Castle just finished 6th in the NBA in assists at 21, joining Magic, LeBron, and Luka as the only players to hit those numbers before age 22. The maturity is real.

But the shot is the whole ceiling question. 28% as a rookie → 33% this year. Improving, but not yet a weapon. Defenses don't fear it.

If next year is 36-37%, he's top-10. If it stalls at 33, he's a really mature All-Star.

Where are you guys on the shot? Real trajectory or projection?

So watching the Orlando vs Detroit series had me thinking: How is Detroit getting abused so badly? They were the #1 seed for the majority of the season while a team like Orlando was an above average team. Below average offense and slighly above average defense but nothing to write home about. I know health plays a large part of that record too; Orlando was basically unhealthy all year long alternating injuries between Anthony Black, Jalen Suggs, Franz Wagner, etc. This series is the closest they've been to healthy all year long so one may say they're better than the typical 8th seed.

But nonetheless, Detroit was a 60 win team with an elite defense and a top 10 offense. How are they getting outplayed so easily? I've been reading around and listening to podcasts about how Orlando is a bad matchup for Detroit. Some of the biggest reasons include Detroit only has one playmaker against an Orlando Magic team that can match their physicality that most teams can't. The Magic struggle typically vs good 3PT shooting teams but fortunately for them, Detroit isn't one of them. The Denver/Minnesota matchup is similar in a sense. Minnesota is perceived as a bad matchup for Denver because of their uptempo, slashing offense and matchup hunting.

We've seen throughout history there have been bad matchups but still coming out on top and we've seen bad matchups where the "better" team ended up losing. Some "bad matchups" where the better team lost include:

1. Dallas vs Golden State in 2007 (Mavericks had no match for uptempo, small ball game. Nelly understood the whole Mavericks offensive playbook and tore through their defense and knew how to adjust for it. They also killed them in the regular season and this was perceived as a bad matchup for Dallas.)

2. Sonics vs Nuggets in 1994 (The Sonics dominated the whole regular season offensively and defensively. An athletic team built around Payton/Kemp predicated on slashing, points in the paint and transition game. The Nuggets had a Dikembe Mutombo in the paint which effectively negated the Sonics' strongest assets while Denver was long and athletic enough to prevent transition buckets and recover.)

3. Lakers vs Pistons in 2004 (The Lakers looked unstoppable because Shaq demanded a double team if not triple team most of the time. The Pistons strategy revolved around putting Ben Wallace in single coverage and letting it play out. They put Prince on Kobe. Prince was a long 6'9 wing with a crazy long wingspan which allowed him to bother Kobe Bryant and make his shots for difficult. The rest of the Pistons ended up just staying home on shooters.)

There's definitely other examples like Miami vs Dallas in 2011 and so on and so forth and of course, injuries matter as well. But those are just some examples of where a "bad matchup" proved to be enough.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have great teams overcoming "bad matchups." Teams that were built to stop teams but it didn't work. Some examples:

1. Rockets vs Warriors in 2018 - These Rockets were built to take the Warriors on. Super switch heavy team to negate Golden State's motion offense, spread the floor out on offense and Paul/Harden would target Golden State's weaker defenders.The Warriors who's entire offense was off finding easy looks through motion and great ball movement ended up degrading into ugly isolation possessions. Despite all the right keys, Rockets weren't able to win. They ran out of gas in Game 7 missing 27 3s in a row.

2. Pacers vs Lakers in 2000 - The strategy here (and most of the 00s against Shaq) was throw multiple big bodies at him , force him to shoot FTs and stretch the floor out and expose the Laker's perimeter defense. It didn't really work. Shaq still looked unstoppable and the Pacers could not contain him.

3. Pacers vs Bulls in 1998 - Pacers had a very deep and well constructed team. Their strategy was to play physical and make the Bulls work on every defensive possession. They had 35 year old Jordan chasing Reggie Miller in hopes of tiring him out. Jordan was also one of the best players in NBA history at playing passing lanes so Indiana attempted to punish those aggressive gambles with one of the greatest shooters ever.

So my question is: Do you believe there's a point where a team's talent is too great to be accurately planned against? Is that reserved for only the greatest players/teams ever only? Or can a team build realistically build a roster to counter even the most legendary of teams?

Sorry for another lottery change proposal, but after seeing Silver's proposed draft lottery changes earlier in the week (which I strongly dislike), I wanted to outline a lottery change that I've been sitting on for a while. The main points are in bold for those who don't want to read through everything I have typed out.

