The Lakers suffered a historic 134-93 loss to the Miami Heat, conceding a franchise-record 24 three-pointers. Tyler Herro’s nine threes were part of a performance that exposed glaring defensive issues, especially on the perimeter. This marked the Lakers’ sixth loss in eight games, raising questions about their ability to adjust defensively and maintain consistency.

While injuries have been a storyline for this team, is it fair to attribute this blowout solely to player availability? Could coaching or roster construction be at the heart of the issue?

Looking at the stats: the Heat shot over 40% from deep, while the Lakers managed just 25%. The disparity in ball movement and defensive rotations was evident. For a team with championship aspirations, where do they go from here?

What adjustments should the Lakers make to address these glaring weaknesses, and how much blame should fall on the players versus the coaching staff?

Hopefully this isn't against the rules on self-promotion, since I think the site makes an actual contribution to the basketball analytics community. I also don't know where else I could post this.

The site is nbagameflow.com. It's a great resource for anyone trying to do analysis with NBA play-by-play data. It's also in my opinion the easiest way to see historical and current season RAPM. Here's the explanation which is copied and pasted from the About section on the site:

I created this site to help fill in some gaps in the basketball analytics landscape. I've attempted to solve several hurdles that currently exist:

• The Play-by-play data provided by the NBA is useful but doesn't come ready made. It contains event-level data, but some important information information needs to be parsed out by the analyst. The most important example is that stat events aren't grouped by possession out of the box. The combined_pbp dataset solves this by giving stat events a possession id.
• As far as I know, there doesn't exist a publicly available win probability model. inpredictable.com, which is run by Darryl Blackport, is currently the go to for win probability, but that data isn't available in table form. The possessions dataset from this site's API includes the home team's win probability at the start of each possession.
• One of the most important metrics for basketball research is Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus (RAPM). And while different versions can be found, here isn't one place that historic and current season RAPM that is easily accessible. I have made both 1 and 3 year RAPM available on the site and its API (5-year RAPM is coming soon).

While I'm not the first to tackle any of these problems, my goal is to solve them in the most accessible way possible.

This is definitely in its early stages. I would welcome any feedback or features people would like to see.

With the three coming to the forefront of NBA offense, you can find a decent number of instances of players who started their careers never attempting the shot (or being bad at it) becoming respectable three-point shooters. Brook Lopez might be the most common example, but a similar kind of career arc can also be observed with big men like Blake Griffin and Chris Bosh. LeBron, current slump aside, put together a season of 41% shooting last year on over five attempts a game. Although it's rare, it does happen.

Curiously, though, the same trend almost never takes place with free throws. LeBron still shoots the same 75% he entered the league with. Giannis is a multiple-time MVP with a legendary work ethic and still an absolute bricklayer. If a major improvement is seen, it's usually in the first few years of professional development: Kareem was an especially poor foul shooter in college (62.8% over three years), bad as a rookie (65.3%), and eventually worked his way up to being decent (72.1% overall, with a 78.3% single-season peak). Griffin is actually another example of this, going from terrible numbers (58.9% in college and as low as 52.1% for the duration of the shortened 2011-12 season) to about normal (as high as 78.5%). Practically no one seems to suddenly become much better midway through a career, though. The most notable example to the contrary I could find was Kevin McHale, who shot 77.4% for his first eight years and 84.4% for his final five, reaching a peak of 89.3% in that final stretch.

Why might this be? Is there something inherent to this sort of shot attempt that makes it more deterministic? Is it just that it's easier to learn something entirely new, even so late, than to improve at something you've been doing the entire time you've been playing? This has been something I've noticed whenever I look up most players' stats, so I'm interested in what it can be attributed to.

It seems to me that the three point line has run its course. It has stretched offences out of the paint and opened up the game.

Shooting skill is now prized for more heavily than any other aspect of the game.

But now the table has tipped over too far and it is getting very tiring watching teams trading threes with all 5 players standing around the perimeter. The bricks lead to long rebounds and another three attempt at the other end of the court. Some games this year really do feel like all star games with zero offensive plays, just a high screen and a three.

