Speaker 1: Fifteen days. That's how many days separate us from the
Speaker 1: first preseason action of the new season, when the warriors
Speaker 1: actually head off to a country that's very close to me, Japan,
Speaker 1: to face the wizards. But we'll be talking about the
Speaker 1: latest news and notes, as well as discussing some of
Speaker 1: the concepts introducing the book the Mid Range Theory with
Speaker 1: author and former Bucks Director of research, Seth Part. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm miles gray and I'm Jack O'Brien and this is
Speaker 1: miles Jack Got Mad madot nailed it. That was actually
Speaker 1: one of the best ones. I think I sounded like
Speaker 1: I was coming in over a radio. That was John Out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's up, seth, seth part, now, welcome, welcome to the
Speaker 1: most wonderful, hilarious show about basketball. It's part Um Fun
Speaker 1: I had with your name. Look, I was just saying,
Speaker 1: look at the freeze right. It's like right as you
Speaker 1: introduced technology. Nailed it. So I gotta ask you what,
Speaker 1: first of all, what was your favorite team? Uh So,
Speaker 1: growing up I was a celtics fan. I grew up
Speaker 1: in Alaska, but my dad is from Boston and so
Speaker 1: came by. Came by honestly, but I went to my uh,
Speaker 1: my saw, my freshman year of college was, I think, kg's.
Speaker 1: I'm struggling to remember back now. It was either like
Speaker 1: the year before Kg's rookie year or his second year.
Speaker 1: Was My freshman year of college in Minnesota. Yeah, so, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: my Freshman Year of college was his uh whatever. So
Speaker 1: long ago, like I basically I was in I was
Speaker 1: living in Minnesota for the start of the kg year.
Speaker 1: So I became a temperwolves fan for basically until I
Speaker 1: lost fandom by starting to do basketball professionally. That's funny.
Speaker 1: We talked about that at like a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are essentially at a certain point, the fandom does erode.
Speaker 1: Like I'm actually just enjoying what I'm seeing. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: like things that are good. Now it's hard for me
Speaker 1: to be like you know that. It's growing up a
Speaker 1: Celtics Fan. It's all be honest. It's hard for me
Speaker 1: to not take some chat fraud over bad things happening
Speaker 1: to the Lakers, like that's never gonna go away. But
Speaker 1: the other fair, fair, fair, but that's what that's what
Speaker 1: gets us out of bed, right. So, small victories, right.
Speaker 1: And so now you're a pure basketball asteete. You just
Speaker 1: sit back with a you know, in a white robe,
Speaker 1: like what, like an ancient Greek philosopher, and just observe
Speaker 1: the sport for the pure beauty of it. Yes, and
Speaker 1: I never get into arguments or have strong opinions or
Speaker 1: have play favorites or no, that's not that's not true.
Speaker 1: It's not remotely true. But no, it's. But it's it's,
Speaker 1: rather than being tied to a team, being tied to
Speaker 1: concepts and and things like that. Right, and your book
Speaker 1: is about analytics, but you kind approach it from an angle.
Speaker 1: I this quote from the book, I think is a
Speaker 1: good is a good way of saying what you think.
Speaker 1: Analytics are a mode of thought hoping to reduce the
Speaker 1: impact of the cognitive biases we all suffer from, um
Speaker 1: which I that that's pretty cool. I I know that
Speaker 1: makes it sound it's not like a catchy pool quote
Speaker 1: that I've pulled out, but that that's the one that
Speaker 1: really made it make sense to me. You know, I
Speaker 1: I did not set out to be in basketball analytics.
Speaker 1: I was a basketball fan and player first and sort
Speaker 1: of by I don't know, by education and sort of
Speaker 1: bent it kind of led me back to it in
Speaker 1: sort of an economic slash numerican way and figuring out
Speaker 1: a way to discuss the game in numbers and finding
Speaker 1: out sort of what works rather than from a standpoint
Speaker 1: pint of of I'm smarter because I'm doing it this way.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope that comes across in the book,
Speaker 1: but that's that's really the approach to it is. It's just,
Speaker 1: you know, I've I've kind of always thought of things
Speaker 1: in that way. Um, all right, it's any any time
Speaker 1: you do something on the court, you're not doing something else.
Speaker 1: So figure out which is better. And you know some yeah,
Speaker 1: and there's sometimes you can figure it out just by
Speaker 1: sort of watching, and there's sometimes where you can't. I
Speaker 1: mean the the classic example from like baseball analytics is
Speaker 1: the difference between a three h hit and a two
Speaker 1: seventy five hitter is one hit every two weeks. Now,
Speaker 1: without without writing stuff down, watch two weeks of baseball
Speaker 1: and tell me if you can tell one apart from
Speaker 1: the other. Right and and so that's where you know that.
Speaker 1: There there's stuff that and there's you know, there's shades
Speaker 1: of gray as to win something is something you can
Speaker 1: just you can tell purely from sort of observation when
Speaker 1: something you need to collate more is uh, and everything
Speaker 1: exists sort of along to continue on them. But there's
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff that you you know, you can
Speaker 1: watch a guy shoot a couple of jumpers, but you
Speaker 1: probably get a better understanding if you can shoot in games,
Speaker 1: by letting him shoot five jumpers and games right and then,
Speaker 1: you know, seeing how many made it missed. I've always
Speaker 1: said that the reason I didn't end up in the
Speaker 1: NBA is because people just judge it too much on
Speaker 1: watching me shoot a couple of jumpers here and there
Speaker 1: and I didn't give me the chance to get up
Speaker 1: five hundred shots in the N B A, like I
Speaker 1: like I told them, hold, give me a run of
Speaker 1: games real quick. You know what I means. The flawed
Speaker 1: data set just because, okay, maybe I hurt my wrist
Speaker 1: real bad shooting that free throw. I do like I
Speaker 1: I do think there's a pretty of all of all
Speaker 1: the like analytics, shifts, like big, big shifts, and the
Speaker 1: understanding and how we approach a major sport. I feel
Speaker 1: like what we saw with the N B A, I
Speaker 1: guess it was like decades after the advent of the
Speaker 1: three point shot, everyone just being like, oh, that is
Speaker 1: a lot more points than a two pointer and just everyone,
Speaker 1: you know, realizing how much of an advantage that was,
Speaker 1: even though it kind of always been there, is pretty
Speaker 1: like that's pretty wild and I do feel like people,
Speaker 1: people now, when they think of analytics, are like so
Speaker 1: they're gonna say something radical like that, and that's no
Speaker 1: longer like that. There's not a hidden gem like threes
Speaker 1: are actually worth a whole lot more than two's uh,
Speaker 1: waiting to be discovered out there. It's more finding little
Speaker 1: edges uh here and there. Right, yeah, there's, there's, you know, there's,
Speaker 1: there might be more than one, but there aren't that
Speaker 1: many big things. And I feel like the people who
Speaker 1: are kind of anti the three to begin with maybe
Speaker 1: get a little bit of a rod deal Um because,
Speaker 1: if you think about it, we've only had like detailed
Speaker 1: data on where shots come from in the NBA since
Speaker 1: and that data didn't get like reliable till about eight so, okay,
Speaker 1: I yes, you're gonna shoot better from eighteen feet than
Speaker 1: you are from and you could be forgiven for thinking that. Well, no,
Speaker 1: eighteen feet, I'm gonna make that half the time and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make the Otto One. Thirty percent of the
Speaker 1: time and the math is still in my favor. Until
Speaker 1: you can actually see the see it collated that way,
Speaker 1: steither data pulled out, it's like actually, no, you shoot
Speaker 1: a little bit better, but it's like thirty eight percent
Speaker 1: if nobody's guarding you. And so, yeah, the extra point
Speaker 1: is worth a ton more, but we'd have the information
Speaker 1: needed to make it that obvious until like the late nineties. Uh,
Speaker 1: and then, you know, combined that with some of the
Speaker 1: rule changes in the early two thousands. I'm actually not surprised.