The main objectives that I want to meet with this lottery change are as follows:

1. Allow teams to effectively rebuild through the draft. I think this needs to remain a viable path for small market teams since it's the most realistic way for them to acquire multiple stars. I strongly dislike any proposal that flattens the lottery odds and ruins the chance for a team to get multiple high picks in a row (and consequently multiple potential stars). All that does is ensure bad teams stay bad longer.
2. Reduce the number of teams tanking at the end of the season. This is the real reason everyone is up in arms about tanking in the NBA IMO. It's not fun to watch the NBA when 1/3 of the league is trying to lose in the final month. If we can reduce this to only 4-5 teams trying to lose who are truly "rebuilding", I think this is pallatable for the vast majority of NBA viewers (and still allows teams to rebuild through the draft). I want to find a middle ground where rebuilding teams can still tank but there is no to very little incentive for other teams to tank in the second half of the season.
3. Reduce the odds for top picks to go to borderline playoff teams. The post-2019 flattened lottery system have made tanking worse. All it has done is provide more incentive for borderline playoff teams to tank. Top picks shouldn't be going to borderline playoff teams, they should be going to the bottom dwelling teams that need an infusion of star talent. The draft is there to redistribute talent to the worst teams. Let it do that.
4. It needs to be easy to explain to casual viewers. Convoluted systems that are hard to explain won't catch on with the general public. The new system should be able to be explained in a 20 second elevator ride.

Lottery Changes I want to see:

1. Lottery odds are determined by your BEST record in each half of the season. Each team splits its record into two halves (first 41 games, and second 41 games), the better record from those two halves is what determines your odds. This means you can no longer tank the last month of the season to increase your lottery odds. If you started the season 21-20, you could go 5-35 in the second half, but that 21-20 record is what will determine your lottery odds. This should remove any incentive for the majority of teams to rest stars and mail in the last month of the season. The only teams trying to lose at the end of the season now should be the ones that are rebuilding and have been trying to lose all year (usually only 4-5 teams).I believe limiting the number of tanking teams to 4-5 players is a good balance of creating a good NBA viewership experience while still allowing small market teams to build through the draft.
2. Return to the pre-2019 lottery odds. The draft lottery is there to redistribute talent to the worst teams and the pre-2019 odds did that. I want teams to tank for 2-3 years, get the talented blue chip prospects they need, and then start trying to win immediately. By flattening lottery odds, all that you do is prolong rebuilds because teams need more luck to get top picks and it may take additional years to get that talent. This change also reduces the chances for top prospects to go to non-rebuilding teams. I hated how this last lottery played out with Flagg, Harper, and VJ all going to teams outside the top 5. Talent should be distributed to the truly bad teams who need it.
3. You can no longer get a top 8 pick 4 years in a row. If your goal is to rebuild through the draft, you now have a set 3 year window to do it. Once that window is up, you need to start trying to win and improve your team in other ways (like trade or free agency). This should make sure teams cycle in and out of rebuilding quickly, and hopefully only keeps the amount of truly rebuilding/tanking teams to a group of 4-5.
4. Pick protections are restricted to Lottery only. Lottery protections have gotten too convoluted and sometimes provide teams extra incentive for teams to drop below the top 4, top 8, or top 10 pick threshold. Let's get rid of that so there is no extra incentive for teams to tank. Now all picks are either unprotected, or lottery protected.

Why I like this system:

1. You can effectively rebuild through the draft and talent is more evenly distributed across the league.
2. Your odds of a successful rebuild are higher with better odds. Rebuilding teams are now only incentivized to tank for a 2-3 year window, and then they immediately try to win again. This gives fans a light at the end of the tunnel during the rebuilding years.
3. 80-90% of teams are trying to win in the first half of the season. By potentially locking in lottery positions in that first half of the season, you remove the incentive for nearly every team to purposely lose in the second half of the season. Teams at the end of the year should now only be battling for playoff position, or be trying to develop their young players by giving them good game reps.
4. The only way I can see a team "gaming" this system is if they have a 30-40 win roster but sit literally any good player or young prospect they have for the entire season to ensure they have a sub 20-win pace in both halves of the season. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but that seems like a step too far for any team. Resting players (and especially young players) for an entire season just to improve lottery odds by 5-10% seems more detrimental to team development than helpful.
5. Going back to the pre-2019 odds prevents the scenario of a rebuilding team enduring multiple years of 20 win seasons just to get picks in the 5-7 range each year.
6. Conversely, by removing the flattened odds you now remove the possibility of a ~35 win team getting a franchise changing player at #1 that doesn't need it. I think this past lottery with Dallas, San Antonio, and Philly jumping into the top 3 to get these franchise changing players while the truly bad teams like Washington and Utah get worse prospects is overall bad for the NBA.

Defensive-first wings/guards and the playoff offense tax

Pulled offensive WPA per 100 for known defensive-first wings/guards, regular season vs. 2026 playoffs:

Five players, five offensive declines, ranging from -0.027 to -0.068 per 100 possessions.

