So this whole post was inspired by the Thinking Basketball video on the NBA's YouTube channel regarding the defense of the '04 pistons, particularly during the finals against the Lakers...and I feel like I'm actually insane. Like somehow my YouTube got a different version of the video than everyone else's.

The more I watched the more I realize that Detroit had such a great defense because they were executing what are considered basic defensive actions today. Switching, pre-rotating, sagging off bad shooters, trapping PnRs, doubling and rotating, big men coming up to the level of the screen ECT. These actions happen hundreds of times in today's NBA, and modern players get lampooned when they don't execute them properly. Yet the world famous, historical Kobe-Shaq Lakers couldn't handle it.

First of all, there was no spacing. It was hilarious to watch the Pistons sag off the perimeter players so much that they were essentially executing a box-and-one for most possessions. Gary Payton passed on multiple open threes, and like lazily passed on them too. He just kept the ball moving seemingly without intent or urgency, which gave Detroit plenty of time to rotate. There were multiple examples of Lakers defenders, including Kobe (who was all-defense first team that year) getting beat badly off the dribble on the perimeter by Chauncey, Rip and even Tayshaun. Oh and there was barely any help behind them. Sometimes the defenders in the paint would take a step in and think about contesting the shot, but usually they just got open layups...in game three of the finals.

Shaq was an absolute joke defending the PnR. It almost looked like he already knew he couldn't defend in space so he didn't even bother trying. This is the Shaq that gets paid millions of dollars to talk about rangz™ and shit on modern players on TV? Correct me if I'm wrong but Chauncey isn't some once in a generation athlete, and all he needed was one screen to make Shaq look like me at the Y.

I think the Monty Williams Pistons had a more complex offensive system than the Lakers in the video I watched. Seriously, the would take ten seconds to execute one simple play and if that didn't work they gave the ball to Shaq or Kobe and stood around for the rest of the possession. The sheer lack of movement and intensity was astonishing. No wonder players got injured so much less back then, they spent half the game not moving.

There was one play where number 3 on the Lakers (Devin George? I don't care) passed to Karl in the post from the corner then immediately cuts to the rim. Karl passes him the ball back, and George went in for the layup. The problem was he drove directly into Rasheed Wallace who, having just been guarding Karl in the post, needed to literally take one step over to block the shot.

There was another play where Kobe gets the ball in the corner and gets around Tayshaun. The problem is the Lakers spacing is so bad that the other four pistons are literally each standing in one of the corners of the paint. There are three wide open Lakers, including first ballot hall of famers Gary Payton and creepy uncle Karl, just standing around twenty feet from the hoop. Chauncey doesn't have to move to help on the Kobe drive, Kobe tries to force a pass to Shaq (literally his only teammate that isn't open) and it practically hits Ben Wallace in the face and goes out of bounds.

Finally (I could sit here for hours and dissect the Lakers offense possession by possession, but I'm capping myself at three examples) there was a play where George gets doubled at half court as he's bringing the ball up. I should put doubled in sarcastic quotations because it was the slowest double I've ever seen. There are two Detroit defenders, each about seven feet away from George, and they're about to double him. George has a full three seconds to hold the ball and think before he dribbles directly into the double team. Pistons swarm, ball gets knocked out of bounds. A starter on the lauded 03-04 Lakers team was so discombobulated by the idea of a trap at half court that he takes a deep breath, checks the wind, then tries to dribble through it instead of pass to the two other Lakers who were with him in the backcourt. It's truly unbelievable.

What's really upsetting is the comments are absolutely orgasming to this footage. Literally people talking about how this Pistons defense is a work of art and how modern teams (who execute this type of defense practically every day) could never compare to this kind of basketball. Somebody literally said the 05 Pistons and the 05 Spurs that went to the finals the following year were the best defensive teams ever. He actually emphasized the ever. I couldn't believe we were watching the same footage. It's unfathomable.

But most upsetting was knowing I was watching the legends of the sport. "Mamba Mentality" "12 time all defense" Kobe getting beaten so badly on the perimeter that he's barely moved his feet before the guy is passed him. Shaq and Karl repeatedly just jogging back on defense, often allowing open shots in the process. Karl and Payton just standing around in offense on multiple occasions. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, rotating to help defend the rim even though the spacing was so bad they were already in the paint. The Lakers not actually starting their offense until 14 seconds left on the shot clock, and completely panicking when the first action doesn't work.

These are the legends that I keep hearing about? These are the guys that go on TV and shit on the modern game constantly? These are the heroes of the modern players in the league that I love now? These are the players that were winning awards every year? This is how they play in one of the biggest games of their time? It's embarrassing. Idk how anyone can watch that and try to tell me with a straight face that it's better basketball.

Has anyone seen the video I'm talking about? Am I crazy? Please tell me that I'm not alone, because if one more person tells me that Lakers team would beat the Steph-KD Warriors in a seven game series I'm going to set something on fire 💀

Edited for typos

Also here's the video in case anyone wants to see it

https://youtu.be/R61MHsTfrF4?si=lAJFPjmB7G1zsKZa

Edit 2: just to be clear, my main point of this post was to criticize the people who constantly shit on the modern game while telling me the old game was better. I understand how and why the game has evolved, and that comparing players from 20 years ago to modern players is a bit unfair. I just hear so much praise for old basketball that when I saw these legendary teams I was taken aback at their performance. I see now that I could have communicated that better.

There is this weird revisionist narrative that D Rose would have been an NBA champion with multiple MVPs if he never got hurt. He was a great athlete, and we definitely missed out on seeing his prime, but what exactly was he going to do in the 2010s against Curry and LeBron? I’m not saying he couldn’t have joined a super team and been a key player to a contending roster…..but would he be the main guy?

I’m not trying to hate on Rose but he never developed an outside shot and his game was mostly dependent on his athleticism. Players like that get MVP recognition but don’t really do much in the post season. Russ has had a longer career playing a similar style of basketball and has only 1 loosing final appearance to show for it. Ja is the current “version” of this type of player…..and he hasn’t really had much success as well. He’s a young guy so he has room to grow, but having a PG whose signature move is dunking on bigs isn’t exactly the recipe for success.

All 3 players I’ve named have a career 3 point percentage of around 30%. None of them are true outside threats and Russ has been taken advantage of by defenses whenever he’s not handling the ball. The other team will just allow him open looks because they know he isn’t a problem they have to account for. Ball handling, passing skills, and shooting ability are the main focus of the current generation. If a PG is big enough like Luka, even athleticism isn’t necessary to be successful as a primary ball handler. I just don’t think we will ever see another 6’1-6’5 track star with limited shooting ability take over the league at PG again. Spacing is too important in today’s game and it’s hard to get that when your main ball handler has no scoring gravity when they are away from the rim.

(Edit: I’m not including guys who were good 3 point shooters OR had a decent midrange game. I’m mostly talking about guys who relied mostly on their athleticism to get to the rim. John Wall would be another good example. Wade was a SG and SGA is an amazing mid range shooter and average from the 3 point line.)

