21st century peaks Ep 2 | Can a weak scoring guard be a superstar?

[Music] Thinking Basketball Podcast, my name is Ben. Welcome back to episode two of our 21st century celebration of basketball. Specifically the NBA and we are starting with. I don't know why I said that. Like we talk about things other than the NBA. It's pretty much all we talk about on this podcast since the inception of this podcast. I would love to talk about other things. I used to watch college all the time and the WNBA and things like that. Cody is making a face like the NBA is the only. the only league that we should acknowledge out of the hundreds of the leagues. Well, certainly the most famous and today we're going to talk about the most famous of the famous the 21st century. Best peaks if you missed it last episode. We talked about just a huge swath of players who could have been in this episode. Who could have been 25th or 24th or I think we had players all the way up to 21 when we talk about our ranges. And of course we're going to discuss these players. We're going to talk about how they would do in today's game as a little fun bonus perk that doesn't necessarily change how we feel about them within their era because we are focused on how good players were back when they played relative to their competition. How likely are they to help you win a championship? All that really fun stuff. That's what we're going to talk about. Where they in a great situation, where they in a horrible situation. Stats you've never heard of that you can't believe exist. What do they mean? That's what we're doing. This is episode two and today we're going to start talking about. I guess we're going to start at number 25 and just count our way down and who knows how far we'll get. Cody, we may only get through one player today and then we'll have to come back and do many, many more episodes. I think we're going to get through more than one player today but yes, I'm very excited for this. I was saying I'm actually. I'm more interested than anything just to see the structure of how this is going to go because when you start a segment like this where we're going to do a series of this, you're not really sure how the structure goes and it takes halfway through the thing and you're like, "I wish we could have started now." But you know, hindsight 2020 sort of thing. But I'm excited. I think we've got some good stuff we've been about and ideas back and forth. Yeah, let's start counting down some players, Ben. Okay, so the point I was making there is we often talk about players when we make a list in terms of ranges. We have sort of my valuation of how good I think they were, how much they helped you win a championship in the time they played. And for this series, we're going to try to pick a single year for players but of course we will look at as much surrounding data as we can. It's very hard in basketball terms to just only use one single year of information. So we'll try to pick a single year but we've got also like the gray areas. What if I'm a little lower on this player? What if I'm a little higher on this player? And I think in the honorable mentions we had something like what Cody, about at least 10 players who could have made this list. And so now as we start at number 25 officially, we will talk about the high range of how good a player could be. And I think with number 25, the low range as well. You certainly could have been behind some of the players that we talked about last episode. And so without further ado, should we just jump in and start naming names and discussing players? Let's do it. Let's get analytical Ben. I feel like I had one more thing to say but I'm just too excited to do that's oh, I remember the thing I had to say. The last version of this list I had because I really don't care about the list. We're just trying to talk about players and have fun and celebrate the game and learn. And the last version of this list I had had Russell Westbrook in this position. And it could have been, we talked about this last time. It could have been Russell Westbrook but I feel like Russell Westbrook is a relatively recent player. And we've done videos on him and there's a lot of ink that's been spilled on him. It could have been Jimmy Butler, but Jimmy Butler's peak was probably only a couple years ago as well. So the tiebreaker for me Cody was the discussion. The tiebreaker was the most most interesting player to talk about. And that player at number 25 is early 2000s. Let's say 2003 maybe from the New Jersey nets. That's right, not the Brooklyn nets, the New Jersey nets. Jason Kid just a fascinating basketball player, especially when you try to hone in on what a peak was like. What was he doing out there that made him so interesting? Why does he have all these stats that pop? Why does he have all these box score stats that are terrible? How good can he be? That was a tiebreaker for me because I think he is by far the most interesting of those three players for us to discuss. Because I don't think we've ever really discussed him before. I, since the last time that we recorded this podcast and we ultimately left Russell Westbrook off the list and we said he was right. He was like, oh, maybe he was right on the edge. You could have been in this position. I've gone back and forth. I've been internally being like, did we make a mistake? Like, are we sure Jason Kid should have made this list over Russell Westbrook? Because you're right. You look up some of the games and there's, he doesn't pop like Russell Westbrook. Like very few players ever pop like Russell Westbrook. The stats like you said pop for Russell Westbrook. There's a lot of things like that. So there's a thunderous dunks. You can pull up highlights and Jason Kid is much more subtle and uncharidably. You could watch a Jason Kid game and be like, wait a second. What am I missing with this guy? Like, how is he that good? But I feel like he's one of those guys that I don't know if you felt the same way. But the more I watched and the more that I studied, I was like, oh, I think we made the right decision. Like, this is a guy whose brilliance and peak is based off the subtlety of his game. Well, to be clear, if you wanted to like jump inside my mind and ask me how I felt about these players, there's essentially no difference. So we definitely made the right decision because I think this is the most interesting player to talk about. Where let's just start with the Russell Westbrook comparison. They both got a lot of triple doubles. Right? So on the surface, you have this thing where you're like, okay, cool. You got a lot of triple doubles and maybe you're not that efficient. And maybe the triple double is overrated. Maybe the rebound is overrated. What gives here? Another thing with Russell Westbrook. The man attacked the basket like a maniac. And I think with Jason Kidd in a much lesser way, his basket pressure, his pace, the way he played in transition is kind of the starting ground for where he provides offensive value, despite not having these. I want to say traditional stats, but they're actually modern stats. I think traditionally he was fine statistically. I think if we did this podcast in 2005, we wouldn't have to have this preamble about triple doubles and, oh, Kidd only averaged 17 points a game or whatever the number is. Because I think it was, I think his stats back then were a little more sexy for lack of a better word. Right? But now when we think about lead offensive players, you have to have that dual threat of, can I crush the defense with some scoring? And can I punish the defense with some passing? And in Kidd's case, I mean, the man was literally named Aison Kidd, as in he has no J. And I actually wanted to start there because when you go back and watch him, he shoots a lot of jumpers. Yeah. And statistically, I did some investigating, Cody, it's a rarity on the show. We did some investigating. If you look at his, let's take long twos, for instance, a shot that has mostly gone out of the game today, but was fairly common part of the diet back in the early 2000s. He took like six, seven long twos per 100 in New Jersey. I mean, this is, this is quite a large number of twosons. And they weren't just