Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[sansterre]

given kobe is amuch better three point shooter? Doubt.

Bird's four-year peak is all above 40% from three (almost 800 shots). Bryant's best ranged four-year peak is at 35%.

There are only two ways you could mean that legitimately:

1) Kobe *made* more threes; and
2) Kobe took *harder* threes because many of them were unassisted.

If you mean #2, well, fine, though that seems more of a "skill" and less of an "efficiency" argument.

And if you mean #1, you really just mean "Kobe took more 3s", which isn't much of an achievement. Would you argue that Kobe and Nash were comparably good three point shooters because they made similar numbers of them per game at their peaks?

[parsnips33]

This was probably my favorite of the series so far, Kobe was such a treat to watch.

Would be interested to see a comparison between his defense during the 3peat compared to the later championship runs. Was the difference mainly a matter of motor?

Also do we think he's doing a Dirk video? Would love to see that

[freethedevil]

given kobe is amuch better three point shooter? Doubt.

Bird's four-year peak is all above 40% from three (almost 800 shots). Bryant's best ranged four-year peak is at 35%.

There are only two ways you could mean that legitimately:

1) Kobe *made* more threes; and
2) Kobe took *harder* threes because many of them were unassisted.

If you mean #2, well, fine, though that seems more of a "skill" and less of an "efficiency" argument.

And if you mean #1, you really just mean "Kobe took more 3s", which isn't much of an achievement. Would you argue that Kobe and Nash were comparably good three point shooters because they made similar numbers of them per game at their peaks?

Go check nash's volume and then go chekc bird's. Effiency goes down with volume. Shoting better on vastly lower voluem does no tmake you a more effecient shooter.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly discussed here, Bird's effiency and volume plummeted against defenses that weren't leaving him open. IOW, Bird, when facing the defensive coverage Kobe was facing hit 34% of his threes on like 1 attempt a game. So no, bird does not touch kobe has a htee point shooter.

[sansterre]

given kobe is amuch better three point shooter? Doubt.

Bird's four-year peak is all above 40% from three (almost 800 shots). Bryant's best ranged four-year peak is at 35%.

There are only two ways you could mean that legitimately:

1) Kobe *made* more threes; and
2) Kobe took *harder* threes because many of them were unassisted.

If you mean #2, well, fine, though that seems more of a "skill" and less of an "efficiency" argument.

And if you mean #1, you really just mean "Kobe took more 3s", which isn't much of an achievement. Would you argue that Kobe and Nash were comparably good three point shooters because they made similar numbers of them per game at their peaks?

Go check nash's volume and then go chekc bird's. Effiency goes down with volume. Shoting better on vastly lower voluem does no tmake you a more effecient shooter.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly discussed here, Bird's effiency and volume plummeted against defenses that weren't leaving him open. IOW, Bird, when facing the defensive coverage Kobe was facing hit 34% of his threes on like 1 attempt a game. So no, bird does not touch kobe has a htee point shooter.

Bird's 3P% dropped in the playoffs, to be sure. But still only to 36%, while Kobe was more around 34%.

I will happily concede that, absent other factors, that where the contest is between Kobe (as he existed in his era) vs. Bird (as he existed in his era), Kobe is the better three point shooter, mostly by volume (though I take small issue with the exaggerated phrasings "Bird doesn't touch Kobe" etc).

However, it seems intuitive that, moved to the modern era, that Bird would practice threes a fair bit more and (perhaps more importantly) be put in an offense designed to create open looks for skilled shooters (especially ones as good getting open off-ball as Bird). Given that Bird was a extremely good free throw shooter *and* we know he made his threes pretty efficiently in an offense not designed to produce them, I don't think it's a reach to imagine Bird being somewhere between quite good and really good with threes in the modern era.

Perhaps this discussion is all a misunderstanding.

After all, right now we're arguing about who was the better three point shooter, but the actual discussion was "who would benefit more from moving to the modern era". Given that we're talking of moving Kobe about a decade into the future, but Bird more like three decades into the future, it's intuitive to think that the more efficient conception of offense would aid Bird more than it would aid Kobe. Bird's basically a super-stretch four, who can spot-up shoot really well, get open on screens really well and can function as an extremely efficient distributor. That sure as heck sounds like a skillset that would have a lot of value in the modern game.