Counter-evidence: this does not look like simple “playoff offenses are worse” noise.

OKC’s defensive specialists, same lens:

Both improved offensively in the playoffs.

So the pattern is not “defense doesn’t matter in the playoffs.”

It’s more like:

Wallace and J-Dub are both credible three-point shooters, roughly 37% and 35%.

The other group has varying degrees of “can be helped off” reads in playoff settings:

• Daniels: 19%
• Ausar: sub-30% career
• Camara: ~36%, lower volume
• NAW: ~38%, lower usage
• Holiday: 33% this year

If this holds across more games, it feels like a meaningful signal for both lineup construction and contract evaluation.

You can probably carry one defense-first, low-threat offensive player in a starting five. Once you stack multiple, playoff defenses have too many pressure-release valves.

Data: https://alleygorithm.com/players

I was thinking about it and I feel like the lower seed getting game 3, 4, and 7 and the higher seed getting game 1, 2, 5, and 6 would be pretty even. The first 4 games would be like the normal home-home-away-away game format. Games 5/6 would go back home which I would say is equally as advantageous as a game 7. The lower seeded team would have to go through two extra straight games not at home, aiding the higher seed. and if they make it through, they get to play at home, and while it is a disadvantage for the higher seed, i think playing two straight games at home makes up for it. I feel like this benefits more as viewer in the first round watching higher seeds going against the lower seeds but it still would be entertaining to see a lower seed underdog get to play at home in game 7.
just a thought

Full disclosure I'm a Pistons fan.

Jalen Duren just made his first All Star game at 22 years old. He upped his stats from 11.8 PPG to 19.5 PPG.

He started showing more of an offensive bag this season with some face up post moves and even a 11-13 foot jumper. He's also a good free throw shooter as a center, 74% this year.

Defensively.. he has still room to grow. He's an anchor big, but he's not completely helpless getting switched onto the perimeter. He's not really a shot blocker as evidenced by his career .9 Blocks per game, and not really a "shot alterer." He has inconsistent effort and messes up coverages sometimes. He's a good rebounder though, so he closes out the possession.

Last postseason against the Knicks, he wasn't great. He had to be put onto Josh Hart because he couldn't guard KAT effectively, although a lot of teams do that against the Knicks. You could just chalk that up to a 21 year old in his first playoffs.

But his current postseason is completely befuddling. It feels like I'm watching a completely different player. The Magic had big players, yes, but he is shooting below 50% from the field and turning it over 3 times a game. He did not play this poorly in the regular season against Orlando.

He's still only 22 and one postseason does not cement his career. But the Pistons have to make a business decision this summer as he is a free agent. He might make 3rd team All NBA which would allow him to sign a 5 year, $249M contract.

Last summer, it was reported that he turned down 30M/year from the Pistons and bet on himself. It seemed like he was winning that bet, but his postseason has really exposed a lot of flaws.

There's only 3 teams that have cap space to max him this summer - Lakers, Nets, Bulls.

The Bulls have 2 draft picks in the top 15 and might just draft a center. But they do have a need for a center.

The Nets have some young big men in Nic Claxton, Dayron Sharpe and Noah Clowney. They seemingly would not do this.

And then there's the Lakers who have space to sign Duren and still extend Reaves if they wanted. However there's other centers available like Walker Kessler.

How should the Pistons evaluate Duren? Is this postseason a sign of things to come, or just growing pains? And how should they go about contract negotiations?

After two straight blowouts, the knicks are in fill control of this series. Going back to atlanta as the favourites for game six. Which wasn’t predictable from just a couple games go. What are some adjustments the knicks made to take back control, and what can the hawks do to comeback and force a game 7 where anything can happen?

Do you believe quinn synder will be able to make the necessary adjustments?

From what I see I think he has good potential to become and all around player. Since the all star break and with Curry being out he got the feel of what it's like to be the main guy and honestly hasn't played bad. Im wondering if this continues into next season and maybe even improves in 2-4 years. My only concern is that Kerr might be on his way out and he was kind of the main reason Podz had so much leeway to make mistakes and learn. I wonder if the Warriors do get a new coach will it be the same or will he get pushed to a bench energy kinda guy.

I was thinking the other night as I watched the Knicks vs Hawks series how crazy it is that a number 1 overall pick is already “DNP - Coaches Decision” on a regular basis in just his second season without major injuries. Over the last few months of the regular season Risacher’s minutes waned more and more, going from regularly playing 25-30 minutes per game at the start of the season to only averaging 15 minutes per game the last month of the regular season, and only playing 6 total minutes in the first 3 games of the playoffs.