Speaker 1: It kind of took until some of that happened and
Speaker 1: then people had success, had success with it, for it
Speaker 1: to start to accelerate. And then, you know, you start
Speaker 1: to like then the Quantz came and ruin the game.
Speaker 1: You are a former quant right, like you, you worked,
Speaker 1: as we mentioned, does the Bucks Director of research. So
Speaker 1: you've kind of you're you're saying that self effacing. Yeah, yes, no,
Speaker 1: and I I yeah, and and you know I also
Speaker 1: I say that it self effacing Lee in both directions,
Speaker 1: both that know, the quants didn't ruin the game and
Speaker 1: on the scale of those things, I am certainly on
Speaker 1: the less quantity side than than than some people like
Speaker 1: you know, they're the people who are coming in from
Speaker 1: like an engineering computer science backgrounds. You know can go
Speaker 1: much further in that direction, but you you do still
Speaker 1: need kind of people in the middle that to to,
Speaker 1: I mean translate, is a little bit strong of the language,
Speaker 1: but you know, you do have to the language of
Speaker 1: math and Statistics and the language of basketball are not
Speaker 1: the same thing and you have to make them talk
Speaker 1: to each other for for any of the information to
Speaker 1: make any sense and, you know, affect decision making, whether it's,
Speaker 1: you know, do we need a three here, or who
Speaker 1: should we take in the draft right? What's kind of
Speaker 1: like the tension between those two sides? You know, like
Speaker 1: we're on one side, you're like it's in the numbers
Speaker 1: right here, like this is something we need to address,
Speaker 1: versus like you're saying these are different languages. What's that like?
Speaker 1: Reconciliation Process, like when you're trying to like have the
Speaker 1: proper acknowledgement of what what's born out of the statistics
Speaker 1: sort of be properly processed and, like you're saying, end
Speaker 1: up in a decision being made? I think there's a
Speaker 1: little bit of a misunderstanding on both sides. If you
Speaker 1: will as to what's actually happening. Uh, this is something
Speaker 1: that I've you know, I've told the students, have told
Speaker 1: the people who worked for me. Is the last thing
Speaker 1: I want to hear you say is, well, the numbers
Speaker 1: say this, like there's my maximus. The numbers don't say
Speaker 1: you say if if it was self evident from the numbers,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't need someone to work on the numbers. You're
Speaker 1: making an argument about basketball based on sort of of
Speaker 1: of numerical values and why this thing means basketball concepts
Speaker 1: Um and I think from the from sort of the
Speaker 1: traditional basketball side, I think there's a misunderstanding of that. Also,
Speaker 1: there's there's a perception that, oh, this guy with his
Speaker 1: numbers thinks he has all the answers, like no, here's
Speaker 1: here's a possible answer, and here's why I think it's true.
Speaker 1: Hear me out now. I think it's incumbent on the
Speaker 1: the the analysts side to be able to speak the
Speaker 1: language of basketball, because we're doing basketball here. So I like,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to teach linear Algebra to you know,
Speaker 1: assistant coach. So I have to like, okay, I just
Speaker 1: here's maybe two sentences on what I'm doing. Trust me,
Speaker 1: I know what I'm doing. Here's the implications, here's what
Speaker 1: it means on the floor. Let's talk about it. Do
Speaker 1: you think it helped your argument that you kept an
Speaker 1: abbocus on the sideline and would say I'm actually at
Speaker 1: half now. I'm just talking. I'll be honest. What helped
Speaker 1: me more than anything else is the fact that I
Speaker 1: had that I had played, like I played division three basketball.
Speaker 1: So we could get on the court and I could
Speaker 1: make a jumper and it's like then that rightly or wrongly, okay, well,
Speaker 1: that's that's a well, all right, he's not a total
Speaker 1: he's not a total tool about this stuff. Like numbers, numbers,
Speaker 1: gotta go. Alright, numbers. There was. There was that like
Speaker 1: my first year with the bucks, we were playing, like
Speaker 1: the staff was playing a pickup game and one of
Speaker 1: the coaches walked by. Then I hit a step back
Speaker 1: three and the guy was like, okay, numbers. So I
Speaker 1: already felt that. Yeah, yeah, exactly. It was always numbers, numbers.
Speaker 1: So because I'm like really interested in I love like
Speaker 1: data analysis and I love how much it offers people
Speaker 1: like a glimpse into the game and how that can
Speaker 1: affect decision making. But can you kind of give me
Speaker 1: an example of just sort of like when you look
Speaker 1: at when you're looking at the numbers and you're trying
Speaker 1: to sort of find something, uh in the data that
Speaker 1: you're looking at, like what are some what are some
Speaker 1: trends that you're seeing, like in terms of underrated statistics
Speaker 1: that you feel are starting to begin sort of taking
Speaker 1: a little bit more, you're getting a little bit more attention,
Speaker 1: whether it relates to like play style or even identifying
Speaker 1: like effective players? Um, this is an interesting question. I
Speaker 1: think that that I would I would rather than focus
Speaker 1: on specific metrics. I think like the the thing that
Speaker 1: is that is moving forward more is the idea of
Speaker 1: starting with ways to talk about players skills, not just
Speaker 1: saying this player is good, but this player does this
Speaker 1: well and what. Okay, this, but they're like, okay, so
Speaker 1: this player, you know, in in in these circumstances, this
Speaker 1: like like this. You know, for example, with you know,
Speaker 1: the tracking data that we have in the NBA, you
Speaker 1: can say, all right, this player has made of done
Speaker 1: contested threes. Ya, averages thirty eight. That's pretty good, so
Speaker 1: he's he's good at this. Now you you you put
Speaker 1: a contest on him, you put movement on him, you
Speaker 1: make you make him shoot off the move. How does
Speaker 1: that change? And you can start to describe, you know,
Speaker 1: he you know, is he a stand still shooter or
Speaker 1: movement shooter? Now we're getting into basketball concepts and and
Speaker 1: you can you can quantify that in a way that
Speaker 1: you know it's not perfect because there aren't enough. There
Speaker 1: aren't that many players who actually shoot like two movement
Speaker 1: threes in a season to give you a really good idea,
Speaker 1: but against okay, if he's hit his of his catching shoot,
Speaker 1: Dan still catching shoot, and of his off movements, even
Speaker 1: if you only have a hundred shots of each, it's
Speaker 1: not you know, it's not despositive, but it certainly gives
Speaker 1: you an idea of like yeah, maybe he's better if
Speaker 1: we just kind of stick him there and don't run
Speaker 1: him off screen and stuff like that. Um. So that's
Speaker 1: I think that the details, you know, kind of event
Speaker 1: level data that we now have allows you to look
Speaker 1: at things more that way. And it's not just shooting.
