, '15 Warriors, '18 Warriors
• 10 worst offences - '04 Pistons, '90 Pistons, '94 Rockets, '03 Spurs, '99 Spurs, '21 Bucks, '07 Spurs, '06 Heat, '08 Celtics, '20 Lakers
• 10 worst defences - '88 Lakers, '85 Lakers, '87 Lakers, '13 Heat, '16 Cavs, '93 Bulls, '10 Lakers, '95 Rockets, '00 Lakers, '11 Mavs
• 10 worst overall - '88 Lakers, '94 Rockets, '10 Lakers, '06 Heat, '89 Pistons, '85 Lakers, '21 Bucks, '20 Lakers, '95 Rockets, '90 Pistons

Overall I'm pretty happy with the results, although there's much to discuss. Can do other teams on request.

pre-1985 uses a different formula and can be found on r/VintageNBA

There are several max or near max rookie extensions and nba analysts and people around the league generally accept this as business as usual. Suggs getting a $150 mil deal for having one decent shooting year at 12 ppg is wild to me considering how poorly he shot the rest of his career. Same with Jalen Green’s 35 mil a year deal.

It truly doesn’t make sense to me from a game theory / risk perspective. The team could have a free look the 4th year to decide whether a player has shown enough to earn a massive extension. Obviously if it an Anthony Edwards or Luka you offer the max immediately. The goodwill trumps any free look for any of these great players.

But when it comes to near max players why not wait? The warriors surely deeply regret giving Poole 130 mil. He wasn't even worth $50 mil the year after (Reaves, a much better player got $50). The wolves gave wiggins 150 mil (in 2017 dollars!) because he shook the owners hand promising to be better. Otto porter in washington, MPJ, the list goes on.

Teams who waited, like the suns with ayton, jazz with hayward, philly with maxey got their guy eventually in RFA. Really only Ayton had hard feelings, but he is the perfect example of why you should wait. Competing teams often don’t want to tie up space to make an offer during RFA, and a poison contract doesn’t seem like a big risk. So why don’t more front offices wait the 4th year?

What are some decisions teams made on the offseason that you find yourself either supporting or doubting more than what you frequently see? Moves that you see people or articles talking about with high regard but you don't see them working that well? Under discussed moves that you think deserve more attention either positive or negative? Or moves that seem universally panned but you think will work?

Definitely try to avoid the big name moves like the PG13 signing or the KAT-Randle/Donte trade since you can find a billion takes/opinions in each direction for those.

Lower
Caleb Martin on the Sixers.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Sixers had a mostly great offseason. PG was a home run, McCain was a great pick, and Drummond is one of the best backup centers in the league so now the team doesn't have to rely on a meme as their backup. However I've seen most people say they're super high on Martin as the team's "power forward" and I just can't see it. He's a solid wing defender, but he's very undersized to play the 4. Miami could masquerade weird lineups thanks to Spoelstra's mastery of junk defenses plus Bam, Jimmy, & Highsmith filling in the gaps. He's also an okay rebounder for a wing, but definitely not someone I'd feel comfortable with as a rebounding presence in smaller lineups. Philly needs a bigger and more physical presence to fill in the gaps between their stars on that end.

Offensively he doesn't bring too much exciting either. He an okay shooter at below average volume. He can attack a closeout and create his own shot a little bit, but he's the farthest thing from a playmaker. I think people get caught up that he had a few playoff games where he made shots he normally missed. Which that's happened for basically everyone who's put on a Heat jersey the past 5 years. I'd be more of a fan of the move if he was backing up Oubre & PG at the wing positions, but if he's gonna be their "power forward" I think it would have made more sense for them to have someone that either is more of a perimeter threat to space the floor for their stars, or a more physical defender/rebounder to lighten the physical load on their stars. Martin kinda does neither. I definitely feel like they should have retained Batum.

Tyus Jones on the Suns
This isn't an inditement of Tyus Jones as a player. He's incredible and a deserving starter. He'll definitely help with the team's 25th rated TOV% from last year. Phoenix got him AND Monte Morris (a very capable backup) on minimum contracts to play PG after having no traditional PGs last year. Considering they had practically 0 financial flexibility that's better than nothing. I just think the Suns' big offseason focus of PGs to run the offense is a bit myopic considering the team's situation. I could write 10 pages breaking down the Wolves-Suns series, but the jist of it was that the Wolves were bigger, faster, and stronger and they weren't scared of the Suns attacking the rim. The team didn't really address their glaring issue of needing more athleticism at forward and C outside of rookie Ryan Dunn.

