Kyle Korver is the sexiest man alive

Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. This entire post represents my personal views and opinions, and should not be taken as financial advice (or advice of any kind whatsoever). I encourage you to do your own research, take anything I write with a grain of salt, and hold me accountable for any mistakes you may catch. Also, full disclosure, I hold a net long position in GME, but my cost basis is very low, and I'm using money I can absolutely lose. My capital at risk and tolerance for risk generally is likely substantially different than yours.
Rather than doing a writeup of Friday, I think the time I have at the moment would be better spent going over some conceptual market mechanics. As I mentioned in my previous post that covered some light analysis of the week, my first glance was that Friday was a low conviction, low volume day where momentum traders/and volatility arbitraging HFT algos were skirmishing, and a slightly deeper look tells me that's probably the case for almost the entire day, up to the last minutes before close.
There was a bit of a push toward the end of the day just to extract maximum interest charge pain. Keep in mind also that on Friday many of the retail brokerages still had issues with GME, and GME price was also protected from aggressive short-side attack due to the uptick rule.

Capital Flow, Liquid Float, and Price

Ok, so let's go with a diagram I put together while thinking about how to best answer a ton of questions related to the mechanics behind triggering a squeeze. This is not very formal--just conceptual to help you think about the relationship between price, liquid free float, and capital required to move things around.
Capital Flow to Price Volatility Leverage Conceptual Diagram
As you can see in the diagram, I figured it would be conceptually clearest to model the relationship kind of like a seesaw.
On the left you can see that people selling tends to increase liquid float, moving the fulcrum of our conceptual seesaw to the right, except in the case of selling to people who are planning to buy and hold, which moves the fulcrum to the left.
The lower the liquid free float, or the further to the left the fulcrum goes, the greater the likely impact of any particular capital flow (net selling or buying) on share price. Importantly, as the diagrams on the right half show, it's not a linear relationship. The closer the liquid free float comes to 0%, the faster the price volatility increases... theoretically approaching infinity as liquid free float approaches 0%.
I find it sometimes help to think of the extreme case to help clarify. On the extremely liquid side, if you have all of the tens of millions of GME shares in play, dropping $10,000 in to buy shares probably doesn't even register on the ticker. On the other extreme, if what if there was only 1 share in play? That same $10,000 instantly prices GME at $10,000 a share--if you can even get the person holding it to sell!
Since company value is estimated mark-to-market, GME would instantly become rated one of the most (if not the most) valuable companies in the world. This is in no way true, of course, as you could not subsequently sell all the rest of the shares at that price, but as far as a whole bunch of market mechanics and market participants are concerned, they would have to treat it that way until another transaction took place to re-price the company.
So, in the grand scheme of things, in terms of difficulty of initiating what magnitude of a squeeze, the primary factor is locking up actively traded/liquid free float. Also important to keep in mind, locking up the float is only very gradually noticeable until you get very close to locking it all down, and you reach a point where suddenly each fraction of free float being locked up has parabolically greater impact on price volatility, reaching its limit where going from 2 actively traded shares to 1 actively traded share doubles price volatility sensitivity to capital flow by just locking up a single additional share.
So simple, right? Actually, yes. However, don't mistake simple for easy (absolutely not the same thing in this case).

Market Games

So, GME and other high short interest stocks are looked at in two ways by many market participants. On the one hand, you have normal investors and traders who don't really pay attention to it at all, and, if they do, they see it as a tool for price discovery that is otherwise neutral and dampens volatility (people tend to short stocks as price goes up, and cover shorts as price drops, so normal shorting activity is at least in theory supposed to help keep price stable).
Then you have what I'll call market gamers. These are people who are willing to look through the veil of what various mechanics in the market are theoretically intended to accomplish, and just pay attention to what they actually do. There are a number of market mechanics that get really strange in extreme circumstance, and shorting is one of them, as using it to the extreme can absolutely crush a company's share price and actually harm the company badly. The counter to that is the increasing risk of a squeeze, which gets worse with extreme price volatility.
Imagine it this way. Short interest in a stock is like the stock comes with a very strange feature--a closed wormhole portal into the brokerage account of the short position holder that, if slammed with a high enough day or week end price, blows open and sucks their account capital through, and possibly their broker's capital too, until they've patched it closed again with shares of stock they were short.
That's not how you're supposed to look at it, but that's kind of how it actually works in practice. Most wall street types would find it appalling and wrong to think about it that way, but with Millenials and younger jumping in to the market we're talking about generations of people who grew up watching things like people doing 4 minute speed runs through games intended to take~100 hrs to complete, using nothing but the mechanics of the game in ways entirely unintended by the developers. That's kind of what GME is like, from a certain point of view--a speed run through the market, blitzing and confusing everyone watching--throwing a ton of money at hedge funds' short interest until you blow a hole in their account and suck the capital out with the force of a black hole. Of course people are getting jumpy.

