Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to fix the NBA in two simple steps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How to fix the NBA in two simple steps

    The combination of a great draft class, injuries, and underachieving teams has combined to form a shizastrom highlighting just what’s wrong with the NBA-- whose major storylines of the year so far are “So many amazing college players!” and “Eastern Conference: War Crime Edition”. Not exactly the ideal storylines are they?

    There’s been endless debate here on the merits of tanking or not-tanking, and despite how much we try to avoid the topic, there’s a reason why it keeps rearing its ugly head. There has also been a rise of people making the argument (here and in wider NBA circles) that divisoins and possibly even conferences need to go. A recent thread by started by Shrub, quoting Steve Aschburner from NBA.com that argued the opposite because “it would build and enhance rivalries that are so lacking now”

    Although I get Mr. Achburner’s point, and even agree that current divisions don’t really do much to foster rivalries; I respectfully disagree that just having teams play each other more will naturally create them. Rivalries in the NBA don't have anything to do with geography, OR how many times a team plays the same team.
    In my opinion rivalries occur under the following two (official) conditions [and a 3rd unofficial condition]

    1) Teams must be of relative strength.
    2) The games must be meaningful.
    [3) Head cases/dirty players/irrational confidence guys/players who proclamations to the media always boost the rivalry factor aka your Jason Terry/Matt Barnes/MWP/J.R. Smith’s of the league]

    Since, the case can easily be made that the 3rd unofficial factor actually detracts from the game more than it adds to it I’ll ignore it for this piece.

    How many teams play meaningful games in the regular season? No matter how many times the Jazz play OKC, is there any chance these two teams start a rivalry this season? Other than cross town rivals, or in the case of the Naismith Cup (cross-country rivals) between the Raps and (Vancouver) Grizz how often is a rivalry created between NON playoff teams? I would argue never (I would argue the the cross-town rivalries would exist even if they played in different conferences). The reason is that if you are one the teams who are outside the playoffs looking in, you are playing for the intangibles: better execution, developing your game. This only gets worse as the season nears the end and the gap between the haves and the have nots is at its greatest.

    The key to more rivalries is more meaningful games. How do you create more meaningful games and fix the NBA at the same time?

    I’m glad you asked!

    Step 1) Get rid of regional based divisions and conferences. Teams take chartered jets and playing teams that are near you lose the benefit when you are constantly travelling from other places anyway. You still have two conferences and 3 divisions but you change the divisions every year based on expected performance, last year’s playoff history and off season moves, to maximize parity among divisions and highlight rivalries. Group 3 divisions together to make a conference. Although there are always going to be midseason trades & injures, overachievers & underachievers this would ensure that there would always be a good chance for least one good division rivalry, NBA head office could have fun with it and even put the previous year’s NBA finalists or conference finalists in the same division or just any two random teams that seem to bring out the best [beast] of each other. It would pretty much ensure that there’d be at least one legit team in each division so avoiding another Shatlantic Division and LEastern Conference. With better parity among the divisions, division champ will mean more, and you could bestow homecourt advantage for it with make a lemon face.

    Step 2) Get rid of the draft lottery. This is a pretty simple case of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. Whether you or me, like it or not, an unwanted consequence of the draft lottery, acknowledged by GMs and analysts, is that it incentivizes losing, especially if you lose A LOT. Now, you can debate whether tanking will ultimately bring a championship, or whether it is the best/only option for building a contender, but the reality is that the worse your record is the better your odds of getting the best talent in the upcoming draft. Rewarding teams for losing or being bad, is counter-intuitive and furthermore, reduces the number of meaningful games, hence the opportunities for rivalries to emerge and/or grow stronger.

    Anytime you have losing linked to getting the best talent it will influence teams into purposefully putting less talent on the court in order to purposefully field a less competitive team, you can justify it without using the “T” word as "developing young guys" or “rebuilding”, but it is conscious decision by management to NOT have the best possible team RIGHT NOW on the floor. The current system makes this so obvious and necessary, that we all pretty much accept it as a given, and it’s more a question of how much can we tolerate, and what the payoff is likely to be.