Speaker 1: All of the shooting stats of being been the most
Speaker 1: developed because, for whatever recent people care about buckets the
Speaker 1: most Um and that's that's you know that that holds true. For,
Speaker 1: you know, for for analysts as much as it does
Speaker 1: for bad twitter. So there's that, there's rebounded, there's playmaking.
Speaker 1: Defense is still hard. Um, there's a lot of kind
Speaker 1: of bad attempts at quantifying defense out there because some
Speaker 1: other you know, learning lessons from other sports. It's sometimes good,
Speaker 1: but I think in many ways lessons from baseball in
Speaker 1: particular have served as poorly when measuring defense. I mean
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of stuff. You can tell, okay,
Speaker 1: you can tell who the closest defender is to shoot
Speaker 1: her and therefore you can say something about his defense
Speaker 1: by what players shoot against him. Right. No, you can't.
Speaker 1: I mean you can't, like there's there's places on the
Speaker 1: floor you can. But there's a thing that's missing when
Speaker 1: you're looking at that from a defensive perspective, which is,
Speaker 1: what about all the times the guy doesn't shoot? You know,
Speaker 1: baseball this analogy like these all the time baseball. You know,
Speaker 1: great left handed hitter comes up, other team brings their
Speaker 1: their left eat layer, left he headed, specialist receiver out
Speaker 1: of the out of the bullpen. The guy can't be
Speaker 1: like now, wait, yeah, where you get where you get
Speaker 1: a kick out on the perimeter the guy closes out. Well,
Speaker 1: it's like well, I got to shoot. There was a kickout,
Speaker 1: like no, let me, let me do something else with it. So,
Speaker 1: like from a defensive side, that's a pretty good outcome
Speaker 1: and that shows up nowhere right. Yeah, so if you're
Speaker 1: using like like, you know, jump shot defense is a
Speaker 1: way to evaluate what a certain player is doing, you're
Speaker 1: missing almost their best their best preps. Can you because that?
Speaker 1: You know, the quote I mentioned up top was like
Speaker 1: the ability of analytics to address cognitive biases. Can you
Speaker 1: talk about like something like a journey you personally took
Speaker 1: when you, you know, as somebody who played basketball and
Speaker 1: presumably watched a lot of basketball, was a big basketball
Speaker 1: fan coming into your career, a cognitive bias you had
Speaker 1: that a lytics kind of helped you overcome? I think so.
Speaker 1: I mean I you know, the player types when I
Speaker 1: was when I was sort of a UH look, coming
Speaker 1: out up more from a fan Ang or maybe play
Speaker 1: some fantasy stuff like that. There was a player type
Speaker 1: I kept missing on, which was, you know, coming in
Speaker 1: the draft, I thought he's gonna be good like Randolph childers,
Speaker 1: he's gonna be like, you know, it's kind of this
Speaker 1: small scoring guard who you know, has a lot of
Speaker 1: Moxie and makes big shots in college and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: and it's like a you know, you get this now
Speaker 1: is he's a winner. And so, like, I I was
Speaker 1: with that. And then you start to study and he
Speaker 1: realized actually that that's sort of mid range rocket guy
Speaker 1: to sleep pull up. That's the province of just like
Speaker 1: the very best players. So yeah, some guys are going
Speaker 1: to do that, but you gotta be good to do that.
Speaker 1: Like the guys who just do that, okay, right, are
Speaker 1: actually pretty bad and being players. I mean they're bad
Speaker 1: basketball players, but it means they're you know, you end
Speaker 1: up being like Shane Larkin or something like that, who is,
Speaker 1: you know, like a Euroleague all star but because of
Speaker 1: his combination of size and skill set, isn't necessarily an
Speaker 1: effective NB player. And so you know, kind of seeing
Speaker 1: those weird things where a skill given depending on like
Speaker 1: the context, then you need to be very valuable or
Speaker 1: not valuable at all. That's wild. I hadn't thought about
Speaker 1: Shane Larkins since he came into the League and you know,
Speaker 1: he was very Barry Larkin's kid and I think he
Speaker 1: was like a you know, definitely a first round draft
Speaker 1: pick right and I yeah, I hadn't looked him up
Speaker 1: since then, but that that makes sense. Very good, very
Speaker 1: good European player. You know, the best, best player I
Speaker 1: ever played pick up against was Kalid El Amy, and
Speaker 1: he kind of fell into that, into that, into that
Speaker 1: same kind of thing. That's same, like just not, you know,
Speaker 1: not quite big enough, not quite good enough, but you
Speaker 1: put him over in that, you know, in a slightly
Speaker 1: different context of basketball, and that's pretty good. What skill
Speaker 1: do you look for in a kind of smaller guard
Speaker 1: that that yields a Chris Paul or someone like that?
Speaker 1: I mean that's you look for them to be Chris Paul,
Speaker 1: like measuring, like measuring decision making is is you know,
Speaker 1: that's that's a little bit the holy grail right now. Um,
Speaker 1: that's something that, uh, I think right now football actually
Speaker 1: probably has the lead on because you can you can
Speaker 1: actually you know, the quarterbacks past decision is actually a
Speaker 1: little more straightforward then, because okay, I can throw to
Speaker 1: this guy, I can throw that guy, I can wait
Speaker 1: a little bit, maybe I can scramble around, but your
Speaker 1: decisions are a little bit more cabin than they are,
Speaker 1: whereas the guy's coming off a pick and roll. It's
Speaker 1: like I can throw the ball here, I can take
Speaker 1: another dribble, I can put the guy in jail. So
Speaker 1: how do you even break down what the different decisions are?
