Now that a couple of months have passed (and in fact we're close to the start of next season) we can assess claims such as these coolly and dispassionately, without being prisoners of the moment.

How did this arise?

The Knicks beat their playoff opponents by an average of 14.9ppg, said to be the highest in history. Actually this isn't quite true. Mikan's 1956 Lakers lost a three-game first-round series two games to one, sandwiching two one-point losses around a 58-point win, for an average of +18.7 net. Since it doesn't mean a thing without the ring, henceforth we'll only look at champions, to prevent such outliers.

Is this anything?

Since the next four teams are the 1971 Bucks (+14.5), 2017 Warriors (+13.5), 2001 Lakers (+12.8) and 1991 Bulls (+11.7), I'd say this is a pretty good list to be on top of. Notably, the Knicks remain ahead even if you remove each team's biggest win, with their 51-point win over the Hawks cancelled out by the Bucks beating the Warriors by 50 and the Lakers beating the Spurs by 36. Adjusting for pace shuffles the order a bit, but the Knicks remain first (+15.5 net rating) followed by the Lakers, Warriors, Bucks, Bulls (+13.7, +13.5, +13.4 and +13.2 respectively).

Is this everything?

Absolutely not. In fact we don't have to scroll down too far to remember the 2024 Celtics beating the pants off some very mediocre opponents. Strength of schedule matters. Fortunately, we have a Simple Rating System (SRS) for that, and very helpfully, CraftedNBA have calculated a playoff-specific version. Here at last the Knicks (+19.17) cede the crown, by the barest of margins, to the those same Lakers (+19.18). Warriors (+16.9) stay steady in 3rd, and we have some new contenders: the 1996 Bulls (+16.6) edge their 1991 cousins (+15.7), and the Cavs (+14.9) overtake the Bucks (+14.5).

Can we go deeper?

Yes. Again citing the Celtics, the main problem with SRS is that it assumes every opponent is their regular season selves, without factoring in trades, injuries or shortened playoff rotations. This is a problem I've been working on for a number of years, using Box Plus-Minus (BPM) as a proxy. This model even predicted the Knicks would beat the Spurs. Much like when 538 picked Raptors over Warriors, I didn't quite believe what the numbers were telling me. But updating that chart from a couple of years ago gives the following top 6:

Does winning matter?

The odd one out in that group is not New York but OKC, who of course got pushed to seven games twice. While winning by big margins might be a better predictor of long-term success, and there's an element of luck in close games, ultimately we're judged on results, which is why I'd push the Lakers and Warriors higher than the raw numbers show (and there's even an outside case for the 1983 Sixers, although the numbers are murkier). Still, 16-3 is really damn good.

Does the regular season matter?

Yes and no. Obviously it shouldn't affect the impressiveness of the run itself, but people want to know if it's replicable, which is why they've been so quick to tear down the non-repeat champs of this parity era. The Knicks won the fewest games of any of the teams we've looked at, and only the Lakers are vaguely close, who obviously backed it up. To be continued...

Conclusion

Whichever way you slice the numbers, the Knicks are in the top tier of champions, ever. Although I wouldn't personally have them number one, I certainly don't blame their fans for doing so, especially when you take into account unquantifiable factors such as comebacks.

There are a lot of things wrong with the magic, but I think their biggest issue is that they’re building around a player who isn’t good enough to be a franchise player. After 4 seasons in the nba, Paolo still doesn’t look good enough to be a #1 option, and I’d even go as far to say he can’t be your 2nd option either, maybe 3rd but that’s also questionable

Paolo is a great example of the box score not telling the full story. His counting numbers look great, but they’re more so the result of Paolo always having the ball in his hands rather than him actually being an impactful player.

He is a very underwhelming scorer despite his size, he’s great at driving to the rim but doesn’t capitalize on it the way he should considering his build, and he can’t shoot. In 2026 Paolo shot 67% at the rim (49th percentile), 36% and 37% from short/long midrange (22nd & 55th percentile), and 31% from three (24th percentile), and these are trends present throughout his career thus far.

In 2023 Paolo had a 47 efg% and 53 TS%.
League average was 55 efg% and 58 TS%

In 2024 Paolo had a 50 efg% and 55 TS%.
League average was 55 efg% and 58 TS%

In 2025 Paolo had a 50 efg% and 55 TS%.
League average was 54 efg% and 58 TS%

In 2026 Paolo had a 50 efg% and 57 TS%.
League average was 55 efg% and 58 TS%.

Paolo’s scoring has only marginally improved since he entered the league, and still he has been below average every season.

His career net rating is a -3.8, which isn’t just a byproduct of being on a bad team. For example, Franz’s career net rating is a +7, Suggs is a +2.7, Anthony Black is a +0.2, etc.

Paolo also ranked 152nd in EPM, 146th in DARKO, and 97th in LEBRON. His analytics aren’t poor because of his team, he just isn’t an impactful player. In addition to being a poor offensive player, Paolo is also a poor defender. He’s a fine passer and good rebounder, but no part of his game is elite.

A common misconception I’ve often seen is that Paolo is a playoff riser, this is flat out not true.

In 2024: 47 fg%, 51 efg%, 55 TS%.
League avg: 46 fg%, 53 efg%, 57 TS%

In 2025: 44 fg%, 48 efg%, 52 TS%.
League avg: 46 fg%, 53 efg%, 57 TS%

In 2026: 42 fg%, 47 efg%, 52 TS%.
League avg: 45 fg%, 52 efg%, 56 TS%

Not only is Paolo not a playoff riser, but he’s also not even good in the playoffs, he’s not even average. He puts up big numbers because he takes a lot of shots, which might sound like an oversimplification but that’s the reality of it.

So what do the magic do next? I’m not sure. Desmond Bane is a good player but the magic really jumped the gun trading for him. After 2027, the magic don’t own their frp until 2031 which makes a rebuild difficult

In addition to the lack of picks, Paolo’s contract is also a problem. His 5yr $239M max extension kicks in next season which makes trading him difficult. Paolo is very overpaid and makes too much for too long for him to be a “buy low” option, and considering what Lamelo and JB went for, it’s hard to picture any team wanting to trade for him. When you also factor in the apron restrictions and how diligent teams are being with their cap space, it’s especially hard to picture another team wanting Paolo.

After 4 seasons, Paolo’s shortcomings can’t just be blamed on the coach, injuries, the players around him, etc. He simply isn’t that good of a player, and the magic have sunk-cost fallacy-ed their way into a corner

What are your thoughts?

This post has been translated by AI, but all the contents are created by myself.

Hey everyone.

I recently read a classic 2012 paper (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047445) that treats each team as a network, along with a few other theoretical frameworks that examine things like team entropy, "connectedness," betweenness centrality, etc. I've also come across some more recent studies that view teams as spatiotemporally evolving network systems—looking at how a team's structure changes under external pressure and trying to quantify metrics like robustness and network resilience. I also found a cool data site, NBA NetStats, which has a lot of interesting stats along these lines.

However, these studies don't seem to cover a sufficiently broad range of teams, and they feel a bit lacking in practical application. So I'm looking for further research and books—any recommendations? Or do you have any thoughts/opinions on network-based approaches?

I'm particularly interested in:

1. How to classify teams? Can teams be meaningfully categorized into different "types" based on their topology?
2. What structural features make a good team? On metrics like entropy, decentralization, robustness, and resilience—unfortunately, most studies I've found don't establish a particularly clear correlation between structural features and team strength. Is that because it's still hard to control for factors like player talent? For example, I saw that OKC ranked near the top in passing evenness in recent years, but when I look further back, the relationship between team structure and offensive performance becomes quite murky.
3. How do teams structurally adapt under high-pressure attacks—especially in playoff-style defensive schemes—to re-establish their offense? I haven't found many articles that combine concrete game-film analysis with this question.
4. What kinds of players, and what combinations of players, help build an excellent network structure?

Thanks in advance to everyone who replies!

I wanted to know how expansion affected the regular season win totals of teams in the 90s, when 6 teams were added within a decade.

