Take Market: NBA Finals Edition

Jimm Sallivan
Take Market: NBA Finals Edition

In sports, narratives born from what happens on the field of play constantly shape the conversation for fans. Over the last decade, more and more media personalities have driven those narratives through the art of the take– planting a flag on the boldest argument conceivable and defending it until their last breath. It matters not if the take starts out “hot” and ends up “cold.” What matters is the take was given. A conversation, launched. A narrative, driven. Engagement, plentiful. 

We welcome you, then, to TAKE MARKET. Our endeavor is to look back upon the strongest takes in the media ecosystem from the most recent news cycle and evaluate their stock. Should you buy low on a Stephen A. Smith take that’s on the verge of coming to fruition? Should you sell high on a Skip Bayless take that looks good now but has a nosedive rapidly approaching? We will provide those answers, fully informing you of where the most prevalent narratives in sports today are coming from and where they are going. 

In the first edition of TAKE MARKET, we look back at the discourse surrounding the 2024 NBA Finals.

This take comes from an unexpected source; head coaches usually stay out of the narrative game unless they’re defending their own players. But Kidd, ahead of Game 2 of the Finals, threw out his own hot take by proclaiming Jaylen Brown, not Jayson Tatum, to be the best player on the Boston Celtics. It is a familiar debate for Celtics fans. It may be a newer one for the national audience after Brown flopped in Game 7 of the 2023 Eastern Conference Finals following Tatum’s sprained ankle, seemingly putting the conversation to rest once and for all.

But Brown elevated his game to such an extent in this postseason that it is, indeed, a conversation once more.

Through 17 games this postseason, Brown is averaging 24.9 points and 1.2 steals per game while shooting 54.3% from the floor; after his 30-point Game 3 outing, the All-Star has shot above 50% from the floor in each of the last seven games played. Tatum, meanwhile, has struggled mightily to score efficiently in the playoffs. He’s performed at an elite level in every other aspect of the game but his shooting troubles have cracked the door open for Brown’s candidacy as the team’s top talent.

These trends continued in the first three games of the NBA Finals. Brown has scored efficiently while making Luka Doncic’s life visibly miserable. Tatum has done everything well … except score. The Celtics wouldn’t be up 3-0 without their combined production, but in regards to the “who is better” debate, Brown’s case has grown stronger by the game.

Most dismissed Kidd’s initial comments out of hand, assuming it was more a ploy to stir up drama rather than an honest evaluation of Boston’s two stars. Now, though, the stock is going up. If you didn’t buy the dip last year, it isn’t too late to get in on the action.

Recommendation: BUY

During the 2024 Western Conference Finals, TNT announcer Stan Van Gundy sparked debate around the media sphere by labeling Luka Doncic and Kyrie Irving as “arguably” the greatest offensive backcourt duo of all time. Given the incredibly rich history of scoring talent at the guard position in the NBA, it was quite the proclamation, even if SVG hedged by slipping an “arguably” in there.

The two did all they could to prove Van Gundy right against the Minnesota Timberwolves. In the Mavs’ six-game defeat of the Wolves, Doncic and Irving combined to average 54.5 points and 12.6 assists per game on 48 percent shooting from the floor. In Game 6 they both put up 36 points to eliminate Minnesota and reach the Finals.

The stock of this take fell off a cliff once the Finals started and not even a “vintage” Kyrie performance in Game 3, as Jaylen Brown described it, can salvage it. Doncic has put up his usual numbers over the first three games of the Finals but hasn’t been nearly as dominant. Irving reminded everybody why this was even a conversation with an excellent outing on Wednesday night, scoring 35 tough points on 13-of-28 shooting, but mustered up only 28 points combined in Boston to open the series.

This is a position you should move off sooner rather than later.

Recommendation: SELL

One of the strongest narratives heading into the Finals this year was the Celtics’ easy path through the Eastern Conference playoffs, as laid out above by Nick Wright of Fox Sports.

All three of Boston’s opponents in the conference bracket were missing their best players for most or all of their matchups. The Celtics took care of business by losing only two games, and were commended for it. But true adversity was in short supply— especially compared to the Mavericks, who beat two of the top three seeds in the West for their spot in the Finals. It made for popular reasoning to pick the Mavericks to beat the Celtics, as Wright did.