It’s been very frustrating seeing how Wemby is used on the Spurs. Every possession that he catches the ball in a triple threat, shoots threes or long twos he is being reduced to an average-at-best NBA player. He is absolutely elite when going downhill or catching a lob, but it seems like Spurs are rarely running plays to open that up.

Here is my somewhat naive question for you all coaches and Xs and Os guys: what’s stopping the Spurs from using Wemby in a high pick n roll like Nash and Stoudemire, or CP3 and Blake/Deandre? Even if the defense key in on the lob or pocket pass, that should open up threes on the perimeter. Is it:

- Fox/Castle/Harper don’t have the combination of pull-up threes and passing ability, or
- Defenses (like switching 1-5) have fully neutered plays like this, or
- The way the playoffs are called now does not allow freedom of movement for slashing bigs, or
- Wemby identifies as a guard and just wants outside touches
- Mitch Johnson is dumb (I don’t think it’s this lol), or
- Something else?

So I'll start off by saying Steph Curry most definitely has a huge impact on the youth and basketball at all levels over the last 10 years. But, with that said, I don't know if Steph Curry is to solely thank for the 3PT revolution. A large part of that has to do with the analytical approach that overemphasizes the best shots (ala the inside shot and the 3PT shot.)

In 2013-2015, Curry was averaging around 7.9 3s attempted a game. While it was still league leading, the volume wasn't something never before seen. In 2015, he attempted his (then) career high in 3s with 646 in a season. We had Ray Allen in 06 with 653, Q Rich in 05 with 631, and Antoine Walker with 645 in 02. We saw years where players had really high volume in 3s.

However, if we look at league attempts over the years, you see the league had consistently around 18.3 from 2008-2012. In 08, Don Nelson's Warriors led the NBA in total 3s (2185) with finishing with over 100 more than the 2nd closest (Magic with 2074.) But then in 2009, we saw the Knicks and the Magic take it a step further finishing. The Knicks (2284) finished almost 150 more than the Magic (2147.) But the main point being the Warriors set an NBA record for most 3s attempted that year. The very next year, the Knicks set the new record and the Magic almost tied it. Then the following year, the same 2 teams in the top 2 just switched positions. In that 5 year time frame, there was no year where more than 3 teams hit over 2000 3s in a season.

But then in 2013, we saw the Knicks and Rockets explode in 3s. Both shot almost 200 more 3s than that old Don Nelson record in 2008. The average team was attempting 20 3s a game. Up 1.6 more than the previous NBA average high. Then in 2014, it went up again. The average team was attempting 21.5 3s a game with 7 different teams hitting more than 2000 3s in a season. This trend would continue going up in 3s attempted every single year until 2023.

We saw a giant leap from 2012-2015 regular season. Keep in mind, at this point his career, Stephen Curry wasn't perceived as this generational player. He was a great player. 2x All NBA by the end of the 2015 NBA regular season. So it's not as if teams were trying to mimic the Golden State approach because...well, a lot of people felt they were underachieving. Mark Jackson's offense was a lot more iso-ball, running very basic elevator actions with Curry and Klay just chucking up shots. Yet, we saw the 3PT attempts going up and up and up.

Point I'm trying to make is, would you say the overemphasis on the analytics aspect is more to thank for the 3PT era? Or is Stephen Curry really the pioneer for beginning the 3PT era?

For anyone that hasn't seen yet, the NBA will implement a new summer league rule to test out. It's been used in the G League for a few years now and they're now testing it at summer league. To put it simply, every shot that leads to a FT will award the player only 1 FT. That FT will be equal to how many points they would have scored. For example, if you get fouled on a 3, you get 1 FT worth 3 points.

It made me think how much of a change it actually will have.

So here's some data I've researched:

Let's see how this breaks down analytically.

3PT = 1.08 PPS
2PT = 1.10 PPS
Paint Shot = 1.4 PPS
Mid Range = 0.84 PPS
FT 1/2/3 = 0.783/1.57/2.449 PPS

The first free throw is, according to this data around 76.3%, the second is 81% and around 87.6% for the 3rd when attempted.

Statistically, a 2 PTFT shot value goes down to around 0.04 PPS and the 3PT FT goes down 0.16 PPS with these new rule changes.

Currently today, if a player shoots 58% (1.16) or more from the FT line, they'll return back a FT% more valuable than the average ORTG (115.8). Assuming the FT% gap remains consistent from that 1st FT to the 2nd like in the data, bad FT shooters average around 111.2 PPS on the first shot. So this means if it were to go into effect, players who shoot under 61% from the line return less value than the average offensive possession.

Assuming the FT% stays the same, that means the average FT% will drop to around 76% or 1.52 PPS. It'll definitely introduce more variance into scoring. For example, over 100 FTS, a regular 2 shot FT attempt can have 1 of 3 outcomes: they make 0 (4.5%), they make 1 (29%) or they make 2 (66.5%). Under the new system, it'd be either 0 points (23.7%) or 2 points (76.3%). So under the current system, coming out with 0 points happens less than 5% of the time but under the new one, it should happen almost a quarter of the time.

The NBA currently averages around 23.5 FTA or around 11.75 trips to the line. Currently, teams expect to average around 18.5 points per game from the line. With the new system, that drops to around 17.9 FTM a game. This also means we'll see a LOT more volatility in scoring. I know this doesn't sound too dramatic, the Standard Deviation, the metric that measures how far a single game's outcome is likely to stray from the current average, says something different. The current system is around 1.98 while under the new one, it'd be around 2.92 or a 47% increase in game-to-game volatility.

In 95% of games under the current rule, a league-average team will score between 14.5 and 22.4 points from the line. Under the single-shot rule, that same team's 95% performance window stretches from 12.1 to 23.8 points. That basically stretches the window from an potential 8 point differential to around 12 points or a 4 point gap. 30% of today's games are decided by 5 points or less so adding up to an extra 4 points can potentially have a huge impact.

EDIT: under 3-5 seconds, good conversations and call-outs!

As far as entertainment, a made half-court shot is about as entertaining as it gets in basketball. It doesn’t matter what level of play, if a half-court shot is made in game it almost always get screen time in “top 10 plays” for daily sports shows.

With the rise in 3-point shooting and players getting heavily critiqued/compensated on their 3-point shooting performance, there’s begun a movement of sorts to “sandbag” half-court shots as to not negatively impact their 3-point shooting percentage. What I mean by this is essentially (at the professional level), is guys purposefully letting the clock run-out right before they fire up the shot, preventing them from likely getting a “missed” 3-point attempt.

It started at first as a little subtle, players would make it seem like they were going to take the shot only to do it right after they hear the buzzer - giving the illusion of an actual attempt. Now its become more blatant, where players won’t even try it and just let the clock run-out.

You would think that NBA front offices would easily be able to separate half-court shots out of a players shot chart to properly weigh their 3 point shooting ability… and they probably do. That said, Fan voting and Media attention are superficial with numbers and are not going to separate them out… so it’s easy to see why player would rather not deal with the high percentage missed shot attempt.