Battleground - Strategy and Tactics

In a way, GME has turned into a battleground stock in the minds of many wall street people. Wall Street vs WSB is basically the way it's been depicted in the media, and a number of them seem to be taking it personally.
With a battleground stock I find it helpful to think of it like a literal battleground, but with territory marked out by stock price. It helps you consider the impact on each 'side', what their motives are, and tactical and strategic implications. The reason I think this way is that once a stock becomes a battleground, the issue is no longer about price discovery--it's about proving a point or accomplishing a specific goal, which changes the dynamics of the trade.
In my opinion, the retail strength/defensive line is at the $148 level as mentioned in my previous post analyzing the week. This is based on the majority of volume being in the runup from $30 to $148, which triggered the first squeeze.
My guess is short-side strength hardens at the $350 level, based on that being the level at which the whale plugged the first squeeze. What this means is that you can expect some short-side people to actively short more at that level, possibly following through on momentum, as many of them want to prove a point that GME is a <$20 stock, as stated by a number of them on CNBC. $350 might seem like a low number given Friday's close, but remember that Friday trading was subject to the uptick rule, so the short effectively could not push back, and was instead fighting a rearguard action to bleed the long-side advance as much as possible, and lure them off their strength as much as possible.
Say what? Is there a point to those analogies like that? Why yes, of course, because those analogies are very good mental models for what is going to happen in a short squeeze campaign.
Remember, in the grand scheme of things, the goal of the long side is first and foremost to lock up liquid float. That means buying and holding shares. The question is.. how much will it cost you to move the needle on that, so to speak. the higher the price the short side can force you to pay to lock up float, the longer it'll take and the more expensive it will be. It is also like fighting far from your supply lines in that respect, in that there will be weaker hands mixed in far beyond hard support levels, such that quick pushes by the short side will shake them out, loosening float back up.
How about on the long side? You want the short side to overextend themselves by shorting the price down on momentum, and hopefully get them to keep building up short interest at the lowest price at which they will do so. This means having to have the patience to see the price go as low as you can tolerate before you start losing your key support to despair. Why? Because it means you're buying the shares they throw at you at a lower price (costs less to move the needle on locking up liquid free float) and also that their short position is at a lower average price, lowering the price it will take to trigger a squeeze.
The above is why, in some cases, you will see a sharp dip before the vertical move in a squeeze. You can essentially lure the short side into an ambush by falling back to lower and lower price points, which allows you to continue to lock up free float at ever cheaper prices while the short side thinks it is winning. Once you think you've accumulated enough to prevent covering without a parabolic price move, you spike the price back the other way and it's effectively game over. It can take some time to play out to its conclusion, but that is the essence of it.
Let's make it concrete and put some numbers to it. let's say you need to lock up 10mio more shares for the squeeze (no idea, just using the number for easy math). If you can buy it all skirmishing at the $200 line, you'll pay $2bn to do it. If instead you've extended to the $300 line, you're going to pay $3bn. If you're an alpha-seeking whale, why pay 50% more to accomplish the same thing if you can get away with it? If you recall, I referenced seeing what I thought looked like this type of ticker behavior in my 3rd post.
That being said, you might not mess around with those types of tactics at this point if you think you're already close to blowing up the next short interest holder.
If you think you're close, then you're looking at the most efficient way to make the last tick at trading close as high as possible.
That is very similar to the price action we saw on Friday at the end of the day, as mentioned earlier. If you think about it, if the goal is the have the price at/above a certain point at the end of the day, what is more efficient? Rush in the morning, then have to pay that higher price level for the whole day to maintain it, or wait until later in the day, as late as you think you can manage, and then push to that point at the very last tick?
That, at least, is a very high level view of what you're trying to accomplish, but it gets very complicated in the details. If you're dueling with a good HFT algorithm, you can run into things like the price getting spiked to trigger halts to run out the clock (kind of like fouling someone in basketball), which gets harder in the final minutes of trading due to the wider LU/LD allowances, but still doable, even if you have to do it by sucking price level up (maybe to give you 5 mins to call your buddy at Blackrock to dump shares onto the ticker or something like that).
Another thing to keep in mind. One of the reasons these things can roll on for a long time, is it might not be a one and done blowout (possibly on purpose). Think about it--if you can get people to keep piling short interest in--particularly for emotional reasons, you can ring the register as many times as they are willing to keep doing it to ultimately prove their point. Think of the Citron guy who re-shorted back in around what.. $90 or $100 I think? All because he wanted to make his point when he got blown out at the move off of $30. There are people piling back in right now. Who knows how many times they're willing to reload the short float.
Ok, so this post is much longer than I originally intended anyway, but I think the diagram and some of the descriptions above should provide a good amount of food for thought and discussion. A number of people asked me why I said that price to squeeze was secondary at this point. If you haven't already figured out why, try to think about it, or maybe ask in comments and someone can help with a further discussion.
A couple of final points:

• Assuming the long-side people continue to lock up liquid float, remember that volatility can get greater in BOTH directions. This can mean that you get wiped out if you're somehow still trading GME on margin, as a quick price collapse can get you margin called even if the price quickly rebounds later.
• Greater volatility means you should mentally prepare for big dips as well as swings to the upside. Pre-market and after hours trading don't have circuit breakers, so it could get wild during those times too.
• Also with extreme volatility you end up possibly hitting halts more frequently. After the first frustrating day of this happening with GME I made myself a basic thinkorswim thinkscript study so I'd have a handy reference on whether it looked like this was going to happen. For those of you on ToS, use it on the 1 minute chart. Note that the LULD tolerances are different in first few minutes and toward the end of the day, so you'd have to adjust the parameters (or just keep it in mind). I use it with the step lines vs the default line. If price crosses the guard lines then you're getting close--if it crosses the circuit breaker line then you're about to be or already are getting halted. Here is the code:

​

input TrailingPeriodLength = 5; input CircuitBreakerPercent = 10.0; input GuardMultiplePercent = 70.0; def trlAvg = Average(close, TrailingPeriodLength); plot trailingAverage = trlAvg; plot upperStop = trlAvg * (1 + CircuitBreakerPercent / 100); plot lowerStop = trlAvg * (1 - CircuitBreakerPercent / 100); plot upperRail = trlAvg * (1 + CircuitBreakerPercent / 100 * GuardMultiplePercent / 100); plot lowerRail = trlAvg * (1 - CircuitBreakerPercent / 100 * GuardMultiplePercent / 100); 

Also, I got a comment in another post telling me to get a job lol. Actually I have one, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to post from Monday forward. As I've mentioned in a few comments on prior posts, I actually am not active on social media normally. I just created this account to try to help people use this probably once-in-a-lifetime event and the intense interest it's generating to help people learn to become better investors and traders. I'll try to keep posting, but maybe not as regularly, and probably shorter (which I know some of you will be happy about :)).
Hope you all have a good rest of the weekend. Good luck in the Market on Monday

Hi all, I'm 31, and sprained my ankle playing basketball 4 weeks ago. Went to an urgent care and was X-rayed and nothing was broken. It was likely a grade 1 sprain.
I did the normal RICE method off an on the first 1.5 weeks. Been stretching it since then (spelling the alphabet).
2 weeks in I played a little bit of light basketball with a brace to test myself. It responded well, and didn't bother me while playing really.
3 weeks in I played a lot two days in a row.
It's been 4 weeks, and I've noticed in the last couple of days the swelling has went up pretty bad.
Wanted to see what your recommendations might be? Continue stretching and taking it a little easier?
Thanks for any help you can provide!