I think it would be a very interesting experiment to remove the 3 point line this year at the all star game. Make shots count for 2 no matter how far away they are shot.

Shaq hit his peak in 2000, and for 3 straight years won FMVP averaging almost 36/16 in the Finals, then in 2004 Shaq declined alot, what caused this?

2000: 29.7/13.6/3.8 on 57.4% from the Field

2001: 28.7/12.7/3.7 on 57.2% from the Field

2002: 27.2/10.7/3.0 on 57.9% from the Field

2003: 27.5/11.1/3.1 on 57.4% from the Field

2004: 21.5/11.5/2.9 on 58.4% from the Field

I haven't done the deep dive to remember all his trades, but I don't believe in him anymore.

He's got this theory that the only way to win is to get multiple stars together, but his teams don't develop chemistry because of big trades and he's bet big on Harden twice and was wrong both times (they did give the death lineup warriors a legit challenge, but any normal fan could have guessed there would be a CP3 injury at the wrong time in the playoffs).

As a result of chasing stars, his teams never really gel and the young talent doesn't rise. He gives up too much for players who don't turn out to be winners. Him and Joel are kind of made for each other and it might not end well.

Hello r/nbadiscussion,

I tried to post this on r/NBA but apparently they only allow posts of former players calling Kobe the GOAT over there, so I figured I'd post here.

I often see comments mentioning that Nikola Jokic has never had an All Star teammate, but it is never explained why that is note-worthy, or if it is at all. Since Jokic is in his 10th NBA season I went and looked at every MVP winner from the past 34 years (since 1990-91) and counted each year they had at least 1 teammate make the All Star game and the total number of All Star teammates they had in their first 10 years.

Some important caveats before reading the table

1. There was no 1998-99 NBA All Star game due to the reduced season. As a result, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, David Robinson, and Allen Iverson did not have an opportunity to make the All Star game or have All Star game teammates. I did not feel it appropriate for me to try and decide who would and wouldn't have been an All Star that year

2. Some of these years include years that a player changed teams in the middle of the season (example Derrick Rose 2017-2018) and for this I counted All Star teammates from both teams. Some may feel this is the incorrect way to go about doing this, but I was not sure how to account for this otherwise

3. Joel Embiid is in his 9th season. Him and Jokic are the only players in the table without 10 full seasons played of data

Below is the same table but limited to only players that won multiple MVPs.

While I don't believe you can draw conclusions about the quality of a player's team / supporting cast by simply looking at All Star game selections, Jokic's lack of All Star teammates does stick out when compared to other all time great players. It is at least an interesting fun fact, even if it is relatively meaningless at actually assessing the quality of a player's team. I then went and looked at every individual MVP season and counted how many All Star teammates the MVP winner had when they won MVP. That table is below.

Since 1990-91

• 16* MVP seasons had 0 All Star teammates (there was no All Star game in 1998-99 when Karl Malone won MVP, therefore we don't know if he would have had an All Star teammate - but it probably would have been John Stockton)

• 13 MVP seasons had 1 All Star teammate

• 5 MVP seasons had 2 All Star teammates

• Tim Duncan and Nikola Jokic are the only players to win multiple MVPs without any All Star teammates their MVP winning seasons

• Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, LeBron James, and Steph Curry are the 4 players that had MVP seasons with 2 All Star teammates. LeBron is the only person to win multiple MVPs with 2 All Star teammates

The only players in NBA history to have 3 MVP seasons without an All Star teammate are Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (3rd, 4th, and 5th MVPs), Michael Jordan (1st, 2nd, and 5th MVPs), and Nikola Jokic.

Does Jokic not having any All Star teammates in any of his first 10 seasons mean his teammates were bad? NO! Does Jokic not having an All Star teammate in any of his first 10 seasons stick out? Yes. Is it notable? I guess that depends on who you talk to.