The NBA should change this. Don’t punish a player for taking a very exciting, but super low-chance shot. Under 30 3-5 seconds of any quarter, make half-court shots an “non-official shot” unless the basket is made. I think you’d instantly increase the half court shots attempted, which in return would increase the odds of seeing more of these exciting and entertaining shots being made.

Coach Thibs would realistically never allow his team to purposely lose games to avoid a matchup with any team (let alone the defending champions).

But you constantly hear folks say "the Knicks are better off going against the Cavs in the 2nd round".

Pistons

The Cade Cunningham led Pistons defeated the Knicks twice at Madison Square Garden this season; twice.

That should not be the team that the Knicks want to see in the first round.

Pistons are a feisty young group that has a home crowd starving for a playoff run.

Bucks

The Knicks have matched up very well against the Giannis-led Bucks this season (3-0 sweep).

No Dame Lillard for the foreseeable future, this would be the ideal 3/6 matchup (assuming the Hawks don’t creep up and take over the 6th spot in the East).

Celtics

The Knicks built their team to compete with the Celtics. The Celtics have taken their matchups against the Knicks since opening night with an all business approach (3-0 BOS over NYK so far, 1 last regular season game in MSG next week).

At some point the Knicks will have to show that they can compete against the 2024 NBA champions. If they matchup against them in the semifinals then so be it.

Durant’s efficiency in 3 games with the suns (off an injury!!): 69% fg, 53% 3pfg, 89% ft.

Booker has been putting up big numbers beside him as well. In the last 3 games, teams seem to be doubling KD/Booker on the catch, and from there they initiate ball movement to generate an open shot. Results in either a wide open corner 3, Ayton with a free roll to the basket, CP3 with an elbow jumper, or KD/Book torching the defence 1v1. When all goes wrong, KD seems to bail them out like he did for the game winner against the mavericks.

If you’re the opposing coach, what’s your defensive game plan?

Am new to NBA, so when i start digging into the history i see most PGs being somewhat pass first, e.g. John Stockton, Magic Johnson, Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Ricky Rubio etc.

Seeing this guys basically made me believe that pass first PGs are those that look to create for their teammates, floor general types but arent super good at slashing or shooting.

I get that there are some PGs who are score first PGs, but are quite adept at passing. These guys are generally your all stars of the league due to their skill of doing both well.

Question is, why in this day and age, many of the PGs are score first and the pass first PGs / facilitators have been phased out of the league? Is it because most score first PGs can facilitate an offense if need be, although they arent very adept at it at times? It seems like close to no PGs starting are pass first (other than Chris Paul etc), and instead most are score first PGs.

Is it because of the change in eras that caused this? Did the big man centric game from the past, when evolved into small ball / guard centric game, cause the pass first PGs to phase out due to the need for guards to do more than just passing (i.e. driving to the rim more, shooting 3s more)? Or is it something else that caused it?

Would love to read the answers. Thanks

The GSW dynasty maximized the power of its shooters Curry and Thompson by constantly setting really physical screens that were arguably fouls by the letter of the law but infrequently called in the NBA. Sort of high-volume pseudo-fouling. This was one of the key force multipliers for GSW that helped create a dominant dynasty with several historically great seasons.

Eventually, GSW's style of play was somewhat mitigated by teams mauling Curry off-ball and the loss of Bogut. By basically high-volume pseudo-fouling Curry off ball, opponents mitigated the force-multiplying effects of GSW's high-volume, pseudo-fouling screening offense.

Right now, some NBA fans are angry at OKC because they play an extremely aggressive and physical brand of defense but do not pick up a lot of foul calls. As with the Warriors, this is a matter of maximizing their roster's talents as adapted to reffing practices. Dort and Caruso are both excellent defenders who are very willing to play at the margins of the rules. They are smaller players (Dort not really, but he gets treated like one by the refs), and refs have historically allowed smaller players to get away with more contact on defense, especially against bigs. The rest of their perimeter defenders are also very skilled and scrappy. We saw Cason Wallace blatantly fouling McConnell in front of a ref without getting a foul call and then forcing a steal. SGA and JDub play cleaner defense since OKC needs their offensive output but they're still very skilled and engaged defenders. Having Dort and Caruso and other role players being super aggressive and physical on defense gets in opposing players heads when fouls aren't called, and it leads to more mistakes, and more turnovers, a positive reinforcement cycle that lets OKC get into its great transition offense. A force multiplier like GSW's screening.

So, my question is, what is the solution to OKC's defensive gameplan, and/or what is the next exploit for a team to capitalize on? What is the anti-OKC equivalent of mauling Curry off ball? What is the next GSW/OKC-style force multiplier for a team maximizing its talents as adapted to the league's reffing? I think it needs to either be a defensive thing or an off-ball offense thing. On-ball offense has a lot of exploits (e.g., flopping and pushoffs), but they're moreso individual enhancers, less so full-team force multipliers.

One idea is offensive players grabbing defensive players off-ball. Defenders are allowed to do this and do it very aggressively especially after the three-point revolution. We saw for example how physical Houston got against GSW this postseason. With OKC's aggressively ballhounding defense, could off-ball offensive players simply grab off-ball OKC defenders to slow down the traps and closeouts? It's like a screen without a screener. I know offensive players already do this to some extent, but I'm imagining a team-wide philosophy built around it the way GSW built its screening style or OKC's ballhounding style. I'm sure there is some level of frequent off-ball contact by offensive players that refs will be inclined to let slide for the sake of game flow. It could be a matter of finding that line and walking it and expanding it. That's just one idea I'm throwing out there.

Rasheed Wallace recently said that Lebron and other players wouldn’t thrive or be as successful in his era.

I find it strange how disrespectful a lot of NBA players and fans are towards modern NBA players compared to other sports fanbases. Andre Iguadola also said that Rasheed Wallace would be better than Giannis in this era. I find it odd, considering he’s playing in this era, and can see how good Giannis is.

What is the real difference between the NBA now and the NBA then? Is it just Nostalgia, or is there some credibility to their claims? Is Rasheed Wallace right?

Medical technology has improved beyond what it was in the past. NBA players have better training and access to the right equipment, along with a decent number of players who had NBA players as parents. Does that mean nothing?

Nico Harrison, after trading Luka for AD almost 1:1, said that his reason was that he believes defense wins championships. So I just wanted to give my two cents on that quote and why I think he, and many other fans, might misunderstand it in my opinion

Yes, defense wins championships, and a good defensive team is probably just as important as a good offensive team

However, the word team, instead of player, is the important part here. Defense is, especially nowadays, much more scheme-reliant than offense. I’d even say, that, in the playoffs, scheme and coaching is more important than personnel, when it comes to having a good defensive team

The opposite is true for offense. For multiple reasons - first, there is probably a lot more variance on offense than on defense. The worst defender and best defender are still miles closer to each other than the worst offensive and best offensive player. So obviously this makes the star offensive players shine more.

Also it’s more personnel heavy since usually the offensive superstar is going to have some sort of impact on every single possession, just with his presence alone

And also a team can choose when they want the ball in the star’s hands. It’s pretty hard to choose when you want your dpoy defender to be able to engage in a defensive possession

I believe the Cam and Edy pairing will work perfectly when they play together but I’m curious at some of the things Grizzlies Coach Tuomas Iisalo will do next season to optimize the success of this pairing.