like spot-ups like, hey, we're spotting up inside the line because he would shoot threes. We'll get to that in a second. But they were pick and roll. Everybody goes under the pick and roll because it's Aison Kidd. And he comes up to the other side of the pick and roll. He almost expect him to lick his hand and blow a kiss to the crowd, which was his free throw routine for those who don't know. And then he takes a jumper. And there are some games where he makes a ton of big shots that way. And he finishes with like 25 or 30 points. And it's just enough to get this like grimy defensive nets team through in a big playoff game. And then of course there are other games where he's like four for 12. And he goes like one for five on those jumpers. So the moral of the story to me is like, Aison Kidd was a little too far because we've seen modern versions of players who just can't shoot. Period. They just never shoot from the outside. Then we have like the Russell Westbrook Yannis, which is like, they're the worst shooters, but they're literally the bottom of shooting, but they still shoot. And Kidd was better than that. And statistically on those shots, he was high 30s, low 40s on his long two. So like 39% 40, 41%. It's not very good, but it's also not terrible. And it's the same story from three like his three point shooting a lot was made later in his career when he went to Dallas and Dirk Niewitski taught him the proper mechanics of how to shoot through this magical thing happened. He shot one percentage his entire career went to Dallas. His percentage is immediately bumped up and never came back down in his twilight years at the end of his career shot 37% from three on 73 point attempts per 100 in Dallas. That's really good. Well, I'm not really good, but for him, it was fantastic. But even in New Jersey in the years before like the 10 years before he went to Dallas to play with Dirk Niewitski shot like 34% from three on five attempts per 100. So the moral of the story here is right out of the gate. When you go back and watch him, he took pull up three. Game five of the 2003 NBA finals. The spurs are going under, under, under, under, every screen, the nets can't really generate the offensive pressure they want with the pick and roll. Kid takes 10-3s in that game. He goes four for 10 from downtown. So he's an okay shooter. He's doing things that involve the three. He's taking mid-range shots. And then he has all the basket pressure and everything else we can talk about. But that was the first thing that jumped out to me. - Yeah, and there's a confidence in the way that he shoots. Like, you watch him and the way that he pulls up. There's never a time where he goes into it. You see it hesitating. - Ever. - Yeah, 'cause he knows with his passing ability, the basket pressure, things like that, that he has to keep the defense honest with some of those swelves. And basically all of them are pull-ups. So you see them and there's not the like, oh my goodness, he's gonna do, nope, he's just pulling into it. And he's just calm about it. He's like, yeah, I'm gonna shoot this. I'll probably miss a bunch of them. I'm going to miss a bunch of them. My offense around me is pretty terrible. But I kind of have to do this. And I'm gonna make just enough of them that the defense is gonna have to like somewhat stay on me. And what you said, what's interesting, when you look relatively at the box score stats and the way that it doesn't pop out and I think retroactively, you'll look back and you're like, hmm, maybe it's not so great. But I was thinking about Tyrie's Haliburton and the way that I like compared the two when we were watching the finals and the way that they kind of push the pace and things like that. And in my mind, now it's like, oh, Haliburton is significantly better score than kid. That was the first thing that I thought. So I pulled up the playoff stats for Haliburton and for Jason Kitt. So during this playoff run for Haliburton, he scored 19 points for 75 on plus one-ish true shooting percentage. Jason Kitt in 2003, 20 points for 75, on just about neutral. So he's actually right in the same ballpark as Haliburton. Now, I gotta say, if you open the other couple of years around Jason Kitt's 2003, if you bring in 2002 and 2004, the three point percentage brings it down quite a bit more. But my point is, is when you look at it relative to Aira, especially in the playoffs, I think Jason Kitt scoring isn't quite as detrimental and awful as it might seem if you just glance at some of the numbers. - Well, he's really big guard. By the way, you're point about his confidence is so funny 'cause I think it goes back to Cal, even in college. You could like convince anyone watching a game that he was a good shooter, just based on how confident he was. Just one game, like 10 shots, you could convince them. But go back to like 2002 Eastern Conference Finals against the Celtics. Kitt is a really big guard for that era, about a six four, like legitimate six four, maybe six five with shoes. And he's crazy fast. His speed at his size is freakish. It's bonkers. And I think one of the things we wanna do with every player we hit is say, what are their superpowers? How many, you know, some players have more than one, but usually we will see a superpower. And the obvious superpower with Jason Kitt is his vision. I mean, my god, he's one of the best passers in NBA history. If he's not in the top 10, he's in the top five. He's just an absolutely extraordinary passer. Simple passes that most players don't make. He makes look easy. I sent you one earlier today where it's like a pick and roll and the guys like eight feet in front of him and just 99% of players in the league just wouldn't make this little shovel pass into traffic and it generates a layup. And then complex passes fake behind the backs. Outlets, you know, everything. So he's incredible vision. Obviously we'll miss some passes from time to time, but that is the first thing that stands out as a superpower. But then that speed size combination is really fantastic. And I think it gets back to this conversation about him being slightly underappreciated as a score because it's not just transition. He uses that size to get to the basket. So he doesn't really have an in between game. When we talk about a three level score, we talked about his outside shooting or three point shooting, pull up three point shooting. Then there's the in between game today. Back in the mid 2000s, a lot of back to the basket, fade away post, mid range pull up. He doesn't have any of that. And the floater game is not really popular. And he, I think he had a little bit of a floater but it wasn't that good. So for kid, it's like I'm on the outside, I'm making a play. I'm trying to collapse the defense and make a pass or make a play, or I can use my size to get all the way to the hoop and generate some free throws. So you see this pressure that he could create with his size and then he had pretty good free throw attempt numbers. And in the 2002 Eastern Conference Finals, when he went to New Jersey and almost won MVP and they got all the way to the finals, that was a huge, huge thing against someone like Kenny Anderson, just an average guard for the Celtics on the other side of the court, where as the series went on, it's like, yeah, I'm probably faster than you, quicker than you and I am way bigger than you. So literally you'll see him like bully ball post up sometime if he has the opportunity otherwise just drive. And I think that's an interesting place to think about as a player because you're like, okay, so how good can an offensive player like that actually be? How valuable is the passing? How valuable is that speed? How valuable is the transition with this mediocre scoring game? Do you recall just a little side note about the vision? Do you remember the commercial where it starts off and he's doing like a reading test where it's like, you have to read the next number, you have to read the next line? So Jason Kidd's sitting here in doing this reading test and then the point of it is the camera pans out and he's reading the lines behind his head. And the doctor sits there and it's like waving behind his head and kids like, hey, can you not do