Speaker 1: And you can, you can start to look at some
Speaker 1: sort of very abstract examples, but that's just like one
Speaker 1: tiny aspect of it, and in the game of basketball
Speaker 1: it's so many. Any you're making so many decisions that
Speaker 1: you might not even realize you're like a players making
Speaker 1: in a short span of time. And the player who
Speaker 1: does that well, I was like, Oh, look at the
Speaker 1: look at look at how he knows how to be
Speaker 1: on the court, where to be on the court. Look
Speaker 1: at just feel, look at his basketball. Like you whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, that's the sum of like
Speaker 1: you know, twenty decisions a second that the guy is
Speaker 1: making better than the next player. So how do you
Speaker 1: like so how do you even start to quantify that?
Speaker 1: Like we have some things that proxy for that. Like
Speaker 1: people wonder why, like college steel rate is such a
Speaker 1: strong projector of NBA success, and I think that's it.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, you have a combination of physical ability
Speaker 1: to get there and sort of mental recognition and like
Speaker 1: speed of of translating thought to action that you can
Speaker 1: then use whatever your physical abilities are. So, like, I
Speaker 1: got the ball now, I saw it coming, I got
Speaker 1: the ball and that and that, like that sort of
Speaker 1: represents I can I know how to play amazing. All right.
Speaker 1: Should we take a break and come back and keep
Speaker 1: asking you questions, like who's your favorite player? Like, do
Speaker 1: you think anyways that we'll be right back? And we're
Speaker 1: back and yeah, just I'm having a great time sort
Speaker 1: of hearing you kind of talk, talk about these things.
Speaker 1: I was I was curious to hear if you have
Speaker 1: a current player or a former player and or a
Speaker 1: former player that you feel like contributed to more wins
Speaker 1: than people realize because of cognitive biases or like just
Speaker 1: kind of what what we look for on a basketball
Speaker 1: court versus what's actually happening out there. So, I mean
Speaker 1: the the the easy answer for the current players, the
Speaker 1: player who seems like there's the biggest disconnect between how
Speaker 1: they're perceived and how good they are is Rudy Gobert.
Speaker 1: Like people just clown rudy so much. I can't the
Speaker 1: I can't believe the timberwolves traded all this form is like, okay,
Speaker 1: he's a walking top and defense and it's not sexy.
Speaker 1: He's he's annoying, like people are annoyed by his personality,
Speaker 1: which that's fine. There's players who annoy who's personally annoyed me.
Speaker 1: But like, and maybe maybe his game isn't perfectly suited
Speaker 1: to playoff basketball. That's all fine. He's still like like
Speaker 1: a top three defensive player in the League and probably
Speaker 1: a top twenty overall player who just it's it's because
Speaker 1: he doesn't get buckets. It's like the stuff he does
Speaker 1: is just like undervalued. And it's weird because, like there
Speaker 1: are other players who, you know, similar like the other
Speaker 1: kind of great, top level defenders who are, you know,
Speaker 1: top twenty. You know, you know, maybe draymond has kind
Speaker 1: of aged out of being a top twenty player, top
Speaker 1: twenty player, but the other kind of defense first guys
Speaker 1: who are up that high, like Draymond, Bam Ada, bio,
Speaker 1: they don't seem to get the same maybe because they
Speaker 1: have a little bit more at the ball, but neither
Speaker 1: of them are really bucket getters. But it's rudy is
Speaker 1: just like because his offensive game is like dive and
Speaker 1: catch lobs and get foul and rebound. It's sort of well,
Speaker 1: that doesn't matter. It's like, well, that's actually pretty impactful.
Speaker 1: The draymond thing that you know, it took. It took
Speaker 1: for him going out last year them being absolutely rolling
Speaker 1: and dominant, uh for a while, him going out with
Speaker 1: an injury and then being completely like seeming to be
Speaker 1: completely average, him coming back and then winning the title.
Speaker 1: I was like, all right, there might be something going
Speaker 1: on here. Uh. That like, I mean I think I knew,
Speaker 1: like you can kind of watch and be like, he
Speaker 1: really does a lot of smart things out there, but
Speaker 1: that that was pretty pretty clean case that that was
Speaker 1: made last season with regards to Draymond and what he
Speaker 1: does kind of off ball. Yeah, and I think that's
Speaker 1: a that's a you know, not to go too deep
Speaker 1: into that. I think the worry is is how much
Speaker 1: longer you have sort of at that level because, like,
Speaker 1: as you say, you saw healthy draymond the start of
Speaker 1: the year, no Draymond, and then kind of hurt draymond
Speaker 1: second half of the year, ramping into form, draymond over
Speaker 1: the players, draymond forgetting how to play offensive basketball for
Speaker 1: a few games to the finals and like from what
Speaker 1: was it like? Late in game four of the finals
Speaker 1: to the end? He was spectacular again, and she's like, Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that team suddenly becomes you know, you can have
Speaker 1: a you know, a third point guard on the floor
Speaker 1: WHO's also your defensive center. Yeah, that's kind of Nice.
Speaker 1: The other part of the question was a past player.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I want to go impactful because frankly,
Speaker 1: don't have the tools to measure this player's impact. But
Speaker 1: my favorite player of all time is Reggie Lewis Um both,
Speaker 1: you know, both, because he so I grew up in Alaska.
Speaker 1: He came to the Great alska shootout, which is a
Speaker 1: really good college tournament until it wasn't and doesn't exist anymore.
Speaker 1: He was with North he was at northeastern, northeaster, and
Speaker 1: he gave, he gave buckets and then and then he
Speaker 1: went to the Celtics and was like the next Great
Speaker 1: Celtic Star and like and also his game was so
Speaker 1: interesting because he they still don't see a lot of
Speaker 1: players like that. Jimmy Butler might almost be the closest.
Speaker 1: Was He. You know, there's a certain rhythm that guys
Speaker 1: play with. You know, you can kind of like pump, fake,
Speaker 1: jab go, whereas you know, uh, he sort of he
Speaker 1: sort of played the in between notes, like like pump,
Speaker 1: fake and go like like and not bring it down
Speaker 1: to like like playing, you know how like reggae is,
Speaker 1: playing on the upstroke a little bit, a little bit
Speaker 1: like that, and that was just super I was always
Speaker 1: super intrigued by that. And also he was like one
Speaker 1: of the guys who guarded him j the best, which
Speaker 1: I which I thought was cool. That's right. Yeah, I'm curious,
Speaker 1: like with the all the information that we have right sometimes,
Speaker 1: in any industry or just job whatever, a lot of
Speaker 1: information can be a good thing. Sometimes it can be
Speaker 1: not a great thing because it can maybe complicate people's
Speaker 1: thinking or whatever. They get too in focused on things
Speaker 1: like that. How do you see like, because when I
Speaker 1: look at just a lot of sports right and I'm
Speaker 1: seeing just this general push to really embracing the analytics,
Speaker 1: to really finding these margins to play more efficiently, whether
Speaker 1: that's to get score more baskets, score more goals or
Speaker 1: whatever in another sport, there's a lot of really like
Speaker 1: I'm constantly blown away at like how people are looking
Speaker 1: at a sport and how much it's influencing it is?