Also, I want to know what Cam can do with his game to help Edy get easy shots and what Edy can do with his game to get easy shots for Cam. What are the advantages both Cam and Edy can have offensively, defensively and rebounding wise that can help the team win when they play together?

Even though I feel the pairing will work seamlessly, are there any disadvantages with the pairing and if there’s any disadvantages what can Iisalo do to stop those disadvantages from happening in a negative way for the team?

In my opinion, I never seen a frontcourt pairing as physically imposing like the Cam and Edy pairing since the Duncan Robinson Spurs and the Pau Gasol Bynum Lakers. So I want to know from fans: “How successful can the Cam Boozer and Zach Edy pairing be next season?”

While obviously every team would prefer to have 4 Amen Thompsons and a Rudy Gobert on defense, recent trends in the NBA have me wondering if a team needs anything more than a Gobert to be elite, or at least very good, on the defensive end.

Basketball is historically what I would consider a "strong link" sport, where having the best overall player talent usually dictates the winner. But it seems that defense specifically in the modern NBA operates as a "weak link" system.

When I was growing up and playing and watching basketball, players would be assigned a man, and they would stick to that man as much as possible. At the P&R, players would either go under screens or get hedging help. But switching was something only the truly elite defenders got to do.

The game is so different now. Offenses are so heavily spaced and skilled that they use endless pick-and-roll combinations to force switches. They can completely ignore an elite perimeter defender and isolate the worst defender on the floor. If you have one weak perimeter defender among a group of otherwise elite perimeter defenders, the offense will systematically attack the poor one. Elite perimeter defenders get schemed out of the play easily since they can only guard one person at a time.

I feel like the main thing that determines whether a defense can reach elite status is rim protection. An elite rim protector guards the most valuable real estate on the floor against all five opposing players simultaneously. Shots at the rim convert at roughly 70 percent, and three-pointers convert at somewhere between 36 to 40 percent, depending on the player.

A rim protector who forces a team to abandon a layup attempt and kick the ball out alters the fundamental math of the possession. Advanced metrics like the Rim Deterrence Index consistently show that interior bigs provide significantly more value to a team's defensive rating than even the best point-of-attack guards or wing stoppers.

The entire premise of a drop coverage or funneling scheme is that there's always a backline of defense to protect your perimeter defenders. The truly elite teams are the ones that are able to scheme their rotations to manipulate where an offense is able to generate its shots from. That isn't something that relies on individual defensive talent, that relies on a team that knows its angles, hustles, and has a high collective IQ. The ability to play defense within a system matters far more than your ability to defend one-on-one.

An example of this is that Rudy Gobert's peak years, the Jazz consistently fielded top defensive ratings despite starting multiple defensively limited guards. The scheme relied entirely on funneling ball handlers toward the paint, allowing Gobert to play a one-man zone.

The Bucks won a championship and maintained elite regular-season defensive ratings using extreme drop coverage with Brook Lopez. Perimeter defenders fought over screens and applied back-pressure, yielding pull-up jumpers while Lopez stayed glued to the paint. They mathematically accepted open above-the-break threes because securing the paint with an elite rim protector is vastly more stable.

Also. Individual offense scales infinitely better than individual defense. A great offensive player dictates the action, while a great defensive player can only react. You can easily scheme around individual defensive weaknesses on the perimeter as long as you have the right system and an elite anchor in the paint.

I think a lot of watchers of the game will say "well who is going to guard X" when talking about matchups, but that seems to be the wrong question to ask. It seems to me that the right question to ask, instead of "who is going to guard X" is "how is X team going to scheme their coverage to handle Y player?"

Thoughts?

Very recently, the First Take crew brought up the question. What about the OKC Thunder when it comes to Giannis? The thought of that had already been floating in my mind. And I'd love to hear everyone's opinions.

Is it time for Sam Presti to officially drop the hammer and go all-in for Giannis?

We've been hearing the same story for the past couple of weeks. There are 4 teams that are routinely mentioned a ton and could "really use" Giannis and should try to trade for him. Those teams are GSW, MIN, MIA and NYK.

But let's be honest.

NYK - Does MIL really want KAT, an 11-year vet who (in my opinion) has been steadily declining over the past few years and has arguably been one of the most injury-prone players since the 2019 season? Yes there's a possibility of someone like Bridges being included too, but is that what MIL envisions for their future? A lineup of Bridges, KAT and Myles Turner? Do they envision that being their team for the next 2-4 years? A kind of 41-41 or 44-38 team? Or do they want a FRESH restart, with young guys and top picks?

MIN - I cannot envision a world where the Timberwolves offer enough to get Giannis. They have no draft capital, which means they'd literally have to give up the house for him. That means giving up Jaden McDaniels, Naz Reid, Julius Randle and probably Rob Dillingham, and likely their 2026 Pick. Maybe that's enough, but that creates a similar situation as the Knicks. Does MIL want to become a 40-44 win team that just kind of "hangs around" in the 8-10th seeds, or do they want to start completely fresh?

MIA - Again, yet another situation where it just feels like a meh kind of offer. Tyler Herro, sure he can score, but he's a huge liability on defense. Ware is nice. Jaquez Jr is a solid, if not unspectacular addition. But again, feels like a team that would go 35, maybe 40 wins. Herro is also super injury prone.

GSW - They probably have the best shot out of the 4 teams that are heavily mentioned. Kuminga matches the "young talent that can grow" that MIL might want...Moody is interesting as a throw-in. Lets be honest though, Jimmy isn't going to stay there. He's old now, and will be coming off an ACL tear. Brandon Pod is another meh addition to me, not someone you build around. The picks are nice, and probably what sets them apart from the other teams...albeit they are unprotected.

In come the Thunder. The team that "doesn't need him at all"...but has the most to offer to get him.

I believe whole-heartedly that this is the time for Sam Presti to go all-in. SGA is still young and just started the beginning of his prime. And an addition of someone like Giannis would honestly be the second coming of Shaq and Kobe in my opinion. Obviously different players and different styles, but having SGA and Giannis on the same team feels almost like a cheat code. And I believe that there are multiple ways for them to make this splash happen.

• Option 1: OKC offers Ajay Mitchell, Aaron Wiggins, and (3) 1st Round Picks. I fully believe that Ajay Mitchell is a star in the making, and could very easily be a 20-5-6 guy if he were ever a starting job with 34 MPG. Wiggins as well has excelled when given the opportunity. Both are young up-and-coming players, and I believe are players you can build around. Or at minimum, are players you can use to surround whoever your next "star" is. The 3 First Round Picks as well give the Bucks the opportunity for that "big reset" as well.
• Option 2: Could OKC do something even crazier, and give up Jalen Williams? Now I love me some Jalen Williams, but the honest-to-god truth is that J-Dub is always injured. Aside from his rookie season, feels like he's always battling some kind of injury or coming in with a GTD tag for some kind of nagging injury. He missed 11 games in 2024. He missed 13 games in 2025. He's already missed 20+ games this season and we're only at the 48-game mark. Never a good sign when someone this young (24 years old) is already missing this many games early in their career. Could the front office get frisky and dangerous....and actually offer up a package of Jalen Williams, along with someone like Wiggins and say (2) 1st Round Picks? It's definitely a crazier take, but if I'm the front office, I'm looking at every avenue.