    The fact that all teams have to do it is given that goes (for the most part) unchallenged.

    That doesn’t mean, however there aren’t other systems that could still help the bottom teams get more talent out of the draft without incentivizing LOSING. Many people have proposed different systems that, while not eliminating the incentive to be BAD, can certainly diminish it. Yes different systems will have different problems, but it’s possible that they could fulfill our criteria of creating more meaningful games. Here’s one alternative:

    I originally got his idea from either Zach Lowe or Bill Simmons, and have modified it slightly: Have the lottery be determined by best winning percentage after you have been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, if you wanted to ensure that teams who just missed the playoffs don't get a chance at the number 1 pick you could split it between two groups. The first are those eliminated from the playoffs by a certain date (March 30th?) or before a certain number of games (say by 70 or before), or a number (first between the first 10 eliminated) and with the second group comprised by those who were eliminated after whatever cut off you choose.

    For example, let’s say they’re 10 teams eliminated by March 30th/their 70th game, and the remaining 5 are eliminated after our arbitrary cut off date/games. The team with the best record after they were eliminated for the group of five gets the number 1 pick, the team with the 2nd best win percentage after elimination gets the 2nd pick and so on down the line. The team from the group of five with the best winning percentage after elimination gets the 10th pick etc.
    I idea is that there is very little room for tanking. I don't, and don't think any other pro-tankers actually believe that teams try to tank at the player level, and very rarely if ever try to tank at the coach level: This year's examples would be Boston and Phoenix two teams short on talent but overachieving, attributed to coaching and hard work. It primarily and almost exclusively happens at the Owner/GM level, and it's done through personnel moves. GM's actively try to have less talent in a given season to have more in future seasons.
    In the current system, it's relatively straightforward to maximize your chances at a low pick, trade good players for bad players, ideally younger players who are bad NOW but will be better later, because that’s the kind of Kool Aid fans can drink. Astute posters will point out this is easier said than done, BUT the basic theory is pretty simple. In the proposed system the optimum spot to acquire top talent in the draft is to be eliminated from the playoffs before the cut off (date/games), BUT be better than all the other teams who do the same. As a GM how do you manage to get the talent level right to achieve this? Especially since this occurs after the trade deadline when rosters are virtually fixed? I would say that it is so difficult to do it incentivizes teams to have the most talented rosters possible in the hopes that if they don't make the playoffs they are eliminated in time to give them a real shot at the number one pick.

    In the current system if you want maximize your chances of "winning" then EVERY regular season game is a good game to tank, and that’s a pretty masochistic thing for a fan to cheer for (even those of us who do it). In the proposed system the only time it makes sense to lose on purpose is when you don't think you will make the playoffs, or if you do-get murdered in the first round, AND you are approaching the cut off and aren't eliminated yet. Hopefully by controlling the cut-off date you make it difficult for teams to do a mini tank at the end of the season because it would probably be WAY more obvious as it would likely have to happen at the coaching and/or player level (because it happens AFTER the trade deadline), and because the team is still a legit playoff contender.

    This new system won’t help the Bucks/Hawks of the league. The “treadmill teams” may still opt to take a step back, but that step won’t be nearly as large, or as all-encompassing. Bad GM’s will be easier to spot and less likely to be tolerated, and there won’t be a chinese wall within organisations where the coaches and players are trying their best to win games, while the GM is trying to make it impossible for them to do so. MOST importantly it will make every regular season game EXPONENTIALLY more important for the bottom half of the league and will make games meaningful (IN A GOOD WAY!) in late March and early April for both playoff and non-playoff teams. Nothing is going to be perfect, and there are always going to be the things you can’t account for, but the NBA must find some way to link the draft to winning as opposed to losing. I’m hoping for as many teams as possible to overtly tank in ways that cannot be ignored so that the NBA will address it.