He chose this for money. he could have went to somewhere else but he signed the max knowing his team is not about to contend for anything,this is what he signed up for.
at the time beal got a huge contract and decided to cash in so the narrative was “have fun wasting your career in Washington” and now people seem to have the opposite opinion and its “free beal” like he didnt have complete control about his situation. To shake your head for the camera after a loss or to make a “funny” comments about how bad the team is every other day (“we cant guard a parking car”) is a sign of you being a bad leader. especially when you support the growing narrative that your teammates are not worthy for you to play with.
“He putting up 40 every night and they lose so its free beal” actually he is a lot to blame too,in a lot of the games this season he scored a lot but he was doing it as he imposed heroball iso which completely killed the team’s rythem and flow because as soon as he’s subbed out everyone either standing still or trying to be the heroball savior themselves so they can earn a bigger role/minutes. in the few games where he took a little step back and tried to facilitate more and play team basketball the team was looking way better than they are with this iso heroball 40pt and an L games.
Overall, i really like beal as a player i think hes a star and an elite scorer,but bradly beal is the only one responsible for where he’s at. and yes scott brooks is a terrible coach and yes the FO has made some terrible decisions but he is the one who chose to give them his prime years.

I’m 29 and 2 years ago I lost my twin brother, Roy after he suffered a head injury. My brother left behind 2 boys (my nephews). Brandon who was 9 at the time and my youngest nephew Chase who was only 4.
My mom helped out a lot after Roy passed and I unfortunately wasn’t able to be around the first year because I was working out of the country. When I got back I got more involved with the boys and helped my SIL out when I could. Picking them up from school and watching them for a few hours after, taking them out sometimes on the weekend. You know being the fun uncle.
There have been a few times recently where my SIL would accidentally call me Roy and it made her emotional. Now it’s like she avoids me if we’re alone and is very short with me.
Since quarantine, my SIL leaves the kids at my mom’s house during the day while she works and I always stop by for a few hours. Last time I was there, I played with Brandon on his PS4.
When SIL got there and saw us, she asked if we could speak in private; where she told me my presence has made things harder on her because all she can see is Roy. It confuses her and makes her uncomfortable.
Me playing with my nephews and being involved doesn’t make it any better and she asked me to stop spending time at my mom’s house for a while, or be around them at their place.
That hurt if I’m being honest. I told her if she doesn’t want me at her house, then that’s fine. But she can’t demand I not come over to my mom’s just because my nephews are there and there’s a chance she’ll see me.
This made her upset and they left shortly after. I told my mom about this and she said I have to understand SIL’s still grieving so seeing me doesn’t make it any easier because me and Roy are identical.
I just don’t think it’s fair to ask me to distance myself from them over this. Brandon texted me all weekend asking why I hadn’t come over because we usually play basketball Saturday mornings.
Today I did come over to my moms and the second SIL came to pick them up she got really cold with me. She got angry when Brandon asked if I could come over this weekend and told him no.
Brandon was mad about it when they left. Afterwards, my mom said that maybe I should just follow her wishes and keep my distance from the boys. Which again, I don’t see how that’s fair to them or me.
It upset Brandon that I didn’t spend any time with them this weekend and it makes me sad that I can’t see the boys because I look like my brother. I understand grief does things to people and I get her pain.
I lost my twin brother, I see him everytime I look at myself. So in a way, I understand that pain. So am I the asshole for continuing to be around them despite the way it makes her feel?

I am 18M and my sister is 16F. I am still a senior in high school, so I live at home with my family until I go to college in the fall.
My sister has anorexia, and my family is doing our best to help her overcome it. However, I feel like sometimes the efforts my family goes through to help her negatively affect the rest of us, specially myself.
I am an athlete. I play basketball for my high school, and due to covid, our season is postponed until later in the year. As a result, I am taking this time to build muscle and get bigger in preparation for my final season.
I am 6’2, and about 180lbs at the moment. I have to eat between 3000 and 3200 calories every day in order to gain weight at the most efficient speed. I lift 4 times per week, and play basketball 3-4 times per week as well. I am active enough for this calorie intake to be healthy.
My sister gets really anxious when she sees me eating what is, admittedly, a lot of food. We got in an argument over it this morning because she was uncomfortable watching me eat my giant breakfast.
I basically told her that her ridiculous fear of food is not my problem, and that I am not going to starve myself to make her feel better about her disease. She got even more mad, and brought up how the high-calorie groceries in the refrigerator meant for me to eat scare her away from the refrigerator when she tries to find something to eat. Once again, I told her that’s not my problem, and “if you’re scared of fucking yogurt then I can’t help you.”
She then stormed off to her room, and my mom is pissed at me because my sister now refuses to eat her breakfast.
AITA for being annoyed?
Edit: Okay so the common sentiment is that I was in the right given the situation, but should have been more kind to my sister. I get that. It was 6:30 maybe 6:45 in the morning, I was grumpy, and not in the mood for a civil debate lol. But on top of that, I’ve been growing increasingly frustrated with the number of changes I have to make in my daily life to cater to my sister’s disorder. I feel like my parents are pandering a little too much... but all of that would have to be explained in a separate post.
I’m not exactly sure what can be done differently? Obviously other than refraining from insulting her... which I can probably manage. She always has something to say when she sees me eating. Like, I’ll be in the kitchen eating and she’ll start a fight like this...
Some people have suggested that I eat in my room. Which, if has to happen, okay? I guess that’s fine? But I still think that’s ridiculous, especially when my sister is the one with the problem. It’s also a lot harder for me to cary a plate full of eggs, a bowl of oatmeal, a cup of fruit, a set of silverware, and a glass of orange juice upstairs to my room than it is for her to walk away with her granola bar.. In the real world she’s gonna have to see people eating, too. When we return to in person school she’s gonna be in the cafeteria around people eating, some of which will be eating diets that are actually unhealthy. My point is that my evading her is not going to help her, just inconvenience me.