For me, this is an easy win for the OKC Thunder. You secure what will essentially be the future of your franchise. Pairing Giannis with SGA for what would likely be at least the next 5-8 years, and having a legit shot at not one, not two, but multiple championship runs.

SGA, Lu Dort, Jalen Williams, Giannis, and Chet as your starting five.

I-Hart, Caruso, Cason Wallace, Jaylin Williams and Isaiah Joe are your 5 off the bench.

Make this make sense to me on how this scenario isn't going through Presti's mind.

I'd love to hear the communities thoughts.

/TLDR - Thunder could be looking like the next dynasty if they go in for Giannis.

For seven years, I worked with NBA clients who hired me to help them shoot the basketball better; it’s a pretty simple job description.

This piece offers an inside look at how it's rare for a player to be able to significantly change aspects of their game, besides shooting, once they reach the NBA.

Almost every player who reaches the NBA has been the best player on every team they’ve played for. However, the NBA is a filtration system, and you never know how much the jump in speed and athleticism from college to the NBA will impact a player.

Shooting is the lynchpin skill within the filtration system; it can either unlock a player’s game, allowing them to stay and thrive in the league, or filter them out.

At the beginning of the off-season, I would tell every client the same thing:

Our top priority is to establish foundational mechanics that will enable them to elevate their shooting ability to the highest possible level. If we do that, there will be two distinct benefits:

Simplify: The confidence and skill to take and make more shots will allow for more opportunities, better reads, and fewer turnovers.

Unlock: The better they shoot it, the more space it will open up for them and others; it’s pretty simple math: shoot it better, and the closeouts have to get more aggressive.

The more a player can simplify their reads through elevated shooting, the more it unlocks their thought process to see space as 360 degrees instead of only downhill. This perspective shift from downhill to 360 maximizes the available space on the court for them.

Their Game, Not Yours:

One of the most important lessons I learned during my time working with NBA players is that you can only have a minimal impact on how a player perceives their game. You might be able to move the needle by 10-15%, but no more.

They’ve reached the top of the food chain playing their game. Trying to get them to play a different type of game initially is a fool’s mission.

I’ve found that improving a player’s shooting is the quickest way to influence their game. Most players have significant opportunities for growth in this area, so better shooting can significantly boost their overall performance. After achieving this small win together, it opens up the opportunity for honest conversations about how they view their game within not only their team but the larger NBA ecosystem.

Cash Rules Everything:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Only one type of event has the potential to shift a player’s game outside this 10-15% window: A change at the top.

• New Head Coach.
• New GM/President.
• Changing teams, which results in both a new Head Coach and GM/President.

This change in leadership determines the person who pays or plays them, aka whose primary opinion matters. Only a few players' games are immune to a change at the top affecting the way they play; they are the top-of-the-food-chain players, such as LeBron, Luka, and Giannis, among others.

I have had three former NBA clients undergo leadership changes. Below is a look at their synergy breakdown of “Play Types” from a three-season sample size surrounding these regime changes:

Numbers Represent % of Player’s Action:

Player A:

Years 1 & 2: Same GM and coach.

Year 3: New team, aka new GM and coach

Player B:

Year 1: Same coach as the previous year.

Year 2: New Coach

Year 3: New team, aka new GM and coach

Player C:

Year 1: Traded in the offseason between Year 1 & 2.

Years 2 & 3: New team, aka new GM and coach

The only event that moved these players outside the NBA’s version of the Overton Window was a change at the top. Each of the three players played different positions on the court and held various statuses within their teams and the league’s hierarchy: role player, starter, and All-NBA.

This is why shooting must be the epicenter of every off-season. Whether you’re the center of the wheel or just a spoke, your primary actions can always change. However, one thing that won’t change is that the better a player shoots the ball, the more effective they will be at everything else on the court.

Shooting is never out of style, like florals in spring or black in the winter; it’s a classic, not a trend.

Downhill vs. 360 Degrees:

Players who do not consistently trust their shot often view space as only downhill, regardless of the defense's coverage. This compresses the court for themselves and their teammates and, worst of all, can prevent them from playing in rhythm and on balance.

Compression of space is important, but the deadliest sin in basketball is the lack of movement in rhythm and balance. To produce the magic needed to shoot a basketball from 25 feet away through an 18-inch ring suspended 10 feet in the air, the body and the basketball must work as a team, operating in rhythm and on balance the entire time.

This isn’t football, where you have to get your body from Point A → B before someone tackles you; basketball is a game of skill in which you must link power from your body to the basketball kinetically. (Read more about my definition of skill here)

Better shooting → More shots made → More out-of-control closeouts.

If shooting is the first solution, then great shot preparation footwork is a non-negotiable on every catch. This made a few things possible:

• Rhythm + Balance on shot.
• Story Telling Pump Fakes.
• Commanded high hip closeouts, which will lead to easy Catch → Go reads.

Space is always 360 on the court, and there is no league in the world where this concept is more important than the NBA.

Most NBA players grow up as athletic outliers who can blow up any angle, so space is always downhill for them.

When you’re an athletic outlier, a missed shot read during a closeout, PnR, or DHO will likely still result in finishes or fouls due to athletic superiority. But not in the NBA; players look at their athletic equals every night.

When considering a player’s off-season development plan, there is only one place to start: the epicenter of the game, shooting the basketball.

Improving a player’s shooting is the quickest path to more playing time, and it creates a domino effect that leads to advantageous opportunities on the court.

Shooting will augment any coach’s system regardless of the level; it’s the look that never goes out of style.

I thought it might be interesting to create a thread about behavior that is in the best interest of the individual, but isn't necessarily in the interest of winning basketball.

Players:

1. Take the last shot of the quarter juuuuuust after the buzzer goes. Won't get yelled at by the coach, and the almost certain miss won't hurt your precious three point percentage (even more precious in the modern NBA).

2. Don't take the charge. This happened just last night. Those two Nuggets had absolutely no intention of getting in LeBron's way, because that shit hurts. You see all these super speedy 6' to 6'4 guys out there. You think they aren't quick enough to get between Giannis and the rim? Uh, no. Guys can get in the lane and stop a drive, but frankly it's just not something that's likely to get you paid on your next contract. But there's a small chance it might get you a career-defining injury.

3. Go through the motions on defense. They say defense wins championships. But offense gets paid. If you want to maximize your salary in the NBA and all else is equal, practice three pointers. You know why the hard working defender is called a "lunch pail guy?" It's because he can't afford to eat out.

Coaches:

1. Ahead by 3 on the final shot, don't foul. Sometimes it makes sense to let them shoot, but often it doesn't. But when a coach elects not to foul announcers always say "he's going to trust his defense", which means the coach is making it the players' problem. The coach is almost never crucified after the game for not fouling. If they lose in such an event, the storyline is always about the other team's heroics and not your team's coaching ineptitude.