    Doing these to two things will maximize the importance of regular season games, especially the end of the season, where even the bottom feeders are doing their best to win games to land a better player to help them win the following year, more meaningful games among the bottom end of the league increases the odds of rivalries forming or getting better in general. AND fans will never be in a situation where their heart says “win” but their brain says “lose”.

    It's simple an easy enough for the NBA to do this less time it took me to write this piece, or for you to read it!

    Your welcome, NBA.

    #tankfreeworld
    "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

    "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  • #2
    Meh, raise the draft age to 22. Get these kids to stay in college.

    1) this increses the likelihood lottery picks are well coached and NBA ready.
    2) this gives teams 3-4 years to evaluate a potential high pick.
    3)increased effectiveness in the draft will cause bad teams more success, thus taking them farther away from the draft.

    All the shit people talk about now, its all bandaid solutions to a problem so fucking easy to sole it isn't funny. Greed.

    You got guys trying to outdo the other guys by beating them to the punch with young prospects. nobody gives a shit if they succeed, just get your hand son them first, agents, ad agencies, they are all vampires in this respect. Who cares what a prospect might be, we can get millions NOW. Its disgusting.

    Make a rule, make um HAVE to stay in school to improve. Make the talent pool coming in better, and make the draft more reliable and its fine as set up. No need to redesign the wheel.

    Comment


    • #3
      Craig wrote: View Post
      Meh, raise the draft age to 22. Get these kids to stay in college.

      1) this increses the likelihood lottery picks are well coached and NBA ready.
      2) this gives teams 3-4 years to evaluate a potential high pick.
      3)increased effectiveness in the draft will cause bad teams more success, thus taking them farther away from the draft.

      All the shit people talk about now, its all bandaid solutions to a problem so fucking easy to sole it isn't funny. Greed.

      You got guys trying to outdo the other guys by beating them to the punch with young prospects. nobody gives a shit if they succeed, just get your hand son them first, agents, ad agencies, they are all vampires in this respect. Who cares what a prospect might be, we can get millions NOW. Its disgusting.

      Make a rule, make um HAVE to stay in school to improve. Make the talent pool coming in better, and make the draft more reliable and its fine as set up. No need to redesign the wheel.
      What you are proposing is a completely different issue that what I am addressing. I have no problem making players do two years or college. It won't do anything to change the fact that there is a strong incentive to be lose, and to lose big. In fact, what you propose would only increase that incentive because players would more of a known commodity and therefore there would be less risk in the draft for the top picks, meaning they are even more valuable; hence the increased incentive to tank.

      I don't care how the NBA does it, but they need to fix the draft. It a system that contributes to meaningless games (even arguably meaningless) as opposed to trying maximizing the amount of meaningful games.
      "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

      "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

      "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

      Comment


      • #4
        I really, really disagree.

        There will always be a way to circumvent whatever is in place, and teams will do it. I don't think you have bad idea's, I just think you'll see a different set of issues, as the myriad of reasons certain teams are in the tank don't always include the draft anyhow. Ensuring the talent level in the draft is more reliable, and of a higher caliber will help take teams trying to lose out of that situation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Craig wrote: View Post
          Meh, raise the draft age to 22. Get these kids to stay in college.

          All the shit people talk about now, its all bandaid solutions to a problem so fucking easy to sole it isn't funny. Greed.
          Wouldn't raising the min draft age to 22 mean that you need to find 60 guys that are 22 or older every year to fill the draft? I think the rookie scale contract would then need an overhaul, bc if you had control of guys coming into the league from 22-25, that would mean even more money has to go to overpriced vet's on the decline. Is that going to help the quality of the league?Or you would need larger max deals. That can also have long term problems ie Nets, Knicks. So do you do away with the rookie scale? Cut it down to two years? I see a lot of potential salary cap problems.

