NBA

Matty Ice’s NBA Mailbag: Award discussions, Bulls’ future, and more

Author photo
By
Mat Issa
Author photo
Mat Issa Sports Editor

Mat Issa is based in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Yes, he spells his name with one "t." He's obsessed with NBA history, so much so that he's dedicated nearly two years of research to his two mini-series', "Blazing the Trail" and "The Quest for the Best." Right now, Mat goes to law school and writes about the NBA for The Analyst, Forbes, and of course, Basketball Insiders. His work has also been featured in ESPN, SB Nation, FanSided, Basketball News, ONE37pm, and Raptors Republic. Also, he's a lifelong Spartans fan. Go Green!

All posts by Mat Issa
Sports Editor

Updated08 Jan 2024

Tim Hardaway Jr., Dallas Mavericks. Austin Reaves, Los Angeles Lakers.

Hey yo! What’s up? It’s your favorite NBA writer, Mat Issa. I’m here to bring you the very first edition of my (hopefully) new column at Basketball Insiders: Matty Ice’s Mailbag. 

This mailbag isn’t too different from other mailbags you’ve consumed in the past. You ask me questions on Twitter (@matissa15), and I answer them as best as I can in this column. The goal with this is to run this column weekly/bi-weekly/monthly, depending on how many questions come in from you all. That’s why I say hopefully – because the entire column’s success hinges on your guys’ participation. So, by all means, ask me anything!

Also, if you’re wondering why this is called “Matty Ice’s Mailbag,” do you know that nickname your friends only call you after you’ve finished nine beers in under three hours? No? Is that just a me thing? Oh well, in any event, that’s where the nickname comes from, haha. 

Anyway, without further ado, let’s answer some questions. 

Most Improved Player Philosophy

My personal philosophy on the Most Improved Player Award is that it should go to a player who improves the most from the expected growth they were supposed to have in that specific season. To keep it simple, let’s think about this using 2K ratings. So, for instance, if a player was rated a 75 and it was expected that they improve to a 77, but they actually ended up improving to an 85, they should get the nod over a player who was an 85, supposed to improve to an 89 and improved to that 89 rating.

Basically, I am of the camp that thinks the award should go to the player who makes the most unexpected jump. That doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be a young player. It’s just harder to argue that a young player’s leap was as unexpected as an established veteran’s because young player development is typically unpredictable in the first place!

With that said, it doesn’t seem that the current voting body prescribes by this viewpoint. They are more in line with the Tyrese Maxey MIP candidacy that you alluded to in your question. If I had a vote, the question I’d be asking myself right now is: who’s improvement was more of a deviation than the improvement we expected from them at the beginning of the season – Maxey or Duncan Robinson? 

Biggest Risers And Fallers

For the sake of avoiding a 4,000-word debut mailbag, I will keep this answer at one riser and one faller.

The player who I’ve changed my opinion on the most for the better is CJ McCollum. Coming into the season, I viewed McCollum as a poor fit alongside Zion Williamson and Brandon Ingram. Last season, he was a wildly inefficient scorer (26th percentile in true shooting, per Dunks & Threes) and a pretty clear negative on defense (24th percentile in Defensive Estimated Plus-Minus).

This year, McCollum is up to the 62nd percentile in scoring efficiency. Some of this has to do with red-hot 3-point shooting (43.9% on 7.8 attempts per game), which usually isn’t sustainable over long periods of time. But still, he’s doing a great job of cleaning up his shot diet (more threes and less midrange jumpers) and playing more of an off-ball role next to Williamson and Ingram. He’s also using his sound hands and veteran guile to be a serviceable defender. In a recent study I did on this website, I even found that he may be having the best defensive season of any combo guard in the NBA.

The player who I’ve changed my opinion on the most for the worst is Jordan Poole. In 2021-22, you couldn’t find anyone higher on Poole than me. I thought he was the heir to the throne in Golden State Warriors. I thought last season was a fluke. I thought it was a classic case of people overreacting to a down 3-point shooting season (down nearly three percentage points from his 2021-22 numbers). I thought that he’d bounce back this year on the Washington Wizards and that the Warriors would look foolish for trading Poole. Brother, I was dead wrong.

The shooting never came back. It only got worse (down another two percentage points). His shot selection and body language look awful. I still think he can contribute to a winning situation (this Wizards’ context adds a whole new meaning to the term suboptimal). But unless I see a drastic shift in efficiency and mentality, I’ve given up on the prospect of Poole becoming a sub-All-Star caliber player (like Maxey has become).

Empty Calorie Scorer Vs. Rising Star

The two things I generally keep in mind when trying to decipher empty calories from promising production are: 1) are they making their team better, and 2) is what they are doing translatable to a more competitive team?

These types of players are usually on pretty bad teams. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be having the empty calorie discussion in the first place. As a result, it can be hard to tell if a young player is making their team better.

That’s why I like to look at the difference between how a team performs with X player on and off the floor. For instance, the 2021-22 Orlando Magic were very bad (22-60). But they were 8.8 points better per 100 possession when Franz Wagner was on the court than when he was on the bench (91st percentile, per Cleaning the Glass). That tells me that Wagner was having a positive effect on his team, not just putting up numbers that look cute on the box score.

Sidebar: Using on/off numbers like this isn’t perfect. There are variables that can muddy a player’s on/off footprint (things like opponent shooting luck, quality of players they are replacing/replacing them, etc.).

As for the second factor I mentioned, let’s stick with the Wagner example I referenced. During his rookie year, Wagner was providing rim pressure, transition offense, cutting, catch-and-shoot 3-point shooting, and versatile defense. Generally speaking, all those contributions portend well when you move to a team with more talent (see the 2023-24 Magic). They are especially more valuable to those teams than things like tough shot-making or inefficient high-usage on-ball creation.