that? I can't see when you wave the hand there, right? And so like this is a known thing that kid just had eyes on the back of his head like I feel like you hear that cliche every time you watch Jason Kidd. And the one pass that he makes all the time then that just it was so brilliant and subtle and he did it so much that teams actively like guarded against it was this really tight like kick ahead bounce pass that he would do. Like somebody would run with him in transition or even like just pushing, it's not even transition, it's like an early offense type of set. And kid would always be like, all right, I have like a little bit of an angle where I can maybe get it in between these three defenders and if my guy keeps running, he's gonna catch it right there. And he always went for the pass. Like he had some turnovers because he was a risky passer but most of the time that worked out. And he was so devastating with this that when I was watching the game one of the 2002 finals, the Lakers. Like kid was able to walk into a couple of the pull up threes like you were talking about 'cause the Lakers were so buttoned up against it. Like, all right, whatever we do, we can't give up a kid kick ahead. Like anything else, we just can't give up the kick ahead. So it's really, it was cool to see just how weaponized the passing brilliance was in how he was able to use that. - Yeah, I mean, the passing part, I think, and the speed and the pace is what takes this to, like actually he's a pretty good offensive player. He goes out there and he drives offense and he plays with these defensive oriented teams. It's kind of unfortunate in his prime. He never really gets to play with that many good offensive players. You know, I think Vince Carter is probably the best offensive player he plays with. Once Vince Carter comes over from Toronto, do you disagree with that? You're looking pensively at the sky for those not watching on YouTube. - Oh, I'm trying to rack my brain. Yeah, if you count the net's days, 'cause I think those sons, like before he really hit his peak. By the way, in 2003, kid was 29, which, it doesn't even make sense when you think about that, but I think those sons teams had just better offenses in general, but if we're talking about a singular offensive talent, Carter is probably the best one until he joins forces with Dirk. - Yeah, exactly. And at that point, he's starting to get really post prime late career after his prime kind of thing. So he doesn't get to play with many great offensive players. The reason I point that out is that he has a clear impact on a defensive team that doesn't have great offensive players. And if you listen to the first episode, that should sound familiar, because we talked about it quite a bit with Derek Rose, with Alan Iverson, with these players that are in this system. And here we have kid who is decidedly not a volume score. That is not what he does. Yes, he has playoff games where he can hit 25 or 30 points. I think that's because he isn't a volume score, but he is a volume pressurizer. I don't know what the right word is, right? He will attack openings. It's not like he's passive out there. He will push and push and push and look for something. He was just also fairly aware of his limitations. And so when you look, I think at some point in the last episode, we talked about what we would expect Rose to look like with defensive guys around him without a great offensive player. And the impact, it's okay. I mean, we both consider Derek Rose for this list. So he's quite a player, right? But kid has a very similar thing going on, where when he's on the bench, these guys struggle, and when he's in the game, their offense is like passable. It's not very good. The hallmark of the nets and kids peaking all that was the performance of the defense in those situations, right? If you look at, say, his playoff offense is when he's out there, they're around average. They're around neutral. That's nothing to write home about when we talk about great teams or all-time great players like this. And yet, Jason Kid is having comparable impact to what we see from the Iversons and the Roses. When it comes to some of these on-off numbers or plus minus numbers or things like that, now I don't think either you nor I think he is quite as good offensively as those players. But that is a fascinating signal. And you see it when you watch the games, where when he goes out, you're just like, OK, this already grimy offense is now solidified. It's stuck. It is not good. Well, something-- and I texted you about this earlier today-- something he does better than-- I mean, again, you talk about if you were to make a list of the 10 best passers ever, like Kid would seriously have to be concerned for that. Something he does with his passing ability, with his audacity. in terms of how he pushes it, is just manufacturers rim attempts, right? And so, you know, we've talked about-- You mean for the team? For the team, yes. For the team. So like Derek Rose, Alan Iverson, Russell Westbrook, they manufacture a lot of these rim attempts for themselves. And if you look at like Per 100 within three feet, I'm guessing they will blow kid out like three, four times more attempts. But I was going back as we have our rim protection calculator, we were trying to figure out like how much a single defensive player might impact with some on-off numbers, how much an opposing team scores around the basket. I tried to turn it around and be like, well, what is the on-off impact of some of these guards on their own team and their rim attempts? And kid, from what I was looking at from 2002 to 2004, basically he creates for the team about 10 extra points per 100 possessions at the rim when he's at on the court versus off the court. And I sampled guys like Steve Nash, I sampled Chris Paul, I sampled Tyrese Haliburton. He beats them all. He beats them all. I know on-off stuff can get a little sticky and you can like quibble with something. But at the end of the day, like the offense, while individually it might not be popping for what he's doing. For what he's creating for the team, he just makes it so much easier for guys to get to the basket and make it to the free-throw line and score at the rim. And that is extremely valuable. And you say the thing about, oh, we can agree that these guys are better offensively the kid. Maybe, but if we're surrounded by higher end talent, I think I'd probably much rather have kid next to them than I would, Iverson, Westbrook, or Rose. That is where I think it gets really, really interesting. So let's just put a little pin in that for a second, because I want to come back to that, sticking with this idea of, because again, what kind of impact is this kind of player having on a defensive oriented team? Well, I ran Kenyan Martin, Richard Jefferson, Kerry Kiddles, Jason Collins, basically the starting lineup for that period. And then we can look at when Vince Carter comes in in the next couple of years as kids starts to slow down. And if you look at those players that he played with, when Kenyan Martin is on the court with kid, he has league average true shooting percentage. When kid goes to the bench, it's two percentage points worse. Richard Jefferson, when, Richard Jefferson is the only player of his group that actually is a little bit better when Jason Kidd goes to the bench. He does more, he gets to play more on ball. His scoring goes up a little bit. His true percentage goes up about two percentage points. But Kerry Kiddles, four percentage point change in true shooting percentage. By the way, this is over multiple years. This is over like three years. So we're talking about like 6,000 minutes played with Jason Kidd and 2,000 minutes without Jason Kidd or vice versa. Sorry, they play about 6,000 minutes together. And that true shooting percentage, four percentage points better. And the big man in the lineup, the other one besides Kenyan Martin, Jason Collins, who's not much of a score, he has an eight percentage point change. Seven and a half percentage point change in true shooting percentage. We see the exact same thing when Vince Carter finally comes along in 2005, from 2005 to 2007, when Vince Carter plays without Jason Kidd, he