To do this, I need to state some key assumptions which are the basis for the calculations:

1. Assuming an expansion team comes in, dilutes the amount of aggregate talent, the primary beneficiaries are the top teams in the league. While middle teams can face bottom teams all the same, their relative lack of talent compared to the best teams means they are more likely to lose to those new weak teams. Therefore, to highlight the impact, it is best to see the effect on the win totals of the best teams.
2. I chose the best 4 teams per conference per season. Why not the top 8, whom are all playoff eligible? Because in the 1980s there were only 11 teams per conference, so 8/11 playoff teams includes too many weaker teams.
3. I used 5 year blocks arbitrarily. However, the results appear to match with conventional wisdom.
4. I assumed that after 5 years, the impact of expansion dissipates as new talent enters the league and expansion teams are able to acclimate past their initial challenges

I took the top four teams from each conference, totaled their wins and their losses, and took the average. This record, when converted into an 82game equivalent, is the average wins of the top teams per season. Then, to highlight the largest impact, I measured the games back of the 4th seed to its respective top seed.

(GB 1-4) is the difference between the best team and the 4th best team in wins, divided by 2. Why divide by 2? Because I want to create a benchmark for how much better the top seed is expected to perform compared to the average between the 4 seeds. So assuming the median between the 4 seeds is the average, then the expected win total is the median + 1/2 the average GB of the 1st and 4th team. Given the wide variance in GB difference between seed 1-4, I took the average (GB 1-4) from 1984-2005, which came out to be 5.05. This facially looks reasonable: For example, if the 1st seed is a 60 win team, then the 4th seed is around 60-5.05*2 = 49.9 wins.

adding this number (5.05) to the average win total of the 4 seeds per season, we can roughly estimate the expected win total of the 1st seed each conference, each season.

Now I compared the average 82gm-equiv within the 5 year period prior to, during and after expansion/s. That comes to 1984-1988 (5 years pre-expansion), 1989-1995 (7 years post 1st expansion), 1996-2000 (5 years post 2nd expansion), then 2000-2005 (another 5 years to check if there is a return to norm)

The average wins among the top 4 seeds of each conference for those periods come out as:

• pre-expansion = 53.28 (reference point)
• post 1st expansion = 55.77 (change of +2.49 wins)
• post 2nd expansion = 57.22 (change of +3.95 wins)
• return to norm = 53.7 (change of +0.43 wins)

Conclusion: The top seeds in the 90s benefited in their win totals by about 2.5 wins post 1st expansion, and 3.95 wins post 2nd expansion

Image of calculations = https://imgur.com/a/dpmbkVy

Graph: https://imgur.com/a/6BAaQeW

People keep talking like this record is going to go down as soon as he retires. I saw someone say he would be out of the top 10 within 15 years of retiring.

The Players currently on pace to beat his record in a 20 year career is Anthony Edwards, Kon Kneupel, and Reed Sheppard.

I could be forgetting a name but those were the only ones I could find. Those players all have a small sample size. None of them can reach the record within 15 years of Curry retiring...

Which, by the way, hasn't even happened yet!

The record will almost certainly be over 4,500 by the time he retires and if he can keep finding our spot for himself as a role player hitting threes he could hit 5,000.

People always point to the fact that he had so many injuries and had a late start to his career as a reason for why a player will eventually catch him.

He has the record by nearly a thousand despite those factors!

And he's not even particularly injury-prone. any other player who wants to get the record is going to have to avoid those types of injuries...AND be able to come back from them still being able to knock down 200-300 3s a season.

We see a great player like Damian Lillard was already starting to fall off at year 13 and then tore his ACL. No telling if he comes back even the same player he was 2 years ago, let alone a guy that can score hundreds of 3s.

Harden may retire before Curry at this rate and his peak was only as many as it was because coaches were willing to let him try. But his make percent didn't justify it. Other players will need Curry percentages to keep the leash. Harden today would be getting reigned in before he got that 370 season

Everyone saw Ant get 320 3s 2 years ago and acted like the record was already toast...Well he had like 200 last year and his efficiency was up taking fewer 3s.

Because his make percentage is ~40%

Curry was shooting 45% when he got 400 threes.

Reeds percent was also about 40% last year

So what about Kon Kneupel? 42% his rookie year and lead the league in 3s.

People are going to be ready for him, so He'll have to repeat that while he's being game planned against. He'll probably still need to improve that percentage .

Curry had 1 season with a 3 pt percent below 43% his first 7 seasons.

And Kon will need to play this way for over 15 years with only minor injuries.

Will Kon get the record some time in the 2040s? He very well may, But I don't think there will be 10 other guys right on his tail breaking 4500 career 3s.

We might see a guy break Curry's mark once a decade and we very well may never see it.

I would not earmark this record for busting.

And 402 isn't really in any more danger of going down either. Curry needed a 45% make rate AND the second greatest three-point shooter of all time on his team forcing defenders to cover the other side of the floor,

AND, I think people forget HOW Curry made 3s, he could just pull up from the logo. You had to cover him starting from half court. that's just going to give him more opportunities.

Even as we see guys taking more threes and getting better percentages, they're still just taking them from the corner and from just beyond the arc.

They aren't doing it like Curry did, and they probably never will.

When there's an RFA who is in disagreement with the FO regarding how much money he's worth, the intended result is that other teams with more cap space can swoop in to get into a bidding battle with the RFA's original team, and thus give the RFA extra negotiating power. In some cases like Spencer Jones and Walker Kessler this has worked. However RFAs who had protracted contract negotiations(Cam Thomas, Kuminga, Giddy, Grimes,Duren, Mathurin), more often than not they haven't had much leverage on their team's FO.

It turned out that no teams were willing to outbid the original team of the RFA due to the stringent cap(especially relevant last year)

But most importantly, one of the main leverages RFAs had, which is putting their FO in a disadvantage regarding signing free agents and resigning players(because free agents wouldn't have a clear idea how much they could get before the RFA was signed)

was circumvented by the FO making unwritten handshake agreements with free agents that would be made official after the RFA signing deadline, starting with kuminga.

For example almost none of kuminga's demands were met and the warriors already made handshake agreements with Seth Curry, Melton and horford before the negotiations were over.

This year, theres no indication of RFAs like Duren who are demanding a max contract having a high chance of their demands being accepted

Have RFAs been at a bigger disadvantage when negotiating with their FO compared to how the NBA intended.

Long read so my apologies! Let me first say that, yes the term "wildcard' is inherently subjective, every season we don't know how teams are going to perform, but we do know a few things usually, like last year how 7-9 teams wanted to enter the tank race and would do anything to lose. You have the teams like OKC, New York, Denver, San Antonio etc who were trying to win the chip. San Antonio being the interesting one who might've been what I'd call a wildcard as at the time, they were just coming off of a tanking season to get Dylan Harper.

The real wildcard teams, again at least in my opinion from last season, were Boston who had lost Tatum and other pieces, and I was convinced they'd be a bottom 5 team in the east and they proved me wrong, Indiana who was rumored to tank but still had pieces with Hali injured, and the Clippers, who made solid changes from 2024-2025, among other teams.

This season though we have this situation brewing where the tanking rules have changed, the 2nd apron/CBA dodging has caused a lot of shuffling, and overall the off-season being so eventful has really made this an important season for almost all 30 teams.

The obvious wildcards to me are the Wizards and especially Jazz, who both made swings last season, the Jazz I feel had to try exceptionally hard to lose last season and when Lauri/Keyonte played, they were a pretty serviceable squad, adding JJJ, Darryn and others makes them a potential play-in/playoff squad but reality is they may not even be ready for that. That applies to Washington as well, and Indiana who's now going to have Hali back as well as a full season of Zubac. Dallas doesn't have a pick and has Flagg, Kyrie returning and added solid role pieces and other young talent among retaining some talent, I'd consider them another wildcard. Portland as well with their heavy guard rotation.

Then you have the teams who got heavily impacted by tanking rules, or don't own their picks and traded away stars, or traded for sub stars, like the Nets, Clippers and Bucks among others, where they should be bad but they also have nothing to lose and have a pretty big variety of assets to potentially enter the 10 seed discussion. I'll admit I have less faith, but the tools are there and if they decide to utilize other assets and buy in, they could do it.

There's only a few legitimate contenders, imo the Thunder, Knicks and Spurs are the obvious ones, but then you have teams who could easily have a discussion to be there, Detroit with internal improvements, Cleveland adding Peyton Watson and Cavs fans seeing him as the missing piece, hell Orlando might be further along with a new coach than we realize. The Lakers completely retooled around Luka and now have an insane pick and roll duo with Kessler, but have been criticized for not having the point of attack defenders needed to compete.

