With LeBron James living it up miles away from any Cleveland Blaze Pizza and trolling the Laker fans who long talked shit about him, this is the perfect time for the Cavaliers to hit the reset button for a quick rebuild. Tank, trade away anyone with value — namely Kevin Love and maybe Kyle Korver — and keep your top-10 protected first round pick.

But there’s been a lot of talk purporting that Dan Gilbert wants to stick it to LeBron by showing him the Cavs can make the playoffs without him. And GM Koby Altman recently seemed to reflect a desire to keep Love: “Kevin’s been incredible for us for four years and he wants to be here, and to me that’s a big part for guys that are here and the guys that we’re gonna acquire, is that they want to be here and be a part of this new chapter and culture that we’re creating.”

Without James, however, the Cavaliers are nowhere near contention, even in that putrid Eastern Conference. So the best way to build for the future is by compiling assets and trading Love to a contender hungry for an All-Star.

What’s the money like?

Barring some unexpected maneuvering, Love is poised to be the Cavs’ highest-paid and best player heading into the coming season. He’ll have a decision to make next offseason on whether to opt into the last year of his contract in what will be his age-30 season. I’m expecting him to opt out and seek the final, hefty contract of his career.

This presents whatever team acquires Love with an interesting quandary. If Love is 100 percent and rediscovering his Minnesota-era form, are they ready to pony up to keep Love well into his 30s? Or are they acquiring him as just a one-year rental? That dilemma, along with questions surrounding Love’s fit in matchups against the league’s elite team(s?), will likely drive his value down, as whatever squad acquires Love will likely be hoping to contend.

Here are the trades:

Indiana Pacers

Pacers include 2019 first round pick

With LeBron and as many as 13 of the league’s best 15 guys all in the West, the Eastern Conference is wide open for the first time in years. And while the Boston Celtics and Philadelphia 76ers are favorites to take the crown, Indiana could be a move away from making things very interesting.

Pairing Love with Victor Oladipo, Darren Collison, Myles Turner and the newly-acquired Doug McDermott (not to mention Tyreke Evans and Domantas Sabonis) would give Indiana a truly unstoppable offense. By staggering Oladipo and Love’s minutes, the Pacers can also ensure they’ll have an all-star on the floor at all times to keep the offense afloat. Last season, Indiana’s offensive rating dropped from a stellar 109.2 to 103.3 when Oladipo sat.

While defense would certainly be a question mark, Bogdanovic is overrated on that end after one good game against LeBron in the playoffs and wouldn’t be much of a loss. Meanwhile, the shooting and passing Love provides outweigh Young’s defensive advantages.

For Cleveland, acquiring two guys on expiring contracts means they won’t have to worry about future cap constraints. Young and Bogdanovic could also both be flipped for second rounders at the trade deadline. Alternatively, they can be used as fodder for the Cavs to take on some bad, long-term deals along with first round picks, with Altman parroting the Brooklyn Nets’ rebuilding plan. The Cavs also get the Pacers’ first rounder, which will probably fall somewhere in the low 20s.

Washington Wizards

Plus the Wizards’ 2019 first round pick and lottery-protected 2021 first round pick

The Wizards greatly underperformed last season. After expecting to compete for at least a top-four seed, Washington grabbed the eight seed and dropped out of the playoffs after just six games against the Toronto Raptors.

They’ve already gone about resetting some of the problems that plagued them last season, namely getting rid of the chemistry problem that was Marcin Gortat. Of course, they replaced him with Dwight “literally every single team I’ve played for hates me” Howard. Oh, and John Wall and Bradley Beal still don’t get along.

Luckily for them, Love was just on a contender mired in a tenuous chemistry situation! Not to mention the huge offensive upgrade he provides over Morris. Love, Wall and Beal would immediately be one of the Eastern Conference’s best big threes. Love gives the Wizards’ offense a new dimension. He will feast off Wall’s excellent passing and provides excellent spacing around the Wall-Howard pick-and-roll. Perhaps just as crucial for the Wizards would be getting rid of Mahinmi’s terrible contract.

In exchange for the Cavs’ troubles, the Wizards ship out two first round picks — one for Love, one for taking on Mahinmi. That 2019 first round pick would likely fall in the 20s, but the 2021 first rounder could be right in the teens. In Morris, Cleveland gets someone valuable to send off to contenders at the trade deadline.

Phoenix Suns

Plus the Suns’ 2019 second round picks and lottery-protected 2020 first round pick (becomes two second round picks if not conveyed)

Based on their signing of the 33-year-old Trevor Ariza to a $15 million deal, the Suns seem inexplicably keyed in on trying to make the playoffs. This deal, which truly guts the Eastern Conference, gives the Suns an All-Star that pushes them right into the mix at minimal cost.

While losing Dragan Bender, who’s still only 20, could hurt, he’s really shown nothing at all through two seasons. There aren’t many third-year players in Summer League, and the fact that Bender has still struggled against younger and less experienced players should be enough to coax the Suns into moving on.

In adding Love, Phoenix’s starting five — point guard to be named, Devin Booker, Josh Jackson/Ariza, Love and DeAndre Ayton — gets a crucial influx of shooting and the move lets head coach Igor Kokoškov move TJ Warren into a bench-scoring role. And though Love can opt out of the final year of his contract, the Suns will have the flexibility to keep him for a few more years at the cost of 2019 cap space unlikely to yield them anyone better than Love.

Even with this deal, the Suns probably wouldn’t make the playoffs in the West, but hey, that didn’t stop them from adding Ariza.

As for Cleveland, this deal hinges on their belief in Bender. The stretchy big is young and was drafted fourth overall just two years ago. His ceiling is high and the Cavs are really in a position where they should be making ceiling plays. Bender, Collin Sexton, Larry Nance and Cedi Osman are not the worst core moving forward. If the Cavs aren’t high on Bender, they could ask for Marquese Chriss instead, but the Suns seem to — wrongly — value him more.

Tyson Chandler and Jared Dudley give Cleveland two expiring contracts to move at the deadline, while the Suns’ picks — which will likely end up being three second rounders — are all likely to fall in the valuable 31–45 range of the second round.

Oklahoma City Thunder

Thunder include 2020 second round pick and top-20 protected 2021 first round pick (2022 if the 2020 first rounder owed to the Magic conveys)

With the Thunder looking to unload Carmelo Anthony’s contract, this deal provides Oklahoma City with a new twist on the offensive end in the form of Love. It also helps them shed $6 million to reduce their record-breaking luxury tax bill. To continue reducing their tax bill, the Thunder will cut and stretch Kyle Singler, and do the same with Patrick Patterson.

On the court, Love’s incredible shooting ability and willingness to take a backseat to stars make him what the Thunder hoped they could get from Anthony last year. Love’s passing is also crucial for a team whose only good passer is Russell Westbrook (to Paul George: all shade is intended).

Losing Ferguson hurts, but Love’s immediate boost to the Thunder is well worth it. The All-Star forward does hurt the Thunder’s vaunted defensive versatility, but his presence is the only thing that can make lineups pairing Andre Roberson and Steven Adams offensively tenable. Would this team challenge a healthy Warriors team? No. But it’d be a lot closer to second place, aptly positioned to fill a power vacuum in case of injury.

For Cleveland, this deal is a no-brainer. They buy out Carmelo the second he arrives — something he’d demand in order to waive his no-trade clause — and create some extra cushion between them and the luxury tax. In Ferguson, you get a high-ceiling wing to build your team around going forward. The first rounder is years away and will only convey if all of Westbrook, George and Love (assuming the Thunder keep him) stay viable three years down the road. If not and Oklahoma City finds itself in the lottery? Cleveland can count on two decent second round picks to go along with the 2020 pick.

THREE-TEAM MESS: Love to Portland

Portland sends its lottery-protected 2019 first round pick to Cleveland

This deal is admittedly, extremely unlikely to ever happen. But it really does work to the benefit of each team involved. First, I’ll start with Cleveland this time. The Cavs get Wiggins back from the Timberwolves, ironically in a trade again involving Love. Though his five-year, $146.5 MILLION (I wish you could capitalize numbers) contract is unpalatable, Wiggins’ ceiling remains high and taking a big swing on someone like him could pay massive dividends for the Cavs.

Of course, missing that swing would swamp Cleveland’s salary books for years to come. If they see the Wiggins experiment not paying enough, however, I think Cleveland would be able to shed that salary to another team that trusts its ability to develop stars in the 2019 offseason without too much cost. The Cavs mitigate some of that risk by taking on a first round pick from the Trail Blazers, though Cleveland also has to take on Meyers Leonard’s bad contract. In the short term, that’s not as bad as it seems, as Leonard’s ability to shoot threes — he’s made 37.3 percent of his threes during his career — should help Sexton and Wiggins develop with a spaced floor.

Now on to Minnesota. The Timberwolves are probably the biggest winner in this deal. They shed the Wiggins contract and get rid of any attitude problems that could arise as he craves a bigger role in the offense. In Maurice Harkless and Al-Farouq Aminu, they get two low-usage, solid shooting, above-average defending wings. With Jeff Teague, Jimmy Butler and Karl-Anthony Towns taking so many shots, filling out the rotation with great, switchy defenders who drill corner threes is the perfect recipe to create a winning stew in the modern NBA. The Timberwolves also get a young, cheap big in Larry Nance who’s a threat in the pick-and-roll and can back up Towns and make either Taj Gibson or Gorgui Dieng dispensable.

The Trail Blazers, meanwhile, bring in Love and Kyle Korver to make themselves one of the most dangerous offenses in the league. Without this trade, the Blazers look poised to enter the 2018–19 season with almost no shooting other than Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum. But now, Love’s shooting and star power — as well as ties to the area that make him likely to stay on past this year — give Portland the crucial third banana they’ve been missing. Just as importantly, it also gives them the change of pace they so desperately need after years of early playoff exits.

I’ll concede that this trade, on paper, makes Portland’s defense an unmitigated disaster, but hey, head coach Terry Stotts’ system has worked miracles for many years. Additionally, the Blazers’ wing depth takes a huge hit here, and the Love-Jusuf Nurkic frontcourt pairing may not be good enough to make up for it. If Portland could make this trade and follow it up with taking a couple cheap swings on free agent wings — think Tyrone Wallace, Vince Carter, Treveon Graham or Marcus Georges-Hunt — they’d be in great shape moving forward. And, as a little cherry on top of the sundae, the Blazers get to shed Leonard’s bloated contract.

As fun as it is to speculate on who exactly will trade for Love and what they’ll be willing to give up, this exercise also proved a couple key points. Most notable of all is that Cleveland may have to check its expectations in trading Love. They’re unlikely to get blue chip guys in return, and that’s because of the key issue surrounding Love: his defensive fit in the modern, switch-heavy NBA.

Any team that takes on Love needs to be ready to pivot, like Cleveland did with LeBron, to an offense-heavy approach where they just outgun their opponents. For the NBA’s stagnant middle class of contenders — i.e. the Wizards, Trail Blazers and to some degree, the Thunder — that shift is risky, but a high-variance approach is preferable to death by first-round exits. Ultimately, teams who appreciate Love’s talent and are focused on making the fit work will find that he’s gettable for a great value.