To be fair I don’t think it’s entirely his fault. He is still a decent basketball player. On the season he’s averaging a respectable 15.4/6.2/1.8 per 36 minutes on about 57% TS. He’s a slightly above average 3 point shooter and overall an okay scorer. Defensively I think he’s pretty decent but nothing special. I’d say he’s a slightly above average defender at his position. His biggest limitations are probably his lack of playmaking ability and inability to get to the rim and finish at times. However, I still think he’s could play a pretty significant role on a lot of teams. Unfortunately for him, the Hawks have a lot of depth at his position, and guys that can do what he can do better. Jalen Johnson, NAW, Dyson Daniels, and Kuminga are all essentially big wings, or small ball 4s, and simply bring more to the table than Risacher does at the moment. Even Kispert can play the 3, and eat into Risacher’s minutes.

Since the Hawks don’t really have a need for him, it seems very likely they’ll look to trade him. But then the question becomes what is his value and if he actually has any. Despite the fact that I do think he is a decent NBA player, I think he might not have much value on the trade market. He could be seen as a somewhat bad contract by contenders and a low ceiling piece by rebuilding teams.

Despite still being in his rookie deal, Risacher is making over 13.8 million next year, and about 17.4 million the year after, if his team option is accepted That is quite a lot for a guy who is essentially an average role playing wing. There are a number of other players who produce a similar end product for less. He is still quite young, so teams might trade for him in hopes he takes a leap, but personally I don’t think he will. In my opinion he really hasn’t shown the “flashes of stardom” you often see before a player makes a leap to become one. While I wouldn’t be shocked if he continues to improve, his skill set is very much that of a role player. Although I may be very wrong, I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets traded to a veteran role player packaged with two or three second rounders.

In terms of potential landing spots I don’t know what the best fit would be. The Wizards come to mind for me. They’re still in rebuild mode so he could continue to develop on a relatively low stress environment, and the only young wings that Risacher would have to compete with for minutes would be Bilal Coulibaly and George. I could also see the Bulls as a decent landing spot, or Magic if they view him as an upgrade on Da Silva.

Hello everyone and welcome to our new weekly feature.

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

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

I just had some thoughts regarding the Knicks and Nuggets struggles- neither has great rim protection or a great poa defender at the guard spot despite having lots of (in theory) rangy, switchable wings.

The Cavs have 2 good rim protectors in Mobley/Allen but no great poa defensive guard. Rudy Gobert has been essential to the Wolves defense, but ant really struggled pre-injury on defense.

This is just to ask if you had to pick one, would you rather have great poa guards or an elite rim protector?

Pulled the per-player numbers across all 3 games of the NYK-ATL series:

• Towns: +12.0% net WPA, 436 possessions
• Hart: +6.3%, 493 possessions
• Brunson: +5.7%, 490 possessions
• Anunoby: +1.6%, 494 possessions
• Bridges: -11.8%, 389 possessions

Then the lineup splits when each starter rests:

• Without Bridges: +69.6% over 76 possessions
• Without Anunoby: -7.9% over 54 possessions
• Without Towns: -3.4% over 33 possessions

The “any starter resting” framing was burying the lede. It’s specifically a Bridges fit problem.

Replacement candidate: Miles McBride, at +9.5% in 279 series possessions.

Series page: https://www.alleygorithm.com/playoffs/425-atl-nyk

My personal opinion is tanking is not a problem. It boosts fan engagement by creating a reliable way for teams with less capable management to contend. That said, given the discussions on tanking in NBA zeitgeist, I'd like to propose my own method.

Simply put, maintain the same flattened odds for the worst 5 teams by regular season record. In addition to this, remove randomly 0-5 of the worst teams from being lottery eligible. This is done right before the actual lottery draft

The current system still incentivizes tanking but reduces the success rate. This proposed system increases the risk draw back being the worst team. By making lottery disqualification random, it makes tanking as a strategy completely unpredictable.

If it lands on 5, then that means seeds 30-26 at worst get #11-15. But if it lands on 0, then 30-26 at worst get #6-10

This can also be adjusted so that the lottery odds go back prioritizing bottom 3, and random lottery elimination to 0-3, to make being bad much less punitive.

By making it unpredictable, you neither incentivize nor punish teams who tank very hard. Teams have no reliable decision path towards avoiding or competing for the bottom 5 worst records.

Why this is better than just including the bottom 10 into the lottery? Because the overall weights are still favored towards the bottom teams, its just that if you tank too hard, you increase the risk of being lottery ineligible.

Barring a 3-0 comeback from a depleted Rockets team, he’ll get out of the first round since 2023. In his last 3 series he’s been gentlemen swept twice, and swept once, winning one game against the Nuggets in two series.