Now to answer the question some of you might be wondering - why did I stop at the 90s? The main reason is that some of the MVP winners in the 80s had their careers start in the ABA. While All Star game data for the ABA is available, it felt out of place to try to compare the All Stars of the different leagues at the time and this originally started as a comparison of MVP winners first 10 years, not as a comparison of individual MVP seasons. But for those of you wondering about the first 10 years of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, I did take the time to get that data as well and as you probably suspected, the number of All Star teammates they played with dwarfs everyone else on the list.

Both Magic and Bird played each of their first 10 seasons with All Star teammates, the only players to play each of their first 10 with at least 1 other All Star. They also have the most total All Star teammates with 18 for Bird and 17 for Magic, 5 more than the next highest player. They're as much of outliers at the top end as Jokic is at the bottom end.

The guy gives you 17.2 points and 10.5 rebounds a night over a career spanning nearly 15 years, shooting 50% and 77% from the line, yet he might be the most forgotten man in the NBA.

He's been an All-Star 2x, and only ever been in the playoffs 4 times, losing in the 2st round all 4 times. He's never mentioned as a desired big man in any kind of trade scenario. He's never won any kind of individual award, or really been close.

How do we define what he is? He's not a scrub, because 17/10 a night isn't a bad player, and he has been given the opportunity to have a nice volume of shots, and knows how to grab rebounds. He obviously isn't a defensive force, with basically one block and one steal a game, which knocks him down some.

I just think he is invisible in the eyes of even the true NBA-knowledgeable fans. I'm not saying he should be praised or put on any lists, but he also isn't a waste of a player (at least not in his coaches eyes). What's your opinion of this guy?

With all the recent talks about the decrease in revenue, i was thinking about how the NBA could improve. Its been discussed before, but effectively tapping into international markets is the way.

Remember the Raptors’ 2019 championship run? Canada went nuts. Cities across the country were celebrating, and the parade was one of the biggest in NBA history. The Raptors aren’t just Toronto’s team; they’re Canada’s team.

The NBA is sitting on a goldmine here. Canada’s one of the fastest-growing basketball markets, and the Raptors have the whole country behind them. Imagine the revenue and hype if they actually got more media love and promotion.

Why do you think the Raptors don’t get the attention they deserve? And what could the league do to change that?

Additionally, expansion teams in Mexico, Canada, and some US cities are worth looking into. The NHL has been doing it, so the NBA can too.

Ok, Obviously, Jokic/Giannis are behind in terms of all time rankings cause they are still in the middle of their prime. However, their 2020-2024 season are already done. So, we can rate it compared to previous decade's first 5 years.

For 21st Century:

2000 - 2004: Shaq/Duncan

2010 - 2014: Lebron/KD

2020 - 2024: Jokic/Giannis

How will you rank the Duo in each start of the decade? Based on those 5 Years Only

For me, I will go

1. Shaq/Duncan (Both in their primes)

2. Lebron/KD (Lebron's absolute prime, But KD was Kinda Young Rising Star, though he won MVP in 2014)

3. Jokic/Giannis (They are both amazing. But I needed to make a had decision.)

I am certain of Shaq/Duncan. They are both winning FMVPs and MVPs almost in rotation those 2000-2004 Stretch.

The #2 and #3 are interchangeable.

How will you rank them?

I can appreciate that the talent level is higher than it ever was before, but this league is soft AF. Watch any game, especially ones with OKC and it's bizarre the how soft the touch fouls are on SGA.

I don't get it, why does the NBA reward this kind of crap when the players snap their head back?

Olympic basketball was a breath of fresh air and as we have seen, the players will automatically adapt their playing style when refs don't call that soft shit.

It actually ruins the game when defenders get called for a foul for not even initiating the contact and playing textbook defense.

This is something that came into my head yesterday and would love to hear people's opinions on the matter. I was reflecting why NBA viewership has declined and has not met the expectations of the league when this reasoning popped in my head. Unlike Football, a large portion of NBA fans are fans of players. 6-10 years ago people tuned in to watch Lebron, to watch Durant, to Watch James Harden, Cury and Kawhi all compete against each other. It didnt really matter what team they were on, it was the matchups that people cared about. Those players are now slowly aging out, and for some reason, the next cohort of stars arent bringing in the same numbers that these stars brought in.