Five fake trades for Kevin Love that actually make (some) sense was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

It’s flown under the radar a bit — what with seemingly extraneous reports proliferating about Rob Gronkowski and Tom Brady considering retirement — but the New England Patriots have overhauled much of their team. Gone are the likes of Malcolm Butler, Dion Lewis, Danny Amendola, Brandin Cooks, Martellus Bennett, Nate Solder and Cameron Fleming.

The Pats have added a couple key guys, taken swings on others. Key additions include Jordan Matthews, Jason McCourty, Danny Shelton, Jeremy Hill and Adrian Clayborn. But with so many guys gone, this team will certainly be inextricably different from the last, which lost in the Super Bowl.

The receiving corps looks to have taken a hit, though Julian Edelman’s return from injury could surely offset some of that loss. But where New England seems likely to truly feel the pain is the offensive line, with Solder and Fleming’s departures leaving Brady’s edges vulnerable. Additionally, the defensive backfield is aging and riddled with questions, while shoddy tackling throughout the defense cost New England the Super Bowl.

Now, with Brady set to embark upon his age-41 season, the Patriots can be less certain than ever that the star will patch all their holes on his own. To contend for a Super Bowl, New England will have to turn to the draft to find key contributors, as well as bringing in the guy who may finally be Brady’s successor.

But what does a perfect draft for the Patriots look like (without taking too many leaps to assume players will be available)? One that gives them a chance to compete and gives Brady his backup? Lucky for the Patriots, I’ve compiled their perfect draft.

23rd pick (round 1) — Kolton Miller, Offensive Tackle from UCLA

At 6-foot-9 and 309 pounds, Miller profiles as a clear left tackle, although his arm length is concerningly only at the 50th percentile of offensive tackles, according to MockDraftable.

What should make Miller enticing for the Patriots, other than obviously meeting one of the team’s biggest needs, is how similarly his physical profile is to Solder’s. Solder, who the Patriots drafted in 2011, is one of the 10 most similar offensive lineman prospects to Miller in MockDraftable’s database.

Miller is definitely a bit raw, and ideally, he’d have a bigger adjustment period than he’s likely to get if the Patriots draft him. I expect Notre Dame’s Mike McGlinchey to already be gone by this point, however, leaving Miller as the Pats’ best option.

But New England shouldn’t feel too upset about settling, as Miller’s incredible athleticism — he’s in the 87th percentile or better among offensive tackles in vertical leap, 40-yard dash, broad jump, 3-cone drill and the 20-yard shuttle — gives him the chance to give the Patriots a truly special building block going forward.

31st pick (r. 1) — Trade to Browns for 35th pick (r. 2), 2019 3rd round pick

No one loves early second round picks more than Bill Belichick. By trading back just four spots, New England can also net what’s likely to be an early 3rd round pick next year. This also makes up for the Patriots having actually traded their own 2019 3rd rounder to the Browns in the Danny Shelton trade.

35th pick (r. 2) via Browns — Ronnie Harrison, Safety from Alabama

With that Browns pick, the Patriots can add a crucial depth piece at safety. This is especially important for a New England squad that spends so much time with three safeties on the field.

Harrison, who played free safety for the Crimson Tide, is extremely versatile. Don’t be surprised to see him break up an over-the-middle pass with big, sometimes flag-inducing hits and stuff the running back on back-to-back plays. But where he truly shines is with the ball in the air. Harrison’s instincts and closing speed make him a solid last line of defense, and a great coaching infrastructure in New England should ensure Harrison doesn’t miss tackles due to his over-aggressiveness. He projects as a definite starter going forward.

43rd pick (r. 2) — Mason Rudolph, Quarterback from Oklahoma State

Many have linked New England to Richmond’s Kyle Lauletta or even Washington State’s Luke Falk with the 63rd pick, but I think the Pats should go with Rudolph. Rudolph started for three years at Oklahoma State and put up some massive numbers, especially in his final season. The Pokes’ signal-caller threw for 4,904 yards, 37 touchdowns and only nine interceptions.

Rudolph is an extremely polarizing prospect. First, the good. His accuracy on short and intermediate throws, especially in the middle of the field, is exactly what you look for. More and more pro teams are making short passes in space the core of their offense. Additionally, Rudolph shows terrific poise in the face of pressure. Rudolph’s passer rating under pressure was a whopping 39.5 points above the NCAA average, while he was 32.5 points better than average against the blitz, according to Pro Football Focus. This is a credit to his ability to keep his eyes down field even as he’s getting hit.

Another key strength of Rudolph’s is his talent for the deep ball. Rather than rocketing it down field, Rudolph puts touch on the ball and gives receivers a chance to track it.

That same ability is seen as a shortcoming by some. Rudolph’s passing velocity is one of the slowest among this year’s crop of top quarterbacks. Where this is actually especially significant is in intermediate throws to the sidelines, where a ball thrown slightly too slowly is fodder for a pick-six. The biggest criticism facing Rudolph, however, is the benefits his offensive scheme provided him. The majority of the time, the Cowboys’ offense was designed so that he could throw right to his open first option. The track record for quarterbacks from such friendly offensive systems is iffy, though the Los Angeles Rams’ Jared Goff seems to be a counterexample.

Sitting behind Brady should give Rudolph a chance to address both of these shortcomings. Air raid quarterbacks often struggle when thrown right into the fire, but Rudolph will have at least a year to develop and learn from the progressions master in Brady, not to mention the fact that he’s more experienced as a deep passer than the likes of Falk. As for Rudolph’s arm strength, the main problem seems to come from his lower body. Rudolph is too upright of a thrower and, with some practice time, can improve at putting his hips behind his throws, like a boxer learning to punch harder.

63rd pick (r. 2) — Uchenna Nwosu, Outside Linebacker from USC

Despite adding Clayborn, the Patriots always need more pass rushers. Their complete inability to even breathe on Nick Foles cost them this past Super Bowl, and Nwosu is exactly the type of player who can remedy that.

He wreaked havoc for the Trojans in his final season with the team, deflecting 13 passes at the line of scrimmage while recording 9.5 sacks and 11.5 tackles for loss. Nwosu will start his career as a terrific option in passing situations. He’s fast right off the snap and can get to the quarterback before he’s even finished his dropback. Nwosu doesn’t have a full utility belt of moves, but that speed can get him around the edge and his tree trunk legs help him dig right past and beneath tackles who manage to get their hands on him.

While he lacks the versatility that would have made him an early first rounder, Nwosu will go to the NFL instantly prepared to make an impact. It wouldn’t be surprising to see him shore up his ability as a run defender and improve a questionable motor within a few years, making Nwosu a high-ceiling play.

95th pick (r. 3) — Kalen Ballage, Running Back from Arizona State

I’m not going to pretend this pick isn’t at least 20 percent about the time Ballage scored eight touchdowns in a game, which he did in 2016 against Texas Tech. But also, Ballage scored eight touchdowns in a game! Come on!

More importantly (I guess) is Ballage’s versatile skillset out of the backfield. He’s excellent as a pass catcher, getting into open spaces and rarely dropping the ball, and no one throws to running backs more than the Patriots. Plus, he’s big enough — at 6-foot-1 and 230 pounds — to become an effective pass blocker on third downs if New England’s coaching staff can actually get him to commit to it.

While his vision is sorely lacking as a runner, Ballage makes up for it with his 4.4-speed and his strength, while also being a viable option in the slot and as a kick returner. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see the Patriots use him almost exclusively in those roles. He definitely gives New England the versatile playmaker they’ll be looking for after losing Lewis and Amendola.

Fine, fine, before we move on, here’s his eight-touchdown game.

198th pick (r. 6) — David Wells, Tight End from San Diego State

The Pats don’t have another pick until late in the sixth round (which is why I would also be okay if they picked up a fourth rounder in that trade with the Browns). But it’s okay, with pick 198, they’re right in the Brady zone.

Here, they can take a swing for a tight end to slot in alongside and behind Rob “I may quit at any moment to party and wrestle” Gronkowski. In Wells, the Patriots can get a tight end who profiles similarly to Mark Andrews and Hayden Hurst, likely second round picks in this year’s draft.

Though his athletic profile would indicate a threat in the passing game, the Aztecs primarily utilized him as a run blocker and boy did he excel, routinely clearing lanes for Rashaad Penny. Putting him on the field with Gronkowski in running situations gives the Patriots the equivalent of seven excellent blockers. Plus the Pats’ current backup, Dwayne Allen, is also a great blocker.

Combining Wells’ blocking with even a modicum of the pass catching prowess his speed, size and leaping ability belie would give New England an under-the-radar candidate to start whenever Gronkowski leaves or gets hurt.

210th pick (r. 6) — Braxton Berrios, Wide Receiver from Miami

Something about the way Berrios plays just screams Patriots. Hmmm. What could it be?

What could it possibly be about this tiny, white slot receiver who runs crisp routes and has no regard for his own safety?

Well, I guess we’ll never know. Let’s just move on.

219th pick (r. 7) — Damon Webb, Safety from Ohio State

In Webb, New England can wrap up its draft with another option in the defensive backfield. He’s a firm tackler and has great instincts, though he lacks the athleticism to really make use of those instincts as a safety. In fact, a kicker is the third-most similar to him athletically according to MockDraftable.

Unfortunately, if Webb were a few inches taller than his current 5-foot-11, he’d make sense as an option at linebacker. Instead, he likely fits best as a Pats’ special teamer who can thrive as a gunner and in kickoff coverage, while giving the team a safety option that knows what to do in case of injury-driven emergency. You can’t ask for much more in the seventh round.

Constructing the perfect NFL Draft for the New England Patriots was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

With the NBA playoffs right around the corner, there’s likely to be some tight match-ups to decide who gets to the finals. In the West, drama will be centered around beating the defending champion Golden State Warriors, whether that means a battle of titans with the Houston Rockets, or early-round match-ups with hungry teams hoping to beat the Warriors before Stephen Curry is 100 percent after his knee injury. Meanwhile, the East is home to a clusterfuck of epic proportions with contenders ranging from the Toronto Raptors and the Cleveland LeBrons to the ahead-of-schedule Philadelphia 76ers.

With tight matchups expected and unpredictability abound, key playoff series will likely be decided on the margins, with indispensable role players in position to shift the axis of power. Here are some of the crucial non-stars that playoff contenders that could swing series this postseason.

Philadelphia 76ers: Robert Covington

Philadelphia’s status as a legit contender to win the East is, without a doubt, one of the more shocking developments this season. While much of the Sixers’ success has stemmed from the sustained excellence of Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid, the burden of ensuring Philly achieves its full potential will fall on Robert Covington.

He’s averaged a solid 12.6 points per game while playing top-notch defense on the wing and hitting 36.9 percent of his threes. His defense gives the Sixers someone who can realistically stop any wing in the East other than LeBron James — Covington ranks 1st among starting forwards in Defensive RPM — and even then, Covington can at least get the King to exert more energy on offense than he would like. His ability to do so in the playoffs could be of utmost importance in a potential Eastern Conference Finals matchup. But, Covington has historically been an incredibly streaky three point shooter.

In the postseason, opposing teams will get a chance to key in on Simmons’ non-shooting to clog the lanes, and can do the same if Brett Brown gives Markelle Fultz any run in the postseason. Some of the effects of this strategy are neutralized because the remainder of key Sixers are all competent shooters, namely Embiid, Dario Saric (who was almost my pick for this spot), JJ Redick, Marco Belinelli and Ersan Ilyasova.