In Greek mythology, Achilles was the greatest warrior. He even acted like a superstar in his day, holding out on Agamemnon for a max contract.
Of course, Achilles had one fatal flaw. When his mother Thetis dipped him into the river Styx to give him invulnerability, she held him by the heel. Because of that, his heel was still susceptible to injury. That weak spot allowed him to get upset in the Trojan War by a lower-seed named Paris. And thus, we get the term "Achilles heel."
Every great player and every great team has an Achilles heel or two. So with that in mind, let's take a look at the top contenders (listed according to the best title odds on bovada) and determine their potential fatal flaws.
Los Angeles Lakers (+240)
The Los Angeles Lakers are one of the most complete teams we've seen in several years. Not only do they have elite top-end talent, but they'd bolstered the depth chart around them. At this time last year, we may have called their bench or depth their weakness; they responded to that by adding the winner of Sixth Man of the Year (Montrezl Harrell) and the player who finished second for Sixth Man (Dennis Schroder.) Their defense was already elite, and then they added former Defensive Player of the Year Marc Gasol to boot. As in life, the rich get richer.
So does this team have any weakness left? Perhaps. I'd suggest that perimeter shooting is still their biggest wild card. They've been shooting well this season, nailing 38% from beyond the arc as a team (good for 5th best.) At the same time, that's likely to regress. LeBron James is shooting a blistering 41.0% from three (career 34.6). Kentavious Caldwell-Pope is shooting 46.8% from three (career 35.3). Kyle Kuzma is shooting 39.3% from three (career 33.5). Having James and Anthony Davis does allow their supporting cast to get open looks, but we'd still expect these numbers to come down to some degree. If that does, then the fact that the team doesn't shoot many threes (28th most) may be more pronounced.
Overall, you can make the argument that the Lakers lack sharpshooters. Maybe they don't need Steph Curry or even Seth Curry, but they could still use a reliable shooting specialist off the bench to break out in case of emergency. J.J. Redick may be available via trade/buyout. Kyle Korver and Allen Crabbe are available on the waiver wire. These shooters may be negative defenders, but the Lakers are SO good defensively that they should be able to withstand a slight hit in that regard. What may be harder to overcome is a cold stretch from three in a key series.
Brooklyn Nets (+375)
The Brooklyn Nets are an incredible collection of superstar talent, with two of the greatest scorers we've ever seen in Kevin Durant and James Harden and one of the greatest enigmas we've ever experienced in Kyrie Irving. Coupled with Joe Harris, shooting/offense is clearly NOT the problem here.
It doesn't take a basketball expert or even a dumb redditor like me to realize the bigger concern is the defensive end. The Nets' defense is softer than Charmin. Right now, the team ranks 27th in defensive rating, and that number doesn't show many signs of slowing down. Capable defensive-minded forwards are needed here, desperately, especially when the team matches up with some elite SF-PF talent in the playoffs. This post details the situation and potential fixes with more detail, but some potential defenders available include Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Andre Roberson, Noah Vonleh, Dewayne Dedmon, or potential trade/buyout guys like Tony Snell and Trevor Ariza.
Los Angeles Clippers (+550)
The Los Angeles Clippers have one of the best rosters in the NBA. Of course, that was also true last season. Last year's team had an abundance of talent, which tends to happen when you add two stars to a team that had gone 48-34 the year before. They looked and acted the part of a title contender as well -- finishing in the top 5 in offense and defense and roaring to a 3-1 lead over Denver. Unfortunately for them, it's best of seven.
A lot of the problems that plagued last year's disappointment were related to chemistry issues on and off the court. Lou Williams and Montrezl Harrell had developed a great rhythm as to-go scorers, and now they were forced to take a step back. Worse yet, their skill set wasn't suited to being 3+D sidekicks. Harrell may be gone, but the "fit" issues with Lou Williams remain. He's still a good scorer, but he's a liability if he doesn't have the ball in his hands. He's off to an even rockier start to this season, logging a - 3.0 box plus/minus so far. Now at age 34, there's a real concern that he's trending towards being a net negative player, especially in this current role. The team should float offers for him now before he lingers too long on the roster and starts to resent his place in the hierarchy.
Milwaukee Bucks (+700)
The Milwaukee Bucks followed up a disappointing postseason with a spectacular offseason. They not only re-signed superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo, but they brought in some extra help for him with Jrue Holiday and Bogdan Bogdanovic and --
Wait, what was that? The Bogdanovic signing got blocked? Oh right.
It feels like ages ago, and some may think it was meaningless in hindsight. Bogdanovic hasn't lit the world on fire in Atlanta, and the Bucks will eventually get back to a 1 or 2 seed no matter what. Still, the limited depth at the wing will be an issue for Milwaukee at some point or another.
That issue is most likely to rear its head in the playoffs, because the Bucks tend to play a slightly different way in the postseason. Over the last few seasons, Giannis has played limited minutes as a smallball center in the regular season -- 7%, 27%, 23%, 4% this year (according to basketball-reference.) In the postseason, that tends to expand -- he was at 43% and 35% the last two years. And if you're ultimately playing Giannis "up" as a smallball 5 often, then that means you need to surround him with talented wing players. Pat Connaughton and Donte DiVincenzo have played well, but they're not proven yet. If the plan is to keep Giannis at the 4 more often (with Bobby Portis in tow), then that's a formula that hasn't been proven yet in the postseason yet either. The Bucks may have to figure out answers on the fly, which makes it crucial that Coach Mike Budenholzer is able to adjust accordingly.
Philadelphia 76ers (+1700)
Doc Rivers and his top-notch assistant coaches have done a great job unlocking the potential of the Philadelphia 76ers. They're unleashing Joel Embiid (29.3 PPG) like a kaiju, watching with glee as he smashes through the undersized world of the modern NBA.
That formula -- Embiid surrounded by improved shooting -- clearly works well. It may be enough to power through the playoffs and make the Finals. Still, I wonder if the Sixers need to develop a counter-punch. They don't have a proven Plan B. Right now, their backups at center are traditional big man Dwight Howard and young Tony Bradley, who's decent but not a spacer himself. They haven't been playing much "smallball" right now, with Tobias Harris and Mike Scott both logging only about 4-5% of their minutes at center.
We've seen in the playoffs that "one trick ponies" -- like arguably Giannis on Milwaukee and James Harden on Houston -- can be gameplanned against in the postseason. It's helpful if you have a few more tricks in your bag a la Felix the Cat. Going forward, it may be worth experimenting more with smallball lineups, either for the postseason or in the event of an Embiid injury.
Boston Celtics (+1800)
Coach Brad Stevens is a fan favorite and a media darling. And no doubt about it, he's a legitimately great coach. That said, there may be a false impression about him. Whenever you have a young coach, there's a natural inclination to presume he's some type of offensive mastermind. In reality, he tends to be more defensive minded and disciplined and doesn't run as much of a run-and-gun offense as some of his peers. In the Brad Stevens era, the Celtics' offense has ranked: 18th, 10th, 8th, 18th, 10th, 4th, 9th (for an average of about 11th.) They haven't finished in the top 10 in terms of pace since 2015-16. This isn't anything new for Stevens, whose success at Butler University also came about from good defensive teams. Oftentimes, his offense can stagnate and fall into iso-ball.
Given that, it's going to be a challenge for the Celtics' offense to hum back into the top 5 range that they'd need to win a title. Great players can manufacture offense on their own, but there's been a talent drain over the last few years here in Boston. Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown are great, but they can't do it alone. The Celtics lack a third star. Ideally, someone who can get his own shot, but also run a good functional halfcourt offense.
Of course, that was supposed to be Kemba Walker. He's the type of guard who can get his own shot a la Kyrie Irving and Isaiah Thomas before him. But with the Celtics, Walker has never looked 100%. He hasn't been distributing like a top end PG. He's the third banana that's not quite ripe yet. From the Celtics' POV, they have to ask: is this issue going to get better? Or worse? If Walker rounds into form, great. But if he continues to decline into his 30s, then they may need to proactively find someone to replace him. Bradley Beal will be on the market soon, C.J. McCollum may be "gettable." The Celtics have enough big contracts and enough prospects to be in the mix for some of these trade targets; Danny Ainge needs to determine whether he needs to cash in some chips sooner than later.
Utah Jazz (+1800)
The Utah Jazz had a bumpy ride last year, from Mike Conley's slump, to Bojan Bogdanovic's injury, to all the drama about Rudy Gobert and COVID. This year, it's been a completely different story; the team's been red hot all season long. Consider this: Donovan Mitchell, Mike Conley, Bojan Bogdanovic, Joe Ingles, and Royce O'Neal are ALL hitting over 40% from three, and Jordan Clarkson isn't far behind them at 39.2%. If their shots keep falling like this, then perhaps they can sustain their top 5 offense and their overall top seed.
Still, the Utah Jazz can call upon their Mormon/christian roots and emphasize charity. That is, the charity stripe. The Jazz don't get to the line often enough. For a high volume scorer, Donovan Mitchell doesn't draw a huge amount of contact (getting 4.4 FTA per game.) For his part, Jordan Clarkson is borderline allergic to the line (1.6 FTA per game despite hitting 97% of them.) The fact that the Jazz don't generate "easy" points at the free throw line makes them more reliant on shot-making. They've been able to do that this season. So far, so good.
Of course, "good" is not the goal -- we're going for "great" here. For Donovan Mitchell to truly take an MVP leap, he needs to be getting to the line at least 7-8 times a game. It won't necessarily be easy, either. He's not a big wing, so it's harder for him to bully his way through traffic and absorb contact. He also has a true center in Rudy Gobert who can clog the paint at times. That said, it'd still be helpful if Quin Snyder and company can encourage him and Clarkson to get to the line a little more often.
Denver Nuggets (+2200)
Although the Denver Nuggets are only 12-10, Nikola Jokic is getting his due as a legitimate MVP candidate right now. As long as the team has a superstar like the Joker and a fire breather like Jamal Murray, they have a puncher's chance of winning a round or two in the playoffs.
That said, the supporting cast still leaves something to be desired. In particular, Gary Harris may not be good enough. He had a great reputation early on as a 3+D guy, but he hasn't backed that up over the last few years. He's shooting 33.3% from three right now, which marks the third season in a row that he's been below 34%. He's not a good rebounder, he's not a great playmaker, and he may be overrated as a defender.
Coach Mike Malone continues to have faith in Harris, trotting him out for 30+ minutes a night. And to his credit, he's playing a little better than he did last year. Still, when push comes to shove in the postseason, this team needs its supporting cast to excel in order to beat teams like the Lakers and Clippers. The Nuggets probably could have put a package together to get Victor Oladipo, and they may be able to get Bradley Beal. It's about time the team started to think about those big swings.