Sixth Man Of The Year

I’m not big on the whole notion that the Sixth Man of the Year Award should go to the best microwave, Vinnie Johnson-type scorer. I think the award should go to the best overall player who comes off the bench for a majority of their appearances on the season. If you hadn’t already guessed, I was one of those people who was outraged when Jordan Clarkson won the award over Joe Ingles in 2020-21. 

With that said, if I had to choose between Austin Reaves and Tim Hardaway Jr. for the award, I’d go with Reaves (so long as he continues to come off the bench). Hardaway is a great off-ball scorer to pair alongside on-ball juggernauts like Luka Doncic and Kyrie Irving. However, Reaves gives you off-ball scoring (albeit not to the degree that Hardaway does) in conjunction with on-ball scoring and playmaking. In my eyes, he’s just flat-out the better player. 

Also, I view them as similar players on defense. So, Hardaway can’t boost his case with his contributions on that end of the court. 

Under The Radar Trade Deadline Targets

Man, I’m glad you asked this question, Finn. I am actually obsessed with talking about players who don’t come with flashy pedigrees but, in the right context, could turn a really good team into a title contender. Talking about marquee guys like Pascal Siakam, Zach LaVine, and Dejounte Murray is cool. But to me, the real fun is talking about the more lowkey names that could be available.

I’ve already written on this forum about how I think an Alex Caruso trade could shift the entire championship landscape this season. I’ve also discussed how I feel Terry Rozier could be a great addition for teams looking to increase their title odds. 

Some other names I’d keep tabs on are Royce O’Neale, Collin Sexton, Tyus Jones, Corey Kispert, and Kelly Olynyk. Given how much I love this topic, I’ll probably write about all of them at some point in the future. So, be on the lookout for that.

Future Of The Chicago Bulls

To be completely transparent, I love watching this mediocre Chicago Bulls team. After deep reflection, I think the reason is that their archaic spacing fills the nostalgic void in my heart for mid-2000s NBA hoops. That isn’t really all that important. I just figured I’d admit I have some bias.

With that said, I’d give it a few more weeks to see how this team looks with LaVine back. If LaVine is bought in and you look like a team that can win a playoff series, I say keep it rolling. For a team that hasn’t won a playoff series since 2015, that would be a massive win for the season. At the trade deadline, you would want to pursue someone who adds more size and spacing (like Olynyk).

If your team looks good, but LaVine still wants out, maybe you try to move him for a younger player who doesn’t have as high of a ceiling as Lavine but one you can rebuild around after you’re done with this current era (like Reaves). 

If your team continues to be middling and frustrating, at the very least, you’ve rehabilitated LaVine’s value by letting him string together a stretch of good games (it would be really hard to get any lower than where his current perceived value is right now). In that case, you look to unload LaVine, Caruso, DeMar DeRozan, and Nikola Vucevic for any assets you can get and start rebuilding around Patrick Williams, Coby White, and Ayo Dosunmu (he’s been awesome of late). 

Dante Exum Resurgence

I need to write a full article on this at some point, but I have a working theory about a category of player I like to call the “damaged goods archetype.” 

This type of player is usually super physically gifted and was selected early on the lottery of their respective draft. The team that drafted them drafted them in the hopes that they would become their franchise cornerstone. But for one reason or another, they couldn’t quite live up to those lofty expectations (that’s why I call them damaged goods). However, because they are so physically gifted, they are able to eventually find a home for themselves, contributing to a winning team in a more consolidated role. 

Most recently, we’ve seen guys like Aaron Gordon and Andrew Wiggins fulfill this prophecy. Neither of them could quite crack it as superstars, but both of them won titles as uber-versatile defensive stoppers and play-finishers at their second homes. 

I think Dante Exum is the latest addition to this player type. When the Utah Jazz selected him fifth overall in the 2014 NBA Draft, they expected that he would be their lead guard of the future. Obviously, it turned out he wasn’t, but thanks to his elite wingspan, lateral agility, and court awareness, Exum proved to be a great role player for the Dallas Mavericks. 

In Exum’s specific case, I think going overseas also helped him build his confidence back up. 

A Peak Behind The Curtains

For this question, I’m going to give you my typical work day when I’m not in school. My work days, while I’m in school, are way too crazy and consist of way more coffee and energy drinks than I care to admit. Plus, I only have one more semester left, so those days will be a thing of the past very soon (thankfully).

Anyway, I usually have two types of days: 1) days when I have an article due and 2) days when I don’t have an article due.
On the days when I have an article due, I will wake up at around 7 am ET. Most of the time, I’ve already watched all the film I need for the article. So, I will just spend an hour looking at stats and pulling clips. From there, I will proceed to write/edit the article, which takes about 2-3 hours, depending on how my brain is flowing that day.

From there, I will spend the rest of the day oscillating between watching games and fulfilling my non-article responsibilities (news posts, social media videos, podcasting, etc.). My usual pattern for this is to watch one full game and then take a break to complete one of those responsibilities. I rinse and repeat this cycle (with a one hour break sprinkled in for eating and napping) until around 6 pm ET. I usually call it a day after that unless I have nothing going on that night. Then, I’ll try to catch a live game or two.

On days I don’t have any articles to write, I will just spend the day (from 7 am to 6 pm) alternating between watching games and taking care of those aforementioned responsibilities (with that one hour break sprinkled in).

If you enjoyed this inaugural edition of “Matty Ice’s Mailbag,” be sure to shoot me a DM (again @matissa15) on Twitter with a question you want to see answered in the future.