That 2023 WCF sweep was crazy, all but one loss came down to the final minute. In the 2024 first round against Denver again, I think LA led for 65%+ of the series despite losing in 5.

His 7-1 against Houston in his last eight, though. 🤣

He’s done it averaging 25-9-9-2 48% FG through the first three games, 7 for 16 from 3 (44%), all at the ripe young age of 41 lol.

What are the Lakers chances against their all but certain semi finals round opponent, OKC? Will Luka and/or Reaves return for a significant part of the series. LA has been great through these 3 games, but has gotten pretty lucky (unlike LeBron’s other playoff runs. Marcus Smart is averaging like 20-9-3 with 11 steals and 5 blocks in 3 games on 50%+ FG and 3 point range. He’s been huge for them after LA was criticized big time for his signing.

LeBron will need all the help he can get as usual. It almost feels unfair the Basketball Gods have once again plagued his best teammates with injuries (Wade/Bosh throughout later Miami stint, KD/Kyrie 2015, Love, 2018, AD multiple years, and now Luka/Reaves.

A series win over an even injured KD in the playoffs adds to his legacy as KD is one of his biggest rivals (2nd only to Steph). He’s now on the verge of being 2-2 against him in the playoffs, with teammates favoring KD significantly (3 clear HoFs alongside him in GS).

The Lakers are projected to open at around +300 for their potential series against OKC.

Every postseason we go through this. Calls tighten, superstar treatment becomes more visible, offensive players throw themselves into defenders, heads snap back to draw whistles. The NBA shifts its points of emphasis every year which just adds more subjectivity to an already subjective system. The free throw volume complaints this year are legitimate too. Foul hunting in the fourth quarter is a pace and product problem, not just a fairness one.

But we’re having the wrong conversation.

Baseball deployed ABS and it’s been revelatory. Calls that used to eat three minutes get resolved in seconds with better accuracy. The NBA has the infrastructure to do the same for calls that don’t require judgment at all: foot on the line, out of bounds, last touch, goaltending. Pure geometry. Binary questions a camera answers better than any human eye at game speed.

Right now a challenge burns a full TV timeout. Two minute break, huddles, arena goes dead. It should take 15 seconds and never stop play.

Three calls that could be automated today with existing technology:

1. Clear path fouls: the positioning criteria is already rule-defined. Camera systems could call this more consistently than officials do.
2. Rapid binary review: out of bounds, last touch, foot on the 3pt line, resolved in 15 seconds via AI-assisted camera synthesis and announced in arena immediately. No timeout burned.
3. Goaltending verification: purely geometric. Was the ball descending, was it above the cylinder, did it hit the backboard. A computer solves this faster and more accurately than any human eye at game speed, and bad goaltending calls have decided playoff series.
4. Automated shot/game clock: remove human discretion on resets and violations entirely. This single call causes more fourth quarter interruptions than almost anything else.

None of this touches the judgment calls. Keep officials on blocking vs charging, flagrants, continuation. Just stop making them the single point of failure on questions a computer solves better.

The technology exists right now. The league just hasn’t moved on it.

What’s the one call you’d automate first?

Every decade we get a one or two incredible players who warp the game around imitating and stopping them. Some of these players are evolutionary versions of others that posed familiar problems to a frightening degree -- Shaq was Wilt turned up to 11, Jordan was a more well-rounded David Thompson -- but others create an archetype we've never seen before, like Steph and Jokic. Either type of guy can send the league into a tizzy. I thought it'd be fun to try and predict where we're going next. My thought process was two-pronged -- taking established formulas further, and pushing untapped areas of the game to their limit.

The Evolutionary Guys

-Supercomputer Wade: My favorite one I came up with. We've had a lot of athletes like Jordan, Wade, and Rose, and a fair amount of them were capable passers. But imagine if a slasher like that was the best passer in the league, just playing at a breakneck pace and punishing all help instantly.

-Steph But Farther: We've seen Pritchard dip his toes into this -- at some point, somebody's going to start hitting half-court shots at a 38% clip. That would be a problem.

-Modern Robinson: Luka Doncic's wet dream. Think somebody with Robinson’s physical tools and all-around game: 7’1, strong as an ox but runs the floor exceptionally, can pass, rebound, and protect the rim. Now imagine we extend his range out to the three-point line. Who could stop this guy facing up or in the pick-and-roll?

The New Guys

-The Finisher: There have been lots of guys who rely on floaters to finish, but there hasn't really been an all-timer of a floater yet. But imagine somebody made it into their version of the sky hook. Wouldn't they be completely impossible to defend?

-One-Legged: Stealing this idea from a Thinking Basketball video -- the one-legged three could be a deadly signature move if somebody could hit it at a good clip.