I think personally what makes any game good is playability, and a personal belief. We cannot sit here and say 2K is trash yadedadeda and all of that, and still buy it every.single.year. if its so bad to which it has a consistency of being bad annually, why continue to purchase it? You can argue there's no other basketball options and sure, but there's no football options and I didn't buy Madden 21, does that mean Im better than the people who hate it and bought it? No. It just means I individually stood my ground against a game that I TRULY believe is dogshit. Which I encourage anybody to do.
Now why do I blame players instead of the game? Because I've seen the same fucking comment(s) every year since NBA2K16. When that launched THIS GAME IS TRASH. then 2k17 came, THIS GAME IS TRASH 2K16 WAS SO GOOD. Repeat...Repeat..Repeat... When 2k22 comes out, people will say its trash and how good 2k21 was. Its the players. Majority in Myteam don't play onball because there's a 90% chance you won't play against a person who plays on ball defense. I played back to back Unlimited games and these two dudes had Opal starting 5s. They didnt play on ball at all. I played in The park only once this year because I haven't really gotten around to playing it much and I had with my 90 overall center. I managed to get 17 boards, went 2-3, and my team lost 21-19. because my wannabe curry players went 5-23. Its not the game that needs to be talked about, its the community.
Now I am not giving 2K a pass, this game has its flaws, but from a personal perspective, this game isn't as bad as people hype it up to be. Are there things I'd change about it? Yes, in a heartbeat and I do wholeheartedly believe if my changes went through, this game would be so much better as a whole. Only thing I blame 2K for is matchmaking, servers(at times.), and in some aspects the Pay to Play motion. Now I'm not against people spending a dollar here or there, or a grand. I'd advise otherwise but its their money at the end of the day. However I would really like better match making based on similar teams. Tiers if you will, if I have two diamonds, and an Opal and the rest ruby or under, I shouldn't be matched with an Opal starting 5. I also throw blame on to 2K for not being true to some modes, such as Limited.
I enjoy Limited, but tell me exactly how its "Limited." If you can use an Opal, a Pink Diamond, and Two Diamonds, plus heat check players which the only ones you'll ever see is 93+ That's not really LIMITED. At least not to me, doesn't mean its impossible. I personally don't have an Opal yet, I'm still grinding for Jamison, and to be fair, I don't have ANY dom rewards. but since i am a trophy hunter on PS, I need that 594 stars for a Platinum among the gem collector as well. Ugh. Its gonna be annoying but I guess depending on who the next Opal is, and who the final Black Matter or Dark mattr card is, maybe it won't be so bad, but If every game is 30 minutes, that's still around 30 annoying ass hours so grab your laptop and watch some movies.
Update: people have mix emotions over this and ill reply to you all when i can. Take care. Be civil. Be human.