          So instead of tanking for picks, wouldn't teams then have an incentive to shed or avoid payroll to be able to afford the next big free agent class? The result is still different classes of teams based on where they are in the rebuild phase. Teams need to acquire multiple talented players to win, so as long as the CBA includes max contracts and luxury taxes, there will always be some incentive to save now to spend later. Sounds like at a minimum you'll need revisions to the CBA. Welcome to Christmas day opening tip-off again.

          And this doesn't even speak to the inherent unfairness in the argument that college level coaches should develop players. As it is, you are not obligated to take underclassmen from college in the draft. Any NBA team could just as easily let the player develop in someone else's organization, and then offer them max money if/when they become a free agent. How is it sensible to make Andre Drummond and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist stay in college until 22, just to reduce the risk of drafting Austin Rivers or Fab Melo?

          Long winded, my apologies, but to suggest that the problem is so blatantly obvious and simple to fix is certainly not a valid argument.

          Comment


          • #6
            MrBlack wrote: View Post
            How is it sensible to make Andre Drummond and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist stay in college until 22, just to reduce the risk of drafting Austin Rivers or Fab Melo?
            Oh i dunno, so a guy like drummond a) proves he has the ability to improve, and B) a player drafted into the NBA know show to do a basic drop step move in the pain, or rub off a high screen for an easy 15 footer?

            Call me crazy, but I think the NBA should be for polished players ready to play, we pay big money to watch it, it shouldn't be a place where we have to be tortured watching gambles fumble around then bow out as "busts", to the detriment of teams that had a draft pick ot improve, yet simply keep losing out on gambles.

            I remember speaking to Jack about this at a raptor event, he agreed, he thinks players aren't prepared for the NBA, and it hurts teams and the product.

            Its about improving talent, shaking out the flops and minimizing gambles on draft night.

            Comment


            • #7
              Craig wrote: View Post
              Oh i dunno, so a guy like drummond a) proves he has the ability to improve, and B) a player drafted into the NBA know show to do a basic drop step move in the pain, or rub off a high screen for an easy 15 footer?

              Call me crazy, but I think the NBA should be for polished players ready to play, we pay big money to watch it, it shouldn't be a place where we have to be tortured watching gambles fumble around then bow out as "busts", to the detriment of teams that had a draft pick ot improve, yet simply keep losing out on gambles.

              I remember speaking to Jack about this at a raptor event, he agreed, he thinks players aren't prepared for the NBA, and it hurts teams and the product.

              Its about improving talent, shaking out the flops and minimizing gambles on draft night.
              Agree.

              By the time a player reaches the professional level, they should be ready to be a professional.
              It's one thing to adjust to the speed of the game and the superiority of the competition, it's another to be lacking the fundamentals.

              I guess a certain element of intrigue comes from the system we have in place, in that there's incentive to watch the new rookies because you really don't know what you're going to get. But it's not worth it. And I don't want to hear any argument about how it keeps them from getting their money. Because they are going to get their fucking money.

              Players shouldn't be "sneaking in" to professional sports.

              Comment


              • #8
                I might be over reading it, but are you saying Drummond should be developed MORE before playing in the league? That's some massive standards for entry, if so.

                I agree, watching Jordan Crawford last year is not worth the money. But what about Crawford this year? Does Jordan Crawford develop to where he is now by staying at Indiana? Or Xavier? How do you even know when someone is "polished" enough to be in the league? The eye test? Their stats?

                You might be exaggerating when referring to the torture of watching guys who end up being busts. How many guys that bust out of the league are around for more than a season? Do you specifically watch the 1400 crappy minutes that the Austin Rivers' of the NBA played last year, instead of the 3000+ of the LeBron's and KD's? Would it honestly make a difference to you if those minutes went to Darius Johnson Odom, or Tyshawn Taylor? Are you capable of watching multiple games every night, while separating the elite players from the average and from the terrible? If you're able to keep a mental inventory of all that, then everyone should applaud you.