If Covington is able to hit threes at about his average, rather than like he has in so many of his off months, it’ll go a long way towards making the Sixers’ offense completely tenable, even with Simmons’ non-shooting. Surrounding Simmons with four capable shooters and floor spacers clears the lane enough to let the rookie build a head of steam and get to the rim, or alternatively take his defenders into the post, where he’s been a competent scorer and creator. Covington’s main offensive purpose will essentially be unlocking Simmons’ potential and punishing teams who take shortcuts in trying to stop the rookie.

Cleveland Cavaliers: George Hill

The Cavaliers have come around somewhat since totally overhauling their team at the trade deadline. But that has had very little to do with George Hill, who’s played 24 games and averaged only 9.4 points with less than three rebounds and assists per game with the Cavaliers. He’s stopped hitting threes, converting only 35.1 percent with Cleveland after making 45.3 percent of his long-range shots with the Kings this season.

If the Cavs truly want to right the ship and give themselves hope of doing any better than a sweep in the Finals, they’ll need someone to contribute beyond LeBron and Kevin Love. Cleveland has plenty of guys that could step up and fill that role. JR Smith, Jeff Green, Jordan Clarkson and the oft-injured (even that feels like an understatement) Rodney Hood are all worthy contenders. Surely, Cleveland would be happy if any one of those guys showed up and gave LeBron and Love a break and at least kept the Cavs afloat when the stars rest.

Hill, despite drastically underperforming and finding himself dealing with nagging injuries, is likely the Cavalier best equipped to be a third shot creator. Just last season, he was a vital piece of the Utah Jazz’s playoff run. He was a massive positive on the offensive end, ably running pick-and-roll action and contributing relatively efficient scoring — he averaged 15.6 points per game with a true shooting percentage at 56.4.

Defensively, Hill has the size and speed to slow down the pesky guards the Cavs will have to beat. He’s been easy to exploit on that end this season, however, with his mind wandering and his effort waning. In fact, Hill is well past the defensive peak he reached a few years ago with the Indiana Pacers. But if he can even get back to last season’s passable defense, Hill will be key for the Cavs, who could surely use a defensive asset after years of coping with the shoulder shrug that is trying to play pick-and-roll defense with two wet paper towels in Love and Kyrie Irving.

Toronto Raptors: Pascal Siakam

To be honest, everyone knows Toronto’s only chance of beating Cleveland is finally finding some way to slow down LeBron. Given that the Raptors’ two star guards have absolutely no shot against LeBron, the player they throw at him is a clear pick to be their x-factor.

For much of the season, the obvious pick was OG Anunoby. Even though he’s a rookie, he’s got the frame and speed to at least look like he has a chance. Despite some signs of life in April, Anunoby has been mired in a months-long slump. The Raptors have increasingly turned away from Anunoby — he played less than 17 minutes per game in each of February and March — and realistically, it’s a big ask of a rookie to guard one of the three greatest players ever.

So why not turn instead to an über-athletic sophomore: Pascal Siakam. The Raptors’ defensive rating with Siakam on the floor this season has been 102.0, second-best on the team among its key rotation pieces, behind only Fred VanVleet. Siakam’s defensive RPM is 1.30, behind only Kyle Lowry among key Raptors.

Though Siakam is a bit more accustomed to guarding bigs and defending from the weak side, he’s 6-foot-9 and 230 pounds, along with being one of the fastest players in the NBA. He may not have the discipline to guard the crafty James, but at this point, Siakam may be the only Raptor with the physicality to even have a chance against LeBron.

In all likelihood, Siakam won’t succeed guarding LeBron, just like everyone else. But he gives the Raptors a chance. Siakam is strong, agile and moves his feet well. That’s already more than Toronto has had going for it in recent years of trying to contend with Cleveland — the rookie Siakam only played 10 minutes against the Cavaliers in the second round last year.

Playing Siakam enough to primarily match him up with LeBron presents some problems for the Raptors offensively. Siakam is excellent at the rim, but he’s enough of a non-shooter that, when he’s on the floor with the shaky shooting Demar Derozan, the Raptors will have to play three excellent shooters to avoid spacing issues.

Siakam has mostly come off the bench and paired with Jakob Poeltl in the frontcourt this year, but Toronto’s best chance of running a sustainable offense out there is to pair him with Serge Ibaka. They’ve only played 176 minutes together, but the Raptors have hit on all cylinders in that time, for a 12.6 net rating. Ibaka can guard Kevin Love and also shoot well enough to keep defenses honest.

This pairing, to go along with Lowry, Derozan and likely VanVleet is Toronto’s best closing five against Cleveland. Whether head coach Dwane Casey sees that, and whether it’s actually good enough against playoff LeBron, will decide the fate of the Eastern Conference.

Oklahoma City Thunder: Jerami Grant

With the Thunder heading into the playoffs as the 4 seed, it’s still hard to eliminate them as a contender. With Russell Westbrook, Paul George and Steven Adams, the Thunder have a versatile, hungry core that can keep up with anyone on its best days. Unfortunately, Oklahoma City has had trouble filling in players around that trio. Carmelo Anthony will likely occupy one of those spots, though he has been one of the most actively harmful players in the league all season.

Alex Abrines spaces the floor, but pairing him with Carmelo thoroughly dismantles the Thunder defense. Andre Roberson is injured. Raymond Felton is no more than a backup point guard. Terrance Ferguson is 25 pounds (approximately). Billy Donovan hasn’t really turned to Patrick Patterson to do much of anything. That leaves Corey Brewer, who Donovan coached in college and has often been the pick, and Jerami Grant, who could replace Anthony and pair with Abrines or just play with Melo.

Brewer, when he hits his threes, is a solid option, but he was injured in the Thunder’s final game and could be at a depleted state even if he can play. Either way, Grant is the option that gives the Thunder the highest ceiling and lets them contend with the Warriors and Rockets of the world. The Thunder can throw Grant on Draymond Green or PJ Tucker and rest easy knowing he won’t be easy to exploit. He’s athletic enough to switch screens and stay in front of guards in a bind. He can rotate off his guy quickly to block shots.

Grant occasionally matches that defensive skill and versatility with solid enough shooting that he doesn’t completely muddle up the floor. He hasn’t been a consistent shooter, only making 29.1 percent of his threes, but he’s put it together of late, making 37.5 percent since the All-Star break.

If he’s making enough threes to go along with his stellar conversion rate of 66.4 percent in the restricted area, Grant keeps the Thunder offense rolling while providing them the best defensive option they can hope for. Plus, he can be the roll man with Westbrook running pick-and-roll action and Adams in the dunker spot, a set that should work well with George and either Abrines or Anthony out there to space the floor.

Additionally, Grant is big enough to play some small-ball five when Adams sits. He’s not a great rebounder — he brings in only 10.9 percent of misses when he’s on the floor — but if Grant capitalizes on all his strengths in the playoffs (admittedly, a big ask), he gives Oklahoma City a real chance to upset some of the West’s titans. If he doesn’t, Oklahoma City will likely fall in the first round.

Houston Rockets: Clint Capela

Houston has established itself as a bonafide powerhouse this season. With a league-leading 65 wins, the Rockets seem to present the Golden State Warriors a more-than-worthy challenger. But some are concerned about the sustainability of Houston’s offense in the postseason.

The Rockets have relied on isolation plays more than most great offenses, leading the league in unassisted three-pointers, but they’ve been buoyed by a historically great isolation offense season from likely MVP James Harden. With referees sometimes more hesitant to blow the whistle in the postseason, however, Harden could see his historic efficiency drop a little bit, given the integral nature getting fouled plays in his game.

Aside from those concerns — which can only be answered in the playoffs and depending on the referees’ moods — Houston actually has fewer elite shooters than it may appear to at first glance, at least among lineups it’s most likely to utilize when matched up with Golden State. In this matchup, the Rockets will likely pair Harden, Chris Paul and Clint Capela with two of Trevor Ariza, PJ Tucker and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (whose status is uncertain due to a dislocated shoulder).

While Ariza and Tucker have managed to hit 36.8 and 37.1 percent of their threes, respectively, they’re only elite-level threats from the corners.

This can be problematic for Houston, which sometimes relies on running pick-and-pop plays with Harden as the ball handler and Ariza, or especially Tucker, as the screener.

These plays generally result in the screener spotting up for a three at the wing and giving defenses the option to either switch or double Harden and leave the shooter open. But because Tucker isn’t a good enough shooter to stir much fear on the wing — along with being too limited as a ball handler and finisher to use a slightly more open lane to his advantage — Harden is easy to double in this situation. Oklahoma City used this strategy to great effect coming down the stretch of its 108–102 win over the Rockets on April 7, with Ariza setting screens for Harden before lingering by the arc, allowing his defender to roam near Harden and in the passing lanes.

With Harden bottled up, the Thunder were able to force turnovers or reckless drives to the rim. Against defenses like Oklahoma City’s and like Golden State’s, the Rockets simply can’t make this play the basis of their offense.

Instead, the Rockets are better off utilizing Capela as the screener in the actions and having him hard roll to the basket. This leaves defenses with a much bigger dilemma. With Harden handling the ball, defenses can’t afford to go under the screen. Doubling Harden leaves a lob to Capela just a pass or two away.

Switching a center on to Harden might be the only option, but it’s certainly not an enticing one, with Harden consistently draining step-back threes all year long and with more than enough juice as a ball-handler to break some ankles.

With a big on Harden or his primary defender at a disadvantage after going over the screen, the likely MVP should be able to get into the lane quite easily, collapsing the defense. Opposing defenders will abandon Tucker, Ariza and Mbah a Moute (who’s made 36.4 percent of his threes this season) to try to stop Harden at the rim. But, surrounding a Capela pick-and-roll, Houston can easily plant these shooters in the corners where they’re money.

Capela’s competence as a screener and his aggression as a roll man and finisher are what open all these options up for Houston in the postseason — and they can basically do all those same things with Chris Paul as the primary ball handler instead of Harden.

The Rockets will be relying on Capela to stay consistent in these areas after making 69.3 percent of his shots in the restricted area this season. Additionally, Houston’s title hopes will rely heavily on Capela’s ability to deter and block shots at the rim. If he’s able to keep the Rockets’ backline steady, he gives Houston the option to turn more heavily to the explosive Eric Gordon — a lesser defender than the other three — late in most games. Capela’s proficiency at protecting the rim gives Houston the option to play Gordon without worrying about the defense completely falling apart as long as the three-point marksman can send opposing ballhandlers to his strong help defender.

Golden State Warriors: Andre Iguodala

For the first time since adding Kevin Durant to a 73-win team, the Warriors truly look vulnerable. They finished the season flat and slow, winning only seven of their final 17 games. With Stephen Curry likely to miss at least part of the first round, if not some of the second round as well, the defending champions seem beatable.

But are they actually? Without Curry, Golden State is short on shooters, but it does still have Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson to go along with a defense that should be impenetrable. Even with three All-Stars playing, the Warriors’ offense has struggled without Curry.

The keys to holding that defense together and stopping the offense from imploding are Draymond Green and Andre Iguodala. Both have had off years, with Green’s effort seeming to wane on both ends and Iguodala turning into a non-factor offensively.