Jaylen’s Extraordinary Growth
Under The Radar:
The underappreciation of Jaylen Brown has gotten out of control. Despite his impressive playoff run and exceptional 2-way play last season, as well as his position at #8 on ppg scoring this year, he still lives in Jayson Tatum’s shadow in the eyes of many basketball talking heads and analysts. I’m here to tell you not only why this lack of recognition is unfair, but why he is the best player on the Celtics and will make an All NBA 1st or 2nd Team this year.
Unprecedented Improvement:
What Jaylen Brown has done on the basketball court and in the film room has been truly unbelievable. The way he has continued to go back to the drawing board in the offseason and figure out what he needs to get better at has been unique and special. When he came out of college, he was extremely raw. To be quite honest, he had a bad feel for the game and was pretty unskilled; all he really brought to the team was energy on the defensive end and a high flying finish here and there. He wasn’t reliable shooting the ball from anywhere on the court and he had a problem finishing at the rim. In only about 4 years, he has turned himself into a polished offensive player to add to his defensive prowess, and has become, I will argue, one of the top 10 players in the NBA.
Ball Handling and “Feel”:
Jaylen came into the league as a work in progress. On drives to the hoop he often lost the ball and got pushed off his line - he had a hard time controlling his body and the ball which made it tough for him to make decisive and efficient decisions. Ball handling seemed to be the first thing that Jaylen realized he needed to improve upon to be playable in this league. He greatly improved this area of his game during and after his first two seasons, which really allowed him to make a jump. When you’re able to handle the ball, the game slows down for you. You spend less time focusing on controlling the ball and handling pressure and more time with your eyes up making reads. He started to fumble the ball less and became more composed and poised with the ball in his hands. It’s really incredible to notice the differences in Jaylen’s game from his rookie season to the next couple years, specifically in the “feel for the game” category. If a player does make a significant jump in this category (which is incredibly tough), it rarely happens in a year; players do not just wake up one day and understand how to make reads at NBA level quickness with NBA athletes in your face. It normally takes years and years of film breakdown and experience to improve upon things like shot selection and pace (by pace I mean the pace at which the player plays; better players are often able to play “quick without hurrying” by changing speeds at the right moments, not taking aimless dribbles, and using their bodies effectively). For Jaylen Brown, it took an offseason. This season, Jaylen requires the fewest dribbles of any guard and the 4th fewest touches of any player averaging more than 20 points to get his numbers. This is a testament, I believe, to his improved ball handling and feel. His decision making is at an elite level and it shows in those touches and dribbles numbers. It might be counterintuitive, but the better ball handler you are, the fewer dribbles and moves you need to get an opening to the hoop.
Finishing Above, Below, and Around the Rim:
Jaylen began exclusively as a high flyer who could finish above the rim in transition but rarely in other situations. He had a poor left hand and, quite frankly, really poor touch around the rim. He shot 48% on layups his rookie season - that’s really, really bad. This is common for young, explosive athletes though. Oftentimes they don’t have to finish with too much contact or go to their weak hand earlier in their careers because they can simply jump over the defenders they play against - of course it’s a rude awakening for these players when they are finally playing with athletes who are as talented and athletic as them. But with his newfound ball handling ability and increased feel and awareness, Jaylen was able to improve his finishing drastically and adjust well to the heightened athleticism of the NBA. He quickly realized that he would have to rely on more than just his athletic ability and was going to have to develop some finesse in his game. And BOY did he develop some finesse. Jaylen increased his finishing percentage to 54%, 55%, and 62% (2020-2021 season) in the following seasons. This is especially impressive given the expanded pressure he faced nightly as he became more of a focal point of the Celtics offense. He truly looks like a different player around the rim than he used to. He’s able to make high, contested finishes off the glass with both hands, something he could rarely do in the beginning of his career with EITHER hand. He gets to two feet a lot more and seems a lot more in control of his body when he gets into the lane. It seems like his touch has improved significantly, too, which is a fairly unique skill to develop, especially this late in one’s career; it’s usually viewed as more of a natural ability. Jaylen didn’t stop his development there, though. Next, he set his mind on becoming an elite shooter.
Extending his touch beyond the key:
Once Jaylen was able to break people down and get to the hoop, the next logical step for him was to work on his shooting, specifically his 3 point shot. It’s where the league is trending and it’s an extremely sought after skill in today’s pace and space game. In 2018-2019, JB shot 34% from three. He followed that up by shooting 38% the next season and is currently shooting 44% this year. I noticed a difference in the bubble last season; he just seemed like he had an extra level of confidence in his 3 point shot. He was taking more threes in transition and above the break, and his success allowed him to continue to let it fly. This season, Brown is number 1 in the NBA in pull up jump shot percentage at 50% (Min 5 pull up FGA per game and at least 20 MPG). He’s been impossible to stop in the mid range, simply rising over defenders with his athletic ability and stroking it at the top of his jump. He’s even extended his pull up range to three this season. There’s not much more to be said than the fact that Jaylen got in the gym and worked tirelessly on his shot. His pull up mid range, his standstill three, pull up three, you name it. Jaylen worked on it and got better at it. The development is happening before our eyes at an unprecedented pace, and not nearly enough are talking about it.
The Intangibles:
Jaylen has what it takes to be a star in this league. It’s been well noted how intelligent he is, and I think that’s a big reason why we’ve seen this rapid development. He’s both smart enough to figure out what his deficiencies are and address them in a logical and effective way, and dedicated enough to put the hours in required to fix them. This is what separates good players from great players in this league. The good players might be content with scoring 18ppg and continuing their slow, gradual development; great players, on the other hand, completely transform their games in the offseason and add something totally new. Go watch the film of LeBron and how teams defended him in his early seasons. Teams would give him a step or two, essentially allowing him barely-contested pull up jump shots, both from inside the arc and from three. Now, LeBron is a consistent 3 point shooter who is able to hit step back, contested threes with some reliability. He’s a different player than he was earlier in his career; what he’s lost in athletic ability or burst he has made up for in his shooting, which has allowed him to prolong his career unlike anyone else. Joel Embiid has done something similar - he’s brought his game outside the perimeter and it has changed the way he operates in the post. He didn’t allow himself to be put into the box of “post player”, and he’s changing the way we view big men because of it. I see Jaylen Brown’s development fitting into this category. He will attack the offseason with vengeance and a need to improve at a faster rate than his fellow stars. Furthermore, he will strive to show the entire league that he’s not done evolving yet. There’s something else, though, that I find incredibly impressive about Brown. He has been playing in Jayson Tatum’s shadow for essentially his entire time in Boston, and it has seemingly not influenced him one bit. Tatum gets most of the credit for the C’s success and is by far the most talked about player on the team. Unlike many other star players in this league, JB hasn’t let this unfair treatment affect him, and I think that’s a sign of his humility and maturity. For such a young player, this is a level of professionalism we don’t often see, and it’s a testament to how special of a player and person Jaylen is.
Jaylen The Facilitator:
Jaylen’s development is far from over. Just as people have come to understand who Brown is as a player - an elite 2 way player who can break you down with the dribble and score at all three levels - is exactly when Jaylen will go back to the drawing board and add a completely new part to his game. He’s already shown flashes of brilliance as a playmaker; he’s made some beautiful lob passes and pocket passes to Theis and Rob Williams out of the pick and roll, and he’s gotten a lot more comfortable at making reads in delayed transition situations (something he struggled with early in his career). This is the definite logical next step for Jaylen in his development, and I expect him to approach it as such. In fact, I expect Jaylen to address it quite quickly. The C’s have clearly not gotten enough production from their role players and bench this season, and I think Brown will take it upon himself to get them more involved. Given how quickly the other developments in his game have been, I could imagine him becoming an improved facilitator this season. Watch out for it… this is your warning NBA.
​
You can read more, and see the full post, here: https://analyticcity.com/blogs/help-side-analytics/jaylen-s-extraordinary-growth