I could be wrong of course.

[Djoker]

I have always had a huge admiration for Bird and consider him among the best players ever at his peak. However I swear Kobe gets underrated. I don't see how 2006-2008 Kobe is far below peak Bird. Heck I don't see how peak Kobe is far below anyone. He's not the #1 peak due to some weaknesses outlined in this video but he added a ton of value in many less than obvious places which I think Ben's video showed quite well. Will also repeat what I said after the Hakeem video and that is the fact that inelastic offense is IMO underrated. Being able to produce "moderately efficient offense" as Ben put it against any team in the playoffs is very valuable. Kobe also had pretty crazy gravity too. This is something I never noticed watching him in real time but due to his scoring threat his teammates tend to be open often when Kobe has the ball at the elbow. This is how Kobe helped produce some great offensive teams without a stacked cast offensively.

[LakerLegend]

08 and 09 is not Kobes peak.

He had a lot of knee problems in the latter half of his career and a clear dip in athleticism post 07, especially noticeable beginning in 09.

Kobe himself thought his best in 2003. He discussed it in an interview either in his last season or post-retirement, I forget which but it's on youtube.

[LakerLegend]

It was common knowledge that Bryant's knee bothered him last season, but apparently more than he let on.

"It took me 45 minutes to warm up for practice and games. It was crazy," he recalled. "It was very sore, you just played
around it. I couldn't attack, put pressure on the defense the way I wanted to."

https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=2597017

Scored 35 a game with his knee in that shape.

[freethedevil]

Bird's four-year peak is all above 40% from three (almost 800 shots). Bryant's best ranged four-year peak is at 35%.

There are only two ways you could mean that legitimately:

1) Kobe *made* more threes; and
2) Kobe took *harder* threes because many of them were unassisted.

If you mean #2, well, fine, though that seems more of a "skill" and less of an "efficiency" argument.

And if you mean #1, you really just mean "Kobe took more 3s", which isn't much of an achievement. Would you argue that Kobe and Nash were comparably good three point shooters because they made similar numbers of them per game at their peaks?

Go check nash's volume and then go chekc bird's. Effiency goes down with volume. Shoting better on vastly lower voluem does no tmake you a more effecient shooter.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly discussed here, Bird's effiency and volume plummeted against defenses that weren't leaving him open. IOW, Bird, when facing the defensive coverage Kobe was facing hit 34% of his threes on like 1 attempt a game. So no, bird does not touch kobe has a htee point shooter.

Bird's 3P% dropped in the playoffs, to be sure. But still only to 36%, while Kobe was more around 34%.

I will happily concede that, absent other factors, that where the contest is between Kobe (as he existed in his era) vs. Bird (as he existed in his era), Kobe is the better three point shooter, mostly by volume (though I take small issue with the exaggerated phrasings "Bird doesn't touch Kobe" etc).

However, it seems intuitive that, moved to the modern era, that Bird would practice threes a fair bit more and (perhaps more importantly) be put in an offense designed to create open looks for skilled shooters (especially ones as good getting open off-ball as Bird). Given that Bird was a extremely good free throw shooter *and* we know he made his threes pretty efficiently in an offense not designed to produce them, I don't think it's a reach to imagine Bird being somewhere between quite good and really good with threes in the modern era.

Perhaps this discussion is all a misunderstanding.

After all, right now we're arguing about who was the better three point shooter, but the actual discussion was "who would benefit more from moving to the modern era". Given that we're talking of moving Kobe about a decade into the future, but Bird more like three decades into the future, it's intuitive to think that the more efficient conception of offense would aid Bird more than it would aid Kobe. Bird's basically a super-stretch four, who can spot-up shoot really well, get open on screens really well and can function as an extremely efficient distributor. That sure as heck sounds like a skillset that would have a lot of value in the modern game.

I could be wrong of course.

Well i you're allowing bird to retrain himself then that's a different story. On other matters, the cletics offense was msot definitely ahead of its time and one of the more futurustic rosters of the era, what's important to remember is that while bird would find himself on a more optimal scheme....so would all of bird's competition. Everything is relative.

Kobe himself was an a off-ball wizard, and if someone is benefitting from a spaced out loor, "the most prolific tough shot maker in history" probably gets the biggest boost. If you are moving bird 30 years into the future, there are several other things to consider..

