Whether or not we win a title all comes down to JT and JB right?

[celticsclay]

I think, as so eloquently stated by Celtics2021, it's a "load of BS".

The bulk of this is way too subjective and arbitrary.

Agreed

[green_bballers13]

Another fly in the ointment: how can the consensus be that Tatum and Brown aren't top 5 and top 20, yet Vegas thinks that the Celtics have been a favorite for different parts of the last 2 years?

Mo, are you claiming that you have uncovered a betting discrepancy that has been unrealized by big time gamblers?

How does your view represent the consensus if many disagree?

[cman88]

This idea that we are overachievers is so laughable. 2nd best record in the league. 2 all pro players. People would laugh if you tried to sell we overachieved by losing to a play in team.

There's 2 years I would say we overachieved. That's the IT4 ECF and tatums rookie year when we went 7 games against the Cavs. Those teams clearly didn't belong. These last two did belong.

What does that say about Milwaukee and sixers? Milwaukee has been an early exit last 2 years and sixers never have gotten past the 2nd round. Yet they have the magical top 5 player.

[droopdog7]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

We were WAY more than a few bounces from beating the warriors.  The better team won, and by the end it was obvious.  If tatum matches curry, which he was not close to doing, then we probably win.

[droopdog7]

Another fly in the ointment: how can the consensus be that Tatum and Brown aren't top 5 and top 20, yet Vegas thinks that the Celtics have been a favorite for different parts of the last 2 years?

Mo, are you claiming that you have uncovered a betting discrepancy that has been unrealized by big time gamblers?

How does your view represent the consensus if many disagree?

To me it's not a fly in the ointment; in fact, it is a feature of my original point.  This is one heck of a TEAM on paper.  No weaknesses, pieces fit together very well, interchangeable, good offense and defense, strengths at the wing, etc. 

But time and time again, a superstar player can break the model.  If JT has played like a superstar against GS, we're champs.  He didn't; we're not.

[Kernewek]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

We were WAY more than a few bounces from beating the warriors.  The better team won, and by the end it was obvious.  If tatum matches curry, which he was not close to doing, then we probably win.

That's reasonable enough but entirely tangential to the discussion at hand.

[Moranis]

Another fly in the ointment: how can the consensus be that Tatum and Brown aren't top 5 and top 20, yet Vegas thinks that the Celtics have been a favorite for different parts of the last 2 years?

Mo, are you claiming that you have uncovered a betting discrepancy that has been unrealized by big time gamblers?

How does your view represent the consensus if many disagree?

I think it has been reasonable last year and this year to believe that Tatum will take a jump and be the player he could be.  Betting lines often reflect reasonable beliefs and projected outcomes.  Tatum didn't take the jump last year and if he doesn't this year people betting on the Celtics will again be disappointed.  Tatum very well could take that jump though and if he does, Boston will have a real shot at the title.

[Moranis]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

We were WAY more than a few bounces from beating the warriors.  The better team won, and by the end it was obvious.  If tatum matches curry, which he was not close to doing, then we probably win.

That's reasonable enough but entirely tangential to the discussion at hand.

It isn't really tangential to the discussion because you are presupposing that somehow those bounces go differently without Tatum doing anything.  That seems strange to me since Tatum has been the main driver of the Celtics success since he arrived on the team. 

[celticsclay]

We were definitely a few bounces away from going up 3-1. We ended up losing by ten because of same late game fouling, but we were up 4 with 5 minutes left. They had a few threes after that. Those bounce out we probably win the game and perhaps the series. This wasn’t a non competitive series like heat nuggets this year. Also maybe the bounce going our way is Tatum not breaking his wrist and playing on it? Such a weird thread that won’t die.

[droopdog7]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

We were WAY more than a few bounces from beating the warriors.  The better team won, and by the end it was obvious.  If tatum matches curry, which he was not close to doing, then we probably win.

That's reasonable enough but entirely tangential to the discussion at hand.

I'm not sure what you mean since you brought up the idea  that we almost beat the Warriors with tatum playing poorly.  At the end of the day, Tatum could have led the Celts to the title but he did not.  That was in spite of all the models indicating that the Celts were the better team.  We were, but one star stepped up and another didn't.  That was the difference.

[celticsclay]

This thread is getting really weird. Are we just pretending this didn’t happen? https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/jayson-tatum-fractured-wrist-injury-celtics-nba-finals-playoff-run/

[Kernewek]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

We were WAY more than a few bounces from beating the warriors.  The better team won, and by the end it was obvious.  If tatum matches curry, which he was not close to doing, then we probably win.