Here are some highlights of Russell and here are his career stats.
1) WINNING (Part 1): The Celtics were ho-hum right before Russell joined the team, pretty bad right after he retired, and even worse when he missed games during his career, but when he was there they were the most dominant title-winning franchise in sports history, which proves how ludicrous the “He was simply the best player on a loaded team” comment is. DETAILS: a) Boston won 2 total playoff series in the 10 seasons before Russell arrived, and both were short best-of-3 series (‘53, ‘55), b) Boston went 34-48 and missed the playoffs in ‘70 right after winning the title in Russell’s final season, and c) when he missed games during his career, the Celtics were 10-18 (.357), and 18 of those 28 missed games were against teams with losing records, so there was no excuse for a “loaded” squad to be so bad. When Russell missed 3 or more games in a row --meaning his teammates really had to adjust & couldn’t just “get up” for one game without their leader-- the Celtics were a pitiful 1-12. They were horrible without him. There is NO evidence the Celtics were any good when Russell wasn’t on the floor, rather a ton of evidence to the contrary.
2) WINNING (Part 2): It's been commonly reported that Russell was 21-0 in winner-take-all games, but that’s incorrect …. he was 22-0. If Russell's team played even with an opponent throughout a series or got to the same place in a tournament, Russell's team was ALWAYS going to pull it out in the end.

• At USF, his '55 team was 5-0 in the tourney on the way to the title.
  
• At USF, his '56 team was 4-0 in the tourney on the way to the title.
  
• In the '56 Olympics, the US squad was 2-0 when it came to the winner-take-all Final 4 for gold after the group stage.
  
• In the NBA, the Celtics were famously 10-0 in Games 7's throughout his career.
  
• In the '66 playoffs, the Celtics won Game 5 in the best-of-5 series with Cincinnati (link).
  

3) WINNING (Part 3): The Celtics didn’t win the title only 2 times during Russell’s 13-year career, and both were (very likely) due to difficulties experienced by Russell.

• In 1958, the Hawks topped Boston 4-2 in the Finals (winning by 2, 3, 2, & 1 points), during which Russell missed 2 games and played at far less than 100% with a horribly sprained ankle when he was available in the series. It’s safe to say Boston would have won that title with a healthy Russell.
  