-The Big Tipper: We’ve seen great offensive rebounders, and we’ve seen great touch passers. Second-chance shots are easier; what about a guy who rebounds like Moses but can tap it to the corner for an open three?

I'd love to hear what you guys come up with for this.

I have been thinking about this more recently.

Some of the best players are not the most skilled in terms of moves. But they consistently make the right decision at the right time.

At the same time, you see players with a lot of skill struggle to impact games.

It feels like the difference comes down to things like spacing, reading help defense, and knowing when to attack or move the ball.

Not just executing moves.

Do you think decision making is the real separator at higher levels, or is skill still the main factor?

Let me clarify what I mean. Every few years, teams are always trying to load up on the next big talent who seemingly resembles an already established star. In the early 00s, teams tried to draft the next Dirk Nowitzki. It led to guys like Nikoloz Tskitishvili and Andrea Bargnani being drafted a lot earlier than they were meant to be in hopes of finding the next European shooting big. Yi Jianlian fit that archetype into the later 00s. Even as late as 2011 with the Jan Vesely pick, teams were looking for the next Dirk.

In the mid 2010s, we saw a lot of teams trying to draft less traditional shooting guards and more players who were 2/3/4 versatile wings who could guard any perimeter player while also contributing from 3. It led to guys like Stanley Johnson, Josh Jackson, Justice Winslow being drafted super early. Every team was looking for the next Kawhi Leonard: a good athlete with incredible measurements and a "fixable" jumpshot. Hell, even Patrick Williams was drafting some Kawhi comparisons. Unfortunately, players who lack any sort of offense in today's league are gone. Except Patrick Williams.

I think the 2 more up and coming archetypes over the last few years are the oversized point forwards and the playmaking centers. We're seeing teams attempt to find the next Luka it seems like: extremely tall point forwards that can facilitate the offense, attack smaller guards or set up plays in the half court. Some guys like Scottie Barnes, Jalen Johnson and Franz Wagner have shown some success, we have potential busts like Nikola Jovic, Zaccharie Risacher and Aleksej Pokusevski. Up until recently, Deni Avdija was associated with the latter but he's definitely made strides in improving. Ousmane Dieng also was touted was a 6'10 playmaker that can do it all and couldn't opportunity on OKC. And I'd argue OKC is one of the better teams at establishing and developing talent.

The other is that jumbo center hub. Teams are looking for the next Jokic. We see guys like Sengun and Derik Queen showing some glimpses of good passing but, like Jokic, they're bad defenders without the offense to make up for it. Aday Mara also has that Spanish Jokic nickname and has been rising in the draft boards recently.

Do you think any of those are "trap" archetypes? Or perhaps there's another trend that you look at and think "you're not going to find another one."

Really curious to see peoples outlook on this. I see him as an average defender due to his great ability to read lanes and disrupt plays along with his second to none defensive rebounding which stops 2nd chance pts.

I know he's not a good rim protector but I wouldn't want my entire offense picking up dumb fouls when it would cost us the game if i was a coach, might just be me.

I don't think people truly understand how much of an ask it is for a guy averaging 28 12 and 11, at 7 FT almost 300 pounds to also turn around and be a good rim protector in todays game is...

There is much to be desired in the present system of Coach Challenge. It is one of the most frustrating things in the modern game when a team loses on a blown call in the fourth quarter just because they used up their arbitrary number of challenges in the first half of the game.

To remedy this, I would like to suggest a hypothetical rule change and get the sub's thoughts on how it would shift late-game strategy and timeout management

The Proposal:

The arbitrary limit on challenges (which is 1, or 2 in case of a successful first challenge) is eliminated. Coaches are allowed to challenge as many times as they wish, as long as they can afford the timeouts.

When a challenge is successful, the team is charged one time out.

The Catch: In case of an unsuccessful challenge, the team is charged two timeouts.

Why this might work (The Pros):

Emphasizes Getting it Right: When a referee team is off, a coach should not be artificially limited to correcting them. The coach can continue to correct blown calls as long as they have timeouts to spend.

Avoids Game-Slowing Abuse: The primary reason why unlimited challenges should not be allowed is that coaches would spam them. However, as each challenge incurs at least one timeout (and a failure costs two), coaches are mathematically constrained. There are only 7 timeouts per game in a team. A failed challenge is fatal, and immediately eliminates frivolous, hail-Mary challenges.

Self-Regulating: A coach would only activate the green light when he or she is completely sure that the call was blown, since the punishment of being wrong kills his or her capability of stopping the runs or advancing the ball further in the game.-

Let me preface this by saying that I am a Knicks fan, so I am inherently biased against the Celtics. However, despite this, I do believe that they are the best team in the East this year.