Compare this to the NFL, or to College Football, or even College Basketball - viewers and fans dont chase players the same way NBA fans do. If you are a cowboys fan, and your favorite player leavers the Cowboys, you are still a Cowboys fan. You may wish that player the best (or the worst ), but your allegiance still stands. I think NBA fans dont have as much allegiance to their teams as other sports fans. There are a ton more player fans. Once those players fall out of the spotlight, then those fans then stop watching as much basketball.

These are my random Sunday night thoughts - happy to hear rebuttals and the like.

I think something we can all agree on as NBA fans is the anti-competitive nature of the draft. Be it tanking or when the stars do align and superteams form, it isn't healthy for the game. Tanking in itself even often imposes a brain/game drain on organizations that often cannot recover from years of self-imposed distruction in order to turn the corner into relevancy. Those that do successfully tank while hiding good teams are rewarded the most for skirting the legality of the league. Fans of tanking teams and those that play against them suffer and the overall product of the league is worsened.

What do you think about a system like this? The top picks of the draft revolve around the teams that make the 1st round of the playoffs and those that fall just under. The bottom picks of the draft belong to the leagues best teams, but the middle picks fall to the leagues worst teams. Instead of giving talent poor teams a chance to break into relevancy through the draft, the worst teams in the league are given a form of scaling extra salary cap limit available in the future year(s).

In this system teams are encouraged to remain competitive by fostering winning organizations and culture. There would be an even stronger pull to make the playoffs for extra revenue purposes. The "no man's zone" effect of being a team not good enough to be relevant in the playoffs while also not getting premium draft capital would be transformed into something else entirely.

The only problems I can see are that:

(1) Truly rotten organizations will never be bailed out (hopefully encouraging them to fix organization problems).

(2) Teams are perhaps less incentivized to go all-in in a more competitive league, especially when draft capital is on the line. This could also be adjusted for in many ways, one being pick structure changes that punish teams less for winning (perhaps being further from the bottom of the draft).

(3) Potential fuckery in the first round of playoffs/making or not making playoffs. However this could also be accounted for with the draft lottery odds discentivizing it.

(4) The worst downside: recovering teams will on average take longer to recover without consistent access to premium draft capital. This could also potentially lead to a more risk adverse approach from GMs including less trades and more financial responsibility. Blockbuster trades would almost certainly take a dip and teams would be less likely to trade 1st round picks.

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’ve been thinking about how guys and teams always discuss wanting to find “3nD guys” as if that’s how they can only be seen. However the more you consider team needs, I think it becomes more apparent and obvious which teams really need a guy that’s actually “Dn3” really more for their defense and the scoring options they offer is the 3.

I think we have to identify clear examples of this distinction. A guy like KCP is first to come to mind as I would say he’s much more D than 3 in terms of value and should be seen more so as such. A guy like Jaden McDaniels is a D and 3 guy, but it’s also more so the fact that he play defense and offensively he really just spots up since he isn’t creating for himself or scoring in the mid while only scoring on dunks as his other option. Mikal bridges or a Harrison Barnes also come to mind.

3 and D I think needs to be for guys who we slot them as offering some greater defense when in actuality, they really are offering wing type size to their spot. A guy like Norman Powell is never going to be seen as a great defender but with a 6’11 wingspan he gets the title of 3 n D albeit with a great variety of scoring ability. I think Wagner with a bit more inside ability also kinda falls into this job, he can stretch and shoot while playing enough defense with size to fit the role.

Then it’s the guys that are really just hot and cold at either part of the job, MPJ, Rui, OG.

Anyone else feel like there should be a greater distinction and title given to guys and not just a blanket 3nD title?