Then Boston came out of the gates swinging, and swinging hard. They went up by 29 points over the Mavericks during Game 1 before coasting to an 18-point win. In Game 2, the Celtics had one of their worst performances from deep of the whole season, hitting only 10 of 39 three-point tries … and still won by seven. The Mavs were on the ropes in Game 3, falling down by 21 in the fourth quarter, before ripping off a roaring comeback that cut Boston’s lead to two. But the Celtics pulled out another clutch win and now have a 3-0 lead.

Their stars are more rested than the Mavs’ leading men. The way Boston closed out Game 2 and Game 3 shows they didn’t need to battle with other stars along the way to know how to win when it counts. Whatever other problems arise with the Celtics over the life of the Finals, any stock in the idea that their easy path was actually a bad thing is plummeting.

Recommendation: SELL

There were many questions about Kristaps Porzingis’ ability to step in and compete in the Finals after he missed 10 straight playoff games with a calf strain. The Latvian big man did not play a second of the Celtics’ second or third round series. It was legitimate to wonder if he would be capable of regaining his 20 point-per-game form from the regular season with basically zero runway.

It was also legitimate to wonder if the Celtics could beat a fully healthy, star-studded opponent without Porzingis. The sweet-shooting center is what unlocks Boston’s highest potential. There are very few players in the NBA who can shoot and make 30-foot jumpers with regularity while protecting the rim at a truly elite level. The Celtics had enough talent to breeze through the East without him, but the Mavs were a different sort of beast. Some of the top analysts in basketball, like ESPN’s Zach Lowe, planted flags on the idea that Boston would struggle to win against such talent without Porzingis.

After two games of the Finals, it’s clear Lowe wasn’t off-base at all in terms of how good the Celtics are with Porzingis. Porzingis got Boston off to a hot start in Game 1 and his 18 first-half points gave his team a lead they’d never relinquish. He was less impactful in Game 2 but his mere presence in the rotation means Boston always has five good three-point shooters on the floor at any given moment, no matter what.

Then Porzingis suffered another injury and was ruled out of Game 3. The Celtics got their doors blown off in the opening minutes before settling in and ultimately pulling it out. They are now up 3-0 in the Finals and historical trends suggest they will win the championship pretty much no matter what. Porzingis is a tremendous player who makes Boston truly great, but we cannot say at this point the team needs him to earn Banner 18.

Recommendation: SELL

As media members staked their claim on one side or the other of the Celtics-Mavs debate, it became clear that just about everybody was earnestly excited for this matchup. It’s rife with legacy talk and star power, featuring new blood in a way the NBA rarely experiences. On the strategic side of things the matchup features a fascinating clash of styles and the potential for quite the chess match between C’s head coach Joe Mazzulla and Mavs’ head coach Jason Kidd.

More than anything, there was reason to be hyped because both teams boast incredible shot-making prowess. Thus, the audience received segments like the above from Stephen A. Smith, wondering if the combination of new storylines and talent would be enough to rank this Finals matchup the best of the last 10 years.

The stock here started falling from the outset. Slowly, instead of off a cliff. But falling nonetheless. Game 1 was not very competitive, and Game 2 only marginally more so. Doncic, arguably the marquee star of the series, is clearly hindered by a variety of injuries and his running mate Irving is struggling to create his usual magic. The Celtics have beaten the Mavericks in a “death by a thousand cuts” situation, which is not nearly as enticing to watch as true greatness.

The Mavericks looked like they were going to make a series out of it in Game 3 but lost composure down the stretch with Doncic fouling out, which is not quality viewing for anybody. Now Dallas is down 3-0, a deficit nobody in NBA history has ever come back from, and all of the tension of the matchup is gone.

If you were only evaluating this stock, you’d think there was a bear market the way it’s going down the drain. All hope technically is not lost; if the Mavs forced a Game 7 then this take would soar. But betting on that sort of longshot is unwise.

Recommendation: SELL

Jimm Sallivan