2. Playing veterans over youngsters. By the time a kid has really matured, you're already out of the job. Why develop a young prospect just for somebody else to coach? Go with the guy who has the proven track record.

GM's

1. Avoid trade inside your conference or division. This is always brought up as a reason why a trade "will never happen." But nobody ever asks "Why?" The primary reason IMO is that the GM doesn't want his ownership to be forced to confront a glaring trade mistake he made 3 or 4 times during the season. People will remember bad trades in the abstract, but if the guy you traded goes off on you twice in the last month, well fuck that's just a really bad look.

2. Draft the guy who isn't Best Player Available. BPA is one of the biggest cliches in the NBA and for good reason. And teams often do. But not always, and I feel like it's often intentional. If you draft a project shooting guard who is going to take 3 years to develop, you again may be out of a job by then. There's a built-in incentive to just plug an existing gap. Besides, if you do draft BPA, you are exposing yourself to judgment twice--who you drafted, and who you traded away to make the BPA fit.

3. Don't innovate. It's pretty amazing to see how long it took the league to value three point shooting. A typical GM gets judged on a small handful of decisions. It takes some serious balls to do what Morey or Hinkey did. Most GM's just kind of play it safe with fairly conservative strategies. It's a copycat league because you are copying guys who are keeping their jobs by copying other guys who are keeping their jobs.

4. Don't trade a Star Player. I've watched Portland hold onto CJ McCollum for 8 seasons now, despite everyone seeing plain as day you can't win it all with the defensive sieve that is our back court. Yet here we are. I think the problem is loss aversion. Portland values the bird in hand and isn't too critical of its GM for his inactivity. We get some nice regular season wins and Dame is happy and we even sometimes win a playoff series or two. That's a pretty cushy deal for our GM. But the moment he trades CJ it will be the career-defining trade for Olshey. If you fuck this up you are done. And let's face it, if you trade him to the Eastern Conference (see GM #1), there's a pretty good chance CJ is an All-Star, and suddenly you're the guy who "Trade All Star CJ McCollum for this Nobody." Fuck that. Let's kick the tires on Mario Hezonja.

Those are the ones I always think about. Did I miss some?

In this hypothetical situation everyone is fully healthy. So Nuggets have Jamal Murray back. Everything else stays the same just one person gets demoted to the bench and these guys replace them. So for Dallas prime Dirk is replacing Dwight Powell I assume, and Carmelo replaces MPJ for Denver, because in this hypothetical situation everyone is fully healthy. 2021/2022 NBA rules.

>>> Update: * Let's clear up some concerns about the criteria for a B3 and distinguish it from a "superteam." * A superteam is just an assemblage of several star players on the same team. The Warriors with KD is a great example. That can work. Not our focus here. * Alternate definitions of "Big 3" might just highlight the three best players on a team or refer to any team with 3 star players. That's not our focus either. * Our B3 criteria is trying to capture the essence of the '07 Celts and '11 Heat. * The Bron/Love/Irving Cavs don't qualify. Why? Because neither Kyrie nor Love were "proven, #1 options" or "best players" prior to Bron. They were instead highly criticized and scrutinized players, who were only #1s by default on bad teams. Kyrie averaged about 20 PPG prior to Bron entering the fray-- and he did not have a Nash-like effect to compensate for this lack of scoring punch. He was still developing and not playing at a high enough level. Love had inflated stats in Minnesota. Unproven.

Now, some important notes:

• For our purposes, a B3 ("Big 3") is a trio of players who were all proven #1 options (and/or "best players") on different teams before they all came together on the same team. Furthermore, all three must have played at a very high level right before they teamed up.
• The B3 era we're concerned with begins with Pierce/KG/Allen on the Celtics in 2007.
• Hence, the Golden State Warriors' trio of Steph/Klay/Dray doesn't count. And the Lakers with Malone and Payton doesn't qualify either. Also, perhaps counter-intuitively, even the Bron/Irving/Love Cavs don't count.

Let's compare:

• Celtics (KG, Pierce, Allen). Rings/Finals: 1/2.
  • Players had complementary skillsets, but joined a bit too late in their careers. Won right away, but had a hard time in the playoffs. Great defensively, but surprisingly lacking offensively. Very brief, but memorable, moment in the sun.
• Heat (Bron, Wade, Bosh). Rings/Finals: 2/4.
  • Formed at the right time, but Wade and Bron had redundant skillsets. Also, Bosh was forced to play in a way that minimized his capabilities. Health concerns for Wade and Bosh forced the run to last for only 4 years. Bron, however, would famously go on to have a lengthy and productive post-Heat career.
• Lakers (Bryant, Howard, Nash). Rings/Finals: 0.
  • Yeah. Many predicted this would fail (myself included), while others thought they'd be a lock for 1 ring. Very polarizing team. Injuries, age, egos, and bad chemistry would cause this team to collapse very quickly. Each member of the B3 were certainly playing at a "high level" just the year prior (Nash was an All-Star and 9th in MVP voting despite averaging only 12 PPG), but it was also clear each of the B3 was going to crash quickly.
• Thunder (Westbrook, PG, Melo). Rings/Finals: 0.
  • Westbrook proved himself to be a #1 option after Durant departed, earning an MVP award. Melo was ready to finally take a step down in his career, and PG had a bit of time as a #1 in Indiana (but kinda always felt more like a #2, and would go on to always feel more like a #2). In hindsight, PG-- being a two-way player-- was the only member of the 3 who really can/could make nearly any team "immediately better."
• Nets (Durant, Harden, Irving). Rings/Finals: 0.
  • Harden was a #1 on the Rockets for many years, and Irving had a brief moment as a #1 on the Celtics (thankfully, that experiment ended quickly and did not permanently hinder the development of Brown and Tatum). The Nets failed due to untimely injuries, egos, and antics from Irving. When Simmons replaced Harden, it was unclear if Simmons' strengths would outweigh his weaknesses. We all know what happened…
• Suns (Durant, Booker, Beal). Rings/Finals: 0 (ongoing).
  • The Suns, after years of bottom-dwelling, ascended to the Finals with a particular roster: Cam Payne, Cam Johnson, Bridges, Ayton, Paul, Booker. They would trade all of them, save Booker, in hopes of a B3 bringing them to the promised land. Not sure why. They still have a chance of creating a winner. We'll see…
• Clippers (Leonard, PG, Harden). Rings/Finals: 0 (ongoing).
  • Just when it looked like Harden might be declining in Philly, he had a brilliant season and rejuvenated his career. He would become a desired trad target for the Clips. However, Leonard's persistent load-managing and a lack of depth might eventually foil the team. Westbrook is also on the squad, but no longer plays at a high enough level to count as part of a B3 or "Big 4." He's a role player who sometimes has big moments. They still have a chance of creating a winner. We'll see...

Analysis:

There are many winning formulas to a ring (heliocentric system, binary star system, the "beautiful game", and so on), but the notion of a particular type of B3-- one where three current #1 options suddenly come together- and become an unstoppable force-- seems more myth than reality.