is 2 percentage points worse than league average in true shooting percentage. When he plays with Jason Kidd, he has two percentage points better and his scoring volume goes way up. Maybe some synergy there with Vince Carter as a finisher, but that's the point. All of these players are finishers. These players are benefiting from what kid can provide. And that is on a defensive oriented team, which leads me to my favorite question when it comes to kid as a player. And we'll get to his defense because his defense is an incredible thing to talk about. But offensively, you have this package. And Cody, I believe you had this theory. So I'm going to pass the ball back to you that when we look at Jason Kidd, you know what I'm going to say. When we look at Jason Kidd, we are kind of talking about a progenitor of the archetype that I would call a pocket dream on green. Right? A player who the transition, the IQ, the passing, the playmaking, the decision making, the speed, the rim pressure, all of this works better when you have better talent to hook up. And yet we never got to see him play with better talent. That's your theory, right? Yeah, well, I mean, the thing that's so weird about though, like you said, and to put some numbers onto the context of how much better the teams are between 2002 and 2004. That's kind of the three years stretch that I really looked at those nets years. First of all, I guess we'll talk about the defense in just a second. When he's on the court, they have a plus seven and a half net rating when he's on the court. This is those nets teams from O2 to O4. Yeah, O2 to O4. That's nice. And it's that's nearly 11 points better than when he's on the bench, right? Nearly 11 points better than when you saw the bench and in the playoffs, we should like, oh, that kind of archetype doesn't really work in the playoffs. Well, no, that's even better in the playoffs. It's about 12 points better per 100 possessions when he's on the court versus off the court. So we have the dream on green effect, right? Where he's next to some of these other guys, they're synergy and they all play a little bit better. But next to a team that really doesn't even have a lot of offensive talent, he's raising them all significantly to the point where you're like, wow, like how high could these numbers actually be if he was in like a dream on green sort of role, if he was surrounded by much better offensive players. Yeah. And I made this fancy sheet for you, Cody. So you had all this information. You didn't even get into the nitty gritty. He's actually better over a five year stretch in on. He just kills it in these numbers, the plus minus numbers, the impact numbers on off. He was always a leader in adjusted regularized adjusted plus minus things like that. And another thing is if you look at this playoff data, it's very small sample. It's very noisy. But throughout this series, we will occasionally reference some luck adjustments that I've made on this playoff data where you look at how the team gave up outside shots during the regular season. And then you compare it to how the team performed giving up outside shots in the playoffs, assuming that it's completely unsustainable for a team that allows like, you know, 37% on long twos or 33% on threes to suddenly, you know, defend those shots at like 25% or something. So we can regress that back to the regular season numbers when you do this. All this is to say when you do this kid looks like one of the best players in the series in the playoff data that we have this whole series that we'll talk about. The team is like 15 or 16 points better per 100 in the playoff. So something is going on here. Right. And so I just come back to that dream on thing like, are we just getting a consistent signal would he have been even better next to other players? I mean, was this an ideal situation for him or would it have been a more ideal situation for him to truly be like the third best offensive player, the fourth best offensive player even on a team. And now you're really starting to feel all these other little things that he does because through all this and we'll get to his defense it segues to his defense, but we haven't even talked about his IQ. And I would just makes all these little weird plays that no one else makes. He's truly a little king thing out there. Yeah. And you I think you you I don't know if you coined it for Kyle Lowry. That's the first time I encountered the little thing king like Monica when you're talking about Kyle. I don't know 2019 Kyle Lowry, maybe. And that's what screams at you from the screen when you're watching Jason kids just all of these really subtle things that happens both on the defensive and offense and you can tell guys like Bill Walton who's calling these games just can't stop heaping praise on it. Right. I'm not going to do an impression here, but he's just so excited about Jason kids awareness both on the defensive and often some offensive and but I think like you were saying he's taking like what seven long mid-range shots per 100%. I would say I don't think this is too controversial, but his ideal offensive situation does not have him taking seven log mid-ragers per 100 possessions right. 100% by the way what's interesting about that is I mentioned the high shooting them in the high 30% low 40% this is very similar to Allen Iverson's numbers at the end of the day. And Allen Iverson obviously took a few more he was you know 10 or 11 per 100 or something like that, but you know we talked about Iverson rose kid these defensive oriented situations definitely you do not want him taking that many outside pull up shots. But I mean it's the early 2000s he's going to take he's going to take some outside ones. So yeah, I don't I don't know I think a question with kid that you're getting at is if he played with better and better talent how different would his own stats be would he still be trying to get in there and dime up these guys and kind of have an awareness of his limitations because it wasn't like he tried to overextend himself and be a 24 point per game score or something. No, and I think that's that control of the game really stands out to it never seems like he's doing something that he shouldn't be doing like every pass so snappy every shot is like I mean I guess you had a lot of space there or even if it does seem quick it's like I mean I guess you are wide open on that pull up three might as well take the open shot when you're in the finals against a strong defensive team. But I couldn't help but thinking like man like even Vince Carter we say that he's the best offensive player that that kid played with but Carter Carter is almost too much of a play finisher right and I think as weird as that might sound kid might have benefited by being an ex somebody that could take a little bit more of that load that could take the ball and create a little bit of that often take away some of those long mid range shots instead of the ball having to be in his hands for him to create and then set somebody else up. So I just think that's something I would have like to see more even like I guess it's unfair to say like Ray Allen right but somebody like Ray Allen would have been a good match. and just excellent next to Jason Kidd. I think both of them would have benefited pretty significantly. But in general, I think somebody else that could create some of that, take some of that creation burden from kid would have been really good for him. - Now this little king thing applies on loose balls. It applies randomly setting screens. It applies apparently as a coach walking onto the court, spilling your drink and things like that. It applies on rebounds. He has an unbelievable nose for the ball. Unbelievably knows for the ball. I mean, just incredible speed to the ball. And so Cody says, I wanna rewatch it 2002 kid game. And he sends me game one of the finals. And it's in like the first two minutes of the game. Kobe Bryant is isolating on the wing. And Kobe Bryant drives right and he's gonna beat his man for a layup. And all of a sudden he takes a mid-range jumper and misses it. And I'm like, wait a second, what happened on that play? Rewound the play. Jason Kidd comes from like the top of the