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-league-wide-three-point-percentage-by-decade

Debunking the Myth: This Generation Doesn’t Shoot the 3-Ball That Much Better

For all the criticism players from the '80s, '90s, 2000s, and 2010s get for a supposed lack of three-point shooting, the reality is that today's NBA players only shoot the three about 0.5% to 1% better than those earlier generations.

It’s time to put this narrative to rest. Modern NBA fans often claim that today’s players would dominate past generations simply because they shoot the three-ball so much better. However, the data proves this isn’t true!

The Truth About Three-Point Shooting in Previous Eras

Players in earlier generations had the talent to shoot from deep, but their coaches didn’t emphasize it. The game plan prioritized shooting 50% from the field, and a 33% three-point percentage was considered solid. Players weren’t encouraged to take as many threes as they are now.

Scoring Big Men vs. Three-Point Reliance

Another overlooked factor:

1. Dominant big men in previous eras reduced the need for three-point shooting. Centers and power forwards like Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O’Neal, David Robinson, Brad Daugherty, Rik Smits, Arvydas Sabonis (the OG), Rasheed Wallace, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, Vin Baker, Shawn Kemp, Charles Barkley, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were 20/10 threats.
   • Today’s centers would struggle against these Bigs.

Over time, the NBA shifted from dominant big men to three-point shooting. However, the big man’s role hasn’t disappeared. In fact, four of the last five NBA champions relied on strong big-man play:

• 2024 Boston Celtics – Kristaps Porziņģis (“The Unicorn”) & Al Horford’s bench production/three-point shooting
• 2023 Denver Nuggets – Nikola Jokić
• 2022 Golden State Warriors – N/A (the “Steph Curry Effect”)
• 2021 Milwaukee Bucks – Giannis Antetokounmpo & Brook Lopez
• 2020 Los Angeles Lakers – Anthony Davis & Dwight Howard’s defense

When the game slows down in the playoffs and becomes more physical, rebounding, interior defense, and scoring in the paint become critical because baskets are harder to come by.

Less Space, More Physicality

2. The older generations also played in a more physical era with less spacing. Players had to excel at shooting with defenders crowding them.
   • Today’s game features more space, yet older players hit consistent jumpers without the benefit of modern floor spacing. Their comparable three-point percentages are a testament to their skill.

With less space and more physicality, finishing at the rim was harder. The idea that today’s players are vastly superior shooters doesn’t hold up. They just take more threes. Yes, players like Steph Curry and Damian Lillard are remarkable, but they are outliers, not the standard—which is why they’re celebrated and multi-time All-Stars.

Team USA’s Struggles with Old-School Basketball

To illustrate the point: look at how Team USA struggled with ’90s-style basketball in FIBA competitions. With tighter spacing and more physicality, they had difficulty against teams with 1-2 NBA players or none at all—despite having multiple All-Stars, MVPs, and Finals winners.

Respect the OGs

Today’s players are incredible, and that’s undeniable. But it’s time to put respect on the OGs. Just because they played before your time doesn’t mean they weren’t great.

Let’s give credit where it’s due.

Going into December, most teams have played somewhere around twenty games so far. How's everyone feeling about where your teams are at?

In regards to my team, the Knicks, things are okay overall but frustrating. Our defense, in theory a strong suit under Thibs and with the addition of Mikal Bridges, has been consistently disappointing. Bridges in particular has not consistently played up to expectations on either end, shooting poorly from beyond the arc and failing to be a valuable PoA defender; I do believe he'll get better with time though. Mortgaging our future to acquire him and KAT looks less and less certain as a championship-caliber move, but Mitchell Robinson and Precious Achiuwa returning later on should at least give us a reasonable amount of depth to work with and decrease our reliance on the starters' performance. By contrast, our offense has looked fantastic, with our combination of offensive rebounding, shooting, and ball movement allowing for regular high-quality looks. We're four games over .500 at this point, but will need to shore up some of our weaknesses to be serious contenders in a conference with the defending champions in the Celtics and emerging powerhouses in the Magic and Cavaliers.

We always talk about his different stints, and which one was the most successful. But if we are talking about 1 single season, which one would you say was the greatest version of lebron?