With Green young enough and hungry enough that we can expect him to turn it up, the 34-year-old Iguodala becomes the Warriors’ x-factor.

In early rounds, without Curry playing, Iguodala’s ball-handling and passing prowess will be crucial. If he can make defenses pay for leaving him open, it will go a long way towards freeing up the floor for the rest of the Warriors. Iguodala might be even more important for Golden State in later rounds of the postseason.

Against Houston, the Warriors would love to have Iguodala on the court to guard Harden as much as possible. In the four games Iguodala played against Harden last season (they never played in the same game this year), he shut down the presumptive MVP.

Here are Harden’s stats with and without Iguodala on the court in the 2016–17 season:

Iguodala’s combination of strength and discipline in avoiding fouls makes him the ideal player to check Harden. With the 2015 Finals MVP on the court, the Warriors can put Klay Thompson on Chris Paul, let Steph Curry guard a shooter and play their Death Lineup — potentially playing Capela off the floor. But if Iguodala can’t get his offense back to a manageable place, the Warriors will be much easier to guard. Houston can focus all its energy on Curry, Thompson and Durant, while muddling up the lane by having Capela ostensibly guard Iguodala but really just playing free safety.

This year’s NBA Champion is probably going to be the winner of that eventual Houston-Golden State series, and the defending champions’ become almost unbeatable if Iguodala plays like he has in the past. If not?

NBA X-factors: Here are the 6 players who will swing this year’s NBA title race was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The MLB season started Thursday. I know, I’m surprised too. Would it be so bad to start after the NCAA Tournament is over and at least get a little more of the spotlight?

Anyways, this baseball season is shaping up to be an interesting one, especially after a weirdly inactive offseason filled with teams trying to save money. While most years seem unpredicatble, this season partially seems preordained, likely to be headlined by faceoffs between super teams — namely the Houston Astros, New York Yankees, Los Angeles Dodgers, Cleveland Indians, Washington Nationals and Chicago Cubs.

But which of these teams will come out on top? Or will someone like the Boston Red Sox or the Philadelphia Phillies surprise? And who’s going to win all the major awards?

NL MVP:

Freddie Freeman, Atlanta Braves

While I’m tempted to leave Freeman off this list because his injury sank my fantasy baseball team last year — that, combined with shoddy roster management and a lack of talent — I can’t ignore his potential. Before getting injured, Freeman was putting up some of the best numbers in the league. In March and April, he hit nine home runs, while batting .381 with an astounding .485 on-base percentage and a 1.283 OPS. He followed that up with a 14-game May highlighted by a 1.089 OPS, despite his batting average on balls in play dropping from .390 to .290.

Freeman got injured in May and wasn’t quite as good after coming back, but did finish the season with 28 home runs in 117 games and a .989 OPS, as well as 4.5 wins above replacement, according to FanGraphs. If he can maintain that level, or go back to his pre-injury performance form, Freeman can make a strong case for himself as the National League’s best hitter. The only things standing in his way are slightly below average fielding and a team not expected to do well (stay tuned for my thoughts on that).

Other contenders: Bryce Harper, Nolan Arenado, Kris Bryant, Cory Seager

AL MVP:

Mike Trout, Los Angeles Angels

Maybe it’s boring to pick Mike Trout. Maybe it’d be more fun to pick someone like Francisco Lindor or Byron Buxton. But, sometimes, it’s boring being right.

Mike Trout is the best player in the majors by a mile. Ever after playing only 114 games in 2017, Trout managed an incredible 6.9 WAR, according to FanGraphs. And considering Trout’s still increasing proclivity for walks and hitting for power and against striking out, he’s likely to put up WAR at that same rate again. If he can manage even 130 games, Trout is likely a shoo-in for the prize.

Other contenders: Byron Buxton, Francisco Lindor, Jose Ramirez, Jose Altuve

NL Cy Young:

Stephen Strasburg, Washington Nationals

It may seem like a bit of an oxymoron to say Stephen Strasburg did anything quietly considering the motherlode of hype he received during his first few years in the league, but the Nationals’ star flew under the radar a bit for much of last season.

In 175.1 innings pitched, Strasburg recorded a mighty fine 2.52 ERA and struck out 10.47 batters per nine innings. On top of that, his 46.8 percent groundball rate put him in the top 25 in the majors. That’s a key stat in the new juiced-ball era of MLB, with more fly balls ending up as home runs. Despite suffering an injury in the second half of the season, Strasburg pitched 62.2 innings after the All-Star break, and had an incredible 0.86 ERA in those innings, to go along with 10.91 strikeouts per nine.

If he’s even half as good as he was during that stretch and manages to stay healthy on a team that should rack up wins — still a key way to catch a voter’s eye — Strasburg will be hoisting that terrifying hand trophy come the end of the year.

Other contenders: Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, Noah Syndergaard, Jon Gray

AL Cy Young:

Chris Sale, Boston Red Sox

It’s not exactly a hot take to call Chris Sale one of the best pitchers in baseball. In fact, the strikeout machine has been one of the best five pitchers in the league for many years. Guys that great for that long rarely go their whole careers without winning the top prize. Sale will be no exception.

Before some late-season struggles last year, Sale looked like a lock to win the Cy Young. Even with a rough August-end of season in 2017, Sale managed 7.7 WAR, a stellar 12.93 strikeouts per nine, a 2.90 ERA and a 2.45 FIP, or fielding independent pitching. In September and October, where Sale’s struggles were especially bad, the Boston ace was unlucky to see a ridiculous 40.9 percent of his fly balls leave the park.

WIth a slightly better-managed workload and more consistent luck, Sale should come away with a well-deserved first Cy Young.

Other contenders: Luis Severino, Masahiro Tanaka, Corey Kluber, Justin Verlander

Surprise team:

Atlanta Braves

PECOTA projects the Braves to finish 76–86 in 2018, but I think they’re underestimating Atlanta’s potential.

First off, I’ve already showed how high I am on Freeman. Once the Braves stop conspiring to strip Ronald Acuña of a year of service time, the superstar prospect will join the Atlanta outfield and should make an immediate impact with his bat and in the field, after dominating at all levels of the minor leagues. Throw in Dansby Swanson, who can’t possibly be as bad with the bat as he was last year, and solid players like Ender Inciarte (3.0 WAR last season) and Ozzie Albies (1.9 WAR last season), and Atlanta has itself a good lineup.

The pitching staff figures to be more of a problem. But, I don’t believe Julio Teheran is as bad as he was last year, when he got knocked around to the tune of a 4.49 ERA and a 4.95 FIP that was right around the bottom of the league. Just one year earlier, in 2016, Teheran looked like a potential star, with a 3.21 ERA and a solid 3.69 FIP. If he can regain control and lower his walk rate back to 2016 levels (1.96 per nine innings vs. 3.44 in 2017), Teheran will be a good piece for the Braves’ rotation. He’s joined in the starting rotation by a series of lottery tickets, most notably Sean Newcomb, Mike Foltynewicz and the currently injured Luiz Gohara.

If those guys all live up to their potential, the Braves could seriously contend for an unexpected wild card spot, despite a lackluster bullpen. Even if all of those guys are just at the median in their range of possible outcomes, the Braves should find themselves pushing towards 82 wins, an achievement that would be a big win for the up-and-comers.

Other contenders: Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, Oakland Athletics

Most likely team to disappoint:

Arizona Diamondbacks

Coming off a 93–69 year where they ranked fifth in the majors in run differential, the Diamondbacks are a popular pick to make the playoffs yet again. PECOTA pegs the Diamondbacks for 87 wins and has them easily sewing up the NL’s first wild card spot.

The Diamondbacks, however, are not going to waltz their way into the postseason. They’ll likely have to contend with the Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals, Philadelphia Phillies, Braves, New York Mets and the Colorado Rockies for that spot. And, while I’m not betting the Diamondbacks will completely collapse, I don’t think they will make the postseason.

Zack Greinke, the Diamondbacks’ ace, is 34 and has struggled with his velocity in spring training. If that continues, and Arizona gets 2016 Greinke (2.2 WAR) instead of the 2017 one (5.1 WAR), the Diamondbacks’ rotation will take a major hit. Robbie Ray, another Diamondbacks stalwart, could be due for some regression after a year of outperforming his peripherals. Ray’s ERA of 2.89 was nearly a full point better than his FIP, and he benefited greatly from a .267 batting average on balls in play. The Diamondbacks’ bullpen is full of hit-or-miss guys, and projects to be a middle-of-the-pack unit.

As for the lineup, Arizona will be making due without JD Martinez, a power hitter who’s moved on to the Red Sox. While they have an MVP candidate in Paul Goldschmidt, the Diamondbacks will certainly feel the effects of missing Martinez, as well as the new offense-killing humidor in Chase Field. Of course, that humidor should also help the Diamondbacks’ pitching staff, but it introduces an interesting variable for the team to deal with and might make the friendly confines of the home park a tad less comfortable.

Other contenders: New York Yankees, Washington Nationals, Philadelphia Phillies

Breakout player:

Matt Chapman, Oakland Athletics

Chapman played 84 games in the majors last season and managed to quickly establish himself as a defensive standout at the hot corner.

No matter what happens with his bat, that glove gives the A’s a productive player. Luckily for Oakland, Chapman is no slouch at the plate. He has some top-tier power and can certainly drive the ball out of the park or into gaps of the Coliseum. Last year, he hit 14 home runs in the majors and had a .472 slugging percentage. In the minors, he was consistently slugging above .500.

Where Chapman most needs to improve is in his ability to draw walks. Like most sluggers, he’s prone to striking out — his 28.2 percent strikeout rate was right in line with his minor league performances. But, power hitters need to add that element of drawing walks. Chapman walked in less than 10 percent of his plate appearances last season, and he’ll need to get far beyond that to truly break out.

There are some promising signs for his ability to improve at getting walks. Most notably, despite his high strikeout rate, Chapman was actually better than average in terms of how often he swung at pitches outside of the zone, doing so only 26.6 percent of the time. What he struggled to do was connect on those pitches, doing so a well below average 56.2 percent of the time. He was far more likely to swing and miss. Laying off some more of those pitches would go a long way towards making Chapman as big of a plus offensively as he will be defensively. I’m betting he’ll do just that.

Other contenders: Luiz Gohara, Andrew Benintendi, Ian Happ

Playoff teams:

AL:

• East: Red Sox
• Central: Indians
• West: Astros
• Wild Card: Yankees, Angels
• Pennant: Indians

NL:

• East: Nationals
• Central: Cubs
• West: Dodgers
• Wild Card: Brewers, Cardinals
• Pennant: Nationals

The only major surprise here is the Red Sox coming out on top in the AL East. The race between them and the Yankees will likely come down to the final weeks of the season, but I just have more faith in the Red Sox to stay healthy (or get by with an injury or two), as the Yankees will be reliant on some injury risks, most notably Giancarlo Stanton. In a postseason series with both teams healthy, the Yankees would be the better team.

World Series:

Cleveland Indians beat Washington Nationals (4–1)

The Nationals, who’ve been one of the league’s best regular season teams for a while now, will finally make it out of the first round of the playoffs, buoyed by Scherzer, Strasburg and Harper. But, they’ll run into a buzzsaw of a Cleveland Indians team.