Furthermore, it seems that all the recent B3 disappointments may be ending this era of "nuclear proliferation," as teams may no longer be scrambling to have as many "nukes" as possible.

It's the organic "Big 3s" and "Big 5s" that win. These teams develop their players and discover they have something "unfair" that they can exploit within their roster. They might make one major trade, but that's usually it.

There was a time, not too long ago and due to the relative success of the Celts and the Heat, where hoops fans truly believed that putting three #1 options on a team would work itself out and lead to dominance. We were wrong. We were ignoring the true makeup of most recent NBA champions:

• 1 MVP-level player (or little-to-no conflicting redundancies among skill sets if there are multiple MVP-level players)
• a brilliant starting 5
• lots of shooting
• at least one, great, starting 3-and-D player
• fantastic ball movement
• great team defense
• examples: Raptors, Lakers, Bucks, Warriors, Nuggets

I think the B3 era is over and I say, "good riddance."

I discovered this amazing YouTuber called Clayton Crowley, he goes in really depth with classic players and teams that don’t really get much coverage these days.

Anyways I watched his video series Making the Case- mainly the Kareem one and the 1971 Bucks. It got me into a rabbit hole of researching Kareem and his Skyhooks and it made me wonder, why isn’t it used more often? The percentage for shots going in when attempted seemed insane and it looked like a majority of players can’t even block it- especially if it’s from a seven footer.

I see the typical arguments but they don’t really make sense to me.

• Players favour the three-point shot nowadays. True, but the hook shot hadn’t made much of an appearance probably decades before three-point barrages became a thing.

• It’s boring/frustrating and unfair- could also be true but I could say the same for other things happening in the league right now. Shit like purposefully bumping into defenders whilst taking shots to get fouls. I don’t understand where the line gets drawn.

• it’s “uncool”- alright, I can’t exactly argue with this because it’s subjective. But to me at least, I think it looks really smooth and elegant when performing it. That’s just my opinion though.

But wouldn’t it be wise to adopt this technique, especially for Centers with good size? I understand that it’s difficult to master, but once perfected it seems like it has little drawback. Even in a marketing standpoint it seems like a good idea. Bringing back such an old school technique and being the player known for bringing back after decades.

Luka as a rookie had a higher USG% than any year of Chris Paul, Steve Nash, John Stockton, and Magic Johnson.

PG's are expected to be able to score now and I think if PG's like Steve Nash played in this era, he would have shot a lot more and if Chris Paul was in his prime now, same thing with him.

The only archetype I can see is if Ben Simmons career didn't turn the wrong way and he got better as his career went on instead of worse and maybe developed a 3 point shot.

This hypothetical player would need to be some sort of mix between Marcus Smart, Ricky Rubio, and DeAnthony Melton where they can play defense, pass at an elite level, and make 3's at a high clip when open however the are unable to get you >20 ppg consistently.

So I just saw Luka can be eligible for $346mil over 5 years, or almost $70 million a year. At the same time kyrie will take another $40 million a year of cap space. My question is not for the mavs specifically but more in general, are teams throwing too much money at these players?

Championship windows have been smaller than ever, as seen with the historic run of 6 new champions each of the last 6 years. In the 90s you had the bulls take 6 rings, in the 00s you had the lakers take 4, spurs take 3. In the 10s you had heat take 2, warriors take 4.

Are teams unable to maintain dynasties now due to sheer talent across the league? Is it due to poor management throwing too much on players than don’t deserve it (MPJ with a max contract, etc.)? Is it due to star players taking too much of the cap space not leaving room to sign elite role players for long? Is it because we’re at the turning of an era where new, younger players are taking over? Am I just false equating/overreacting about the last 6 year period? Or is it something else entirely?

Last season, the NBA released a memo about increasing the physicality in games. We've all noticed different trends in how certain playstyles and contact are called, (which isn't always the most consistent from game to game) but it's clear that there's a general increase in physicality across the board over the last season, which has combined with the natural increase in physicality during the playoffs.

There's a lot of discourse on reddit and social media that seems understandably confused about how different teams are officiated differently (I am posting this as a response to the recent Nuggets v.s. Thunder series but it applies to other series as well), so I wanted to put forward some thoughts I had about how interpreting physicality differently between teams can offer a decent foundation to explain some of these 'inconsistencies' to give the NBA officiating a bit more credit.

To start, in cases where it's intentional and not a gaff, 'fouling' is something that happens when a player or team's weakness is exposed and they feel they have to break a rule to shore up that weakness to win that possession. A slower defender might hold a faster player to avoid giving up a free layup. A shorter player might use their lower center of gravity to throw a taller player off balance. A heavier player might use their weight to push past a lighter defender, etc.

With that in mind, all teams, by virtue of how their rosters are constructed, have different 'weakness' profiles that influence the types of fouls they commit. This shouldn't be too controversial and is blatantly obvious in lots of cases. While there are teams that have balanced 'weakness' profiles, certain teams are HEAVILY skewed in certain directions.

In the case of OKC, their number one exploitable weakness is their weight, and their number one advantage is their length and hands. The Denver Nuggets, a team with absolutely brilliant players who happen to be a lot heavier in their weight class (Jokic, Aaron Gordon, Murray are all oversized in weight for their positions) are incentivized to take advantage of their weight, whereas OKC is incentivized to take advantage of their hands and length.

This understandable asymmetry in the two teams rosters explains why the majority of the fouls that the two teams 'need to commit' in order to succeed in possessions are so different from each other. OKC as a lighter team has to make usage of quick hands and screen navigation, making them commit significantly more reach in fouls and touch fouls than the Nuggets, who are more likely to commit screen violations and pushes on box outs and body contact fouls on driving players.

Essentially, the two teams receive 'different officiating' because the two teams commit different fouls for different reasons. While refereeing isn't always perfect, a lot of the inconsistency can be explained because the teams themselves are inconsistent and play the game differently.

The Thunder are 'getting away' with more reach in fouls and wrap-ups than the nuggets because they're extremely good at it and have no other way to defend post ups and drives against larger and heavier players. At the same time, the Nuggets are 'getting away' with moving screens and body contact a lot more than the thunder because they're simply setting more screens and using their weight more because it gives them a greater advantage.

A lot of discourse surrounding the officiating in games is targeted at inconsistent officiating, and while I dont think they are immune from criticism, I think they deserve a lot more credit. A lot of the times where it seems like a team is getting away with contact that they would never call on the other team is simply because the other team doesn't have to employ that kind of contact to gain an advantage, so they aren't doing it. If you are used to only watching your team's games, it can seem really jarring when an opposing team gets foul calls that you've never seen before, which might be a lot more straight forward to interpret than you might think.

\* I’ve been a shooting* coach for NBA players for the past seven seasons. My first client was Malik Beasley, with whom I worked from 2018 to 2020. This piece delves into the exercise I use at the core of every player development plan I've built for NBA clients.

Building a PD plan is like eating an elephant; it's a big project. The key is to break it into smaller steps, one bite at a time.

Precursor:

You must watch the film. Not clips, but the entire game film1!