1. The most valuable players are gnerally asked to do everything. Bird is probably going to have to be the primary ball handler and again, when you do more your effiency drops. Bird's unlikely to find himself in lineups with two other bigs, so his rebounding is going to take a hit. Rebounding in general isn't going to be as valuable.

2. Defenses are nw going to be able to 'hedge' against bird instead of having to commit to a 100% double team or single coverage making passing trcker. Bird, someone whose neve rbeen that phsycially imposing, is probably going to do much less damage inside without being able to feast on single coverage and

3. With 3>2 Bird goes from being the second most valuable shooter of his era to...being goood. 3>2, but is that really going to make up for his passing, rebounding and inside finishing being easier to scheme against? What about him now having to handle the ball far more, set more screens, his 'motor' getting checke dby teams relenteslly exploiting his footwork defensively?

Everyone is going to be playing in more optimal schemes and everything is relative. Is Bird going to be better realtive to everyne now than he was in the 80's? I don't think so.

[colts18]

1. The most valuable players are gnerally asked to do everything. Bird is probably going to have to be the primary ball handler and again, when you do more your effiency drops. Bird's unlikely to find himself in lineups with two other bigs, so his rebounding is going to take a hit. Rebounding in general isn't going to be as valuable.

Do you read the things that you write? There has never been a time in history when it's easier to grab rebounds when you are playing Small Forward alongside 2 Hall of Fame Big Men.

Bird's Rebounding would increase in today's game. He would be a top 3-5 rebounder in the League.

[70sFan]

Again, good defenses didn't defend three point shot in the 1980s anyway. Bird shot less threes against good defenses because he was more focused on generating "good looks". Threes weren't considered a good look back then.

Besides, do we have Kobe's numbers against good defenses? I'd assume that his efficiency also goes down, which would make him worse than Bird anyway.

I don't see how anyone can doubt if Bird could translate well to modern offense. His shooting would be utilized far better, his off-ball game would produce more options for his teammates and his relatively weak finising would be less of a problem without big rim protectors on the floor. Also - there is no scheme against passer like Bird. If you think that soft zones could exploit such a genius likr Bird, then I wonder how so many average players can beat this defense so easily.

[freethedevil]

1. The most valuable players are gnerally asked to do everything. Bird is probably going to have to be the primary ball handler and again, when you do more your effiency drops. Bird's unlikely to find himself in lineups with two other bigs, so his rebounding is going to take a hit. Rebounding in general isn't going to be as valuable.

Do you read the things that you write? There has never been a time in history when it's easier to grab rebounds when you are playing Small Forward alongside 2 Hall of Fame Big Men.
.

Uncontested rebounds(ontop of being replacement level plays) are far more frequent playng next to big men So yeah, bird's reboudning is obviously going down withou tmultipel bigs doing the dirty work for him.

[freethedevil]

Again, good defenses didn't defend three point shot in the 1980s anyway. Bird shot less threes against good defenses because he was more focused on generating "good looks". Threes weren't considered a good look back then.
yes well, the pronblem here is his effiency was awful for the volume attempted
Besides, do we have Kobe's numbers against good defenses? I'd assume that his efficiency also goes down, which would make him worse than Bird anyway.
we do, its like 34% on vastly higher volume. And ofc even bad defenses from 08-10 cared signficantly more about threes than most defenses in the 90's or 80's.
I don't see how anyone can doubt if Bird could translate well to modern offense. His shooting would be utilized far better,
if bird was good a three-point shooter as kobe bryant this might be a compelling point. Everyone's shooting is going to be used better, you're acting like bird didn't have a top 3 infrnstructure in the league when he played. How does it matter "he's being utilized better" when everyone in the league is? his competition is going to have the same schametic revolution he will. Kobe was actually forced to play in a scheme that didn't come close to maximizing his value or effiency being forced to take the toughest selection of shots in league history. Bird got amplified as a rebounder and defender by playing alongside two bigs, got covered by not having to handle the ball nearly as much as say, kobe did, and was given the highest iq teamamtes of anyone in the league. Bird was given the perfect situation, kobe was not.
his off-ball game would produce more options for his teammates
which part? Shooting? Kobe's better from 3. Inside positioning? Yeah, absoultely zero reason to think Kobe isn't the more imposing presence. Signifcantly stronger, lower center of gravity, much better footwork. Screens? Bird was setting a couple screens a game, and doesn't really have the frame to be nearly effective as say KG as a screener. Bird setting 5-6 screens a game(probably not as well as a big like garnett) is not going to make him a better off-ball player like kobe who was quicker, stronger, had better footwork and had better gravity from outside.
and his relatively weak finising would be less of a problem without big rim protectors on the floor.
What? Bigs have not gotten smaller or less imposing. Anthony Davis, Joel Embid, Rudy Gobert are all sturdy, rock solid, towers with incredible wingspans, vertical reach, and good center. of gravity. Hell if we're talking about Bird here, why wouldn't Giannis of Draymond be able to do the trick? Heck, why are you even sure about bird being able to impose himself physically on durant?