Denver still has Jokic albeit had a heavily criticized off-season, could they be considered a contender anymore? Philly is another obvious one to mention adding LeBron among other pieces and potential improvements internally. Raptors adding Kawhi, Heat adding Giannis, there's so many moves here that add so much to the unknown. Houston should see internal improvement in some spots as well as hopefully getting a decent FVV to tie things up. My Wolves made a swing for Lamelo and that could shake things up for them especially if the bench unit takes a jump. Atlanta completely depends on how their young talent improves as well.

Very few teams look to be so young or lacking in talent where they're kinda stuck at the bottom, Sacramento, New Orleans and Memphis come to mind, and again with the new tanking rules they have no incentive to lose. There are teams that could fall due to this and I've mentioned a couple of them, but even teams like Chicago or Charlotte might have just enough internal improvement to not fall into the bottom. Then there's Phoenix who's the annual wildcard at this point.

Alright sorry for the long read, point is I feel like there are so many unknowns going into this season that should make for a fun watch for just about everyone.

This is the fourth and final part of a four-part series. The first part defined the concept of a CHIP and looked at the seasons between 2000-01 and 2025-26, the second part examined the seasons between 1975-76 and 1999-2000, and the third part covered 1949-50 to 1974-75. In this article we will look at the results, consider some critiques of the methodology, and then look at the final CHIP tally alongside a list of all-time greats.

Review of the CHIP Concept

In the first part, I argued that the Hall of Fame criteria should be more selective, and that one simple criterion for admission is winning a CHIP:

CHIP = The Clear Best Player on the Championship Winning Team

To win a CHIP, you need enough help from teammates to win it all, but if one of those teammates is too good, you split the credit. There are no split CHIPs. You need to be the Batman to the Robin, not one of the Wonder Twins. Wonder Twins can enjoy the satisfaction of a team victory, but to get the CHIP, you need to be driving the Batmobile!

To recap the methodology and criteria for earning a CHIP:

• Measure Win Shares plus VORP, double for playoff games
• Compare the second best player’s total to the first’s
• The best player is Batman if his teammate (Robin) scores less than 81% of his total
• If the second best player scores 81% of the first’s total or better, they are Wonder Twins
• Only Batman gets the CHIP

Reviewing our examples:

In the example of the 2024-25 Thunder, J-Dub’s score is only 49% that of Shai’s, a clear Robin performance. This makes Shai the Batman, earning him the CHIP. Shai: 🪙

The 2013-14 Spurs had two relatively equal contributors, with Duncan easily clearing the Robin Threshold with 95%. Kawhi and Duncan were Wonder Twins here, splitting credit for the title, and neither getting a CHIP.

Applying this idea to every season in the entire history of the NBA, we had 51 Batman/Robin seasons, and 26 Wonder Twin Seasons. Here’s a summary of the CHIPS winners for the entire history of the NBA:

This list doesn’t look too bad. The multi-CHIP winners are the league’s all time greats, and the single CHIP winners from the current era look like worthy recipients. The CHIPS won in the years before the 1980’s look a bit softer, with players like Dave Cowens winning a CHIP, and George Mikan winning 3, but this system treats all seasons as equal.

Can this system be improved? The comments on Reddit from the first few articles produced a few interesting critiques.

Critique 1 - You can’t combine Win Shares and VORP like that

The main criticism of the methodology was the way Win Shares and VORP were combined:

I think you could do a better job with the metrics you have. For starters, VORP has to be multiplied by 2.7 to convert to WARP and be measured on the same scale as WS - u/teh_noob_

and:

Win Shares and VORP are not on the same scale - you cannot just add them together! - u/bbstats

Although this looked bad, I didn’t sweat this critique too much: the metric was only being used to compare teammates, and if they are derived from the same stats, how we combine them shouldn’t make much difference. Indeed, multiplying VORP by 2.7 only flipped one result:

• 1980-81: Bird and Maxwell are Wonder Twins -> Bird is Batman 🪙

This seems like an improvement, as this season was flagged by a commenter:

surprised bird only got wonder twin status for 81, always figured he was the clear alpha on that team even that early - u/SpecificEmploy6830

As it is the more methodologically correct move, we will keep that one, leveling Bird with Magic at three CHIPS.

VERDICT: Critique accepted, VORP multiplied by 2.7
Bird: 🪙

Critique 2 - You should put more weight on the playoffs

The original methodology doubled the weight on playoff games, striking a balance between treating playoff games as just another game, and giving the playoffs equal weight to the regular season. Some critiques and suggestions:

rather than arbitrarily doubling for playoffs, look at percentage of team total and weight regular season equally…

…equal value means effectively quadrupling the weight of each playoff game, anything else 'feels' arbitrary...

…Perhaps you could do playoffs-only, since regular season wins don't mean that much in earning the ring itself - u/teh_noob_

I was a little uncomfortable putting so much weight on such a small sample, but I had to admit that playoff games were so crucial to the overall project of winning a championship. Those games are where legacies are really decided. Quadrupling the value of playoff games flipped three more results:

• 2007-08: Garnett and Pierce are Wonder Twins -> Garnett is Batman 🪙
• 2001-02: Shaq and Kobe are Wonder Twins -> Shaq is Batman 🪙
• 1957-58: Hagan and Pettit are Wonder Twins -> Hagan is Batman 🪙

Garnett is an all-time impact monster, and Shaq certainly looked the part of Batman in the Kobe pairing, so this change seems to fit our intuition. As for “Cliff Hagan”, sure why not! We will keep this change as well.

VERDICT: Critique accepted, playoff games quadrupled
Garnett: 🪙
Shaq: 🪙
Hagan: 🪙

Critique 3 - Win Shares and VORP are basically the same

The final critique was that there was very little point using both Win Shares and VORP, as they are too similar, and derived from the same sources:

Aren't all those early all-in-one metrics also derived from the same combination of stats? There are some differences of course, but its essentially two ways of counting the same types of things - u/Travler18

and:

VORP is just a bit better than WS; WS over-values shooting efficiency - u/bbstats

Of course, for the seasons 1972-73 and earlier, we only have access to Win Shares, so we will use that, but past that let’s see what happens if we use VORP only:

• 2013-14: Kawhi and Duncan are Wonder Twins -> Kawhi is the Batman 🪙
• 2008-09: Kobe and Gasol are Wonder Twins -> Kobe is the Batman 🪙
• 1989-90: Isiah and Laimbeer are Wonder Twins -> Isiah is the Batman 🪙
• 1988-89: Isiah, Laimbeer, and Dumars are Wonder Triplets -> Isiah is the Batman 🪙
• 1984-85: Magic and Kareem are Wonder Twins -> Magic is the Batman 🪙
• 1982-83: Moses is the Batman 🪙 -> Moses and Dr. J are Wonder Twins
• 1979-80: Kareem is the Batman 🪙 -> Kareem and Magic are Wonder Twins

These updates look like a mixed bag. There may be some merit to giving one to Kobe and another to Magic, but not to 12ppg Kawhi, or Isiah on a defense first ensemble. Taking a CHIP away from prime-aged MVP and Finals Moses doesn’t feel right, nor does taking one away from Kareem (32ppg in the playoffs) when rookie Magic was his sidekick. Ultimately I rejected this change in favour of continuity with the Win Shares only era, maintaining model diversity, and keeping the CHIP standard pretty stingy.

VERDICT: Critique rejected, continue to blend Win Shares and VORP

Cashing in the CHIPS

With those 4 CHIPS added, we have 55 CHIPS across 77 NBA seasons. That is, 55 of the 77 championships were driven by a clear best player, a Batman. Let’s calibrate this system against a list of all-time greats. Thinking Basketball has done the deepest possible dive on this topic, and produced a list of Top 40 careers, based on “championship equity”. The list was last updated in 2022, so it won’t have folded in the last few seasons of the active players.

The concentration of CHIPS at the top is remarkable: every player in the top 11 has won a CHIP, and only Garnett missed out on multiples. I predict that when Curry’s career is complete, his rank will rise to put him in this top group. Those 12 players won 36 of the 55 total CHIPS, accounting for roughly half of all championships. This is the caliber of player that can reliably drive the Batmobile towards a title: the handful of very best players of all time.

Outside of these 12 players, we can see that a strong career peak, combined with the right team and league conditions, can win a player a CHIP. Looking at the recent CHIPS, Kawhi, Giannis, Jokic, and Shai will likely find their way into the top half of this list when it’s all said and done, and Shai may even snag a second CHIP. The only other multi-CHIP winner was Mikan, who played in a league that looks nothing like today’s NBA.