key. Realizes what's happening. And then teleports himself because the man moved. He, you know what he reminds me of how he moves with him without the ball. Like you're playing a video game and you press the turn-by-button. That's what it seems like. What? He just sprints everywhere. He only has one speed. The stuff he did defensively in terms of his reads, his rotations, his hands, getting in passing lanes. It's the kind of thing that back in the day, you just didn't notice because he was stopping the action. He was stopping the shot. He was switching onto someone. He is so good at that. And this is where I think that IQ comes into play. Combined with this like rebounding nose for the ball, grab it off the rim, push and transition. He's really one of the all-time players where there's a bleeding over of offense and defense. Where if you have to sit down and be like, how can you rank these players on offense? Kidd comes out in a certain spot. How do you rank them on defense? And he comes out in another spot. And you go, well, you add 'em up. Kidd seems like he's missing something. It's like, yeah, it's like special teams. It's like football or something. There's an interconnectivity between the defense and the offense with Kidd, between the loose balls, the rebounds, the little plays that pace. And I just think he's arguably the best defensive point guard to ever play. I mean, that's pretty high praise. And I think, I don't even know who'd be in contention off the top of your head. If you had to come up with like three other point guards, they would compete with Kidd. It's like Clyde Frazier. Yeah, would be one. And boy, now I'm, I mean, Gary Peyton, maybe, he feels like, I feel like these guys are better than him though. They're, yeah, go ahead. Would you say, I mean, I have to say it. Would you say Drew Holiday? Oh, maybe, yeah, maybe some of the modern guy, yeah, I'm probably forgetting some guys playing right now. Some of the guys playing right now are really quite fantastic, but they blurred together between like a one and a two. Yeah. Uh, what, what you're saying about the bleeding over though, and what we talked about with the passing where he gets so dangerous, is if he gets a steal or somebody knocks it away and he's able to get in transition, that's where he's just unstoppable. I mean, there's a play. I think Kobe tries to spin move. He kind of rips it from him, gets in transition. And I forgot who it is that's standing in front of him, but kind of gets a hand on the ball from Kidd. Like he tries a lay down pass. He does this thing where he gets a lay down. He's able to recover the ball and is like, oh, I'm still going to actually lay it down to my, my trailing offensive player. And I think they end up getting a lapper or free throws out of it. Right? So like you say, you get a defensive play that leads immediately to the end other end where he's forcing the subject where they get a really high value shot. And then I know we're talking like the really subtle defensive stuff, but even like the man-to-man stuff. Like 2003, you go to the conference, the conference finals where they're playing the pistons, right? Chelsea Phillips can't do anything. Like I think it's the game to him watching Richard Hamilton. It's just, you just watching this game. You're like, how is Richard Hamilton getting all these shots? Why isn't anyone else doing anything? And I think Bill Walton calls it out. He's like, Billups isn't able to do anything. Like it's just locking them up. There's nothing you can do about it. Second half of game one of the 2002 finals. At one point, they make the coaching decision that's like, hey, kid, pick up Kobe full court. Like just harass him. And that completely throws him off the game. Like the first half of that game, it looked like the lakers are going to blow him out of the gym. And some of those adjustments, they came storming back to make it really interesting. So the man-to-one defense being able to go between the Chauncey Billups to Kobe Bryant was pretty much unmatched then. He uses his length so well. I think a common theme for me among most great defenders. I mean, there's some we'll talk about probably in this series that just have that raw athleticism and those raw physical gifts. But a common theme is they're so smart and so good at understanding position, both in the team sense and in one-on-one senses. So Jason Kidd, later in his career, defended-- I mean, that 2011 Mav's championship run, he defended players brilliantly from Kobe Bryant to some of the Heedles players. I mean, just incredible awareness of what their tendencies are, how you can throw them off in space. This is where this subtle little IQ thing comes in. And you're right. As great as he is as a team defender, as great as he is as a team rebounder from the guard position for that era, as good as he is in passing lanes, as quick as he is, he's a fantastic man defender. I was watching one game for this and they're playing the magic, and it's the season Tracy McGrady averages like 32 or 33 points per game in Orlando, and they switch Kidd onto Tracy McGrady. The Bryant Scott's like our best shot is for Kidd to guard Tracy McGrady, and honestly, he guarded him quite well for a number of possessions. I think I blacked out at one point after eight or nine possessions. I can't remember. But that's why I think we're in contention for arguably the best defensive, quote unquote, point guard of all time. And this comes back to your whole pocket dream on thing, Cody, where it's just what the hell is that player? Like how good is that player? Well, the thing about Dreban Green and Jason Kidd is I was thinking about it, and these are two players that are like anti-video game players. Like if you're playing NBA 2K or something like that, playing with them with like your puny mortal mind controlling them is going to take all the value away. Because the value of guys like Jason Kidd and Dreban Green is that they're going to go out there and do all of these like intuitive, like I got to rotate to be here. I have to tip this pass here. I need to push right here and pass this guy a straight. I need to fake this guy and it's going to move this guy over here like the chess match of it all, right? And if you're trying to make it all happen in the video game, they lose all of the value. And then they don't have some of these other skills that you want in 2K, where it's like, oh, I'm going to spot him and it 10-3 is this game, right? Like you're just not going to extract as much value there. So defensively though, from that 2002 to 2004 stretch, when he's on the court during that time, they have a 98 defensive rating, which is five and a half points better than League average, a three year stretch of the point guard being on the court with a five and a half point relative defense rating. He finished somehow this man, this is an injustice. This is an injustice of grave proportions. This needs to be remedied somehow. The man did not make first team all defense. Instead they voted Doug Christie, which is acceptable and Kobe Bryant in 2003, which is just completely unacceptable under any objective parameters. Or yes, you're pointing your finger at me. I'm going to buy it though, because he did get first team in 99-01 and 02. So he has a couple of-- I'm not saying what were they doing in 2003. Yeah, that's fair. Yeah. I can't even remember what-- He at least got second MVP that year though. So they valued something in general during 2003. I remember what I was going to say. If you look at adjusted plus minus as a point guard, I think his three year adjusted plus minus that year was 14th in the entire NBA. Like the other guards he's competing with aren't even close. He's like almost the top 10 defender of the entire NBA in adjusted plus minus. So to your point, massive signal when he went on and off the court defensively. Well, I think there's something to it where-- especially now you watch-- and this will lead into another-- maybe a final question about kid. Maybe we're going to make this whole episode about kid. Who knows? But you watch especially a bunch of modern NBA. And it's all about-- I think LeBron and Nash were talking about on their pot, where it's attacked like