Bird is not going to be having "less of a problem" against simmons-embid, ad-lebron-gasol, giannis-lopez, ect. Hell, even kawhi-pg-ibaka or wiseman-draymond-wiggins probably won't be an easy test come playoff time. Just because--some teams-- are going all in on small ball does not mean there aren't teams with historically impressive collections of bigs.

Also - there is no scheme against passer like Bird. If you think that soft zones could exploit such a genius likr Bird, then I wonder how so many average players can beat this defense so easily.
what? transition offense is easily countered by elie postseason defenses. Bird's best skill, trasnition passing is very much something modern defenses have been geared to counter. It's obviously alot easier to counter dual scoring/passing threats when you're allowed to hedge. Check the 10 celtics vs the cavs, the 13 pacers vs the 13 heat, or broken-back lebron-tt- and delladova against a vastly better shooter/off-ball player(and signifcantly better ball handler) than bird+goated off-ball passing+league best shooting. Bird is nowhere close to unstoppable as a player. For **** sake, the pistons taked the celtics offense by 13 points with an arm tied around their back. The spurs with their tika tka and lights out shooting were given major headaches by both the thunder and the mavs. It is absolutely doable and has been done. Bird's passing is not remotely unstoppable. Elite postseaon defenses will slow bird-led offenses down because they have done it to better versions of the 86 celtics year in and year out.

[70sFan]

yes well, the pronblem here is his effiency was awful for the volume attempted

If he attempted less than 2 threes per36, then he basically didn't shoot threes. Why do you think that lesser volume caused better efficiency? A lot of Bird's threes were late shotclock shots or heaves. The less he shot regular threes, the lower his efficiency would be.

I think that you use modern way of thinking for 1980s player here, which is wrong way to evaluate him.

we do, its like 34% on vastly higher volume. And ofc even bad defenses from 08-10 cared signficantly more about threes than most defenses in the 90's or 80's.

So the difference isn't that big?

if bird was good a three-point shooter as kobe bryant this might be a compelling point. Everyone's shooting is going to be used better, you're acting like bird didn't have a top 3 infrnstructure in the league when he played. How does it matter "he's being utilized better" when everyone in the league is?

Well, so you think that Bird was weak shooter because of what Taylor showed in his video, despite so many evidences that he was really good but utilized in wrong way. I don't think that's true, I view Bird as excellent shooter. Good shooters would fare better than ever in this era.

Kobe was actually forced to play in a scheme that didn't come close to maximizing his value or effiency being forced to take the toughest selection of shots in league history.

I don't think anyone forced Kobe to take these shots - it's just how Kobe played.

Bird got amplified as a rebounder and defender by playing alongside two bigs,

Bird's defense was hurt by playing next to another bigman if anything. He should have played as a second bigman on defense, but instead he was often forced to defend perimter players.

got covered by not having to handle the ball nearly as much as say, kobe did,

That's not always a bad thing. I know you're high on ball-handlers, but some players could impact offense in different ways.

and was given the highest iq teamamtes of anyone in the league. Bird was given the perfect situation, kobe was not

I don't think it's true and I think that 2008-10 Lakers had better collection of high IQ players than 1980s Celtics. I don't view Parish as smart player for example, certainly not on Gasol's or Odom's level in this aspect.

which part? Shooting? Kobe's better from 3.

Yeah, this is one of the aspects. He's not better from three, he just played in an era when three is started to be seen as major weapon, not a gimmick.