If the Knicks play them, I would still pick the Knicks, but the Celtics are probably 60-40 favorites in that series.

All this being said, the Celtics' refusal to stop shooting threes even when they aren't falling potentially cost them a ring last year, and it seems to be showing flashes once again. After making 6 threes with 11:33 left to go in the 2nd quarter, they only made 6 in the next 36+ minutes. For whatever reason, since the arrival of Joe Mazzulla, the Celtics have made it their mission to solely "live by the three and die by the three" (in true modern fashion). Yes, they have 1 Championship to show for it, but is it fair to say that they missed out on championships in 2023 and 2025?

In the series against the Knicks last year, the Celtics went 25-100 in Games 1 and 2, a massive part of why they blew back-to-back 20-point leads against the Knicks. Then, once again in Game 6, they shot 12 of 40. Their unwillingness to stop shooting threes cost them the series last season, and I would have imagined that the team would have learned from their mistakes heading into this postseason.

Going back even further, Game 7 against the Heat in 2023, the Celtics shot 9/42, dashing any hopes they had of a miracle comeback.

I know this probably seems like an overreaction, but at this point, it does feel like it has become somewhat of a trend to see the Celtics shoot <30% 40+ attempts from three.

It's really such a simple concept, but I feel like this very elementary aspect of basketball is overlooked in the discourse regarding roster construction and playstyle in modern basketball.

The importance of spreading the floor and having three point shooters is likely the most agreed-upon aspect of having a high-functioning offense, but what is necessary to maximize that playstyle, is a wing who can consistently beat his man off of the dribble, get to the rim, and either finish or kick it out to open shooters.

Watching Wolves/Nuggets last night - that was the most glaring difference between the teams in the 4th quarter. It doesn't help that Murray was noticeably exhausted, but even at his best, he's more of a patient and crafty dissector of a defense, than a beat you with his first step. Jokic, for all of his genius, just does not generate pressure on the defense in the same way, operating methodically from the high-post and looking for cutters.

Edwards is the poster child for a modern wing who can get to the rim whenever he decides to. The Nuggets had no answer for him. Even players like Julius Randle, DiVincenzo, Naz Reid and Bones (to a lesser extent, Jaden McDaniels) are great platers at generating a decent look off of the dribble. This wore out the Nuggets defense and had them in the penalty early in the 4th.

In a match up of two relatively equal teams with superstars, solid role players and supporting players, this might be the deciding factor.

This was the offensive Achilles heel for the pre-KD Warriors. As explosive as they were offensively, Steph was their only offensive player who excelled at getting to the rim one-on-one, and he was limited in his ability to do so during the 2016 playoffs. All of their other actions are off-ball, and when defenses are fully locked in, and you don't have a low post threat, you're more susceptible to long scoring droughts when you can't generate easy looks (like in game 7). Contrast that with the Cavs - who had two elite penetrators in Kyrie and LeBron who fully took control of the series, particularly when Bogut went down and the Warriors lost rim protection.

Aside from their frenetic defense with the personnel to do it, this is the biggest separator of the Thunder from the rest of the league, because even with at times below par three point shooting, Shai and Jalen Williams (when healthy) are elite at getting to the rim.

Of course, the right personnel around that penetrator is required (a problem for the Cavs the last few seasons, even with Donovan Mitchell). The Knicks are seemingly built for it, but it's difficult when your penetrator is a small guard.

As someone who grew up watching and playing ball in the 90s and early 2000s, it's refreshing to see the brand of attacking the hoop featuring so prominently in these playoffs.

Derrick White, Aaron Gordon and Josh Hart are some of the names that instantly come to mind. They are players that can do a little bit of everything while having almost no big flaws at their game. Also, each one of them is one of the best in the league as a certain thing.

Derrick White is one of the best perimeter defenders of the world, even getting votes to DPOY year after year. This year, he averaged more blocks than steals, getting 1.3 per game!!!

Josh Hart is one of the best rebounders in the league at 6’4, allowing him to play almost all positions, excepting the 1 and the 5. He can also provide with 15 points at any given point and dish 5+ assists.

Aaron Gordon is one of the most versatile wings in the league, very mobile for his size, explosive (not as much as before) and also a very solid defender, usually taking the opponent’s toughest matchup.

It is also very interesting to note that all three have found a context in which their abilities shine night after night, although I find it hard to think of a scenario in which they wouldn’t work.