It's clear PHX made this a priority because KD made a comment about wanting a PG to run the offense (can't find the exact quote but I know he mentioned it after they got swept). I could also write 8 pages on how basing your approach on KD's moody comments is a bad way to run your front office. With adding PGs though, the gains are minimal. Your 2nd & 3rd best players are capable combo guards who can split the playmaking workload, and then the 4th best player is Grayson Allen. He's transformed from the unlikable Duke guy to one of the most complete role players in the league. Jones & Allen will cut into each other's minutes, meanwhile everyone in the frontcourt is either old & slow, or small. The team's TO% was a product of the roster construction (plus hitching their wagon to Nurkic), and the star-level shotmaking is supposed to mitigate that. Jones will still be a good player and help the stars out offensively, but the overall team won't improve that much due to a team lacking athletic size getting even smaller.

Higher
Zach Edey on the Grizzlies
I know that most Vegas odds have him as the ROY favorite, but I still see tons of media, analysts, hot take artists, etc. discuss Edey like he's a bumbling oaf who doesn't fit into the modern NBA and that it was a "waste of a pick". I think part of that stems from the fact that he was a dominant college big man and a lot of people prefer to watch guards in college basketball (plus he benefitted from a clear referee bias which got under almost all of our skins). People are overlooking what he brings and how it fits onto this Grizzlies team. His frontcourt partner will be JJJ, a match made in heaven. Edey will merely have to inhale rebounds and handle the interior workload, that'll allow JJJ to continue being maybe the best free safety in the league. He won't be able to replicate Adams' passing, but his post scoring will add a dimension to their half-court offense which has been a question mark over the past few years.

When the Grizzlies were running through the league, it's because they were bigger, faster, stronger, and more explosive than everyone. To put it simply, Edey helps them get even bigger and he's surrounded by tons of speed. I think part of why people are doubtful of Edey's impact are ignoring that the team isn't asking the world of him either. They have Clarke & Aldama as well as JJJ (and GG Jackson when he gets healthy) so Edey won't have to play massive minutes every night. Edey's role will be based on his strengths, and that'll play to the strengths of the other players on the roster. It'd be fair to be skeptical if Edey was asked to anchor a rebuilding team, but he'll be placed in a spot where he'll be maximized.

Quentin Grimes on the Mavs
This one is a bit different because it's not a move that people are saying isn't that good or anything, I don't see anyone at all say anything about it. Grimes' play last year dropped off a considerable amount as he was banged up, and those injuries led to Donte DiVincenzo taking the Knicks starting SG slot. In the 2022-2023, Grimes looked to be one of the premier role players in the league in just his 2nd season. 11.3 points per game on 64.1% from 2 and 38.6% from 3. More importantly, he was a reliable volume shooter at 5.7 attempts from 3 per game. His main calling card was his defense. He would guard the opposing team's top option practically every possession evidenced by his 99th percentile matchup difficulty.

The defensive versatility is super important because playing next to Luka & Kyrie means the Mavs' other guard/wing starter needs to be able to defend all types of offensive top options. Derrick Jones Jr had the explosive athleticism, strength, and hip quickness to do so for the Mavs during their run to the Finals last year. The Mavs' need to identify an adequate replacement for him. I see most people discuss it being Klay for his shooting, or Marshall for his defense. Grimes can bring both factors in a package that fits seamlessly between 2 high-usage playmakers. It's a big if considering he needs to get back to his form from two seasons ago after a disappointing season, but I think he could be the Mavs' best option to slide into their main lineup.

After those teams, the hierarchy is interesting: following the seventh best team (whose identity I am not certain of) is a Heat team that is, in my opinion, pretty distant. With Bam, Butler, and Coach Spo, they’re not a bad team by any means, but they have an aging star and have not improved along the rest of the East after already being an eight seed last year— in fact, they lost a notable rotation player in Caleb Martin and replaced him with a streaky Alec Burks.

I would put Atlanta at nine, somewhat distant from the Heat, but with a really good season and a solid showing from Risacher and good development from core pieces, I would not be shocked if they had the eight seed instead.

The tenth seed is also going to be a fight. Toronto probably has the best chance of landing there, but teams like Detroit, healthy Charlotte, maybe Chicago could also try to push for it.

All this said, there’s going to be a notable difference between the skill level of whichever of the top 7 lands in the play-ins and the other teams there, but someone still has to do it. Who do you think it’s going to be, and why?