                Here's some info that I'm guessing you didn't bother to look up. Last year, there was 78 guys in the league 22 or younger. So take what, half of them out? That's more than 1 guy per team. Who do you replace them with? vet's that are over in Europe? That's going to improve the quality of the NBA product? Or do the old guys just stick around longer? So more of Kurt Thomas and Baron Davis, awesome.

                Did Jack think all players aren't prepared? Or just that a few aren't prepared? If its a few, then yes of course that's right. But what would staying in college even do for some guys? Are you certain that players develop more under any one of the top 50 NCAA programs vs the competition at the NBA level? Does being 22 make you exempt from the learning curve of the NBA?

                I'll stop the rant there.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hmm.... Good topic for discussion & I'm sure the NBA will be looking to address the issue -- hopefully soon.

                  What I'd wanna see is every team having a D-League affiliate. Adam Silver is looking to have this done sometime during his reign.

                  Extend the draft to 3 rounds -- 1st round picks having guaranteed rookie contracts. 2nd and 3rd round picks will be signed over to the D-League affiliate.

                  1st round will be determined by a lottery -- with every team not making the playoffs having equal chances at the #1 pick.

                  You have a maximum number of call ups & send downs per year -- say set at 3 per year with injury exception for 2 more.

                  I think this will address the tanking (equal chances) but put an emphasis on player development.

                  I hate the NCAA system. I think they take advantage of players so I wouldn't subject these players to a mandatory 3 years in college. Teams get to draft a prospect, leave him in the D-League & harvest when ready.

                  Sent from my C6506 using Tapatalk
                  “I don’t create controversies. They’re there long before I open my mouth. I just bring them to your attention.”

                  -- Charles Barkley

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Maybe for the D-League, in order to save transportation costs, you do an MLB style -- series instead of 1 game drop ins

                    Sent from my C6506 using Tapatalk
                    “I don’t create controversies. They’re there long before I open my mouth. I just bring them to your attention.”

                    -- Charles Barkley

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ezz_bee wrote: View Post
                      No matter how many times the Jazz play OKC, is there any chance these two teams start a rivalry this season?
                      First off, I did not read even a fraction of that post.
                      So feel free to disregard this reply on principle.

                      But in reply to your question, I think the answer is yes.
                      That's the most extreme scenario you could have selected, and I still say yes.

                      Now let's be clear about one thing: I do not necessarily think this is the way to go.
                      I'm undecided.
                      But here's the benefit I see, even in respect to the above:

                      By forcing teams to constantly play each other, you stimulate somewhat of a play-off type atmosphere. Coaches/teams can really get a chance to get to know each other. Rather than watching a bit of tape in advance, teams can really learn each other and will have to be a lot more strategic in their approaches. It's possible that teams (maybe not Utah, I concede), given this extra experience, could become better at thwarting the elite teams. In a sense, it would give the lesser teams an advantage

                      Whether it would produce more competitive basketball or not, it would absolutely stimulate a rivalry.
                      If a team is smashing you every night, it starts to get personal.
                      That may not produce interesting basketball this season, but it could become something worth watching in the future.

                      What about this:
                      Is it possible to implement some blend of the two?

                      Compromise?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Shrub wrote: View Post
                        First off, I did not read even a fraction of that post.
                        So feel free to disregard this reply on principle.
                        No worries, I really tried to make it as short as possible while still explaining my ideas, and yet I can't seem to create a new thread unless it has a monster OP. I think I'm possessed by the forum ghost of Tim W.

                        Shrub wrote: View Post
                        But in reply to your question, I think the answer is yes.
                        That's the most extreme scenario you could have selected, and I still say yes.