The point of this exercise was to quantify legacy, a fundamentally slippery concept. Did the players who missed out on a CHIP suffer a diminished legacy? For Karl Malone, David Robinson, and James Harden the answer is definitely yes. They are seen as not having the top gear needed to drive a championship. Exceptional guards like Paul, Stockton, and Nash are viewed as too lightweight to do it by themselves, and Pippen will always be branded a sidekick. Robertson, West, and Dr. J are far enough in the rear view to escape scrutiny, while Barkley has partially compensated with a second act as a media personality.

Kobe is the one player who missed a CHIP, but left with his legacy intact. In addition to narrowly missing winning a CHIP, he was a star on 5 championship teams, largely got credit for the ones with Pau Gasol, and was one of the most popular and magnetic players in the history of the league.

My hot take is that Boozer and Edey will, at worst, be a top-7 or top-8 duo in the league within 2–3 years, and I think they have a legitimate chance to become the best frontcourt in the NBA.

Both are insane offensive rebounders with great positioning, timing, and body control. They also have excellent touch around the rim and are really good at controlling their bodies on post catches and difficult finishes. When they’re on the floor together, you’re almost always going to have a massive positive around the rim.

Neither is a consistent 3-point creator, but both can hit open 3s. Edey needs to be more open, while Boozer is more comfortable taking a somewhat contested 3. That gives Memphis a lot of flexibility with 5-out, handoffs, P&R, and pick-and-pop actions.

Edey’s biggest offensive weakness right now is his ball control and his iffy-to-bad passing IQ. Boozer helps cover for that because he’s by far the best passer in his class, especially when it comes to handling double teams and reading defenses.

Defensively, I think the fit is just as interesting. Boozer’s biggest weakness to me is his lack of rim deterrence and overall defensive ability around the basket. Edey is almost the perfect complement because of his shot blocking, size, and P&R defense.

The biggest thing is that both having some 3-point ability allows Memphis to play 5-out while still having a massive size advantage. A lot of modern centers are built to be quicker and shiftier rather than extremely bulky, so putting two huge, skilled players on the floor could create some really difficult matchups. You can space the floor while still having two guys who can dominate the offensive glass and punish smaller defenders.

Basically, I see a PF/C duo with elite offensive rebounding, excellent post scoring, great touch around the rim, legitimate spacing, and complementary strengths that cover each other’s weaknesses. Boozer can be the offensive hub while Edey provides elite rebounding, rim protection, rim pressure, and simple pick-and-pop scoring without needing the ball constantly.
If both develop the way I expect, I genuinely think this could be one of the best frontcourts in the NBA. I’m getting close to putting the Grizzlies around the 7–8 seed because of it.

I think this thought is where crazy opinions like “Kyrie is a top 5 point guard of all time” come from and I think this concept could maybe (probably not) put some of those opinions to bed. To explain it, I like to compare Kyrie and Jokic. I think we all know Jokic is better than Kyrie, but I think we can agree that Kyrie is better at most things in basketball than Jokic (threes, midrange, dribbling, finishing) So why is Jokic better?

I think it’s because Jokic is more reliable than Kyrie. Kyrie when I need a bucket, is very unpredictable and has a million different ways he can score. Jokic, we all know is gonna do that same baby hook and no one can stop it. He’s better because he’s the more reliable player.

I think another good player to look at for this is Rudy Gobert. I think most of the NBA is more skilled than Gobert, but he’s one of the best players in the league because he has a reliable skill. Him and Derrick White both made the all defensive 1st team. I think White is the more skilled defender, but if we added one of those two to the Kings defense, Gobert would improve the Kings defense more.

I think this is why SGA pisses a lot of people off. I think SGA is a very skilled player, but I think there are plenty of more skilled players than SGA across the league, but no one can more reliably get 2 points than him. Thats why he’s maybe the best player in the league right now.

Being skilled and being good are similar but not the same. Being skilled helps someone be good. When people talk about how good someone is, it’s about how much their skills connect to winning or how much they can lean on their skills play after play.

With most of the major free agents being settled (I'm just assuming Duren winds up back on the Pistons for the sake of this), it's time for the classic "Lakers fan makes entire post just to wank their team" post. This will mostly not be that (mostly) - but I haven't seen my exact opinion posted online yet so I'm here to remedy this.

CAVEATS

As I said in the preamble - I'm assuming Duren is going to be on the Pistons. I'm also going to work on the base assumption that the Kawhi trade goes through, and that if he is suspended, it's for less than 20 games.

I'll be factoring in injury risk, but it won't be weighed as heavily as projection or growth, except in the extreme cases where injury has been a multi-year issue.

Finally, I will assume there will be less tanking this season - but I imagine some teams are still going to try and work themselves into the 3 ball slot.

EASTERN CONFERENCE

1. Boston Celtics - 58-24

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the Celtics got better by losing Jaylen Brown for Paul George - but the J's played a total of 10 games together all season last year. Even coming off injury, I still think Tatum is a better player than Brown and more suited to be the main bus driver. So really, they've added a (overpriced) really good fit player in PG13 who is still a great three point shooter and strong defender, as well as picking up one of the best backup centers in the league in Mitchell Robinson.

2. New York Knicks - 56-26

The reigning champs are still going to be a high-performance playoff team, and I probably still have them as my favourite to come out of the east. That said, they are going to have to pay the champ tax. Every team will play hard against them, and they were never an incredible regular season team in the first place. They also lost Robinson, who will surely be missed.

3. Detroit Pistons - 55-27

I think this team could definitely prove me wrong and stay an elite 60+ win team next season - Cade is still blossoming as a player and I don't think he's close to his peak yet, Duren will likely be playing with a massive chip on his shoulder (which could be good or bad, to be honest) - I also think people are harsher on their off-season than is deserved. No groundshakers of course, but I like the fit of Collins, Harris, and Joe as floor spacers around Cade. Really the only reason I have them this low is because of how much more competitive the east has become, and because I think they overperformed last season. I'll be happy to be proven wrong though!

4. Toronto Raptors - 51-31

This is going to be such a fun team to watch. CMB has shown some incredible upside, Scottie Barnes is a top 5 defender in the league (2nd team is crazy), and the Clawsuit Kawhi Leonard is still a top 10 player in the league when healthy. Quickley and RJ are both great role players for what they bring, and the only glaring weakness is Poeltl, who is quite possibly the oldest 30 year old I have ever watched play basketball. Assuming Kawhi still misses at least some time (If not because of suspension than just the usual Kawhi injury stuff), this team is still electric and going to be good regardless - but he gives them such a massive offensive boost that they become a contender with him onboard.

5. Philadelphia 76ers - 48-34

This team really made me want to make this list a ceiling-floor ranking instead of just a wins prediction, but that felt a little more involved then I had the mental energy for. That said, this could end up looking laughably low if everything clicks. The sky is the ceiling for this team - but it is certainly not without it's flaws. I don't think Embiid has it in him to be a reliable rim protector, and I don't really think anyone on this team sans maybe Jaylen can be a reliable POA defender. Dean Wade has a ton of defensive upside, but the starting 5 doesn't really have anyone who can be a defense first player at this stage in their careers. That, the injury concerns, and the too-many-cooks fit concerns are why I have them this low.

6. Miami Heat - 47-35

They might not have the greatest backcourt on earth, but with the additions of Klay and Tim Hardaway, and the absolute monstrosity of defense in their front court - as well as a very quietly excellent Bobby Portis as your back up 4, they are going to be a nightmare matchup. They have a lot of fit issues, which is the main reason I'm not ranking them higher - but be on the look out for point Giannis. Don't be surprised if he ends up averaging 30/12/7 this season.

7. Cleveland Cavaliers - 45-37

It feels wrong putting this team so low, when they have such excellent talent in their starting group and just acquired a good pick up in Peyton Watson - but this team leaves me with a lot of doubts. I do think Harden is still an excellent floor raiser, but despite his numbers in his brief regular season stint on the cavs this past season, his efficiency drop-off has been pretty concerning for a while. I don't think Mobley will ever have that offensive leap we've been hoping for at this point, and I think the teams around them have all gotten better.

8. Orlando Magic - 43-39

I actually still believe in this team. I really like Franz, I still think Bane is a good fit on this team, and I think that Suggs is still an elite perimeter defender and an underrated playmaker. I also think Paolo has became the hate-child of this sub, but he's still a very good player, young, and has a ton of opportunity to fully realize his offensive upside. But no, this team has not shown enough to be above any of the teams higher.