I’m taking specifically in basketball ability. Where you believe that was the best of lebron. There may be a season where he didn’t win any major accolades but you thought that was greatest season you’ve ever seen lebron play. I’m intrigued to see what the consensus is.

Hey everyone, I wanted to learn more about some of the great stats that we have access to. Yes, I also watch the games but knowing more about the stats is pretty fun to me as well.

I wanted to clarify some doubts I had where I felt the two different sites/sources of info had contradicting information.

Example #1:

Looking at how the Raptors deal with OPPosing guards' assists

DvP(Defense v Position): https://www.fantasypros.com/daily-fantasy/nba/fanduel-defense-vs-position.php

This says that Raptors allow the LEAST assists to PGs this season and 10th LEAST assists to SGs this season.

However, on (https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent?PlayerPosition=G&Season=2024-25&dir=D&sort=OPP_REB), this says Raptors allow the 3rd MOST assists to guards this season.

See what I mean? Seems very contradictory.

Example #2: https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent?PlayerPosition=G&Season=2024-25&dir=D&sort=OPP_REB

This now says Thunder allow 41.0 rebounds PER GAME to OPPosing guards playing against the Thunder. This is literally impossible and makes no sense.

You can find a lot of these weird example #2s and also instances of example #1s where the data either seems wonky or you have contradictions between the NBA.com stats page and the Defense v Position stats page. But how can it be so much of a difference(like 1st/10th least and 3rd most)? Am I interpreting the data wrong?

Thanks. I could probably find some more instances if needed but just giving these for now.

This is just a thought experiment, don't yell at me about the Sixers would never do this, etc.

Let's say Sixers get the 1st overall pick.

And they wanted to leverage that pick to get as much young first rounders that they can draft/play immediately.

Is there any salary cap restrictions for the Sixers to trade their 1st overall pick on draft night to Brooklyn for all four of Brooklyns first round picks in the 2025 draft?

I get that each pick carries a cap hold, but would they be allowed to do this trade with them already being in the 1st Apron? Wouldn't the salary slots push the Sixers to the 2nd Apron?

The 2024-25 Sixers are firmly in the 1st Apron with $181.5M team salary

2nd Apron for 2024-25 is $188.9M, obviously this limit will increase a bit each year.

Let's say with the trade the Sixers get the below picks and these accompanying salary slots: #10 = $4.5M #18 = $3M #20 = $2.7M #28 = $2.1M Roughly $12.3M in drafted Cap Hold salary slots

Would the Sixers be allowed to make this trade since each draft pick carries a cap hold? And if they were allowed, this trade seems to push them into the 2nd Apron (depends on limits), so then would the Sixers even necessarily want to do this trade?

It's fair to say that today's NBA environment has been dominated and overwhelmed by the sheer amount of three pointers attempted. Watching an NBA game where players shot-chuck and run back on defense only to do the same again has become monotonous and downright boring. Albeit it has produced some wild highlights from a select number of stars and role players.

I propose a solution to this issue that doesn't change the court size or the current defensive ruling and can possibly make the game of basketball more interesting to watch. Status quo would not be detrimentally harmed either, threes will still be a three and importantly, no four points line.

I propose a penalty to missed three's. Essentially if a team is shot-chucking into oblivion, say they go 0-5 on attempts. A penalty will be induced where the team that keeps missing threes gives the opposing team additional points between the three point line and paint. This does change the nature of two-outcome basketball (2s or 3s) for possibly a three-outcome (2s or 3s or 4s).

*This penalty is only applicable if the team takes 4 consecutively missed three pointers within a 10 shot span. Adjustable to NBA statistics to make it more fair -> I am not a stats guy, so if you are comment on how this could be implemented.

Example: Team A misses 4 three point attempts consecutively within 8 shots/ possessions. Penalty occurs, Team B gets a bonus +1 for a midrange shot / type of basket. This is also vice-versa if both teams manage to miss, both teams are penalized.

The penalty is only lifted if the opposing team who got the advantage, scores with it. Resetting the missed three pointer pool.