the weak link. Find the weakness, get them in all of these actions, and just keep hammering them. It doesn't necessarily mean get a switch every time, but it just means getting them in actions. And most of the time, that usually means the point guard on the other team. Like we saw it with a few different point guards during the playoffs. When you have somebody like Jason Kitter, any of these other guys we're talking about, not only is the point guard not a weakness, but you can actually use them to attack defensively. And I think that switching of all of a sudden this position you can rely on to be like the weak link is actually a point of us needing to adjust for them. I think that's a massive value add that's really difficult. Maybe even impossible at this point to really fully calculate until you look at some of these granular numbers. And like, oh, so that's why all these numbers are a point to being so valuable, because there's just no position that you can really attack then defensively when he's on the court. I just think so many of these numbers are all this little stuff that he's doing that there's no box score for. So it just leaves everyone's mind. It doesn't exist. It's like, what do the kids say if it's not on film, it doesn't count? Is that the new thing? Because the thing before that was if it's not in the box score, it doesn't count. I have no tangible, cognitive way to understand, you know, like hustle plays and weird screens and tipped rebounds that I'm not credited for. And you know, this is all kid does throughout the game. This isn't like he does this like once every hundred plays. There's like four or five of these at least every game. And I think there's just so much value that he adds there. And then the big question is, you know, like how much does that scale up? to better and better teams. And I, my, my hunch from what we see with other players and that intelligence that he has is that it would be super valuable. And you gave, if you put him next to a superstar, you put him next to a two way player and a one way score who could finish off him. And you had that be your big three. You're just lining, you're stacking up championships. That's my hunch. So then let me ask, this doesn't really factor into any kind of analysis, but I think it's fun. And if you were just a time machine him, take Jason K. 2003, throw him to 20, 25, 20, 26, what does he look like? Like how, how does he fare? Well, he can't shoot three. So it'd be terrible. Yeah. It's just, it's, it's a tough one. Obviously, as a guard now, I mean, how many guards are left that don't have that ability to pressure with the pull-up shot, right? I mean, he's just another player we could connect him to. That's a little bit more recent is Rajan Rondo. By the way, another guy who, like you look at the shooting numbers and he always had shooting problems and, you know, kids shooting numbers are generally better or at least comparable to where Rondo ended up at the end of his career. But Rondo played for the championship Lakers in 2020. He retired in 2022. There just aren't a lot of players left like this. I mean, so off the top of your head, can you even think of anyone in 2025 that, you know, doesn't, doesn't shoot but would be a big point guard, would he even play point guard? That's what I was going to say, yeah. Well, then, so it gets weird because when we do the transport to the current game, to me, even though it's just a fun little thought experiment that people always want to understand, to me, you have to, we made a video about this, a long video. So if you go to our YouTube channel, you can check it out. It's on practicing three pointers. You have to grant them that instead of him practicing that 20 foot pull up against the under, you know, when they go under the screen, that he would be practicing a 24 foot shot and that possibly by practicing that shot, you might see something more comparable to what you saw in Dallas, where instead of hitting them at like 32%, maybe hits them at 35%, super high Q player. So he understands the value of that. Maybe Marcus Smart, maybe like a much, much better version of Marcus Smart, where you have way better passing, way better pace, elite defense. Maybe you're starting with that as your show and that gets you a base, that's a pretty good baseline for an all star, Lonzo Ball would be another one. Of course, Lonzo Ball took to my point after a couple years comes out and he's like, no, he's going to shoot like 36 or 37% on his threes because that's all he practices. We don't need to worry about, you know, how you get your shot off from 16 to 23 feet. So that's where my mind goes. Do you have any other thoughts? Well, I just think he's, he's too smart to not know how to eat up the space and spacing. Isn't necessarily about stretching the space. It's like, how am I using the space that's, that's given to me out on the court? And kid is like, he would figure out a way to do something with that. Yeah, he would be left open the playoffs, right? He would be Tony Allen and whatever else. But in my mind, I'm like, he would take advantage of this in pretty significant ways. But that's the point. He's such a better shooter than Tony Allen despite, despite the name Aison Kid. I love that last point because with all that space, his speed wasn't a great finisher, but he was at least decent enough that with all that speed, he can slither, get to the basket, make some layup. So he would be a really fascinating player. I have no idea like where on that spectrum is a low end all star is a high end all NBA. It's a tough one to kind of figure out because he's so weird, but I think he would still be very good. Well, okay, let's think about this way. We just saw the Pacers in the finals. You tell me that you can't see Kid playing significant minutes on that Pacers team, right? I feel like he would fit perfectly into a mold like that. He could play the point guard position surrounded by a bunch of, especially Miles Turner being out there. You have Kid being the worst shooter out there or you can even play him at the two spot or something like that. I just think there's ways you could do it because again, if you don't have that weakness at your point guard position, it gives you some more flexibility for what you can do at all the other positions. So ultimately, I guess, I don't know, do I think he'd be as valuable as he was in the early 2000s? Probably not like the, that archetype has gone the way of the dinosaurs, like the Breven Knight, the Eric Snow Jason kid. But I still think like the point with these guys, Eric Snow Jason, Jason kids archetype has gone the way of the dinosaur. Absolutely. You just, I don't know, these guys are too good to not be valuable in any era that they would play. Yeah, I agree with that. So for me, Jason kid, we're going to put him at number 25. The high, this is exactly like the guys we ended last episode with my high end valuation. I think takes us to about 21. My math is right. I'm trying to count quickly here in my head. Takes us to 21 and he could have been as, you know, low as 30, 32 or something. We talked about like at least six or seven players that he could fall behind last time. So that is Jason kid at number 25. Let's do this. I've enjoyed this Jason kid conversation. We do have another player that is a much quicker conversation because he's a current player. And some of the current players in this series, we are not going to have the level of deep dive. We just did because frankly, we talk about them all the time. So let's wrap up by talking about my number 24 for a couple minutes. Does that sound good? That sounds perfect. Okay. At number 24, I have written down here on this piece of paper right here, Cody. Jason Tatum from the Boston Celtics. And I guess we'll go with 2024. We're going to go with 2003 for Jason kid. I think any of those years, 2003, 2003, 2003 feels like the sweet spot going back and watching him. 2024 for Tatum. Of course, he was injured at the end of this year. Tatum and kid are similar. And then I think they have a number of years where they don't have like this super sharp spiky peak on a graph. But it's like they get up there and then it flat lines and you're like, pick a