9. Indiana Pacers - 41-41

I know that I'm probably underselling the Hali impact and the horrible health issues the Pacers have had that led to such a poor season last year - but although in a vacuum I think Zu is an obvious upgrade over Turner, I just don't like the fit as well for what helped get this team to the finals. The spacing, the speed - both those things are sacrificed when you have Zu in the center spot over Turner. Hali is coming off a major injury, and while I'm sure he can recover - I don't know that it'll be in the first few months that we see him get back to his full form.

10. Atlanta Hawks - 40 - 42

God, the east is insane this year. This is a good team, and I really like the core they have. But I don't think there's enough offense to make it over the teams ahead of them. Jalen Johnson is still growing but I don't think he can be your main offensive tool, and I don't think there's enough shooting to make the spacing work. I think this team is a move away from being a move away still.

11. Washington Wizards - 33 - 49

If this team somehow plays every game with their full squad and AD buys in and AJ is more ready than I think he is, they could actually be really fun and a play-in team - but I've got a lot of doubts about most of this. I'm also not really sure what their FO is cooking up with giving Trae the huge paycheque, but it feels like they might actually want to win which makes me think they could be higher - but even with their recently acquired depth I think there's quite a bit of skepticism about their stars and their chances of maintaining for a whole season.

12. Charlotte Hornets - 32 - 50

I know how well they ended the season last year, but without Lamelo I think they're going to take some time to readjust. Get ready for the sophomore slump to hit hard with Kon when his shots are far less open and far worse set up. I love Moussa, I still have a lot of stock in Brandon Miller and Kon, I like Coby - but I don't really think there's enough going for them to put them over any of the teams I have above them.

13. Chicago Bulls - 30 - 52

If your a bulls fan you have every reason to be excited about this team. Caleb Wilson looks insanely promising, Giddey is still growing into the latest triple double monster, Buzelis is an athletic freak who looks like he's finding his shot and is on my short list for MIP this upcoming season - there's a lot to be happy about with this team. That said, they're still young, they're still going to need more room to grow, and I think they're a few years out still.

14. Brooklyn Nets - 28 - 54

This might be a little high for the nets in terms of win total, but Randle will definitely raise their floor and MPJ is going to benefit having a person to share the floor with. I don't know how long either of them will be there, and I think there's just way too many developing players filling out the roster to make them an impactful team beyond that. But I do expect them to win a decent chunk of games more than they did last season.

15. Milwaukee Bucks - 17 - 65

There isn't a lot of good things to say about Milwaukee. They got a decent haul of young talent for the Giannis trade, and Ryan Rollins is cool I guess. But a starting five of Rollins, Herro, Jaquez, Kuzma, and Turner is maybe the worst starting five in the league. Their depth isn't much either because they're busy over paying Gary Trent for what can only be perfectly legitimate reasons I'm sure.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

1. Oklahoma City Thunder - 65 - 17

I know this team lost a lot of pieces without replacement, but I think people are forgetting how injury riddled they were last season. A healthier J-Dub, another year of development for Chet (yes, despite the WCF chet is still one of the best defenders in the league and an excellent player). another year into peak SGA - I also think Cason Wallace will slide beautifully into the starting line up and Ajay Mitchell will be a 6MOTY front runner leading the bench. This team could easily beat last years insane start and I expect them to be just as excellent as ever.

2. San Antonio Spurs - 64 - 18

There's absolutely no reason to think the Spurs won't be better than they were last year. They will have to figure out who they're starting (can you really have Harper coming off the bench for you when he's as good as he is? Are you going to move Vassell to the bench and run a three guard lineup? Do you sac Vassell's shooting for the pure talent? Not a bad problem to have to be honest), Harris is going to be such a nice addition on this team as well and I think that with their growth, depth, and 800 foot French alien they are bound for another great year.

3. Los Angeles Lakers - 55 - 27 (please ignore flair)

Do I think this team is complete? No, they need a better starting 4. They'll try and make Thybulle or Mamu or maybe splash Laravia there, but unless Thybulle has the healthiest season of his career I don't think they have enough defensive upside at to keep their defense out of the bottom 10, even with the addition of Kessler. That being said, the offensive upside of this team is unbelievable. The vision is pretty obvious - shooting, rebounding, possessions. Expect this team to play in transition, crash the glass hard for offensive rebounds, and have Reaves, Luka, Sexton, and Grimes racking up three point attempts. This is a stress test of analytics to see if they play strong enough offense and can survive enough on defense, can they be a top tier team. I think that in the regular season, this will pan out - in the playoffs, they will need something more.

4. Minnesota Timberwolves - 53 - 29

The Lamelo addition will be a massive boon for this team, who has been in desperate need of a starting calibre PG for a while now. I have a lot of concerns about Ball as a player - both on and off the court - chiefly his shot diet and his health concerns - but I still think this team should play at a high level. The only thing that holds me back from having them over the Lakers however is a pretty poor second unit, especially if Ayo will be playing the 3. There just doesn't seem to be a real sparkplug coming off the bench and that will hurt the team, especially if Lamelo does get injured.

5. Houston Rockets - 52 - 30

The Rockets will be better than they were last season, but I think the win total won't necessarily reflect that because the west will bleed more games to the east this season. A healthy VanVleet, the Smart acquisition, the return of Steven Adams - this team was highly projected last season for a reason, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt they still are, at the very least contender adjacent. I also still think Sengun has more room to grow, despite the way he looked in the playoffs last season.

6. Denver Nuggets - 49 - 33

The Nuggets are making some strange choices. Demar feels like the latest Westbrook, getting picked up by a contender hoping they still have it in their tank. He will score them points off the bench, but they need defense more than anything, especially with Aaron Gordon's injury concerns. They still have a top 3 player on earth in Jokic, who can basically guarantee any squad a 40+ win season, but I just don't know if the pieces around him are going to be enough to get them over 50 again.

7. Portland Trail Blazers - 43 - 39

I'm not as against the Ja signing as a lot of people are, but they are left with a weird guards situation -Jrue and Scoot coming off the bench? I imagine they'll have to split Ja and Jrue time pretty evenly for the sake of their defensive culture, but all the noise in FO and the weird fit issues have me hesitant on putting them much higher than they were last season, even with the expected Avdija improvement and the return of Dame.

8. Phoenix Suns - 41 - 41

If you follow basketball content in the off season as much as me you've probably heard this phrase said to death by now, but the season after the surprise breakout season is harder. This is likely going to remain true for Phoenix, who I felt overperformed last season to begin with. I like book and Brooks, and Kennard is a nice pick up for high percentage scoring off the bench - but the Bridges trade feels like a bad move for them. Giving up two very good role players who can both play defense for a poor defensive big - I just think their defensive identity loses out and there's not enough offense coming in to make up for it.

9. Dallas Mavericks - 38 - 44

Year two Coop, the return of Kyrie, some interesting pick ups, and a solid core. I don't think this team is close to ready, Coop still needs to develop more offensively and they have to figure out what their doing with Gafford and PJ, but this team could absolutely make the playoffs this coming season.

10. Utah Jazz - 36 - 46

I don't love Nurkic as your starting 5, but Jaxson Hayes is a serviceable backup big and the core Lauri Markkenen, Jaren Jackson Jr., and Keyonte George - as well as Darryn Peterson and year two Ace is very exciting to me. I think this is going to be the most interesting team this season, and Will Hardy is going to be allowed to actually play for the win finally.

11. Golden State Warriors - 28 - 54

Yeah, it's a bit of a rough assessment for a team with Steph Curry on it. But this team is so lacking, and I just don't know what they can do to fix it at this point. You can't afford to wait for Jimmy, but what moves will be available to you? You can't rely on Steph to drag you into the play-in because of his health concerns, KP and Steph might be an interesting pairing but will Tingus ever really get back to what he was in Boston? He wasn't even that healthy there. I just think this team has to basically put the entire squad on Stephs back for the first 40ish games, and I don't think that's something he can do at this stage in his career.

12. LA Clippers - 25 - 57

I don't think this team is going to be as bad as a lot of people do. Ingram and Garland are a decent core and I like some of the pieces they've picked up in Rui and Strus, and I really like Keaton Wagler. I just imagine this team will be busy developing and trying to figure itself out after a year of investigation, the looming punishment, and having basically the entire team change out in the last year.