                        Now let's be clear about one thing: I do not necessarily think this is the way to go.
                        I'm undecided.
                        But here's the benefit I see, even in respect to the above:

                        By forcing teams to constantly play each other, you stimulate somewhat of a play-off type atmosphere. Coaches/teams can really get a chance to get to know each other. Rather than watching a bit of tape in advance, teams can really learn each other and will have to be a lot more strategic in their approaches. It's possible that teams (maybe not Utah, I concede), given this extra experience, could become better at thwarting the elite teams. In a sense, it would give the lesser teams an advantage

                        Whether it would produce more competitive basketball or not, it would absolutely stimulate a rivalry.
                        If a team is smashing you every night, it starts to get personal.
                        That may not produce interesting basketball this season, but it could become something worth watching in the future.
                        In regards to the bold, great point about the effect of increased scouting and the ability to game plan more effectively. I think you'd have to switch to a baseball type schedule for division games where you play the same team 2-3 teams in a row. Otherwise I think it dilutes the idea. But good point and one I overlooked. I still think that having something worth playing for (playoff spot, playoff game... draft pick?) among teams of relative strength more of a factor, however, a little bit less so than my original position. Still think you'd need to have them play a number of games in a row to really see the affect of it.

                        Shrub wrote: View Post
                        What about this:
                        Is it possible to implement some blend of the two?

                        Compromise?
                        I think it is, but I do think that to maximize this affect you either need to capitalize on existing rivalries, or have them between teams of relative strength to bring them out. Which could be easily achieved by some division gerrymandering every season. If the divisions are relatively equal to each other than you can have more divisional games without getting the shatlantic effect.
                        "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                        "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                        "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm going to offer 2 easier solutions

                          1) no max player contract

                          2) better profit sharing so that all teams have an ability spend equally, while not being forced to not spend (ie. hard cap).

                          Bonus:

                          3) contraction (simply because there are some markets that will always (or consistently anyways) be a drag on the NBA)

                          The problems in the NBA are the same problems that always exist in economics, the scarcity of resources. Namely in this case talent and the means to obtain that talent ($s). This can't be prevented, its how the world operates.

                          But what can be offered is a more equal opportunity to those scarce resources, or atleast greater opportunity to those scarce resources based on skill rather than existing economic advantages.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Craiger wrote: View Post
                            I'm going to offer 2 easier solutions

                            1) no max player contract

                            2) better profit sharing so that all teams have an ability spend equally, while not being forced to not spend (ie. hard cap).

                            Bonus:

                            3) contraction (simply because there are some markets that will always (or consistently anyways) be a drag on the NBA)

                            The problems in the NBA are the same problems that always exist in economics, the scarcity of resources. Namely in this case talent and the means to obtain that talent ($s). This can't be prevented, its how the world operates.

                            But what can be offered is a more equal opportunity to those scarce resources, or atleast greater opportunity to those scarce resources based on skill rather than existing economic advantages.
                            Contraction would definitely help, although hopefully more people playing basketball worldwide will create new markets (and by markets I mean good basketball players)

                            The problem with the draft, is their is economic incentive to be bad, because of the scarce resource of top end talent and that top end talent is found at the top end of the draft.

                            Although I agree with craiger that teams will always find loop holes, and that anytime there is a negative incentive it will lead to negative consequences, I do feel like the current draft system produces such a sever unintended negative consequence (GM tanking) that could SURELY be significantly minimized.

                            I would also say that it would be easier for the draft to be changed than the collective bargaining agreement, which both your 1 and 2 options require.
                            "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                            "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                            "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              More years in college is not the answer - these schools only get superstars for 1 year right now, but the greed (it's not just for the NBA, fellas) is effing up the entire system. Fat white men are literally making millions of dollars off these kids playing for their schools, and the kids aren't even allowed to take a buck home. Think about what that system has developed into.

                              The $$$ is way too big for college. It needs to evolve into more of a club system, like soccer, or a proper minor league system, like hockey or baseball. But NCAA college ball is so wrong from the business end to such an extreme degree that it's just crazy that we're all okay with it, just because the problem has grown slowly over time.
                              "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X