Speaker 1: Do you see that like this sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: influx of analytics and things like that is helping to
Speaker 1: create like change even how people even set a team
Speaker 1: up to play, like because they're really really focused or
Speaker 1: really acknowledge that, like some of these things, they add
Speaker 1: up over time, these margins and that's really something to
Speaker 1: focus on? Or is it still kind of like, okay,
Speaker 1: I like what you're saying, that's food for thought, but
Speaker 1: I won't completely impact the strategy or the X is
Speaker 1: and Os. I mean again, this is one of those
Speaker 1: things where you you don't want to say that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you can analytics, did this or that. I
Speaker 1: think that that I've always find those comments pretty funny,
Speaker 1: because that's like, I I wish I had that kind
Speaker 1: of power. But I imagine on one level it's a
Speaker 1: it catalyzes the process of something for sure, because we're
Speaker 1: going from an information desert to one where it's very rich,
Speaker 1: right like well, you know, Mike d'antoni didn't need me
Speaker 1: or anyone else to tell him, Hey, let's put let's
Speaker 1: put some shooters around and give give Steve Nash and
Speaker 1: Mari Stdomier some space, like you know, you don't have to.
Speaker 1: You don't have to come out of from a numerical
Speaker 1: stands to see like yeah, that makes more sense. If
Speaker 1: this guy standing at twenty four feet instead of eighteen feet,
Speaker 1: there's more space for this thing to happen. Great, Um.
Speaker 1: So I think that the that the analysis can can
Speaker 1: work in candom with that. But again, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's I don't think we should, we should force it
Speaker 1: from strategy completely and we can't because it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: that's a good thing to do. How he sient need
Speaker 1: to so you do. They do need to work in hand,
Speaker 1: hand in hand to implement. You can't just like, you know,
Speaker 1: just shoot more threes. That's not what happens. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not like you know, maybe now there are a
Speaker 1: few players who can literally just lock the ball up
Speaker 1: the floor and Jack Three. That's like there's three guys
Speaker 1: in the League can do that. Two guys in the
Speaker 1: League who should do that? Maybe one, depending on, you know,
Speaker 1: if if if Dame's ABS or are are better or not,
Speaker 1: like staff like trade as it probably shouldn't, um, but
Speaker 1: but it was like, okay, so how do we get
Speaker 1: more threes? Well, part of it is okay, instead of
Speaker 1: having the guy on the opposite side of the court
Speaker 1: stand at the in the short corner, have him stand
Speaker 1: all the way in the corner. And and so that's
Speaker 1: a that's that's a strategic thing. That allowed there to
Speaker 1: be more threes. And then there's some additional benefits like well,
Speaker 1: if he's actually that far out, all of a sudden
Speaker 1: his defender has more ground to cover. That seems good.
Speaker 1: And so it's it's so it's sort of builds on itself,
Speaker 1: by the way. And so I again I'm I'm read
Speaker 1: sent to say that it's all, or primarily part. I
Speaker 1: don't mean part of. I don't and I don't even
Speaker 1: mean to suggest that it's like. Well, what do you what?
Speaker 1: Do you come in with your notebook and tell them?
Speaker 1: But more just like what do you say when someone goes,
Speaker 1: all right, the what I need you for? I knew that.
Speaker 1: That's honestly, that's great, like that's that's sort of because, no,
Speaker 1: that's that's sort of the almost some of the better
Speaker 1: best way to get stuff implemented is you know this,
Speaker 1: but right, you know, but but here's here. Let me
Speaker 1: let me show you the degree to which this is true.
Speaker 1: It's like, Oh, so, you know, you can, you can
Speaker 1: look at like, you know, rebounding data and see, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: if I shoot from the right side, rebound is gonna
Speaker 1: go over here to the left side and like, you know,
Speaker 1: but it's but it's still it's useful to have that
Speaker 1: reinforced and confirmed. Like I think that's one of the
Speaker 1: things that's least understood, is like the stuff we study
Speaker 1: probably confirmed sort of the conventional wisdom, because coaches have
Speaker 1: been you know, it's not like it's not like there
Speaker 1: hasn't been an off rewards to being a winner. Keep
Speaker 1: keeping your job. Keeping your job is a pretty good
Speaker 1: incentive to to do things better, and so a lot
Speaker 1: of the things that are done are, you know, have
Speaker 1: been tried and true and true and like no, you
Speaker 1: win more games by doing it this way. And some
Speaker 1: of that trial and error. And maybe we can speed
Speaker 1: up that trial and error process a little bit by
Speaker 1: suggesting a thing that seems likely to work. But I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, some pretty some pretty dedicated people over sixty,
Speaker 1: seventy years have been picking at this thing for a
Speaker 1: while and you know, a lot of them do some stuff.
Speaker 1: So it's not like you're gonna come in and say, Nope,
Speaker 1: you're all wrong, throw it out from the book out.
Speaker 1: Not True. I mean, you go like you go. As
Speaker 1: you know, the foundation of like basketball analytics is the
Speaker 1: four factors, and that's effective field goal percentage, turnover percentage,
Speaker 1: free throw a rate, defensive rebound rate. What does every
Speaker 1: coach you've ever had tell you? Get good shots, to
Speaker 1: take care of the ball, gets the free throw line,
Speaker 1: protect that's all it is. It's basically that for me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know everything you ever heard, and it's just like
Speaker 1: the basis of of you know, how you look at
Speaker 1: a team from a statistical standpoint is those four things. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I guess that's where like, because everyone does have
Speaker 1: the same sort of agreed upon way to do things.
Speaker 1: I think that's where it's probably beneficial now to say,
Speaker 1: given that we all believe these things, now, where are
Speaker 1: these where can we find these other ways to be
Speaker 1: more effective, and how important is each of them relative
Speaker 1: to the other? Like, yeah, that's this is one of
Speaker 1: those those areas where I found that sort of people
Speaker 1: who come at things from a more observational are very
Speaker 1: good at identifying things, not always as good at weighing
Speaker 1: them against each other. M Hm. And so that's a
Speaker 1: you know, and and those. And the interesting thing is
Speaker 1: those things change, like the environment of the NBA. We
Speaker 1: will change the degree to which the ability to hit
Speaker 1: a corner three versus the ability stay in front of
Speaker 1: a guy on a switch, like. Which of those things
Speaker 1: is more, is more valuable, or how valuable it is
Speaker 1: or who else is on your team makes it value.