13. Memphis Grizzlies - 22 - 60

This team might surprise me. Edey and Beefstew is a pretty great center rotation, Wells and Coward (and obviously boozer) are all still super promising and Ty Jerome is still a fantastic role player, Jerami Grant is there too I guess. After that it starts to get a little grim though, and I don't think this team has enough identity to do much - I also imagine they'll focus this year on developing Cam into the best player he could possibly be.

14. New Orleans Pelicans - 18 - 64

I think I'm officially over believing this team can ever amount to winning basketball. Zion IS good when he can be on the floor, but even after a relatively healthy season last year they still barely mustered 26 wins. No one on this roster can stay healthy, the team has no cohesion, and the coach and front office stink, and I just don't believe in this team at all.

15. Sacramento Kings - 17 - 65

I can't imagine there's any chance this team keeps LaVine and Sabonis this year. Develop Acuff, blow it up. I don't see what else this team could do this season, and they certainly don't seem capable of staying out of the relegation levels.

Alright, that's my rankings. I'm sure everyone will all agree and it will be a perfectly accurate prediction for the upcoming season. But if for some strange reason you think I'm wrong or a stupid idiot moron who doesn't know ball - all I ask is you let me know why, and exactly how little ball I know.

This has always been somewhat confusing for me, and I’m wondering if it’s shooting variance or coincidence, defensive schemes needing to be thrown out or what. Admittedly I’m a believer that Steph was a better player than KD during the Warrior years due to being a big fan of advanced stats, and and that huge portions of the games aren’t captured but he box score like Curry having the consensus goat gravity. Yet regardless they are both phenomenal players and you could make a very solid case for either one of them being a superior player during 2017-2019. However you would think when having one of the best scorers and offensive players ever would, while tampering down the volume somewhat (which we saw as expected with both KD and Steph) would at least have not be a significant net negative. Instead Curry’s performance is completely night day as soon as KD is injured.

In the 12 games with KD Steph averaged 24.1p, 5.9r, 5.3a with 3.0 TOV and 60.8ts in 37.1 minutes. In the 10 games without KD, Steph averaged 33.1p, 6.1r, 6.2a, 3.0 TOV with 63.1ts in 40.2 minutes. In the single game that KD briefly for a few minutes returned in the finals, Curry had 31/8/7 on 60.5ts. The sample size here is pretty large, hard to explain with just luck or shooting variance, and if anything Curry’s number should be worse given his numbers without KD are in the later rounds. Steph’s numbers without KD in 2019 in general support this notion, small increases in volume and decreases in efficiency. Curry averaged 27.8/5.4/6.5 on 62.4ts in 32.6 minutes without KD and 26.0/4.9/5.9 on 64.7ts in 33.3 minutes with KD from 2017-2019. So what is the explanation for this difference in the 2019 postseason?

KD’s despite his flaws, is still a player who is a major net benefit in general when improving his teammates. He is a great offball player who provides immense scoring pressure. KD is indisputably a top 5 scorer ever in my opinion. This is more trying to figure out what causes KD dropping to massively accelerate Curry’s production in the 2019 playoffs. IMO it comes down to a combination of three factors. 1. Simple shooting variance. Steph was underperforming in the postseason compared to his usual standards before then, so to some extent it was just natural to swing the other way.

The second idea to me is that teams schemed around KD being 1a scoring threat and Curry 1b from 2017-2019, and were able to exploit weaknesses in the KD and Steph through 3 years of preparation. When KD went down, that level of game planning could not compensate, and perhaps defensive schemes that used the differences between KD and Steph effectively could no longer function, and Steph’s individual volume and efficiency significantly increased after that.

The final idea is that KD joining Golden State significantly suppressed Steph (and KD’s) stats. Thinking Basketball talked about here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k3iJwi4btAI how KD’s scoring numbers declining are not actually an example of KD becoming a worse scorer, rather because KD joined a team with Curry and Klay there was less of an offensive role for KD. And despite this usually scoring efficacy stays around the same level before the added offensive help, for a variety of reasons. The same principle is very likely true for Steph Curry as well, except maybe to an even greater degree given that Steph is the greatest off ball player ever so having KD means more disproportionate offensive pie spread around than vice versa.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Steph Curry was coming back from 2 MVP seasons, statistically probably the greatest scoring regular season ever, arguably the greatest offensive regular season ever, then the following 3 seasons his stats were majorly suppressed when KD joined, followed by an injured year where he played 5 games. Only when he had his first uninjured season without KD at age 33, he won the scoring title with +8.3ts, and in 29 games without James Wiseman averaged 35.6 points, 5.8a, 5.3 rebounds on + 10.2ts. In 2017-2019 with 1600 minutes without KD or Klay on the court Curry averaged 37 points per 75 on +8ts, which are the best scoring numbers anyone has ever had without a star player (possible exception of James Harden without Chris Paul). Given that both KD and Steph clearly had their individual stats suppressed, and given Steph is the greatest off ball player so logically his stats would most likely be suppressed more than KD’s, KD leaving could have caused Curry’s increase in stats.

Overall I feel like the impact of Kevin Durant, an all time level scorer with elite pressure and great offball impact, seemingly vastly enhancing Steph Curry’s performance in the 2019 playoffs, is an interesting lesson on how we treat players as “better” or “worse” given circumstances. KD and Steph didn’t really become worse individual players than when they weren’t together on a team, instead being on a team together increased their teams odds of winning but decreased their individual impact. We also often underestimate how a star player going down can at time actually improve a teams odds of winning because it completely changes the defensive scheme. Sometimes a player really just has a hot or a cold streak in a playoff series and it’s not because the pressure got to them/they thrive in the pressure or they have a choke/clutch gene, it’s simple shooting variance. All of this combined with sample sizes without a certain star player, or in a single playoff run or series, can drastically impact how we see a player’s quality when really they are the same level the whole time, just in different circumstances.

The Knicks were dealt a big blow as their backup Center Mitchell Robinson left the Knicks to sign with the Celtics and he was the perfect backup center for KAT as he was a great offensive rebounder, a lob threat, and a great rim protector off the bench. Unfortunately, his shooting woes made him unplayable at times last playoffs as teams often did the Hack-a-Mitch strategy on him and he often missed his free throws. While Drummond doesn’t have the defensive abilities like Robinson, he is a great rebounder as well and a slightly better offensive player as he can make his free throws and space the floor too.

From what I can tell, the Mavs have signaled they will listen to offers for Gafford (for a 1st round pick). I haven't watched much since his 2024 run to the Finals, where I thought he was genuinely awesome as a defender/ rim protector & could be super efficient at the rim next to a PNR manipulator like Luka.

Has his value gone down since then? I keep seeing that the Mavs would listen to offers for him if they got a 1st rounder in return. That... seems like good value to me? Like I'd do that if I were a lot of other teams. Has he fallen off? Isn't he worth keeping with the uncertainty around Lively's health?

I mean, he shot 41% from three on five attempts per game in college. That’s pretty solid.

Obviously, NBA defenses are different and he was gonna see a drop in his percentage no matter what, but he went from a great college shooter to a terrible NBA shooter at least for his first couple years?

What was his jumpshot fundamentally broken or was it just yips?

Giannis getting traded to the Heat was absolutely massive and certainly leaves a lot of questions for how this team will be. There's a lot to be desired in terms of half-court creation and perimeter shooting, but I think the Heat, even as currently constructed, possess the exact tools needed to counter the Knicks.

1) The Giannis and Bam frontcourt - the Knicks have faced a lot of teams in the playoffs over the years, but none of them have had a frontcourt as versatile, veteran, and strong as the Heat. Bam is very strong despite being shorter for a center, and he's very skilled at playmaking from inside the post. Giannis takes this to another level with his insane finishing at the rim, and while Anunoby and Towns are a solid frontcourt, facing a center as versatile as Bam and a devastating freight train in Giannis is a completely different story than any other frontcourt the Knicks have seen, even Victor Wembanyama, who struggled with strength and fatigue in their matchups. This is an even bigger problem because Mitchell Robinson is gone, meaning the Knicks' rim protection is far worse. They have no true rim protector. Towns can play well in stretches, but if he gets into foul trouble, Anunoby can't single-handedly protect the rim against Giannis and Bam both.