year. I don't know. When I watch games, they look almost identical every year. I feel like Jason Tatum has had that going since about 2022, right? Like the game has been pretty similar across the board for him. And we talk about Tatum all the time. And you know, I'm happy to, I'm happy to talk about what you think of him as a primary offensive player. We just talked about it a little bit in our top 10 players of 2025. But to me, the thing I come back to is he's such a great defender for his position. And in this game, and without that, he would not be on this list. And with it, I think he passes many players who are better offensive players because of how good he is defensively because of his skill set. He's just extraordinarily flexible, depending on what kind of lineup you want to run. You've seen him be really successful with double big lineups, right? And double big lineups were like Rob Williams is out there who's not a spacer in any means. You've seen him really be successful in lineups, he's the four, right? And I ultimately don't actually know what position he's better at. That's a question that I'm coming up with right now, Ben. What do you think Tatum should probably get the most value from him playing the four or him playing the three? I think it in today's game is the four. Because he's still so versatile defensively, he's still so big defensively, you get some rim protection, you get all the switching is, but then you get your stacking more offensive talent. It's like the thing we talked about with YoKitch where you can build the lineup around him because your center is your best offensive player instead of your point guard. And I think there's a similar thing there with kid. What would kids, just kids, sorry, there's a similar thing with Tatum. What would Tatum's superpower be? So I think, okay, we've said the superpower thing a couple of times. I think Ben, not to speak for you, but also to speak for you right now. I feel like we have this theory that if you're going to have a peak, that's one of the 25 best of the century, you have a quote unquote superpower that like separates you from everyone else, right? Like there's a skill set that you have. I see you're like, that's not exactly it, but the way I'm thinking about it is like there's so many really good players that are vying for the back end of this list that to make this list, there has to be something that separates you. And more likely than not, right? There's some kind of thing you can point to and be like, oh yeah, that thing makes you special compared to everyone else. And I think that's what I've been dubbing the superpower when I've sent it. I agree with that. I agree with that. But Tatum is an interesting player in that he might be like a brown belt in everything. I'm not sure if he has a specific superpower. And he's he I'm scanning the list of people we're going to talk about. And he's maybe fairly unique in this sense. What what immediately comes to mind? Flexibility, honestly, like I said, like his flexibility in being able to play the three, the four defending a bunch of different positions, playing at the nail, space in the court. You can play him off ball. You can create a little bit. So I guess that's it. Like the brown belt being a master of none might actually be his best attribute. It feels like cheating. Okay. There is there is an interesting element with Tatum though in terms of sort of his his footprint on these Celtics teams. They're really good well balanced teams. And you know, we've as we've talked about before, he's not like an ideal superstar number one offensive option. But you look at something like 2020, 24 season and the 2025 season combined. He played, there's a Celtics, I should say, played 3000 minutes with Jalen Brown on the court and Jason Tatum on the court. Tatum averages 25 points per 75 possessions plus 4% true shooting. So his efficiency on his scoring and free throws is so. his volume is solid and they outscore people. This is the key one that jumps out to me. They outscore people by people. I don't know why I'm talking. Other teams, they outscore other teams by eight points per 100. Because we know they're an elite team, right? That's good. Absolutely. Then what happens when Jalen Brown goes to the bench? Oh, I think I've run this quite a few times. Yeah. And this is just a really, really interesting thing to think about because Tatum becomes sort of the Lone Star offensive player. Yes, you have your occasional Christophe's porzingus and Derek White flurry of offensive centricity, but I think he's pretty much the Lone Star offensive guy out there. His load-- his offensive load goes way up. He starts to look like one of these modern Helio centric players, average is 32 points per 75. The efficiency goes way down to league average, which we expect when you take on a load you can't handle like that. And then what is the team's net rating, Cody? That's what I would like to ask you. They were plus eight with Jalen Brown. And what happens when Jalen Brown goes to the bench? And it's like quote unquote, "Tatum Ball." Isn't it better? Doesn't it improve? It is. Pretty significantly. Yeah. Yes, it is better. The offense with Brown out there is 121 offensive rating. Tatum by himself without Brown is a 124 offensive rating. And they go from plus eight to plus 14. They outscore opponents by 14 points per 100 possession. So as we've talked about, there's some noisyness and all that. I don't put too much stock in that. But it is an intriguing thing to sort of think about. What if Tatum was on a less balanced team? I don't know. I'm looking for a superpower. I can't find one. Well, let's flow into another question we asked about kid, then, because I think we-- I don't know if you all to me agreed with that. I thought kid would have been better on a more offensively slanted team where he had some running mates that-- like you said, maybe a primary, and then somebody that could feed off him. I feel like 2024, specifically, is pretty much an ideal team for Tatum. The way that they are able to space the court, the way that they literally played two point guards next to him. They got five guys that can space so he's able to drive and use his strength to get to the basket. In a reasonable team building way, I don't really know if you can have a better team for Tatum to play with. Yeah, but they were like a super team. They were stacked. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. I buy that. Yeah. Yeah. I think if you're going to look for a knock on Tatum, he doesn't have the incredible plus-minus signal in the long term that some of the other players in this series have. It's not really poor by any stretch of the imagination. But his best three-year run in on-off is a nine-point change. That's OK. Well, we're going to see a lot better through most of this series. So this is where I'm kind of like, what do you do with him amongst these other great players? And he feels like he's a little bit-- boy, I thought a lot about Tatum and Jimmy Butler when we were preparing for the last episode. I feel like he's a little bit better than that crew because of this two-way combination that you're talking about. He's so good defensively, while also being kind of like a decent heliocentric, one-man offensive driver, but also being good fitting in with other offensive players and a system like that. And so you get that full package. So there's a lot of diversity of lineups and teammate combinations that I think he'd be really, really good with. And yeah, that's just-- OK. So you said that across those multiple seasons, he has a plus nine on off, like the nine points better when he's on versus off the court? Yeah. So from 2021 to 2023, which is his best stretch in his career, the Celtics are outscored by a point when he's on the bench and they outscored opponents by eight points when he's on the court. That's a nine point swing if my math is correct. OK. Yeah. That's not true. I was just going to say I didn't know if that was a thing where it's like, maybe it's not so scientific, because he's not taking like a terrible team and jumping them up, like he's taking a OK team and making them very, very good. Because that's a whole-- we talked about that