With Francisco Lindor and Jose Ramirez, the Indians have two bonafide superstars in the lineup. Edwin Encarción gives them some much-needed pop and Michael Brantley should be a key contributor once he gets healthy. But the real reason the Indians will finally win a World Series is their pitching staff.

Corey Kluber gives them a luminary ace who will be looking for revenge after some rough playoff outings last year. Carlos Carrasco is another sleeper Cy Young candidate. Trevor Bauer is an overqualified third starter while Danny Salazar is a FIP darling. Add an outstanding bullpen, led by Andrew Miller and Cody Allen, and the Indians are the one team with the chops to slow down potential all-time great offenses like the Houston Astros and the New York Yankees in the postseason.

And in a World Series of competing excellent pitching staffs, that talented Indians’ bullpen and lineup will be the difference.

Here’s what’s going to happen this MLB season, featuring the 2018 World Series champs was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

After IT and Get Out last year, and with Quiet Place, Hereditary and another installment in the Halloween franchise all still to come in 2018, horror movies are having a moment. It’s time for Hollywood to capitalize on this momentum and make a unique film the genre is missing: a gory “person-vs.-nature” horror movie, in the vein of Jaws, about a hippo.

Like Jaws, this film — let’s call it Holy Shit, Help, I’m Scared of Hippos, or HSHISOP — can have a lasting effect long after viewers leave the theater. To this day, people are scared to go into the ocean and hate sharks because of the “Jaws effect.” But hippos are even more dangerous than sharks. In Africa, an average of 2,900 people are killed every year by hippos, compared to six killed worldwide by sharks, according to Mother Nature Network.

So, let’s establish a premise, not altogether different from the game Zooicide. Picture a group of seven foolish teenagers breaking into a massive hippo sanctuary after hours (to be clear, the sanctuary is massive, and so are the hippos). They’ve made a sport of breaking into zoos — we get a montage of times they’ve done it before. In the past, they snuck in and stole from the chimpanzees and tried to play with sleeping koalas. But tonight, they have two hippopotamus-related plans: 1. They shaved their guinea pig and want to see if it really looks like a hippo, and 2. They want to ride a hippo.

Naturally, our protagonists have gotten cocky from their prior successes. They’re about as unlikable as the thieving leads in Don’t Breathe. They go in without doing research and break right into the hippo sanctuary. They split up and get lost — again, this is a massive sanctuary — before a group of three stumbles upon a baby hippo and start agitating it. Its cries bring forth a protective adult hippo who rushes forth and attacks. The adult kills the teens and, unbeknownst to the rest of the group, begins hunting them as well.

Fill in the rest with some close calls, trickeration and the guinea pig making a run for it and you’ve got yourself a smash hit.

Hippos are the perfect fodder for a horror film. They’re cute and seemingly nonthreatening.

Like horror movies featuring children’s toys or dolls, the feeling of betrayal after being attacked by a devious hippo is almost worse than actually being attacked by one (presumably).

Additionally, hippos are masters of disguise, able to look just like rocks when submerged in the water. This poses a problem because hippos are territorial, known to attack if threatened.

Perhaps most importantly, they’re powerful.

Look at it crush that watermelon! The hippo does it so effortlessly! Combine that chomp power with incredible speed (20 miles per hour at a sprint) for a 4,000-pound animal, and you’ve got yourself the perfect horror movie adversary. Plus, hippos have incredibly thick skin, meaning that our protagonists in HSHISOP need special weapons to defend themselves.

And, if the sheer force of nature that is an angry hippo somehow doesn’t scare you — what next, you think rattlesnakes are cuddly, you monster? — then maybe this will:

That’s right. This is actual recorded evidence of hippos eating other hippos. If you read the study, you’ll see that the cannibalistic hippos didn’t even suffer from a shortage of nutritional options. They literally just wanted to eat another hippo! Now, imagine the scene in HSHISOP. With our wily, somehow-alive, somehow-still-unlikable protagonists trying to make their escape after already having witnessed the lead hippo killing their friends, the group of fools stumbles upon a horrifying scene. Picture their — and your — terror as they realize what they’re up against: a hippo willing to eat members of its own species just for sport.

So, essentially, we’re combining Jaws, Zooicide and Jurassic Park with Hannibal.

Hollywood, if you’re intrigued by this $500 million idea, or simply want to make a movie about the guy so scared of hippos he wants to make a movie about them, just contact me.

Hollywood, it’s time to make the definitive hippopotamus horror movie was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On Sunday, the Academy Awards gave acting Oscars to Frances McDormand, Gary Oldman (blech), Allison Janney and Sam Rockwell. Aside from McDormand — who previously won best actress for Fargo — the winners looked a whole lot like examples of the Academy rewarding actors for long, Oscar-less careers. Whether or not they deserved their Oscars (they didn’t), Janney, Rockwell and Oldman are all off the list of best actors to never win one.

But there are still plenty of excellent actors who’ve gone their whole careers without winning an Academy Award. In fact, I considered a running list of about 100 actors without Oscars, which illustrates how many talented actors there are working today. It also means that a lot of people on this list of 30 (including 16 honorable mentions) will never go on to win an Oscar. Hopefully this list will be just as good as an Oscar for them. Or they can just switch to TV and win an Emmy.

Here are some of the best living actors age 40 and above who are overdue for an acting Oscar (because how overdue can you be if you’re under 40).

• Annette Bening

Best roles: American Beauty, 20th Century Women, The Kids Are All Right, Being Julia

Oscar nominations: 4

Bening’s incredible rate of churning out phenomenal work has not slowed one bit, with some of her most iconic performances coming in the last few years. At this rate, it’ll be hard for the Academy to keep ignoring the legendary actress, who would certainly belong in the Hall of Fame of acting. Here’s Bening at her best:

• Joaquin Phoenix

Best roles: The Master, Her, Walk the Line, Gladiator

Oscar nominations: 3

Phoenix may be the most intense, versatile actor working today. Some of his most famous roles rank among the best performances since the turn of the century, and Phoenix has got anywhere between one and four movies that could conceivably give him his long-awaited Oscar next year.

• Amy Adams

Best roles: The Master, Arrival, Junebug, Doubt, The Fighter

Oscar nominations: 5

Adams has been termed by many as the new Leonardo Dicaprio as she’s constantly picking up nominations only to be snubbed for great performances. Adams is one of the best actors working right now and she’s arguably already lost out on at least one Oscar she deserved.

She’s still consistently putting out top-notch material and with an upcoming role in the Dick Cheney biopic, Backseat, maybe next year will finally yield an Adams victory.

• Brad Pitt

Best roles: Se7en, Fight Club, The Tree of Life, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Moneyball

Oscar nominations: 3 as an actor

Pitt, who’s actually won an Oscar for producing 12 Years A Slave, is an underrated actor. He’s been incredible in iconic roles, with so many that I had to leave some of his best work off the list. He’s increasingly turned his attention to working as a producer, but he’s still getting on screen once or twice a year, and Pitt ensures he’s always one to watch.

• Angela Bassett

Best roles: What’s Love Got To Do With It, Strange Days, Sunshine State

Oscar nominations: 1

Bassett is a true legend and the fact that she’s only been nominated for an Oscar once is an outrage. Even worse might be Hollywood’s consistent failure to provide her the roles she showed she could excel in when she did What’s Love Got To Do With It. With the film industry theoretically moving in the right direction, it’s time to see Bassett sink her teeth into another meaty, leading role. If she gets that chance, there’s no reason an Oscar would be out of the picture.

• Ralph Fiennes

Best roles: Schindler’s List, Quiz Show, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Constant Gardener, The English Patient

Oscar nominations: 2

Unlike a lot of people on this list, Fiennes can point to a very specific year as the one when he clearly should have won his Oscar. Fiennes’ performance as Amon Goth in Schindler’s List is a canonical entry in the book of amazing supporting actor turns. He lost to Tommy Lee Jones’ decent showing as a Tommy Lee Jones-adjacent character in The Fugitive. Fiennes is no-one hit wonder, either, as he’s shown us Oscar-worthy work as recently as 2014, for The Grand Budapest Hotel. He’s also the star of one of the 1990s’ most underrated films, Quiz Show. Seriously, everyone go watch it (also, look at 1990s trailers!).

• Isabelle Huppert

Best roles: Elle, The Piano Teacher, Violette, White Material

Oscar nominations: 1

Actors who mainly star in foreign language films, as Huppert does, are typically ignored by the Oscars. But the Academy’s complete dismissal of Huppert until last year’s nomination for Elle is egregious. Huppert has two wins and a record 16 nominations at France’s national film awards, the César Awards, so let’s not feel too bad for her.

• Will Smith

Best roles: Ali, The Pursuit of Happyness, Six Degrees of Separation, Seven Pounds

Oscar nominations: 2

Smith’s career has been full of ups and downs, but his talent is unquestionable. Smith is one of the most charming performers in the world. He can also play sentimentality and emotional moments very well, and immerse himself in a performance. His biggest obstacle as of late has been film selection. If Smith can get back to working with great directors on good scripts, he should at least find himself in contention for Oscar nominations again.

• Jessica Chastain

Best roles: Zero Dark Thirty, The Help, Miss Sloane, Take Shelter

Oscar nominations: 2

Chastain is an incredibly powerful actor, and her presence and delivery demand the camera whenever she’s on screen. Given Chastain’s incredible ability and her propensity for picking good movies, it should only be a matter of time before she takes home an Oscar. Even in only a pretty good movie in Molly’s Game, Chastain shone through.

• Willem Dafoe

Best roles: Platoon, The Florida Project, Shadow of the Vampire, The Last Temptation of Christ

Oscar nominations: 3

Dafoe has made a long career of producing scene-grabbing, captivating acting, whether he be intense and menacing or softer and sadder, as he was in The Florida Project. In what was the year’s best supporting actor performance, Dafoe got snubbed by losing to Rockwell — who, admittedly, would be on this list if he had lost instead. The academy can only hope it didn’t waste its best chance to honor the storied career Dafoe has put together.

• Salma Hayek

Best roles: Frida, Beatriz at Dinner, Desperado, Midaq Alley

Oscar nominations: 1

Salma Hayek is one of the most underappreciated actors in Hollywood right now. How quickly people have forgotten her stunning turn as Frida Kahlo in Frida, after which Hayek seemed poised to go on a run of Oscar-worthy performances. Instead, she’s basically been ignored ever since, even going completely undiscussed after Beatriz at Dinner, her best performance since playing Frida Kahlo. She’s consistently the best part of adequate movies and, when she gets her hand on a good script and director, she’s excellent. Hayek deserves more recognition.

• Glenn Close

Best roles: Fatal Attraction, The Natural, Dangerous Liaisons, The Big Chill

Oscar nominations: 6

Close is tied for the most Oscar nominations without a win of any actress and is only two behind Peter O’Toole’s undesirable record for most acting nominations without a win. It’s a shame too, because Close is personally responsible for some exemplary, imminently memorable work. Her rate of excellence has slowed in recent years, but all it would really take is one more great role and performance and it’d be hard to imagine the Oscars skipping over Close again. Then again, that’s probably what O’Toole assumed as well.