Speaker 1: So it's not like these are it's not this is
Speaker 1: a set things. Do this and it's good. It's like,
Speaker 1: in this environment this is more helpful than it's maybe
Speaker 1: given credit for. Um, there's UH, there's a clip of
Speaker 1: golden states gm Bob Meyers at the sports analytics conference
Speaker 1: talking about like the difference between playoff basketball versus regular
Speaker 1: season basketball. Like has that? Is that something that kind
Speaker 1: of came up from an analytic standpoint in terms of
Speaker 1: like the shift in Style and overall approach for playoff
Speaker 1: teams versus regular season teams? Yeah, I mean I I
Speaker 1: wrote about this in the in the playoff chapter in
Speaker 1: the book. And there's so I have a among the
Speaker 1: professions I've done before this, that was a professional poker player.
Speaker 1: And there's there's Um, kind of two modes of play
Speaker 1: Um and again, as with most things, it's not like
Speaker 1: one or the other. It's somewhere in between. But there's
Speaker 1: it's there's what's called Game Theory often, which is I
Speaker 1: don't know what you are as a poker player, but
Speaker 1: amongst the set of poker players I know about what
Speaker 1: that means you do. So how do I play, knowing
Speaker 1: you're from this group? First exploit of play is I
Speaker 1: know exactly how you play. What can I do best
Speaker 1: to beat you? Now tell me. The first bit doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like regular season, where you're playing Sacramento Tonight, Houston Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Orlando the other the third night. And the exploit of
Speaker 1: play is the playoffs. So it's a very different like
Speaker 1: you know, design how to do best in each of
Speaker 1: those things. It's it's not surprising. The different coaches, different players,
Speaker 1: different skill sets function better in one environment versus together.
Speaker 1: All right, a piece of news that we've been kind
Speaker 1: of putting off, but I'm definitely eager to like kind
Speaker 1: of bring it up and get any thoughts that you have.
Speaker 1: Is The news about Donovan Mitchell going of the calves,
Speaker 1: which that got me very excited. I feel like in
Speaker 1: terms of fit for him. Continuing to have a great
Speaker 1: defensive stopper behind him is great for his game. The
Speaker 1: one thing that occurred to me is like usage. I
Speaker 1: guess I hadn't even realized, but he's a top ten
Speaker 1: usage guy in in the NBA in terms of how
Speaker 1: much he dominates the ball, and then Garland is also
Speaker 1: a big usage guy. But I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: it just overall, this makes me more excited to watch
Speaker 1: NBA basketball next season having Donovan Mitchell on the calves.
Speaker 1: So I'm excited. Yeah, I love that trade for both sides.
Speaker 1: I really did. I thought I thought that jazz did
Speaker 1: a you know in terms of pivoting off of their
Speaker 1: looking at sort of their off season as a hole,
Speaker 1: like all right, we knew that team was kind of
Speaker 1: had reached it its conclusion. It's a pretty strong pivot
Speaker 1: to what you know, going to whatever's next. And I
Speaker 1: don't know how much you guys followed draft stuff, but
Speaker 1: this would not be a bad year to end up
Speaker 1: with the first pick. Yeah, yeah, you know, it's if
Speaker 1: you you know, basically, if you had color film of
Speaker 1: what Luell sender looked like in high school, I think
Speaker 1: I look a lot like victor when Banyana Yama's use
Speaker 1: film does so. Like, no pressure, young man, but but, um, yeah,
Speaker 1: and then at the same time I like, like I
Speaker 1: love the fit with Mitchell and Cleveland. I'm amused by
Speaker 1: the fact that he's going to continue to be sort
Speaker 1: of the face of the team and if they're going anywhere,
Speaker 1: he won't be the best player on the team again. Um,
Speaker 1: that's you know, that's essentially it's a pretty huge bet
Speaker 1: that Evan mobiley is gonna be like that guy. Anybody's
Speaker 1: gonna be that guy without having to be like throw
Speaker 1: him the ball and get out of the way kind
Speaker 1: of version of that guy, which I think is frankly,
Speaker 1: is probably beneficial to him because maybe he develops that.
Speaker 1: But they're actually isn't a lot in profile at this
Speaker 1: point that suggests that's hugely likely. So, you know, turning
Speaker 1: him into sort of the the the almost the next
Speaker 1: iteration of Anthony Davis, rather than than having to be,
Speaker 1: you know, having to be like Joel and bead or
Speaker 1: something like that. Yeah, yeah, the Jabari in the comments
Speaker 1: is like Kig and Boston is supposed to Gig many.
Speaker 1: I think that's the reason to play and and frankly,
Speaker 1: like kg and and many tried to play like I
Speaker 1: think they like they were always trying to get him
Speaker 1: to be more like that was the biggest difference between
Speaker 1: him and Duncan. Was Dunk I was like, Oh, I
Speaker 1: gotta get a bucket, I'm gonna get a bucket, whereas
Speaker 1: kg always sort of was like it's moving around and
Speaker 1: do some stuff, and I can, I can, I can
Speaker 1: blend a little bit and and never quite got to
Speaker 1: the point of wanting, of needing to just have the
Speaker 1: ball in his hands at all the time. Uh, we got,
Speaker 1: we got very off track. where, where am I going?
Speaker 1: I think we were all gonna talk about the fact
Speaker 1: that the real story, despite Donovan Mitchell, is that Montrase
Speaker 1: harrold is with Philly and that makes Philly just undoubtedly
Speaker 1: the championship rockets assemble the no, and I so to
Speaker 1: your point about like Mitchell and Garland. I don't think
Speaker 1: we've seen much in the last couple of years of
Speaker 1: NBA basketball to suggests that it's bad thing to have
Speaker 1: multiple guys who can make plays with the ball in
Speaker 1: their hands. I think that that's sort of the and
Speaker 1: as the person who unwittingly coined the term Um. I
Speaker 1: don't think the heliocentric style is I don't think it's desirable.
Speaker 1: I think certain teams have found expedient and necessary, but
Speaker 1: having two dudes who can do that is probably better
Speaker 1: than one, especially if they can, if if neither of
Speaker 1: them actually needs to have the ball. But both Garland
Speaker 1: and Mitchell are good enough shooters, that's Um and willing enough,
Speaker 1: you know, catch and shoot players. That, uh yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: from a pure basketball standpoint there's no reason it shouldn't
Speaker 1: work offensively. But I'm very excited to see that team
Speaker 1: because I think there could be a lot of fun too.
Speaker 1: Speaking of having like multiple people who could who can
Speaker 1: put it in like what? I'm just curious for your
Speaker 1: thoughts on the nets. You know, when they were peak
Speaker 1: form nets, they were so fun to watch, so unstoppable,
Speaker 1: like even in that first round against Boston, and then,
Speaker 1: you know, injuries got in the way. But like, I
Speaker 1: think people are now like sort of settling into this
Speaker 1: idea that like, well, that didn't work, and I don't
Speaker 1: know that that's true because when it was working it
Speaker 1: was wildly dominant, like on a game by game basis.