• In 1967, the aging Celtics, fresh off of 8 straight championships, lost to the loaded and younger Sixers in the ECF. This was the first year Russell was Boston’s player-coach, which is significant since he faced horrendously stressful & over-the-top racism as the first black coach in major US pro sports history. He played so much and so intensely (43.3 min/gm in the playoffs) that he often forgot to sub players which hurt his team. The next season, the Celtics were older & considered “done”, but he added a bench coach to handle subs, and they beat the favored defending champion Sixers in the playoffs, and then won the title. Then the “seriously, they’re done now” 1968-69 Celtics clawed their way into the Finals & beat the loaded West-Wilt-Baylor Lakers 4-3 in Russell’s final season. Two giant asterisks have to go beside the only two championships Boston didn’t win during Russell’s career.
  

4) WINNING (Part 4): Russell went to college at the University of San Francisco which had just suffered through 3 straight losing seasons before he joined the varsity team. He lead an unranked USF team to 2 consecutive NCAA titles during his junior and senior seasons, going 57-1 along the way, and he could have won a title all 3 seasons he played at USF if not for losing teammate K.C. Jones one game into their sophomore season; they smashed the #17 team 51-33 in game 1 with Jones who was hospitalized that night with a burst appendix, but Russell still lead them to a 14-7 record before going on to those 2 titles. Even at the college level, he could lead players who weren’t supposed to win to the ultimate heights; it wasn’t just in Boston. Also, he was the leading scorer, rebounder, and defender on the 1956 gold medal winning US Olympic team, which had an average margin of victory of +53, the highest ever (’92 Dream Team was +44).
5) CLUTCH: I already mentioned how dominant Russell’s teams were when it was all on the line, but I’ll add that his list of clutch games, series, and moments is ridiculously long, plus his ppg, rpg, and apg averages all rose in the playoffs. I’ll simply point out that he had the greatest Game 7 performance of all-time in the 1962 Finals, scoring 30 points & grabbing 40 rebounds to win the title in a super-tight Game 7. If you didn’t know, the NBA Finals MVP award is officially called the Bill Russell NBA Finals MVP Award.
6) INTELLIGENCE: Part of what made Russell so unbelievable in big games and moments was that his IQ and level of manipulating opponents is unparalleled historically. On defense, he’d often intentionally “just miss” blocking a particular star player’s shots earlier in a contest, but late in the game when the opponent was lulled into thinking they could get a certain shot off over Russell that night, he’d extend the extra inch and come up with clutch blocks & defensive plays they weren't expecting. I’ve never heard of another player doing stuff like this. The stories about his IQ are legendary & numerous; here are some clips about his hoops IQ. At least watch the 3rd one on that list ("Some more mindgames") to see a short interview with him talking about manipulation of a star opponent in a way I’ve never heard another player articulate; he truly was thinking on a whole different level to create advantages for his team.
7) VERSATILITY: Bill Russell was so versatile on the floor because he trained and played all 5 positions on offense. The only other players in history who could maybe do this are Maurice Stokes and Giannis Antetokounmpo, but Russell’s results were quite different, plus immediate & sustained. His value to the Celtics’ offense is WAY underrated, especially on the fast break where he arguably had a bigger influence than Steve Nash did for the Suns’ fast break due to how well he could start, run, and finish it.
8) PASSING & OFFENSIVE INFLUENCE: Speaking of his versatility on the fast break, Bill Russell was a great passer, both in the half-court & full-court, and put up insane assist numbers for a center, especially in the playoffs (averaged >5 apg in the playoffs during 7 different seasons, far more times than any other center).
John Havlicek, in his 1977 autobiography, said the following about Russell's effect on Boston's offense when specifically discussing their first post-Russell season ('70):

"You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed [him]. People think about him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he had been the key to our offense. He made the best pass more than anyone I have ever played with. That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, and myself. None of us were one on one players ... Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of offense has always been over-looked.”

I’ll add that Bill Russell finished 4th in MVP voting with an 18% vote share in 1969, his final season (‘69 MVP voting). I believe this is the best MVP finish by any player in their final season.
9) MORE ABOUT HIS OFFENSE: Fans often knock Russell for not being a high scorer. He played on a team that spread around the scoring, so very few Celtics ever had big scoring numbers, and he often had the best FG% on the team. Russell was top-5 in FG% in the league 4 times, while more recent dominant-scoring centers Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Patrick Ewing all did it once. Russell understood what individual sacrifices to make and how to improve his teammates so they collectively would be winners, which is why he won the 1962 MVP (voting) over Wilt Chamberlain (his epic 50 ppg & 26 rpg season) and Oscar Robertson (his epic triple-double season). By the way, Russell holds the record for the most consecutive MVP awards (3), most consecutive top-2 MVP finishes (6), and has the 2nd most MVP’s of all-time (5). It was clear that Russell’s approach was far more valuable to his team’s success than that of other superstars with monster stats.
10) DEFENSIVE IMPACT: There is no hyperbole in saying Russell was unquestionably the most impactful defensive player ever. The Celtics consistently & regularly had the #1 defense in the NBA throughout his career, yet they were FAR worse before he joined the team, and they immediately dropped in the ‘70 season right after he retired. Here are Boston’s annual rankings in Defensive Rating, starting in the ‘54 season: 8, 8, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 8 (the highlighted parts represent Russell’s career). He had an overwhelmingly positive influence on the entire team’s defense to a degree we’ve never seen from any other player.
11) ATHLETICISM: Watching film of Russell, it’s clear he was extremely fast and active, elite even by today’s standards. He also possessed Olympic-level leaping ability (7th ranked high jumper in the world in 1956). For the record, he was measured as 6-ft-9-and-⅝ without shoes, taller than both Dwight Howard and Alonzo Mourning. This incredible athleticism is what allowed his defense to be a cross between Tim Duncan & Kevin Garnett, covering everything everywhere with phenomenal explosiveness, plus impeccable timing & decision-making.
12) LEADERSHIP: Bill Russell had the best combination of elite on-court impact on team synergy plus elite locker-room unity & positivity. Very few guys are even in the discussion of having this type of elite combo: Tim Duncan, Jerry West, Larry Bird …. not many more, especially when you also consider a player’s impact on his team’s defensive synergy.