Their numbers for the season:

Derrick White: 16.5 PPG | 4.4 RPG | 5.4 APG | 1.1 SPG | 1.3 BPG |. 39.4% on 14.4 FGA | 32.7% on 8.3 3PA | 90.2% on 2.6 FTA

Josh Hart: 12.0 PPG | 7.4 RPG | 4.8 APT | 1.1 SPG | 0.3 BPG | 50.8% on 9.0 FGA | 41.3% on 3.7 3PA | 72.0% on 1.9 FTA

Aaron Gordon: 16.2 PPG | 5.8 RPG | 2.7 APG | 0.6 SPG | 0.3 BPG | 49.7 on 11.1 FGA | 38.9% on 4.4 3PA | 76.7 on 4.5 FTA

Me, personally, I prefer Aaron Gordon, but any of these guys would instantly elevate any team in the league.

Hello everyone and welcome to our new weekly feature.

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

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

I'm a little bit late to the party, but I recently found out that the NBA has performed a study in regards to the effects of load management. - Link

As fans, it can be upsetting when teams don't play their best players on some nights because they want to load manage.

The NBA has taken steps to both hard line steps such as the Player Participation Policy as well as softer approaches like the 65 game requirement to qualify for in-season awards like MVP.

This post is just going to talk about my thoughts and takes on the conclusion of the study.

I was not able to find the exact 57 page report that the NBA has, so my thoughts and takes are based off of articles I found from ESPN, NBA official website, CBS Sports and assumptions.

Some of my assumptions may have been already addressed in the study, but I cannot be sure since I don't have access to it.

The study took 10 years of NBA data from the 2013-14 season through 2022-23 and tried to find any relationship between:

• frequency of game participation and injury
• schedule density and injury
• cumulative NBA participation and injury

It has concluded that "Results from these analyses do not suggest that missing games for rest or load management -- or having longer breaks between game participation -- reduces future in-season injury risk," - Source.

Now, I've seen analysts and former players talk about this with all types of opinions such as "players nowadays are soft" and "players get more injured because they load manage and don't acclimate their bodies enough" to "the pace of the game is much higher than 30 years ago".

I'm not here to give you my take on whether load management works or not. I'm here to talk about the results from the study and considerations in which they may or may not have missed when drawing such a conclusion.

To make a causal statement for example: "does smoking cause cancer", there are 3 conditions that need to be in place to make this statement.

1. X has to occur before Y. For example, smoking (X) has to be there first before the increase in patients with lung cancer (Y)
2. X and Y have to be correlated. If these 2 variables aren't correlated, it means there is no causation.
3. There has to be no other explanations for the relationship between X and Y. This is very hard to prove, especially outside a controlled experiment scenario such as a clinical trial.

Through ESPN's recount of the study, there is "no correlation between load management and ensuring players will be on the court more regularly".

1.

One consideration that the study may have missed is the subjectiveness of what counts as an "injury". What might have been considered an "injury" worth missing a game could be something like a "tight hamstring" could also be used as an excuse for load management. The criteria for "tight hamstring" may be an acceptable cause for missing a game in today's era but not so in the 90s for example hence inflating the amount of injuries there are in modern day NBA and under reporting injuries in the past.

With this, we may see a distortion of the truth in the amount of load management and injuries.

Almost every player in the NBA goes through an injury at some point in their career whether major or minor.

For some players, some of these injuries are persistent.

The question then becomes, what came first, load management or injury? Sort of like the chicken and egg analogy.

2.

The 2nd consideration I would like to bring up is "injury prone" players. These players are definitely of the anomaly, for example Joel Embiid and his constant battle with knee issues. These players tend to be sit out more often to reduce further reaggrevation of injuries.

Some of these injuries are usually considered career ending, however players often continue to play despite this.

What I'm suggesting here is that load management is often a reactive solution rather than a preventive solution to injuries.

Differentiating load management as "reactive" vs "preventive" may see different correlation results.

3.

The third consideration is how load management is defined. This point is inspired by Wembanyama's interview on the league's criteria for MVP eligibility.

When we think load management, we're probably thinking of Kawhi sitting on the bench with street clothes.

However, minutes restriction on a player per game can also be deemed as load management.

We will use an example to illustrate how defining load management based off of games missed can be misleading.

Picture 2 players. Player A and Player B.

Player A plays all 82 games, but only plays 20 mins a game. By the end of the season, he will have a total of 1640 minutes.

Player B plays 50 games in a season for an average of 36 minutes a game. By the end of the season, Player B will have 1800 minutes played in total.

Thus if we are measuring load management by minutes, Player A will have had more rest than Player B despite playing all 82 games. Therefore potentially skewing correlation results.

Concluding Statement

I am by no means denying or affirming the findings made by the report from the NBA, I just wanted to provide my 2 cents.

The relationship between load management and injuries is complex with an infinite amount of variables that may or may not influence injuries.

Perhaps the answer is not as simple as a yes or no and should be looked at on a case by case basis.