You need to see everything! What system is the team running? Where are the players' opportunities? What is their attitude like when their rotation is cut short? How do they communicate with teammates and coaches?

EVERYTHING!!

If you can’t commit to watching film instead of pulling clips from whatever service you have available, your plans will always lack the essential details required for success at the highest levels.

These details will give you an edge on the competition and, most importantly, build trust with the player. Player’s can smell bullshit from a mile away, they also know what “standard” effort looks and feels like.

Digging in and coming to the table with the details can be the difference between the player leaning in or not, which can make all the difference.

The SWOT Analysis:

This exercise is always at the core of every client’s plan I’ve ever built; SWOT stands for:

Strength

Weakness

Opportunity

Threat

Once I’m about 35-40% through their games from their previous season, the shape of the SWOT will start to form. This is when I’ll begin to see the patterns and details emerge. The details are the keys to success or failure within any given pattern.

As the patterns emerge from the film, I’ll start shorting the clips into my organizational process.

Depending on the player, this part leads to hundreds, sometimes thousands, of clips. Through trial and error, I have created a simple system for keeping all the clips in an order that works for me. Finding the best way to maintain order is vital when operating with this type of volume.

-How To Build A Player Development Plan: Malik Beasley's 2018/19 Plan-

The picture below is one of the early drafts of Malik’s SWOT from the summer of 2020. I still like to put pen to paper2 when building programs for clients, it allows me to sprinkle in drawing or write notes/ideas to myself that need to be flushed out later.

Each bullet point must accompany corresponding film edits, not one clip. If you don’t have volume, it’s not ready to be put on the SWOT.

Malik’s 2020 SWOT reflected the sizable opportunity Minnesota or any team that would have outbid them in RFA would have given him the following season. During this summer, he was in line to be paid like a Top 3 option on a team.

During the summer of 2020, Malik needed to evolve in his read tree and learn how to shift defenses with his gravity to make the game easier for others around him. You need more than just scoring from players in this tier of the team’s payroll.

I’ll also ask each player to create their own3 SWOT analysis. Understanding how players see themselves on the court is essential, and self-awareness is severely underrated.

You don’t need the player’s SWOT of themselves to be super high level, but, if they’re able to write things down on paper then it opens the door for two significant items:

1. Honest dialog:

These documents opened up the most honest dialog with clients. If you want this to be the case, you've got to dig in. Remember these guys know two things like the back of their hands: bullshit and most importantly “their game".

They know what they’re hiding on the court, what they’re trying to get to and when they feel their best/worst.

If you can put together something here that makes them honestly think; “damn, that’s me.” Then you’re going to have a great off-season!

1. Relieve anxiety:

This is the most significant benefit of a player’s writing their own SWOT. There is power in writing down the thing you have been hiding on the court. I’ve seen this relief of anxiety manifest the most in “off-hand” finishing.

Once the player writes or is prompted to write about their “off-hand” finishing being a weakness (and a big opportunity), the fear of messing up while working on it ceases to hold the same power over them. They’re willing to pursue development over that skill differently than before, misses don’t bother them like they once did, and the mental engagement is off the charts.

This happens for most items on the SWOT, but only the “off-hand“ finishing was standard amongst all my NBA clients.

Grade On A Curve:

The first three elements of the SWOT analysis should always be graded on the same relative curve. All players' strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities are based on their actions during a game. There is no wiggle room here; the eye in the sky doesn’t lie.

The grading standard is the same for these three categories, regardless of the player’s stature or status on their team or in the league.

However, the threats category of the SWOT is graded on a specific curve that correlates directly with the player’s stature or status on their team and in the league.

Threats are different for each player. Every player is at a different stage in their career and thus deals with unique threats.

This curve can be viewed in tiers, starting with a player just trying to make a roster and ending with a player attempting to become the best player in every playoff series they’re involved in.

I’ve been fortunate enough to work with clients at every tier on that list and even more fortunate to help them move up. Every player's journey is unique; each step up the ladder is a monumental occasion.

The key to a successful Threats section of a SWOT analysis is understanding and being honest about the player's career stage and grading on the correct curve.

Every player's threats will look mightily different.

Looking at the current trends in the NBA, there seems to have been a shift in how teams value certain SGs. Non-star volume scoring SGs have little value on the current market. The Blazers likely couldn't find a team willing to give them draft assets for Simons and pivoted to acquiring Holiday from the Celtics, who wanted to lower their payroll. The Jazz traded Sexton and a second round pick for Nurkic and waived Jordan Clarkson in a buyout agreement. The 2024 6MOY runner-up, Malik Monk, is apparently on the trade block, and rumors hint that the Kings have had trouble finding a trade partner. Last summer, Monk's extension was widely regarded as fair value, and a year later, the Kings are struggling to find a suitor for him. The Nets were the only team with cap space, and the market could look better next summer, but it's possible that GMs don't value these players as highly as they used to.

Looking at the EPM and 3y RAPM values for the four players mentioned.

Simons: 1.0 O-EPM -1.3 D-DPM 0 ORAPM -1.9 DRAPM

Sexton: 1.5 O-EPM -1.4 D-EPM 2.2 ORAPM -2.9 DRAPM

Clarkson: -0.5 O-EPM -1.2 D-EPM -0.2 ORAPM -3.0 DRAPM

Monk: 0.7 O-EPM -0.8 D-EPM -0.2 ORAPM -1.6 DRAPM

A common theme with these players is poor defense negating whatever offensive value they provide. Volume scoring is still important, but I don't believe they are starters on most good teams. They don't score or pass at a high enough level to be the lead guard or primary initiator, and they aren't good enough defensively to play next to another lead guard. Under the new CBA, you may regret giving players in this archetype anything more than 20M AAV.

With this in mind, there are 3 guards currently eligible for extensions who I would consider trading because of their similarities to the players mentioned previously. Shaedon Sharpe, Jaden Ivey, and Coby White. Sharpe and Ivey are eligible for rookie extensions, but I wouldn't consider either player to be a solid starter at the moment. This isn't a bad thing, as both players are still young and can still improve, but unfortunately, teams have to make financial decisions after 3 seasons. Sharpe and Ivey aren't good defenders or good playmakers, and both are under league average in scoring efficiency. They'll probably figure out the scoring part; however, I wouldn't project them to address the other two areas. the so If there is any draft hype still around these two, it may be wise for the Blazers and Pistons to seek a trade over a bad extension.

For Coby White, he's coming off a career best scoring season on 60% TS. He is likely to hit free agency in 2026 because CBA rules limit the amount the Bulls are capable of offering him. This seems fair given the year he had, but as someone who watched the Bulls, he stagnated. Coby managed to salvage a disappointing season after his breakout the year prior by having the best stretch of his career in March and April. I don't put too much stock into post-ASB basketball, so I wouldn't bet on him playing at that level to start next season. His on/off splits are back in the negative, and his EPM was -0.2 because of his horrendous defense. With Giddey likely getting an extension this summer, I would be hesitant to lock myself into such a poor defensive backcourt.

Do you think that the lack of interest in volume scoring SGs is the result of few teams having money to spend this offseason, or is it a sign of this archetype losing favorability across the league?