• Tom Cruise

Best roles: Jerry Maguire, Rain Man, Magnolia, Born on the Fourth of July

Oscar nominations: 3

Tom Cruise’s controversial and questionable private life has long overshadowed a great acting career. Cruise had an impressive run of dramatic acting earlier in his career, peaking in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia.

Even now, as he seems stuck in his action hero phase, Cruise remains a charismatic, superstar leading man. And boy can he sprint and fall better than anyone.

• Don Cheadle

Best roles: Hotel Rwanda, Boogie Nights, Devil in a Blue Dress, Traffic, Talk To Me

Don Cheadle is about as good and versatile of an actor as there is in Hollywood. Because he’s so funny and charming in real life, it’s been easy for Cheadle’s acting talent to slide under the radar. But Cheadle is a fantastic addition to every film he’s in, whether it’s a towering performance like his in Hotel Rwanda or a sometimes-funny, sometimes-devastating turn in Boogie Nights.

Honorable mentions (including people under 40, who are bolded)

• Robert Redford

Best roles: The Sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All is Lost, All the President’s Men

• Samuel L. Jackson

Best roles: Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, A Time To Kill, Jackie Brown

• Julie Delpy

Best roles: Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight, Voyager

• Idris Elba

Best roles: Beasts of No Nation, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Molly’s Game

• Saoirse Ronan

Best roles: Lady Bird, Atonement, Brooklyn

• Jake Gyllenhaal

Best roles: Nightcrawler, Brokeback Mountain, Prisoners, Enemy, Stronger

• Taraji P. Henson

Best roles: Hidden Figures, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Hustle & Flow

• Michelle Williams

Best roles: Blue Valentine, Manchester by the Sea, Brokeback Mountain

• Gael García Bernal

Best roles: The Motorcycle Diaries, Y Tu Mamá También, Amores Perros, Babel

• Ryan Gosling

Best roles: Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine, Drive, La La Land, Half Nelson

• Paul Dano

Best roles: There Will be Blood, Swiss Army Man, Love & Mercy,

• Tom Hardy

Best roles: The Revenant, Locke, Mad Max: Fury Road, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

• Rosario Dawson

Best roles: Top Five, Rent, Seven Pounds

• Michael Shannon

Best roles: Take Shelter, Revolutionary Road, Nocturnal Animals, 99 Homes

• Oscar Isaac

Best roles: Inside Llewyn Davis, Ex Machina, A Most Violent Year

• David Oyelowo

Best roles: Selma, Middle of Nowhere, A Most Violent Year

After Sunday, who are the best actors without Oscars? was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

As Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri racks up just about every single precursor for the Best Picture Oscar that it’s nominated for, it has set itself up as the betting favorite to win the big prize. While Get Out seems to be gaining momentum and would be a worthy winner, the race is basically a toss-up between that and Three Billboards, with Shape of Water slowly falling back and Dunkirk looming as a dark horse.

If Three Billboards does indeed prevail, despite its questionable — at best — racial politics and a terrible flashback scene, it will be far from alone among undeserving Oscar winners since 2010. Here are some of the winners that have aged the worst.

(Note: To be clear, I focused on awards I consider to be especially egregious. I only considered award winners starting with the 83rd Academy Awards, when The King’s Speech won. The year listed next to the winner will be the year the films came out, not when the Oscars took place. Additionally, I only considered winners in the directing, picture, screenplay and acting categories. Finally, snubs can be from films that weren’t even nominated.)

2010: The King’s Speech wins Best Picture and Tom Hooper wins Best Director

The King’s Speech is fine. In fact, it might be the best film of its oh-so-specific genre: biopics about great, 20th-century Brits. I loved it when I first saw it, but considering I was 13 at the time, that’s probably more about that scene where Colin Firth curses a ton, than the film’s actual quality.

But this is more about what didn’t win than about what did. The Social Network is, without a doubt, one of the best films of the decade. The very Aaron Sorkin take on Facebook’s origin story is an excellent character study, providing Jesse Eisenberg the perfect script for his fast-talking, high strung speech. Sorkin’s script is risky, but David Fincher’s direction executes it perfectly. The combination of their work results in multifaceted characters, teeming with insecurity, indignation and an aggressive desire to stick it to doubters.

The Social Network also spawned some of the most rewatchable scenes of its year, including Sean Parker (a surprisingly game Justin Timberlake) in the club shaping Silicon Valley startup bro culture for years to come. Even better, though, is Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) flipping the bird to Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) and Prada, all in one fell swoop.

The Social Network deserved that year’s Best Picture. It earned it. Fincher should have won Best Director, though Christopher Nolan would have been a worthy contender as well, for his masterfully crafted and designed Inception.

For fun, here’s what else they got wrong but not that wrong:

• Eisenberg was phenomenal, as was Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine. Either one would be a better choice than Firth for the Best Actor prize, but I’m not about to raise too much of a stink because I love Firth.
• Mila Kunis’ performance in Black Swan has aged better than Melissa Leo’s showing in The Fighter.
• Finally, Inception and The Kids Are All Right were buoyed by slightly better original screenplays than The King’s Speech but, again, it would be close in a revote.

2011: The Artist wins best picture, Meryl Streep (Iron Lady) wins Best Actress, Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris) wins Best Original Screenplay

WOODY ALLEN WON AN OSCAR! THIS DECADE! Rather than awarding a sexual predator for a solid film, the academy could’ve set a precedent and awarded the year’s best film by giving Asghar Farhadi’s humanistic A Separation the prize.

As for The Artist, I’ll admit, I’m biased. I refused to watch this film for years because I knew it would win Best Picture and I perceived that to be purely based on the gimmick of it being silent. Now that I have seen it, I still think that’s true, but I’ll at least admit it was a good movie. However, that is not a Best Picture-caliber film. Again, the worthiest contender is Farhadi’s A Separation. Farhadi’s exploration of Iranian society, morality and objectivity is incredibly well-done and likely would have won with a less subtitle-averse voting body. Drive, Beginners, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Shame were all better than The Artist as well.

Finally, Meryl Streep is the greatest living actress, but her turn in Iron Lady is not her best work. It serves as a worthy impression of Margaret Thatcher, but even the best impression work is really not as impressive as Viola Davis was in her powerful yet subtle and raw turn elevating a weak film in The Help. She’s forced to be polite but her eyes don’t hide the resentful, anger behind the facade.

Here’s what else they got wrong but not that wrong:

• Jean Dujardin was excellent in The Artist, portraying the right amount of charm and silliness. But Michael Fassbender goes far beyond that in Shame, a film that may have been too much for the Academy. George Clooney’s turn in The Descendants shows the star at his best, mastering cheekiness, grief and solidity. Either of the two would have been more worthy Best Actor winners.

2012: Argo wins Best Picture, Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained) wins Best Supporting Actor, Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) wins Best Actress

It feels fitting that Argo would come up just one year after A Separation. Oscar voters who once seemed keen on recognizing a truthful look at Iran, awarding Farhadi’s film Best Foreign Film, quickly changed their tune a year later. As you can probably guess from a film that mistakes the Farsi words for hello and goodbye, Argo doesn’t depict its Iranian setting and characters as much more than one-dimensionally evil and barbaric. Aside from that, Argo is a film more fitting of TNT Saturday afternoons than it is of winning an Oscar. Life of Pi, The Master, Rust and Bone, Moonrise Kingdom, Amour and Lincoln would all have been more worthy.

Christoph Waltz won two Best Supporting Actor Oscars for playing similar characters in Quentin Tarantino films. In Inglourious Basterds, he’s a revelation and, truthfully, really scary. But in Django Unchained, Waltz feels like a caricature of himself. He’s fine, but his is not even the best supporting turn in the movie. That honor belongs to either Leonardo DiCaprio or Samuel L. Jackson. But none of them were rightful winners for Best Supporting Actor.

There’s no question that the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman put forth easily the best supporting turn of the year in The Master. In fact, his is probably the best supporting acting performance of the decade. His Lancaster Dodd portrayal is funny, angry, commanding, self-obsessed and creepy. He feels at once like a hacky charlatan and the next like a caring father-figure. His obsession with being needed is palpable — it’s easy to see oneself being convinced by him. Some people sell used cars, Dodd sells a lifestyle.

Hollywood was eager to establish a new queen and give Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar. But her performance in Silver Linings Playbook is just not a standout. Instead, Jessica Chastain deserved the trophy for Zero Dark Thirty. Chastain was incredible, playing both the eye of the storm and its winds. Her face gives us a grasp of the tension, her delivery a sense of the stakes. Robbing her of an Oscar was a big miss in a year where the Academy might have been better off blindfolded and throwing darts at a list of names to pick winners.

Here’s what else they got wrong but not that wrong:

• Congrats, Quentin. You wrote some nice quips, but come on. Paul Thomas Anderson’s unique script for The Master or Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola’s charming and funny script for Moonrise Kingdom were both more deserving than Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained.
• It feels blasphemous to ever argue Daniel Day-Lewis wasn’t worthy of an Oscar. He’s just about perfect in Lincoln, but he was overshadowed that year by Joaquin Phoenix’s revelatory turn in The Master. Phoenix bounced off Hoffman perfectly, and the two made movie magic.

• I’ve made no effort to hide my love for The Master. Paul Thomas Anderson directed that film while referencing cinematic greats and without letting it slip into melodrama. Ang Lee’s Life of Pi was a technical marvel, however, so I can’t blame the Academy too much for this one.
• Argo’s script isn’t very good. In fact, none of the nominees for Best Adapted Screenplay are very good, but Lincoln would be much more deserving here.

2013: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club) wins Best Actor

The Academy had itself a pretty solid year here, and I feel bad pouring water on the McConaissance, but there were three performances that year that stood above the rest. Leonardo DiCaprio really bought into the loathsome character thing as Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street. He’s crazed, obsessed, cocky and DiCaprio masters the art of being fake charming.

Michael B. Jordan played the late Oscar Grant, who was killed by BART police in 2009, in the phenomenal Fruitvale Station. Jordan’s performance is wondrously lived-in, providing us the portrait of a complicated, sometimes immovable man with a difficult life trying to get back on track and looking for a chance.

But the best performance that year came from Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon Northup in 12 Years a Slave. He’s Shakespearean-trained and it shows, as Ejiofor’s delivery is never lacking for power, passion and presence. He commands the camera.

Ejiofor shows us Northup’s pain and his horror. While Shakespearean actors thrive on speech and interactions, Ejiofor controls silence as well. His posture tells us more than words can. His eyes are like a cheat code for an actor, so expressive they force empathy out of the audience.

Here’s what else they got wrong but not that wrong:

• Special shoutout to the Academy for getting the eight major awards mostly right. I just want to use this space to argue that Frozen should not have won Best Animated Feature. Its win is understandable. Anna and Elsa are great. But Hayao Miyazaki’s The Wind Rises is a level above. The stunningly animated, humanistic tale tells the story of genius and its decline, beauty and its disintegration. Miyazaki’s bittersweet reflections make for an emotional watch.

2014: The Imitation Game wins Best Adapted Screenplay

I’ve written before about how terrible and generic The Imitation Game is. It takes an interesting biopic subject in Alan Turing and makes a film that’s drivel not even worthy of a TV movie. Familiar themes are touched on in drab, familiar ways. The Academy was not lacking for better options.