That's reasonable enough but entirely tangential to the discussion at hand.

I'm not sure what you mean since you brought up the idea  that we almost beat the Warriors with tatum playing poorly.  At the end of the day, Tatum could have led the Celts to the title but he did not.  That was in spite of all the models indicating that the Celts were the better team.  We were, but one star stepped up and another didn't.  That was the difference.

My point is that Moranis’s position is 99.95% ex post, based on how the success of the team overall. I am suggesting that if we had won the title with Tatum playing _fundamentally the same way_ there’s a high likelihood that Moranis would be heralding him as a top 5 player, despite being functionally identical to the Tatum of reality.

To me, this is not the same thing as saying we win the title if Tatum plays better. It has no real relationship to the notion that we win the title if Tatum plays better or at Curry’s level.

I do think you are correct in your assessment of the series, I’m just talking about the method of evaluation.

[celticsclay]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

We were WAY more than a few bounces from beating the warriors.  The better team won, and by the end it was obvious.  If tatum matches curry, which he was not close to doing, then we probably win.

That's reasonable enough but entirely tangential to the discussion at hand.

I'm not sure what you mean since you brought up the idea  that we almost beat the Warriors with tatum playing poorly.  At the end of the day, Tatum could have led the Celts to the title but he did not.  That was in spite of all the models indicating that the Celts were the better team.  We were, but one star stepped up and another didn't.  That was the difference.

My point is that Moranis’s position is 99.95% ex post, based on how the success of the team overall. I am suggesting that if we had won the title with Tatum playing _fundamentally the same way_ there’s a high likelihood that Moranis would be heralding him as a top 5 player, despite being functionally identical to the Tatum of reality.

To me, this is not the same thing as saying we win the title if Tatum plays better. It has no real relationship to the notion that we win the title if Tatum plays better or at Curry’s level.

I do think you are correct in your assessment of the series, I’m just talking about the method of evaluation.

This is a totally valid point. Unfortunately the thread has regressed from stubbornness of posters unwilling to give even a millimeter on an arbitrary position created off of nothing objective. Basketball and all sports are a very complicated thing and that is why we all love and watch them. The best team or player doesn’t always win. If they did they would be a lot more boring. Pretending they exist on this continuum where only 3 players could win in a given year is absolutely lunacy and would make the league a waste of time. The Celtics very objectively have a chance to win the title this year. And trying to make some wierd declaration that they can’t based on whether curry was a top 5 player two years ago or Dirk a top 5 player 15 years ago is objectively pretty boring and more of a skip Bayless take than intelligent discourse in my opinion. Surprised it has gone on this long based on basically nothing.

[Moranis]

And yet in the history of the game the vast majority of titles have been won by teams with one of the 25 best players in the sports history. And almost all of those players have won multiple championships.  That isn't a coincidence, it isn't a fluke, and it isn't really all that subjective (until the last few players in an all time list).  Basketball, more than any other sport, is driven by the mega stars.  It is why teams will tank for years for the chance to get one of those players.  It is why year after year the NBA champion has one of those players.  It quite simply matters.

[Moranis]

To further expand my last post, in 2016, ESPN put out their top 100 players of all time.  This is the top 25 in order:

Jordan, Kareem, Lebron, Magic, Wilt, Bird, Russell, Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Oscar, Kobe, West, Dr. J, Moses, Malone, Dirk, Barkley, Stockton, Robinson, Garnett, Durant, Curry, Baylor, Pippen

I suspect Giannis and Jokic have probably bumped Baylor and Pippen (and if not yet, then soon), and both Curry and Durant are probably much higher now, but probably not too many changes.  When ESPN did their list, the next 3 were Thomas, Wade, and Hondo (all multiple time champions), so with Giannis and Jokic, let's call them the top 30 players of all time.  I know ESPN isn't the be all and end all and you can certainly object to their order, but it is really hard to nitpick those players too much.  Outside of the 70's with the rival ABA and all the merger turmoil, the champions of every decade are dominated by those 30 players from the time Russell entered the league until now (again outside of the 70's).  In fact, since the Sonics in 79, only the 19 Raptors and 04 Pistons do not have 1 of those top 30 players and many of the champions have 2 such players.  In many years, the runner-up has 1 of those players as well, though not to the same degree as the champion so that is much less a requirement to lose the Finals. 

That is almost always the level of player you need to win championships.  It has always been this way and it probably always will be.  As you add years, you extend it out as more players get elevated into that special tier of player, but that is what it takes.  You can look at the champions and see it for yourself.  If you don't have one of those guys, you can still win, but you are definitely fighting an uphill battle, and it is very rare.