Speaker 1: Even was that anomalous? I mean, like the way we
Speaker 1: talked about that stuff is so jacked, like jnness couldn't
Speaker 1: be the best player on a championship team until he was,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's just like, okay, how many teams
Speaker 1: work in a given a year, like last year? Would
Speaker 1: you say one and a half, like the warriors in Boston,
Speaker 1: but then they got to the finals and Oh no,
Speaker 1: like's I think. I think that Boston worked. I think
Speaker 1: that Cleveland worked last year when they were healthy. Like
Speaker 1: like our definition of that is like, you know, you
Speaker 1: think about the rockets teams that took the warriors, that
Speaker 1: pushed the like the K D warriors in in the playoffs,
Speaker 1: like this is one of the great teams ever assembled
Speaker 1: and you took them to seven games in the conference
Speaker 1: finals and that didn't work. Like what are we talking
Speaker 1: about here? Yeah, like, I don't know. I so I
Speaker 1: I you know the same. You know, those so like
Speaker 1: the Jazz, the Mitchell Gobert jazz teams, like they were
Speaker 1: plenty good and just you know, did they catch every break? No.
Speaker 1: Were they the best team? No. Could they have made
Speaker 1: the finals or win a championship if things broke their
Speaker 1: way a little? I mean it's counterfactional. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: think so. Like the hard rockets have won a champion.
Speaker 1: I think so. Good. Last year's Celtics have what you know,
Speaker 1: it's Lakers, you know. I mean that's know. I'm gonna,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna, I'M gonna put my foot down there. But even, like, even,
Speaker 1: like last year's bucks, like they could they have repeated
Speaker 1: if Chris Middleton doesn't get hurt. Right like. Would I
Speaker 1: have picked them over the weirds? Probably not, but like,
Speaker 1: you can't dismiss it. Yeah, all right. Should we take
Speaker 1: another break and come back firing rapidly with rapid fire?
Speaker 1: Time for the rapid fire question. Oh, hold onto your
Speaker 1: butts everyone, and we're back and it's time for the
Speaker 1: Jack and miles or miles and Jack Got Mad boost
Speaker 1: these rapid fire round of questions. They almost forgot what
Speaker 1: the bit was, but I came back to it. Optimal podcast,
Speaker 1: we're optimizing. Yeah, so you might listen to it and
Speaker 1: be like wow, they're kind of dumb about basketball and
Speaker 1: this is a basketball podcast, but then when you actually
Speaker 1: dig into the numbers, it's pretty impressive. Wildly engagement per
Speaker 1: point made its safe uh seth. You may or may
Speaker 1: not have heard about this infamous segment on the show.
Speaker 1: This is the rapid fire round of questions. We are
Speaker 1: going to hit you with questions back to back at
Speaker 1: lightning speed. Do not think, just respond with whatever your
Speaker 1: brain or your heart is telling you. Don't ramble on.
Speaker 1: This is rapid. Okay, here we go. Start the clock.
Speaker 1: So angry to play the feud. Oh, I just have
Speaker 1: to get you know what. I have to set a baseline.
Speaker 1: You know, just here for what? where? This is going energetically? Okay, rapid.
Speaker 1: Here we go. The clock is taking you want to go?
Speaker 1: or WHO's got you? Um, I'll go for yeah, let
Speaker 1: me just see where it yeah, let me go for you. Okay. Well,
Speaker 1: I was gonna. I want to do the third, third,
Speaker 1: but no, okay, you go, you go, you go. Okay,
Speaker 1: you want to do a third, all right, let me
Speaker 1: just yeah, just move that copy. You're putting in the
Speaker 1: wrong doc. Now that's the tz dock. Alright, start the clock.
Speaker 1: I'm actually using hot keys here. UH, cutting. Alright, cool, alright,
Speaker 1: so Seth Uh Jack from Myles and Jack at Mat
Speaker 1: boostie's here asking you a question. We're asking all of
Speaker 1: our guests. Note a throwing one better chance of happening.
Speaker 1: Building on last year's playoff birth, the timber wolves, the
Speaker 1: NBA team from Minnesota, make the conference finals or we
Speaker 1: get copious amounts of what that trick in the Western
Speaker 1: Conference Finals says the Grizzlies take it to the next level.
Speaker 1: That is a good one. Thank you. That is that is.
Speaker 1: That is I think, man. I think I I trust
Speaker 1: the roster up and down from mem it's a little
Speaker 1: bit more so. I think that's where like the top
Speaker 1: end talent on Minnesota, I think, is here. But I
Speaker 1: just you know, there's some question marks about who's going
Speaker 1: to be on the floor. Wind and there's and and,
Speaker 1: whereas Memphis has some versatility, they can make choices, whereas
Speaker 1: the timberwolves have questions, even though you yourself were saying
Speaker 1: Rudy Gobert was the best player in the League mere
Speaker 1: moments ago. No, that's not what you were saying, uh,
Speaker 1: but that is probably how it would happen on first take.
Speaker 1: Or what one of those shows where? Um, anyway, I
Speaker 1: gotta I'm sorry, Seth, I gotta tell you gotta keep
Speaker 1: the answers just a little bit quicker. Okay, let's keep
Speaker 1: this moving, uh, seth, what are we underrating about the
Speaker 1: upcoming season the number of teams that legitimately think they
Speaker 1: have a chance, number of the teams that think so.
Speaker 1: Usually you go into a season you think there's about
Speaker 1: five teams that that really I think that number is
Speaker 1: closer to ten this year. Okay, so you think, legit,
Speaker 1: there are ten teams that could win it. I mean
Speaker 1: I like, I have to go through, but you think about, no,
Speaker 1: let me just start ripping them off a buck. Celtics, Warriors, sixers, nets,
Speaker 1: Um Nuggets, clippers, you know, grizzlies, like you just you know,
Speaker 1: you go like, yeah, there's a lot of people keep
Speaker 1: getting a lot of the teams. Okay, now, a lot
Speaker 1: of these teams. Yeah, it said Clippers, but a lot
Speaker 1: of these teams like things are going to have to
Speaker 1: go right for them. But like that's a lot more
Speaker 1: teams than usually enter the season really thinking like that legitimate,
Speaker 1: like a lot of teams like talk themselves into think,
Speaker 1: but there are a lot of teams that over legit
Speaker 1: like we're right there and like, okay, I'm I'm low
Speaker 1: on Dallas, but you gotta Put Dallas on that list too, because,
Speaker 1: like Luca could be the best player in the league
Speaker 1: this year on that list. I completely forgot about the sun's. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that is exciting and even at this time last year,
Speaker 1: would most people have even put the warriors on that
Speaker 1: list as one of the teams that it has a
Speaker 1: legit shot? I went on Bay Area Radio on the
Speaker 1: eve of last season and questioned whether they would be
Speaker 1: a top six seat. Wow, so now I'm an idiot,
Speaker 1: but I don't think a lot of people saw that coming, right,
Speaker 1: I don't think. O. No, and then there's reasons to
Speaker 1: you know, had been a little bit since since Steph
Speaker 1: did that over a full season. We didn't know we're
Speaker 1: going to get from draymond. They had a lot of
Speaker 1: questions and and you know things. You know they're there.