Gillian Flynn adapted her own novel into the script for that year’s best thriller, Gone Girl. Paul Thomas Anderson ably adapted the work of an impossible-to-adapt author in Thomas Pynchon for Inherent Vice. The most deserving winner would have been Whiplash, Damien Chazelle’s story about the obsession to be great and the questions regarding abusive teaching methods.

Here’s what else they got wrong but not that wrong:

• Eddie Redmayne was nowhere near as undeserving a winner as The Imitation Game. His emotional, physically transformative performance is great. But Michael Keaton’s anxious, lived-in turn in Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) was even better. Keaton plays Riggan Thomson’s desperate clawing to regain glory with pain, self-doubt and a wry smile. Jake Gyllenhall (Nightcrawler) and Ralph Fiennes (The Grand Budapest Hotel) also deserve mentions, with the former delivering a brilliant take on intense obsession and the latter giving us his most hilarious performance by far.
• Julianne Moore deserved to win Best Actress, but what the Academy got wrong was not giving her an Oscar sooner. She’s one of the best actresses in the world and has been for literal decades. Stop waiting so long to give people their awards.

2015: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant) wins Best Actor

It’s a good thing that Leonardo DiCaprio has an Oscar. He’s been responsible for some of the most iconic performances in the industry since his turn in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape in 1993. But winning for this role? That’s disappointing. DiCaprio puts forth a raw, physical display that was clearly accompanied by a high degree of difficulty. But this is not Leo at his best. And it was not the best lead acting performance of the year.

No, that honor is Abraham Attah’s. Attah plays Agu, a child soldier with a devastating past, in Beasts of No Nation. Attah is playful as Agu, imbuing him with charisma and humor when it’s called for. Then, when playing drama and tragedy, Attah is again pitch perfect, his face seeming to say it all. When he’s tasked with executing a man, Attah shows us Agu’s life flashing before his eyes, then his fear, his acceptance and, finally, his rage.

Here’s what else they got wrong but not that wrong:

• Alejandro González Iñárritu won Best Director for the second consecutive year at these Academy Awards after winning for Birdman. In The Revenant, he, like Leo, was partially rewarded due to the immense degree of difficulty of shooting the film how he did. But this should have been George Miller’s prize. His Mad Max: Fury Road is a technical marvel. Miller made the best action film of the last 20 years. Miller’s direction makes the film a visual, incredibly paced masterpiece with no peers that year.
• Alicia Vikander won Best Supporting Actress for her role in The Danish Girl. I think she may have deserved it just as much for playing Ava in Ex Machina but that seems like pointless nitpicking at this point.
• Mark Rylance was great in Bridge of Spies, which is only as good as it was because of Rylance’s intense performance. He won Best Supporting Actor for the role and, to be honest, he probably deserved it. I want to draw attention, however, to a man who wasn’t even nominated. Oscar Isaac’s supporting performance in Ex Machina deserves recognition. He so overwhelms with his charm that it’s easy to ignore the creepy man that lurks beneath the surface. Isaac’s performance gives us a mix of some famous fictional scientists, Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll. He’s an ambitious, egotistical man trying to play God. But his smile alone harkens back to the duality of man as it applies to Dr. Jekyll. Plus, perhaps more importantly than all of that, Isaac gave us this:

Never forget.

2016: Casey Affleck wins Best Actor (Manchester by the Sea)

I’m not going to pretend that I was happy when Casey Affleck won Best Actor. He was great in Manchester by the Sea. No one has denied that. But Affleck has been accused of sexual harassment. Choosing to give Hollywood’s biggest prizes to people credibly accused of such heinous things is incredibly damaging to survivors of sexual violence. In a year where Denzel Washington was incredible in Fences, the Academy had an easy out. It could have done the right thing — ignoring Affleck completely — while awarding a powerful performance at least equal to the one that won. It was a big missed opportunity by the Academy (and Denzel wasn’t shy about showing how he felt).

Mashable on Twitter

Denzel 😢 #Oscars https://t.co/vQ1eym8Kel

My other qualm is admittedly a much smaller one: if Viola Davis was in the lead actress role for Fences like she should have been, all of these races would be different. Davis would be my pick for Best Actress, ahead of a wonderful Emma Stone, while I’d elevate Michelle Williams (Manchester by the Sea) up to Best Supporting Actress. As things stand though, the Academy got it right.

Here’s what else they got wrong but not that wrong:

• So, Moonlight is obviously incredible. It was the best of the nominated films for Best Picture. It’s one of the most impactful, beautiful films of the decade. Saying anything deserved to beat it legitimately feels dirty. But if Ezra Edelman’s expansive, insightful, grand O.J.: Made in America couldn’t win Best Picture, or even get nominated, what’s the point of having documentaries be eligible for the night’s biggest prize? Made in America is, at the very least, the best documentary of the 21st century. To me, it was the best film of its year. But I know it’s beyond a pipe dream expecting it to have won.

Now, a simple 3,000 (or so) words into the Oscars’ biggest missteps of the decade, a few trends emerged. First, the Academy got the Best Actor award wrong every single time it could. Second, spelling McConaissance correctly in just one attempt might be the best thing I’ve ever done. Third, the Academy seems to be slowly improving at picking a Best Picture.

I hope that final trend continues and Get Out keeps the momentum going to win (or there’s some sort of miracle vote that leads to a win for Lady Bird). If not, and Three Billboards really prevails, I guess I’ll have to update this piece.

“Three Billboards” winning Best Picture would be the latest in a long line of Oscar missteps this… was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

As soon as Disney used the Winter Olympics on NBC to unveil its new trailer for Incredibles 2, and Frozone — who created figure skating, according to one pundit — popped up on our screens, the gears started turning. This is a superhero who can literally create ice out of thin air. How would he have done at these Winter Olympics?

First thing’s first: Frozone’s qualifications.

Inspiration:

It’s rumored that Frozone is based off Shani Davis, an American speedskater with two gold medals and two silver medals. Davis, who likely competed in his final Olympics this year, was the first Black athlete to win an individual gold medal at the Winter Olympics. Davis is a true legend and would have been perfect inspiration for Frozone at the Olympics.

Secret identity:

Frozone’s real name is Lucius Best. BEST. It’s right there. That’s at least one gold medal.

Other powers:

This seems most important. Frozone can make ice and snow. He’s had this power his whole life — even freezing fruit punch as a child, according to the Pixar wikia — so he should certainly have experience maneuvering by now. He also has superhuman leaping ability and can create tiny icicles in mid-air to essentially fly.

Most importantly, he cares desperately about the greater good.

What a bastion of upholding Olympic values.

Costume:

Frozone’s superhero costume — likely an Edna Mode cape-free special — is a big advantage for him. His boots convert into equivalents of ice skates, skis and a snowboard-like disc, and he uses them to swiftly traverse the ice and snow he creates. He’s also shrewd, donning goggles to avoid snow blindness! What a guy.

Experience:

This, from the Pixar wikia, really says it all: “According to the National Supers Agency, Frozone had attempted to represent the United States in the Winter Olympics, but was rejected on account of his Super abilities granting him a tremendously unfair advantage.”

So, essentially, Frozone would win almost anything he entered. The NSA didn’t let him enter because of a “tremendously unfair advantage”! In this alternate world where they don’t care anymore, Frozone is essentially on PEDs. Of course, in the Olympics, just about everyone else is too. But I’ll assume Frozone has his super powers and takes PEDs on top of them.

In figure skating, he can do tricks no one else can at heights no else can reach. We see him outrun the Omnidroid (for the most part) in The Incredibles, so it seems likely he would have won at speedskating to continue Davis’s legacy.

He’d be a championship level hockey player by literally freezing his opponents. Maybe he’d be scared of luge, so let’s say he loses that and all similar events, like the bobsled and whatever skeleton is. He could really struggle with the snowboard events because the disk he uses is shaped a little differently from a snowboard. He would have easily dominated cross-country skiing, the ski jump and all other ski events.

As for everyone’s favorite sport, curling? Frozone would not be into it because it’s too similar to bowling (I think? I still don’t really get it) and he never actually went to do that with Mr. Incredible. Finally, at first glance, the biathlon seems like it wouldn’t be Frozone’s game. Sure it’s skiing, but it also involves shooting and we never see Frozone fire a gun. But, he makes up for that by freezing everyone else’s bullets in mid-air until he can make enough shots himself.

His main obstacles would be 1. having to reveal his secret identity, which I already did earlier in this story, 2. potentially killing people by freezing them, 3. having to miss events to avoid missing plans he already made, and 4. not being able to find his suit in time.

Final medal count:

Loosely taking into account overlapping event times, I have Frozone slated to win 18 individual gold medals. Frozone would likely need to compete at the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing to top Michael Phelps’ Olympic record of 28 total medals.

But, those 18 golds are four more than Norway and Germany, the top two countries at this year’s games, managed to win. That would also be three more medals of any kind than Marit Bjørgen has won in her career as cross-country skier. Bjørgen is — or was — the most successful Winter Olympian of all time.

How many medals would Frozone have won at the Winter Olympics? was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On Wednesday, San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich said he’d “be surprised if (Kawhi Leonard) returns this season.” What could that mean for the Spurs’ playoff chances? This probably kicks them out of title contention, but can they get to the second round? Is it possible they’ll actually miss the playoffs?

Jabari Young on Twitter

Here is the Popovich comments on Kawhi. Not ready to say he's out for the season...just would be surprised. So, there's that ... https://t.co/C22ntHgbOY

This could all be a moot point if Leonard ends up coming back. Let’s be real, it wouldn’t be shocking for Popovich to say “I’ve been surprised before!” at an April press conference as Leonard puts up 25 and 10.

But let’s assume Popovich is telling the truth and the Spurs really do have to continue without Leonard.

How good have the Spurs been without Kawhi?

The Spurs have been surprisingly good without their superstar. At 35–24, San Antonio is in third place in the West, though the Spurs are virtually tied with the fourth-place Minnesota Timberwolves. In the tightly packed 2018 Western Conference, however, that leaves the Spurs only 3.5 games ahead of the ninth-place LA Clippers with 23 games to go.

Considering they’ve done much of that damage without Leonard (only nine games played), the Spurs likely aren’t in for some sudden, massive drop-off in play. They’re 30–20 without Leonard and in 2,622 minutes played without him, the Spurs have amassed a positive 3.0 net rating which would tie them with Minnesota for fourth in the West.

Without Leonard, the Spurs’ defense has maintained its elite play from seasons past. The Popovich system has led the team to the league’s second-best defensive rating. On offense, however, they’ve have had to rely on LaMarcus Aldridge more than ever before. He’s played in 54 of their 59 games and leads the team in minutes per game by a substantial margin with 33.9. His usage rate is the highest it’s been since he joined the Spurs in 2015 and he’s managed to score as efficiently as ever.

Even with Aldridge playing at essentially his peak level, the Spurs’ 105.1 offensive rating puts them 16th in the league. As one of the most three-point averse teams in the league (28th-most attempts per game), San Antonio relies heavily on taking advantage of opposing defenses’ willingness to give up mid-range jumpers. Without Leonard, one of the league’s premiere mid-range marksmen, the Spurs haven’t been able to capitalize off their proverbial zig to the league’s zag. In 2016–17, with Leonard healthy for the most part until he got Pachulia’d in the playoffs, the Spurs’ offense excelled. They were seventh in offensive rating to go along with the league’s best defense.