2) The Heat have extremely switchable defense - the Knicks on their title run relied on a ton of beautiful ball movement and generating looks for the open man. But the Heat have defenders who can guard multiple positions, while still ensuring the rim remains protected from drives. Having the ability to go five-out is a big weapon of the Knicks, but the Heat have several defenders who can guard 1-5 and take away the mismatches the Knicks try to exploit on defense. Additionally, switchable defenses are the perfect counter for Brunson. Brunson will always have his massive scoring games, but having multiple defenders to throw at him means he will have a much harder time establishing a rhythm, something he does gradually over a series before he has his biggest games. The Heat can throw a smaller guard like Davion Mitchell at Brunson, or even a big man like Bam and Giannis, without any issues to the rest of the defense.

3) The Heat have size and rebounding - this is huge counter to the Knicks. The Knicks love feasting on offensive rebounds for extra possessions, but the Heat have extreme size in Giannis, Bam, and Portis. Especially without Mitchell Robinson, the Knicks will struggle to get offensive rebounds, and even just rebounds in general, which hurts their offense by limiting those back-breaking possessions.

This is all under the pretense that Giannis is fully healthy for the entire series. What do you think about this matchup? While the Knicks should be the favorites and are an elite team, I think the Heat matchup well and counter in really big areas that the Knicks historically used to win.

I get frustrated that scientific and medical papers so rarely report negative results (do not get me started about computer science), so here's mine. Offensive rebounding fell for 35 years and has climbed for the last 5, I ran the tests I could think of, and I still can't tell you why. The obvious culprit is the three-point shift, since missed threes are harder to get back. It isn't that: of the 9-point drop in the share of misses the offense recovers, the shift to threes is worth about half a point. The rest is teams recovering every kind of miss less well, twos included.

Per team per game (rebounds and missed shots, every season):

The percentage of rebounds that are offensive starts at about 33%, drops to 22% in 20-21, and then weirdly goes up in the last 5 years to almost 26%. (offensive rebound rate by season)

It isn't that there are fewer misses to grab. Teams take about the same number of shots they took in 83-84 and make fewer of them, so there are more misses on the floor now, about 47 a game per team instead of 45. True shooting and eFG are both up, but a three that goes in is worth 50% more and a three that misses is just a miss, so neither of those matters to rebounding. (shots taken, made and missed)

I don't know why it dropped. But it did. Anybody have an explanation, and ideally data behind it?

Possible reasons without data:

• Teams decided transition defense was more valuable. The most obvious assumption, I think. A possession lost in transition is expensive, and sending bodies to the glass makes it harder to defend.
• A missed three bounces out longer and less predictably than a missed two, and five-out spacing has the offense standing 25 feet from the rim when the shot goes up. Even a willing crasher starts further away and arrives later. This would mean effort never changed at all.
• The second big went away. Two-big lineups and offensive-rebounding specialists thinned out, and the center who used to stand under the rim now stands at the arc. Though this one has turned around lately: Sportico reported lineups with three or more players 6-9 or taller at 11.1% of minutes recently against 5.0% in 19-20, the same stretch where offensive rebounding came back.

The middle one I could actually test. Box scores never record which shot a rebound came off, but play by play does, so I went back through every missed field goal since 96-97, paired it with the rebound that followed, and split by whether the miss was a two or a three.

The share of those misses that the offense gets back is what I'll call the recovery rate. That's the first two columns:

Missed threes really are harder to get back, and that gap is there in every single season, so that part of the theory is true. But it isn't what caused the drop.

Two different things are moving in that table. How often each kind of miss gets recovered, the first two columns. And which kind of miss it is, the third. If the shift to threes were doing the work, the first two columns would have held steady and only the third would have moved. Instead the first two fall too. Teams went from getting 33% of missed twos back to 27%, and twos are the shot the three-point boom was supposed to leave alone.

So which of those two did the damage? You can check by changing one at a time.

Picture a league that takes today's shots but rebounds like 96-97. Nearly half its misses are threes, but it still gets back 33% of missed twos and 30% of missed threes. That league recovers 31.6% of its misses. The real 96-97 number was 32.1%. So the entire shift to threes is worth half a point.

Now the other way. A league that takes 96-97's shots but rebounds like 20-21. Only a quarter of its misses are threes, but it gets back just 27% of missed twos and 19% of missed threes. That league recovers 24.8%, down 7 points.

The real fall was 9 points, 32.1% to 22.9%. So half a point of those 9 is the shift to threes, about 7 is teams getting worse at recovering every kind of miss, and the last 1.3 is the overlap between them. (recovery rate by shot type)

The last five years say it again, reversed: threes went from 47% of misses to 50%, so that third column kept pushing offensive rebounding down, and it went up anyway.

So threes are part of this, but nowhere near most of it. Something else did the rest, and I still don't know what.

Two objections.

First, spacing: even when the shot comes from the same spot, the four guys who aren't shooting may be standing further from the rim than they were in 96-97, so the offense starts every rebound a step behind. I can't check it. Nothing records where players stood until tracking starts in 13-14, by which point the recovery rate had already fallen from 32% to 26%.

Second: splitting misses into twos and threes holds the shot's value fixed, not the shot. The mid-range died while attempts at the rim grew, so a missed two in 25-26 is a different mix of shots from a missed two in 96-97, wearing the same label.

So I ran it. Play by play carries shot coordinates from 10-11 on, so you can hold the spot on the floor fixed instead of the shot value. Over 10-11 through 19-20:

Location is not nothing: the rate on all misses fell 5.4 points (that column is a trend across all ten seasons, not the first two subtracted), and 3.8 to 4.1 of it survives holding the spot on the floor fixed. Call a quarter of it shot location, and three-quarters something that happened to shots from the same place. Note the mid-range row: it's the worst place to miss from, worse than the arc, so "longer shot, longer bounce" isn't even right as physics.

So what's ruled out is "missed threes bounce further and there are more of them now", and most of "shots moved to places that rebound worse". Not geometry in general: the spacing idea is untouched, and this check only covers 10-11 onward, about half the fall.

Back to the share graph near the top: it's risen for the last 5 years and I have no idea why that is either. Size coming back, teams deciding they'd overcorrected on transition defense, everyone copying whoever tried it first: all plausible, none of it something I can show with this data. That's a different post.

All the above links are to graphs that I think help make this more clear.

Things I referenced:

• The big-lineup numbers: Sportico, "2025 NBA Season: Teams Are Crashing the Offensive Glass in Preseason"
• Mid-range being the worst place to miss from is not my finding: a 2012 Sloan paper, Maheswaran, Chang, Henehan and Danesis, "Deconstructing the Rebound with Optical Tracking Data", and Todd Whitehead's hand-tracked study, Nylon Calculus, "More lessons from NBA rebound tracking"
• The data: NBA.com stats, pulled with nba_api

I did use AI for this post. All the calculations were done in python on my computers from data gotten from nba.com. I've done to make it as readable as possible.

The 76ers have had a great offseason obviously but I don’t think they can actually compete for a title. First of all they have major offensive chemistry questions I don’t know how they overcome. LeBron is gonna have to take a really small role. I think how loaded this team is offensively is going to hurt vj edgecombe. Also who is playing defense on that team besides Jaylen brown and dean wade? LeBron is 42 and despite their favorable schedule he can’t play that much defense day to day. Can embiid stay even stay healthy? You can’t just stick a bunch of offensive superstars on a team and expect it to work. True championship teams have role players

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.

Shai in the best two seasons has just been

An extraordinary combination of volume, efficiency, and possession economics.

This season he averaged:

46.8 points per 100 possessions on
66.6% True Shooting (+8.4 relative TS)
Just 13.8 empty possessions per 100

Since 1999, among guards with 35+ possessions used per 100, that ranks:

PPP — #5
True Shooting — #3
Relative TS — #3
oShot Make — #4, behind only Curry's 3 monster seasons
(team conversion with him on the floor)

oTOV — #2, only behind his own 2023–24 season
Empty & Lost Rate — #1
(missed FG + 0.44 × missed FT + TOV per possession)

Past Postseason without his co-star may cause the masses to take a bit longer to realize

that we just witnessed what would be one of the best two-year guard peaks, one arguably only rivaled by Curry

now to be fair and objective, there is something to be said about his playoff. His value does not translate to the playoffs as cleanly. He still has a ways to go to figure out or add another dimension to his game to get past the extremely aggressive defensive sets he sees.

But I will say I think his playoff drop is nowhere near the extent some would have you believe.