Inside positioning? Yeah, absoultely zero reason to think Kobe isn't the more imposing presence. Signifcantly stronger, lower center of gravity, much better footwork.

Bird is much bigger and his strength is underrated. Bird was better post player than Kobe.

Screens? Bird was setting a couple screens a game, and doesn't really have the frame to be nearly effective as say KG as a screener.

Could you show me the stats that show Bird setting two screens per game?
Bird is good and very willing screener. He doesn't have to be on KG level to be much better than Kobe.

Bird setting 5-6 screens a game(probably not as well as a big like garnett) is not going to make him a better off-ball player like kobe who was quicker, stronger, had better footwork and had better gravity from outside.[/b]

Yeah, also because of offensive rebounding and touch passes.

What? Bigs have not gotten smaller or less imposing. Anthony Davis, Joel Embid, Rudy Gobert are all sturdy, rock solid, towers with incredible wingspans, vertical reach, and good center. of gravity. Hell if we're talking about Bird here, why wouldn't Giannis of Draymond be able to do the trick? Heck, why are you even sure about bird being able to impose himself physically on durant?

Bird is not going to be having "less of a problem" against simmons-embid, ad-lebron-gasol, giannis-lopez, ect. Hell, even kawhi-pg-ibaka or wiseman-draymond-wiggins probably won't be an easy test come playoff time. Just because--some teams-- are going all in on small ball does not mean there aren't teams with historically impressive collections of bigs.

A lot of teams play small nowadays. Besides, I'm not saying that the league lacks size - what I'm saying is that rim protectors spend far less time inside. You can't deny that.

what? transition offense is easily countered by elie postseason defenses. Bird's best skill, trasnition passing is very much something modern defenses have been geared to counter. It's obviously alot easier to counter dual scoring/passing threats when you're allowed to hedge. Check the 10 celtics vs the cavs, the 13 pacers vs the 13 heat, or broken-back lebron-tt- and delladova against a vastly better shooter/off-ball player(and signifcantly better ball handler) than bird+goated off-ball passing+league best shooting. Bird is nowhere close to unstoppable as a player. For **** sake, the pistons taked the celtics offense by 13 points with an arm tied around their back. The spurs with their tika tka and lights out shooting were given major headaches by both the thunder and the mavs. It is absolutely doable and has been done. Bird's passing is not remotely unstoppable. Elite postseaon defenses will slow bird-led offenses down because they have done it to better versions of the 86 celtics year in and year out.

Bird's best skill isn't transition passing.

[zimpy27]

Which years does he choose for LeBrons peak?

[SideshowBob]

Which years does he choose for LeBrons peak?

Going by the CORP valuations he has on his site, 12-14 will be the pick as that's the strongest 3-year stretch in his numbers (#2 is 11-13 and #3 is 10-12). He's high on the Miami years (even 2011) compared to the Cleveland years, and not very high on second stint Cleveland (bizarrely he has 16 = 17 = 18 on offense).

I doubt anyone is as high on 2011 Lebron as Ben is. His 2011 grade of +6.75 is after penalizing him for the finals...2011 would have ranked #2 in his CORP if not for that penalty.

[DQuinn1575]

yes well, the pronblem here is his effiency was awful for the volume attempted

If he attempted less than 2 threes per36, then he basically didn't shoot threes. Why do you think that lesser volume caused better efficiency? A lot of Bird's threes were late shotclock shots or heaves. The less he shot regular threes, the lower his efficiency would be.

I think that you use modern way of thinking for 1980s player here, which is wrong way to evaluate him.

we do, its like 34% on vastly higher volume. And ofc even bad defenses from 08-10 cared signficantly more about threes than most defenses in the 90's or 80's.

So the difference isn't that big?

if bird was good a three-point shooter as kobe bryant this might be a compelling point. Everyone's shooting is going to be used better, you're acting like bird didn't have a top 3 infrnstructure in the league when he played. How does it matter "he's being utilized better" when everyone in the league is?

Well, so you think that Bird was weak shooter because of what Taylor showed in his video, despite so many evidences that he was really good but utilized in wrong way. I don't think that's true, I view Bird as excellent shooter. Good shooters would fare better than ever in this era.

Kobe was actually forced to play in a scheme that didn't come close to maximizing his value or effiency being forced to take the toughest selection of shots in league history.