That they’ve managed to even be this successful so far despite an offense that’s actively trying to Freddy Krueger its way into Daryl Morey’s nightmares — San Antonio is also near the bottom of the league in free throw rate — is a testament to Popovich’s coaching prowess. If Leonard doesn’t return, the Spurs likely can’t bank on getting their offense back to a title-contending level. With that average offense and an elite defense, the Spurs have themselves firmly in tier two of the Western Conference, along with the Thunder and the Timberwolves.

Verdict: Fourth-best team in the West (behind Golden State, Houston and Oklahoma City)

How will they fare in the rest of regular season?

FiveThirtyEight’s CARM-Elo ratings give the Spurs an 84 percent chance of making the playoffs and project that San Antonio will tie the Thunder for fourth in the West with a 47–35 record.

While the Spurs are somehow barely ahead of the 9th spot in the West, it would take a lot to knock them out of the playoffs. Their defense, along with a home-heavy schedule the rest of the way — 13 of their final 23 will be in San Antonio — will likely keep the Spurs in the running for the four seed, as FiveThirtyEight projects.

San Antonio’s main objectives needs to be remaining relatively healthy the rest of the way to avoid a disastrous fall out of the playoffs. While the Spurs are one of the best five teams in the West, they are only projected to finish three games ahead of the New Orleans Pelicans, which FiveThirtyEight projects will be the nine seed. A key injury could cost San Antonio, especially given some of the titans left on its schedule: two games against Golden State, two against Houston, one against Cleveland, two against Oklahoma City and one against Minnesota.

If San Antonio can win even three of those eight games, it’ll be in great position to lock up a spot in the four-five matchup in the West. Unfortunately for the Spurs, it’d take some disappointing play out of Oklahoma City and Minnesota the rest of the way to give the Spurs a realistic shot of maintaining the third spot in the West.

Prediction: San Antonio will finish fifth in the West

What are their chances in the postseason?

Unfortunately for the Spurs, they’re pretty much dead in the water without Leonard. If they finish fifth as I’m predicting, they’ll face either Minnesota or Oklahoma City with a potential game seven on the road. If they make it past that matchup, the Spurs have no shot against the Warriors or Rockets.

The Spurs’ net rating without Leonard on the court this season is just a bit behind the Thunder’s and virtually the same as the Timberwolves’. But much of San Antonio’s success thus far has come due to their impressive depth. San Antonio’s bench units have had great success on the season, which is great for many reasons. For one, Popovich’s extensive utilization of his bench helps the Spurs have players ready to step up if a starter gets hurt.

Additionally, the Spurs are able keep their starters relatively fresh. They have 12 players who have played in more than 30 games and average at least 9.5 minutes per game this season. Aldridge is the only player averaging more than 30 minutes per game. This has served them well without Leonard, as San Antonio lacks the top-end talent that its likely opponents boast. Aldridge has been excellent this season and will very likely earn a spot on one of the All-NBA teams. Beyond him, however, the Spurs are deeply lacking in All-Star caliber talent. Their second-best player might be Danny Green.

The Timberwolves have Jimmy Butler and Karl-Anthony Towns. The Thunder boast Russell Westbrook, Paul George and Steven Adams. In the postseason, when most teams shorten their rotation, top-end talent usually swings series. Starters and key bench players get more run, as most teams whittle down to 8-man rotations. For San Antonio, that could spell trouble. The bench can beat run-of-the mill teams during the regular season, but if Popovich doesn’t cut their minutes, they’ll be running into some starter-heavy opposing lineups. San Antonio’s starters, meanwhile, are deeply flawed and have barely played together.

For reference, the Timberwolves’ starting lineup has spent 1,067 minutes together, easily the most of any lineup in the NBA (side note: THIBSSSS). They’ve managed to establish a rapport that should carry over to the postseason and have dominated opponents to the tune of a positive 8.2 net rating. Sub Tyus Jones and his solid shooting in for Jeff Teague, by the way, and Minnesota’s net rating is positive 24.3, but that’s a column for another day.

San Antonio’s current starting lineup with Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Kyle Anderson, Danny Green and Dejounte Murray has played 147 minutes all season. In that time, the Spurs’ offense has sputtered its way to a terrible 96.9 offensive rating and a -8.7 net rating. Sub Patty Mills in for Murray — a lineup that’s played a team-high 155 minutes — and the Spurs have excelled with a positive 10.1 net rating.

This lineup’s success compared to the one with Murray points to a notable factor for the Spurs going forward. With Murray in, San Antonio essentially has two capable shooters on the court in Gasol and Green. This has seriously clogged up the Spurs’ driving lanes. San Antonio has countered by throwing even more on Aldridge’s shoulders. They’ll post up Aldridge on one side of the floor, throw Murray under the basket where he can’t be left open, put Anderson in the opposite corner and leave Gasol and Green on the perimeter as shooters the defense isn’t comfortable leaving open.

Aldridge has generally utilized a turnaround jumper in these situations. If he converts at a high rate, the lineup with Murray at point has a chance in the playoffs. But Aldridge has only 39.7 percent of 131 turnaround jump shots this season. At the rate, the lineup is untenable.

While the same lineup has been much more successful with Mills in Murray’s spot, that lineup presents problems of its own. Mills might be the Spurs’ best shooter, but his off-the-bounce game is limited. In fact, that lineup may have better spacing and more open driving lanes, but Anderson is the closest it comes to having an effective slasher. Hint: title contenders rely on players much better than someone literally nicknamed “Slow-Mo” to drive and kick.

The greatest benefit of that lineup, then, is it lets Gasol operate closer to the basket, where he has long thrived. That’s worked in the regular season, but he may be too slow to play much in the playoffs, especially if the Spurs play Oklahoma City.

With lineups that don’t really fit together and a lack of top-end talent, the Spurs are likely to be in trouble. They match up pretty terribly with Oklahoma City’s athletic, talented squad. The Thunder have managed to dominate the offensive boards while also putting together an impressive defense.

The Spurs have a much better chance if they end up playing Minnesota. The Timberwolves have a talented starting lineup, but their style of isolation-heavy play (24th in assist rate) can be easier to stop in the playoffs. That’s especially true if Andrew Wiggins, Jamal Crawford and Teague continue taking shots at incredibly high rates with incredibly mediocre efficiency. But facing Towns and a hungry Butler, the Spurs would still be in trouble.

Prediction: San Antonio loses in five to Oklahoma City (or to Minnesota in six) in round one

If Leonard really does miss the remainder of the season, it’ll be a wasted year for the Spurs who would unfortunately be squandering an elite season from Aldridge. If they had the Leonard of last season, the Spurs could truly contend with Golden State and Houston. But, without him, they’re stuck hoping Wiggins, Crawford and Teague shoot the Timberwolves out of the first round.

Where do the San Antonio Spurs stand if Kawhi Leonard really doesn’t come back? was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

It’s President’s Day 2018 and there’s no better time — that’s right, not even President’s Day 2017 or President’s Day 2013 — to rank all the class, or student body, presidents your high school had.

7. The one who’s really into I Am Number Four

Truthfully, this is a pretty rare archetype for high school class presidents. I’ll admit I haven’t even seen it, or the film. This Alex Pettyfer-starring flick tanked with critics and struggled at the box office. But 57 percent of users on Rotten Tomatoes liked it! In 145,356 reviews (as of publishing), that means there were approximately 82,853 fans. The chances that at least one of those people was a mega fan who ran their student body is probably (hopefully) about 84 percent.

Why does that person finish last on this list? If they like it for any reason other than Pettyfer’s desperate attempt to be a mix of Chad Michael Murray and Robert Pattinson, this is enough reason:

Wait. This doesn’t look that bad. Uh, let’s just move on

The new number 7. The jock

That clip brings us to a more common archetype for high school class presidents: the jock. The Freddie Prinze Jr. in She’s All That. This could be the football star, the basketball star or maybe even a hockey star in some parts of the country. This person could easily overlap with numbers six, four, two, and one on the list.

In some cases, the jock can unite the class behind school spirit and actually come in with some handy leadership experience. That seems like enough qualification to organize prom or give a speech at graduation.

But in many other cases. the jock class president actually got roped into running because they’re so popular and probably ran the classic “I’ll get us In-n-Out for lunch” campaign. Of course that won’t actually happen, but name recognition and false promises typically win elections.

Hmm. This is getting too real. On to number six.

6. The person school administration specifically tries to stop

Look, high school class presidents have almost no power. They might speak at graduation and have the power to use their tiny budgets to organize events for the school. They’ll probably be present for meetings with adults as a voice but not be given a vote. If they’re lucky, they can pick themes for prom and homecoming. Basically though, they have no power. Despite that, school administrators will go out of their way to stop someone from getting elected. Not because they’re scared the student will mess up their few responsibilities or be bad at the job, but because they literally don’t like the kid and don’t want to spend time with them. Brutal.

That’s what makes it all the more exciting when that person actually wins. High schoolers love middle fingers to the administration. Plus, overcoming administrative opposition to win sets this class president up for a great “us against them” speech at graduation that makes all the parents just a little uncomfortable.

5. The one who “totally ran as a joke”

“No seriously, I never thought I’d win! I just wanted to see what would happen if I ran. Yeah, of course I printed posters and made buttons, but it was all part of the joke. This was basically a social experiment and you all lost.”

Look, this kid kind of sucks. But we all know this kid. Some of us were this kid. Hell, some of us even lost to this kid, who can also be confused with numbers 3, 2, and 1 on the list.

The only reason this president is so high on the list is because this full ranking is a lazy story device they’re pretty likely to take the job seriously and try to implement a really quirky, random change and that’s always fun. Imagine if they could push morning announcements to the end of first period! That’d be cool? I guess.

4. The actually qualified one

In an upset, this president falls in the middle of the pack. This is the high schooler who’s already in four other clubs and does community service on the side. They have proven leadership experience and have been in student government before.

Plus, Reese Witherspoon played this archetype so well in Election that it has shaped her public reputation for the next 20 years.

The only strike against them is how busy they’ll already be succeeding elsewhere, but in a competition this tight, that’s just enough to push them back a spot. They’re also at risk of literally killing someone fitting number five on this list.

3. The one who wants to go into politics but ends up in real estate

This person is passionate about politics and thinks being high school class president will somehow propel them into the White House. Surely, they’ve heard one too many stories about current politicians who started young.

Of course, it’d be more effective to work with a political party or do activism early, but you know, maybe bringing stuffed crust pizza back is just as good. This person strays further from the correct political path when they dive right into Greek life in college, stop going to class and end up a surprisingly wealthy real estate agent. Think the person advertising on bus benches mixed with Peter Gallagher in American Beauty.

2. The one with a pun or slogan good enough to necessitate a full campaign

Are you “Down with Ms. Brown” and do you “Give a damn about Adam”? Maybe you can “throw hella behind Ella” and “Quite FRANKly, go vote.”

These presidents offered literally nothing to the campaign but a joke and that shows when they’re in office and just looking for puns as prom themes. The reason they rank so high on this list is because they probably have the best handle of how silly the whole thing is.

1. The only one who ran

Let’s be honest, this is usually how it went down and these presidents were always fine at it because faculty handled everything anyways.

The official ranking of all high school class presidents was originally published in Spitballers on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.