I can see my fix making mid range shooting far more rewarding, with clutch scenarios occuring within the three point line. However, more importantly, make the shot selection/ diet more consumable for viewers. No one wants to watch 50 god damn three point attempts a game.

Love Josh Hart — But the criticism on Mikal Bridges is completely justifiable

Hart was backing up his former college teammate (as he should) on the media/fans criticism on Bridges play throughout the early part of the season. "He got traded for 12th-graders, so we’re good".

As funny as that comment by Hart was, the truth is that the Knicks (or any NBA team) should never send 5 first round picks for a player that’s performing like Bridges so far.

The Knicks traded for Bridges as if he’s the same player that went to the finals with the Suns in 2021; but he’s taken a few steps backwards from that No-2 DPOY season.

You can tell from the first quarter of the NBA season that he picked up some bad habits while playing on the Brooklyn Nets.

Being the go to player on a bad team, your shot selection becomes poor and your defensive intensity lessens at times.

It’s a difficult transition going from the Number 1 option on a team with play-in expectations to the No 4 option on a team with championship expectations.

But in the end, Bridges has to play better.

Just thinking out loud and killing time on my phone on Thanksgiving but:

Given the oft-noted possibility the Magic cannot maximize the talents of both Paolo and Franz Wagner and that the same has been suggested of Philadelphia with Maxey and McCain, can these teams potentially do business? I assume Paolo is untouchable. And of course the Sixers want to get a longer look at McCain before they even think of doing anything with either him or Tyrese. (Also, there is the fact that Franz has gotten paid and McCain can’t for a couple years.)

But putting all the practicalities aside, is this totally inconceivable? It would be fun at the very least.

So the last few years we have had discussion on player impact when a player plays 65-70 games unlike when players would pride themselves on getting 75-82 games. That is a subjective argument, and still can't be answered definitively when votes for MVPs, All-Stars, All-NBA teams are cast.

But I think there is an area that can be set down somewhat more objectively. Scoring titles and most other titles carry a lot of weight. And they are measured per game. Why don't we just go by total number of points? Someone like Embiid may be the best for 65 games. But a season is 82 games. And the 15-20 games a player doesn't play means the team is missing 30-40% of available cap space against their opponent. Those games missed actively hurt the team. And, as the old saying goes, the best ability is availability. Sure, Player A may be the better offensive player. But Player B had the better season because they sustained it at 80 games vs 65. And a scoring title is a measure of what you accomplished that season, not a commentary on who is the better player.

Hell, averages instead of numbers could potentially lead to a player to sit out their final game to preserve an average, the complete opposite of being competitive. I can't think of any scenarios where that has happened. But the possibility for it to even exist is crazy. And that won't happen with volume. And no, volume wouldn't lead to a player to fight through an injury they shouldn't any more than averages. Whether you're told you need 30 points to get a scoring title at 2,400 points vs a title at 29.2 PPG is the same thing. But again, no incentive to not play when you have volume.

There is the argument that we are so used to the per game averages. And I agree that would be a big obstacle. After all, what does 2,400 points mean in a season of 82 games? But there are plenty of stats in sports that are counted by numbers, not averages. Any NFL rushing, passing, or sack title is measured in volume. When presented, we have an idea of the benchmark of a 2,000 yard rushing season vs 1,800 yards. We understand the importance of a 4,000 passing season even without averages to break it down. Many baseball stats like home runs, RBIs, steals are volume. And while batting average is not, it's pretty similar to FG% in basketball. There will always be stats that are volume, and some that are efficiency. Hockey is measured all in numbers.

Hey, basketball itself is pretty used to volume numbers to measure greatness. The all-time leading scorer is measured in points, not points per game. LeBron is only #7 in career PPG. But his durability and overall ability to sustain excellence is what got the all-time scoring title. In much the same way a season scoring title would be gained by sustained excellence, not just in situations where you can skip night 2 of a back to back.

Anyways, there are plenty of flaws in my argument, I'm certain of that. But I think there is at least reason to give it some thought in this day and age.