I don't think anyone forced Kobe to take these shots - it's just how Kobe played.

Bird got amplified as a rebounder and defender by playing alongside two bigs,

Bird's defense was hurt by playing next to another bigman if anything. He should have played as a second bigman on defense, but instead he was often forced to defend perimter players.

got covered by not having to handle the ball nearly as much as say, kobe did,

That's not always a bad thing. I know you're high on ball-handlers, but some players could impact offense in different ways.

and was given the highest iq teamamtes of anyone in the league. Bird was given the perfect situation, kobe was not

I don't think it's true and I think that 2008-10 Lakers had better collection of high IQ players than 1980s Celtics. I don't view Parish as smart player for example, certainly not on Gasol's or Odom's level in this aspect.

which part? Shooting? Kobe's better from 3.

Yeah, this is one of the aspects. He's not better from three, he just played in an era when three is started to be seen as major weapon, not a gimmick.

Inside positioning? Yeah, absoultely zero reason to think Kobe isn't the more imposing presence. Signifcantly stronger, lower center of gravity, much better footwork.

Bird is much bigger and his strength is underrated. Bird was better post player than Kobe.

Screens? Bird was setting a couple screens a game, and doesn't really have the frame to be nearly effective as say KG as a screener.

Could you show me the stats that show Bird setting two screens per game?
Bird is good and very willing screener. He doesn't have to be on KG level to be much better than Kobe.

Bird setting 5-6 screens a game(probably not as well as a big like garnett) is not going to make him a better off-ball player like kobe who was quicker, stronger, had better footwork and had better gravity from outside.[/b]

Yeah, also because of offensive rebounding and touch passes.

What? Bigs have not gotten smaller or less imposing. Anthony Davis, Joel Embid, Rudy Gobert are all sturdy, rock solid, towers with incredible wingspans, vertical reach, and good center. of gravity. Hell if we're talking about Bird here, why wouldn't Giannis of Draymond be able to do the trick? Heck, why are you even sure about bird being able to impose himself physically on durant?

Bird is not going to be having "less of a problem" against simmons-embid, ad-lebron-gasol, giannis-lopez, ect. Hell, even kawhi-pg-ibaka or wiseman-draymond-wiggins probably won't be an easy test come playoff time. Just because--some teams-- are going all in on small ball does not mean there aren't teams with historically impressive collections of bigs.

A lot of teams play small nowadays. Besides, I'm not saying that the league lacks size - what I'm saying is that rim protectors spend far less time inside. You can't deny that.

what? transition offense is easily countered by elie postseason defenses. Bird's best skill, trasnition passing is very much something modern defenses have been geared to counter. It's obviously alot easier to counter dual scoring/passing threats when you're allowed to hedge. Check the 10 celtics vs the cavs, the 13 pacers vs the 13 heat, or broken-back lebron-tt- and delladova against a vastly better shooter/off-ball player(and signifcantly better ball handler) than bird+goated off-ball passing+league best shooting. Bird is nowhere close to unstoppable as a player. For **** sake, the pistons taked the celtics offense by 13 points with an arm tied around their back. The spurs with their tika tka and lights out shooting were given major headaches by both the thunder and the mavs. It is absolutely doable and has been done. Bird's passing is not remotely unstoppable. Elite postseaon defenses will slow bird-led offenses down because they have done it to better versions of the 86 celtics year in and year out.

Bird's best skill isn't transition passing.

All good points. I’ll add to the first, a larger % of someone like Birds 3 point shots are either last 2 seconds in the shot clock, or games where they are behind and having more heaves. Conversely he played where there weren’t many plays set up for him to shoot a 3. No one penetrated, beat their man and threw the ball further from the cup to a teammate waiting to host a 3. Look at his performance in the 3 point contest. It wasn’t that he wasn’t capable of shooting 3s, it was at least partially due to shot selection of the era.

[parsnips33]

No video today?

[Fadeaway_J]

No video today?

He has a notification on his YouTube channel that the series will be on break until the 15th.

[Djoker]

So sad that there's no video today. I was looking forward to KG who is one of my favorite players ever!

[parsnips33]

No video today?

He has a notification on his YouTube channel that the series will be on break until the 15th.

Ah didn't see that thanks. This series has been great Monday lunch break entertainment