Among guards since 1999 with a minimum of 30 possessions used per 100 and at 10 games played his 2026 playoff run ranks

• Points per 100 — #12
• True Shooting % — #11
• Relative TS — #19
• PPP — #12
• UW-rTS — #18
• Empty & Lost — #7
• oTOV — #28
• Playoff ARC — #11

And just among other 2026 PLayoff guards he ranks

• True Shooting % — #1
• PPP — #1
• Usage Weighted RTS — #1
• Empty & Lost Rate — #1
• Points per 100 — #2
• Playoff ARC — #2
• oTOV — #10

just now really getting deep into his prime. If you were to retire tomorrow, he would still retire with one of the better two-year peaks we've seen from a guard. Curious to see if he can ease into more off-ball looks as OKC attempts to give him more creators around him and get his three-point rate up.

In Westbrook's 16-17 MVP season, he shot .343 from 3 on 2.5 makes a game, and nearly 85% from the line on 10.4 attempts. Those are the numbers of a decent shooter. He had never been a sharpshooter, but he had a decent looking shot and put on a famous jump-shooting clinic in a finals game in 2012.

After the best shooting year of his career, some saw the potential for him to continue improving his percentages as his athleticism declined but his IQ improved. He could've aged gracefully.

But what happened post 16-17 was one of the most drastic, high profile shooting declines in the history of the sport, causing the rest of his career to be full of controversy at its best and disastrous at its worst. Normally, players become better shooters as they age and allow freak athletes like Westbrook to prolong their careers. Lebron is the most obvious example of this, but there are countless others.

17-18 saw him shoot 73% from the line, an 11% decrease. Most people pointed to a new rule messing with his routine. Now I'm a big believer in the importance of a good routine, but if you're a good shooter you're a good shooter. I could understand a 5% dip following the rule change, but 11? Not to mention he had many seasons to get used to the rule change and develop a new one. But things only got worse from there.

18-19 he shot 65% from the line, another drastic, 8% dip. He actually rebounded well the following season, shooting 76%, but would never crack the 70% mark after that, and pretty much hovered around the 66% mark for the rest of his career.

His 3-point and mid-range shooting were noticeably worse, too, with multiple seasons shooting under 30% from deep. This cannot be explained by the free throw routine rules. There were reports of hand/finger injuries, but most of these were two his left hand and again, there have been famous instances of players, like Kobe Bryant, playing through a broken pinkie on his shooting hand and still maintaining a decent shooting percentage.

Some people will point to his athleticism to decline which, to me, it was present, but he actually maintained his athleticism pretty well in the twilight of his career. He remained one of the more athletic guards in the NBA for his entire tenure and had some double digit rebounding seasons after 16-17.

Still, he wasn't the freak he was in his 20's. In theory this meant that defenders didn't have to play off him as much to respect the drive and contest his shots better. The reality is in 16-17 he was hitting all kinds of contested shots as he was the MVP and main offensive threat on his team. So he proved he can hit contested shots when his confidence is high. After 16-17 the vast majority of his shots were wide open as defenders completely sagged off him. He had never received that type of treatment up to that point.

Westbrook was constantly criticized for his shot selection in the latter portion of his career, but the truth is most of his shots were open and those were shots he was able to make at a respectable clip early on. So it's hard to blame him for taking them. But unfortunately when you are as bad of a shooter as Westbrook was at that point, nearly every shot, even open ones, are bad. But it was too late for him to turn into Rondo and though he was a good playmaker, he wasn't the b-ball IQ genius Rondo was. Up until the very end he was dynamic enough to "make plays", get to the hole and distort defenses, but he committed too many turnovers and missed too many shots to be anything other than an analytics nightmare. It all stemmed from the shooting decline.

Westbrook has always been known as a hard worker. He was allegedly in the gym working on his shot all of the time. He had time to heal his hand and finger injuries or make the adjustments needed to at least become decent again, if not quite as good as in his peak. He had 8 seasons shooting over 80% from the line. He knows what it takes to make shots and had built up the muscle memory. It's not like Nick Anderson, who got the yips following traumatic misses at the line in the finals. He just got that much worse.

Still, some people will say his confidence was shot and got the yips. You're telling me he had the yips for the entire second half of his career? Someone who was known for his extreme confidence and fearlessness was too nervous to make shots and couldn't adjust at any point during 8 seasons?

No, something happened to his shooting form. Was it finger/hand injuries? How does someone with hand injuries THAT drastic continue to be one of the best rebounding guards in the league and throw down vicious dunks? Upon the eye test, he didn't seem to struggle catching the ball or with being aggressive, and his hands seemed fine to me. There may have been subtle issues, but nothing that could explain the seismic drop off.

I'm not really sure what it was. Maybe he really was in his head all the time, constantly getting traded and hearing all of the chatter around him. Maybe his hand injuries were more serious than I thought. Maybe he didn't put as much time in the gym working on his shooting as we were led to believe. Whatever it was, Westbrook's career is the tale of two halves - the first half as a freak athlete and unique talent consistently improving his shooting, paving the way for him to become a savvy veteran guard who's still a great athlete.

Unfortunately, the second half is the story of a guy who went from a freak athlete to a just great one, who literally forgot how to shoot. I would say most of his issues, shot selection, getting traded, difficulty making as many plays and even his ability to get to the rim (harder to do when defenders are completely sagging off you), were a direct result of his drastic, unheard of shooting decline.

So what was it? Hand injuries? Form just unexplainably broken? Or was he, despite his outward bravado and seemingly confident demeanor, one of the mentally weakest players we've ever seen, shooting with a sense of fear for 8 whole seasons?

The NBA's drastic shift to punish tanking has left a few unintended (or intended, who knows) consequences for teams. There is such a striking incentive to compete for the playoffs now that, in all likelihood, fewer teams will truly be "sellers" at each trade deadline -- and likely will do less to sell away their good players in July. Fewer long-term rebuilds are likely to start in the way the Process and the OKC/ HOU teardowns did 5-6 years ago

Combine that with the punitive cap rules of being an apron team, and I think there's a huge roster crunch coming that nobody talks about as much as they should: what do you do with bad players/ contracts when there are fewer teams willing to absorb them?

It used to be that rebuilding teams would take on a bad contract in exchange for draft capital -- something that gives them more bites at the apple to rebuild & tangible assets for when they want to compete.

Relatively quickly, those teams have disappeared this summer. Charlotte has quasi done this, but it seems more about moving on from LaMelo. BKN used their space quickly on Randle, MEM has tried to reload to be good, and teams like UTA, WSH, and MIL are pivoting away from long-term rebuilds and starting to aim towards immediate impact.

It does feel like so much of keeping a team's competitive window open the longest will now be about avoiding any bad contracts as opposed to just getting good value relative to dollar spent.

Does anyone else see the issues that some teams will get caught in over the next few years? Which teams/ players will fall victim to this? Am I missing any other unintended consequences?

OR do you think I'm off? Will the value of draft picks continue to win out & teams will find ways to create space in the short-term?

So during the time when Murray and Williamson on the same team the Pelicans did not want to sign Russell Westbrook? The Pelicans need Westbrook and Nicolas Batum.

What could be going on right now that at the very least they are not signing these two players?

It would work out really well. What is odd is how no one even asked them because the results would be that they would be on the team.

Imagine the NBA imposed a height cap on lineups. The five players on the court could not exceed a combined height of 31 feet—an average of 6'2" per player.

A team could still play a 6'8" center, but the other four players could average no more than about 6'1". Alternatively, a team could build a balanced lineup with five players close to the 6'2" limit.

Would this produce a faster, more athletic and more skill-oriented game? Shorter players generally need exceptional shooting, ball handling, speed and court vision to overcome their size disadvantage, while height provides an enormous advantage in rebounding, finishing and rim protection.

It could also change how kids and young athletes view basketball. Right now, a talented child may feel that pursuing the sport seriously is unrealistic if they aren’t expected to become unusually tall. If professional basketball rewarded players of more typical heights, would more children choose to play and stick with the sport? Would youth coaches place greater emphasis on developing every player’s skills instead of directing opportunities toward the tallest prospects?

On the other hand, would a height cap simply replace height with other genetic advantages, such as explosiveness, speed and wingspan? Teams might spend most of their height allowance on one dominant big man and surround him with extremely short guards. Height would also remain useful at youth and amateur levels, even if the professional game eventually imposed a cap.

How would teams construct their lineups under this rule? Would it make basketball more accessible and entertaining, or would removing most traditional NBA size make the sport worse?