I’m not an expert in team salaries and hard caps. Just a fan of Ant and kind of want the Wolves to do well.

Did the Wolves get rid of KAT because they can’t pay him, Ant and Govert’s salary? How come the Celtics have 4 players making over 30M a year but the Wolves can’t pay 3 main guys?

Could they have waited a couple of years? Could they have traded KAT for other pieces assuming some better players are available?

Nowadays, when it comes to a team like the Clippers, I always hear the argument: „teams like the Clippers have an easy way to attract players, because the players want to live in cities like LA.“

So if that’s an argument nowadays, wasn’t it an argument in the past? The Clippers were located in LA since the 80s and literally the first 25 years of their existence they were consistently bad. I remember as a kid them been seen as the worst team in the league and kind of a laughing stock.

So I guess LA already was an attractive/interesting city in the 1980s, 90 and 2000s, so if nowadays it is „easy for teams like the Clippers to attract players because of LA“, why wasn’t it like that in the past?

This season, up to this point we have seen a different Sengun on the defensive end( offensive too, efficiency problems ! ). Udoka started to appoint on the opponent's worst shooter and resulting in a more free ( out of PnR actions ) role for Sengun. Right now he is having career highs in blocks and steals per game and he is one of the top players in the league in some of the advanced defensive metrics. These metrics are not entirely reliable because some of them are affected by offensive output too and most are skewed by team defense. Still the eye test shows a much better Sengun too. Much better at contesting shot, fouling less, and switching when needed. Last game against Minnesota he went up to trap Edwards at the best possible time to force a TO and had blocks and took an offensive foul from Gobert at crucial moments. What are your opinions so far of his improvement ?

As someone who never saw CP3 at the peak of his powers, his nine All-Defensive selections (7x First Team, 2x Second Team) only seem more and more outlandish as time goes on. There've been plenty of elite defensive guards in NBA history (Alvin Robertson, Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, etc.), but they at least had outlier length for their position or a combination of strength and athleticism that makes how they could be exceptional defenders obvious. Paul, by contrast, is probably 6'0 barefoot, doesn't have a massively positive wingspan, and isn't so outstanding an athlete (although I do know that young CP3 had some pretty good bounce) that it makes his accolades easy to understand. He's typically had great steal numbers, but so have other small guards that no one would really consider positive defenders; Iverson, for example, was great at racking up steals and still targeted relentlessly due to the overall negatives that came with his lack of size. What made Paul different? Was he crazy dense and hard to back down? Did he have a legendary motor? Ridiculous lateral speed? You nowadays hardly see players so small succeed to his level on defense, so I'm just curious what the deal is.

In the last couple of years, the league had a huge amount of parity. It‘s not just that no team wins 2 in a row or 2 in 3 years or something like that, it’s also that different teams reach the finals every year. Those are the finals of the 2020’s decade:

• 2020: Heat vs Lakers
• 2021: Bucks vs Suns
• 2022: Celtics vs Warriors
• 2023: Heat vs Nuggets
• 2024: Celtics vs Mavs

So every year we have 2 new teams in the finals compared to the year before.

Meanwhile, in the 90s, the 2000s and the 2010s, we had eras where a lot of team won multiple championships in a row and/or teams who reached a lot of finals in a row (like the Heat and Cavs in the 2010s). In the 80s, we had the Lakers, Celtics and the Bad Boy Pistons.

So what do you think is better for the league, and makes the NBA more exciting? The dynasties eras of the past or the parity of today?

I am a football (soccer) fan from the UK but I have found myself watching a lot of early 2010s NBA film recently, started off with just LeBron highlights as he's very entertaining then it went on to KD, Russ, Kawhi, etc, then I was watching a lot of NBA games highlights and even full games, and I found the 2011, 2013 and 2016 finals very entertaining specifically. It's a very popular opinion for football fans to say that it was much better years ago and there were much more unique ballers, is it the same in the NBA? Would it be worth getting into now, or is it just a nostalgia thing?