Speaker 1: Their support players all broke right. Clay came back better
Speaker 1: than we could expected. Jordan's developed, Kevin Looney stayed healthy.
Speaker 1: Like these are all things that were pretty important to
Speaker 1: them last year. WE'RE gonna keep it moving. So I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but we got to keep it moving. Next question. Well,
Speaker 1: some of the Eurobasket success from guys like or Lori
Speaker 1: Marken in translate into the upcoming regular season. What do
Speaker 1: you think for the player that I'm prepared to take
Speaker 1: my biggest hell on a long time Franz Wagner. Oh Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I did not think you good. Uh, can they play
Speaker 1: that way in the NBA? It's always the question, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, on those three guys, like from the scale
Speaker 1: of Yes to no, it's probably like Wagner Marketing Chengoon
Speaker 1: in terms of can they play the same way and
Speaker 1: haven't work at the NBA level? So, yeah, yes, there
Speaker 1: they are. They are good players, but I don't think
Speaker 1: you're like you know as as like I said, Kaide
Speaker 1: was a hipster guy, like Chengun is the hipsterist of
Speaker 1: hipster players, and I'm still not completely convinced. Like, I
Speaker 1: think he's a good player, is gonna be a good
Speaker 1: player in the league for a long time. And then
Speaker 1: we're like a legit star. I'm not sure. We will
Speaker 1: ask you to just keep a little tighter. Um, if
Speaker 1: you could change one rule to the game, to the
Speaker 1: NBA game, that was like just for fun, just to
Speaker 1: make it you know, throw throw things off balance, make
Speaker 1: it fun, what would it be? UH, time limit on
Speaker 1: replay review. Yeah, that would make it much more watchable.
Speaker 1: Like what are we limiting it to? Three seconds, just
Speaker 1: super quick first glance, the first thirty seconds or minute,
Speaker 1: something like that. If you can't figure it out by then,
Speaker 1: keep it. Movement like there's a little bit of there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of what are we doing here? Two,
Speaker 1: it's like like we're we're making a TV show here.
Speaker 1: We're not. It's it's not a court case. So we're
Speaker 1: looking at the refs have ordered pizza, so it seems
Speaker 1: like they might have a decision soon or, conversely, extend
Speaker 1: the amount of time to an infinite amount of time
Speaker 1: for them to make a decision. The refs are upset.
Speaker 1: The concessions have closed in the arena by now and
Speaker 1: so they are testing by dragging this out. Those carvery
Speaker 1: sandwiches are done. Well, I can't work under these conditions. Okay,
Speaker 1: next question. Uh, this kind of goes along with how
Speaker 1: you said. You know, we maybe have ten teams contending,
Speaker 1: but what is to you? Maybe we're going to be
Speaker 1: the biggest surprise contender that no one is considering. And
Speaker 1: I get that you're not saying that they are going
Speaker 1: to win, but someone if you said, Oh, they surprise people,
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised about that. The Grizzlies from last year said, Um,
Speaker 1: I think people haven't haven't been given the nuggets enough,
Speaker 1: like I think, I think every like everything people are
Speaker 1: saying about the clippers. Why aren't they also saying about
Speaker 1: the nuggets? Right, okay, that's a that's a great question. Um.
Speaker 1: And the final question, another great one. Is it Jack,
Speaker 1: which is me, or miles? That guy over there has
Speaker 1: been kind of rude like to you during this Jack,
Speaker 1: I think he was actually kind of rude to me
Speaker 1: talking about reality based analysis. I mean, I prefer I
Speaker 1: prefer people a little spike here. So I'm gonna go, miles, go.
Speaker 1: He's done it again. I haven't won a single one. Alright, wow,
Speaker 1: that's my man. Sorry, but I knew where people when
Speaker 1: he was talking about the reggae bubble on the on
Speaker 1: the end, you know what I mean. I was like, okay,
Speaker 1: now we're talking meter. Okay, I like this. I like
Speaker 1: this sad part. Now you blessed guests. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for stopping by. Miles and Jack Got Mad boost these.
Speaker 1: Where can people hear more from you? Read Your analysis
Speaker 1: or read your book the Mid Range Theory, which, oh
Speaker 1: by the way, we never get got to touch on it.
Speaker 1: But that has something to do with tribe called quest
Speaker 1: because we're like, all right, this got someone to do
Speaker 1: low end theory. Was it inspired? It does so like
Speaker 1: one of the I think that was probably the second
Speaker 1: hip hop album I ever owned. We don't have to
Speaker 1: talk about what the first one was. It might have
Speaker 1: been policed hammer. Don't hurt him. See, you're good in
Speaker 1: the bay as run up on hammer as no, and
Speaker 1: so that was. So I've always been a big fan
Speaker 1: of of of tribe, and then when we were starting
Speaker 1: the blog that became nylon calculus, we were thinking of
Speaker 1: like uh, thinking of names. So like because I had
Speaker 1: I liked that album and just like the idea of
Speaker 1: theory and how that works together with politics, like the
Speaker 1: mid range theory. And that's so that we voted and
Speaker 1: that finished second. So I always had in my back pocket,
Speaker 1: or if I ever write a book I think I'll
Speaker 1: call the mid range theory. And here we are. Alright,
Speaker 1: respect that tribe question, by the way, or the tribe
Speaker 1: observation that there might be a connection. There was me
Speaker 1: actually it's pretty CLU didn't pick. So we let you know.
Speaker 1: I think probably and the State Warriors, me and the
Speaker 1: Golden State Warriors, looked like two people. Seth underestimated, Seth
Speaker 1: didn't believe. said. Where can people find you? On twitter? Um,
Speaker 1: at seth part now on twitter. Um, I'll I rate, uh,
Speaker 1: you know. UH, once every couple of weeks at the
Speaker 1: athletic I have a weekly podcast with David four and
Speaker 1: modaquil on the athletics and gay show on Murdish, your wrote,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, of course I. Um, I do
Speaker 1: my own podcast on on the Colin App and Um,
Speaker 1: and the book is available range. Theory. The paperback edition
Speaker 1: comes out at the beginning of November and is available
Speaker 1: for pre order now wherever books are sold. Gift for
Speaker 1: your NBA and uh, you know, an NBA, NBA season
Speaker 1: starting to say. Well, yeah, so happy NBA season, happy
Speaker 1: NBA to you and and also to you. Uh. And
Speaker 1: don't forget, guys, you can follow us on twitter at
Speaker 1: mad boost these also instagram, m a D B O
Speaker 1: o s t I e s. That says bout boosts,
Speaker 1: so follow us there. Until next time, I'll be my
Speaker 1: I'll be all right and we'll be mad boosey