a lot. Like there's some weird plus minus stuff going on with the Celtics I think this last year because of just how deep and good they were. Yeah. Absolutely. So any other thoughts on Jason Tatum over here? No, I mean, I feel like we've talked about Tatum for years now. I'm going to listen to all of them. Yeah. Oh, I think-- maybe I didn't finish my last thought. I was incomplete. All I was saying was that-- stacking all that up next to the guys we talked about last time. I feel like he bubbles to the top. But where we're going, Cody, back to the future. I don't know if we need roads where we're going. I had a hard time getting him above the players that we're going to discuss next. Yes. I was going to say this next crop of players, where you get to the point where you're like, oh, man, this is why Alhorfer isn't going to be on this list. I know. I should pour one out for Drew Holiday, who still gets mentioned every podcast despite not being in the series. It's an incredible drinking game that kids can play at home. Jason Tatum, number 24 on this list for me. Now, based on everything we talked about, an interesting thing is I also kind of have a tighter range on him in my head. I can't see going too low on Tatum. I think my low point for him in this series was like 31 or 32. And then the high point is also not super high. I think I can go as high as maybe around 20, 19 or 20. I don't know. I'm not very good at counting right now. We've done a whole episode. But it's weird because some players you look at, and especially one of the players coming up that we will talk about, there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty. You say, wow, I just can't quite-- I see an argument for him being even better than that. I see an argument for the naysayers, but with Tatum, it feels like a very narrow band. Do you buy that? I don't even know why that makes sense. But it just feels like the way that people talk about Tatum is just like very small incremental changes each year. He is exactly what he is. There's nothing truly explosive about anything he really does on the corporate. Goes out there, he plays every game. His team's really good. And that's really all I can say about. I think I know what this is. Maybe we've just been podcasting for too long, and I'm hitting the philosophical wrong way too hard. He's a brown belted everything. Yeah. So these players we encounter that have these superpowers and these weird weaknesses, it creates a lot of variability in how we assess them, especially if they don't play in different situations. Because we go like, well, how crazy good was that superpower? How much of a problem was that weakness? Tatum, it just feels to me like he's steady Eddie. He's just like a B plus across the board. He's like a good playmaker, but not a great playmaker. He's got the pull up three point shooting, but maybe his three point shooting isn't actually that good. But we know it's not actually that bad. The defense is just like a rock. I don't know how to make an argument either statistically or on film that he should be in the defensive player of the year conversation ever. And I don't know how to make an argument that you should not consider him for all defense, because he's better than most of the forwards in the league defensively. So I think it's this weird combination of not maybe really having any superpowers or super weaknesses that in my head gives me that more confidence, I guess, a tighter range in how I assess them. - Let me ask you two questions bottom to close up the Tatum bit. If we had somehow swapped Tatum and Jimmy Butler during the heat days, do you think the heat are better or worse? And do you think the Celtics are better or worse? - Why do you do this to me? Right now we're at the end of the show. - Absolutely. That's the best time. - What do you mean? This is like blindsided me. This is like a sucker punch. - Oh yeah. That's where you get the best answers. When the people don't see a comment. (laughing) - God, it's a really complicated question, right? Because wouldn't Miami structure their offense differently and then potentially even their roster construction because they're gonna have Tatum run more offense as an on ball initiator, whereas Butler does that, but Butler is such a quirky weird. We talked about him so much over the years. He's such an interesting player. It's such a different way to attack with Butler. So I feel like that changes the construction of your offense a little bit. I think the heat defense would still be great. So, but I don't know, then you get in the playoffs and Butler randomly explodes on these teams. I don't know why you're doing this to me. This really, this really hurts. It feels like the Celtics would be worse. - Yeah. - Yeah. I feel like the heat would actually be better. - So I think it would be better? Yeah. That is why we have Tatum ranked above Butler. That one single thought experiment did it. - That could have been the entire conversation. Just bubble it down to that. - To support us Patreon.com/thinkingbasketball, that's the best way to directly support this podcast and this show, we will be back with episode three where we will hit number 23 on this list and some of the conversations coming up are gonna be probably my favorite, although certainly when this series gets to the end, it's gonna get super spicy for people. But just some of these players before we really crescendo into like the slam dunk MVPs of the 21st century, I'm really looking forward to them. Some of them we've had before, some of them we haven't had before. That's where we'll dive deeper. We'll come back next episode with number 23. Cody, do you have any final parting thoughts? How do you feel? Should we record number 23 right now? - Oh my goodness. I don't know if we can handle that. I'm like it, I gotta say I think 23 going back and forth, you and I have had a couple of disagreements about some aspects of this player and I'm interested to see with some time now between episodes if we'll converge a little bit or if we're gonna come in and be like, oh, let's hash this out like gentlemen. - I don't know what disagreements you're necessarily referring to. I suppose we've had some disagreements but what I think about every time one of these topics comes up is does that mean Cody is higher on this player? The same as me or lower on this player 'cause that happens, that has actually happened before where we've had a couple of disagreements scouting usually like within a season for a top 10 list or the finkies or something like that and we're talking about players and then I'm like Cody, I know you're much lower on this player than me and you're like, I have rank number one in the lead. So. - Well, I feel like we always say like, oh, we're gonna come in out of left field here, the other one's not gonna know anything then we just have the same eight players but in different order. So we'll probably end up just being like, yeah, we actually completely agree on this guy and now that we're talking about it. - Well, let me really tease this even more. - Oh, do you, now that you see that we're gonna talk about this player and I've slotted him number 23 in this series, I mean, you can see it right here. Do you look at that and go, oh, I'm much lower or higher than where Ben has him? - I think I have a wide band where I could place him and I think when I made a list, I want it to be, I want it to be frisky Ben and be like, what if I left this guy off? Like, would that rankle people too much but I think 23 is probably a pretty fair ranking all things considered. - Yeah, I have him between 26 is the low end and the high end is, what is that? 18 or something like that? - Okay, so is that an okay band for you? - I gotta say, this is a better teaser than certain superhero movies have done. - Hey, as long as you're not listening to this, within a week or whatever, you can go right to the next episode and hear who we're talking about. For the rest of you, we'll be back in the near future. We'll be back next week and talk about that. That'll be very fun. Thanks as always for listening to this one. Hope you enjoyed it and that you are having a great day. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)