Derrick White extension?

[Phantom255x]

Yes please 

[Moranis]

Doesn't an extension mean he can't be traded?  I would want to keep trading him open.

[green_bballers13]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

You've posted these publications' rankings before, but you haven't been able to prove that there's a more talented team 1-6.

I was nervous that we were giving up a junkyard dog in Smart, but psyched to get a better player back in Jrue Holiday. We may lose DWhite, and I have confidence that we will develop another player. I think Walsh will be a good defensive player in short order.

[Moranis]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else). 

[Celtics2021]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

[Roy H.]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

ESPN's ranking suffered from getting 150 different opinions.  Some of them clearly don't follow basketball closely.  That's how you end up with White not rated, but Middleton in the top-50.

[Kernewek]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

ESPN's ranking suffered from getting 150 different opinions.  Some of them clearly don't follow basketball closely.  That's how you end up with White not rated, but Middleton in the top-50.

I might go a bit further and say there's no reasonable way to really differentiate, say, players within 4-5 spaces of each other anyway: Middleton being 'number 46' and Gordon being 'number 51' really explains nothing about the relative merits of their play.

Put it this way: take a look at any given draft year, and compare the pick order to their rookie years, let alone their overall careers. Any kind of ranking like this, with the exception of the truly superlative, is going to be largely useless.

edit: a word.

[Moranis]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

same thing generally with CBS or the other sites.  The simple reality is Boston has been out performing its talent for years and the team is not generally the most talented or so much talent.  At least not by these sort of things.  ESPN is one of the few rankings that even has Brown on the top 20 as most do not.

[Kernewek]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

same thing generally with CBS or the other sites.  The simple reality is Boston has been out performing its talent for years and the team is not generally the most talented or so much talent.  At least not by these sort of things.  ESPN is one of the few rankings that even has Brown on the top 20 as most do not.

I think we need to be careful of shifting the burden of proof here. Is it really a reasonable leap to say that Boston is outperforming their talent based on a criteria-free list, crafted by committee, to elicit conversation?

[smokeablount]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

same thing generally with CBS or the other sites.  The simple reality is Boston has been out performing its talent for years and the team is not generally the most talented or so much talent.  At least not by these sort of things.  ESPN is one of the few rankings that even has Brown on the top 20 as most do not.

If you want to live in a world where Derrick White is less valuable than Bobby Portis, by all means feel free. That world isn’t reality.

[Celtics2021]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

same thing generally with CBS or the other sites.  The simple reality is Boston has been out performing its talent for years and the team is not generally the most talented or so much talent.  At least not by these sort of things.  ESPN is one of the few rankings that even has Brown on the top 20 as most do not.

If you want to live in a world where Derrick White is less valuable than Bobby Portis, by all means feel free. That world isn’t reality.

Or Grant Williams.

[Vermont Green]

I feel that with the addition of Jrue Holiday and Porzingis, we have the best top unit.  I believe there are some teams that have better 1-2 combinations, but we make up for that with a very strong 3-6.  Giannis-Lillard, Jokic-Murray and when on the court James-Davis are all probably better 1-2 combos.  Durant-Booker if Durant is healthy is another very strong 1-2.  But I don't think any of these teams have the depth to match up with Holiday, Porzingis, White, and Horford 3-6.  GSW is an interesting one, they have Curry, a top player of course but not a clear #2, just a solid group with Thompson, Wiggins, Green, Paul.

I don't know that these ranking lists are very definitive or helpful to use to come up with team rankings.  Most of the power rankings have the Celtics 1 or 2.  Vegas has the Celtics as the favorite but just a hair more so than Denver.

[Moranis]

The Celtics have the most talent #1-6 of any roster.

Not according to basically every publication that has ranked players.

There is a list of ranked players, but is there a weighted average of top-6 by team? You need that in order to assess overall talent.

Boston has 4 players in the top 62 on ESPN, but no others in the top 100.  Tatum was 6, Brown was 19, Jrue was 26, and Porzingis is 62.

Here are some other teams considered contenders

Bucks - Giannis 1, Lillard 14, Middleton 46, Brook 69, Portis 81
Nuggets - Jokic 2, Murray 17, Gordon 51, Porter 68
Warriors - Curry 5, Klay 41, Wiggins 54, Dray 55, Paul 76, Looney 88

So close on some and some of it is preference.  Now Jrue is pretty clearly the best 3rd option of any team with his 26 ranking.  But the Bucks have a better 1st option, better 2nd option, and have 5 guys in the top 81.  The Warriors have a better 1st option, but their 2nd - 4th options are worse than Jrue, but better than Zinger, and then they add 2 more players in the top 88 (so 6 in the top 88).  Nuggets have a better 1st option and better 2nd option, but a worse 3rd and 4th and have just 4 in the top 100 like the C's (though White is probably before KCP, but KCP isn't a bad player).  Al is getting up there in age, I think he should be solid at like 20 mpg, but you might say a lesser talented player that is more reliable is preferred to Al at his current age. 

There are other teams that have 5 or more ranked in the top 100, but they lack the top end talent so it is hard to list them and the Lakers were the only team with 2 top 10 players, but only Reaves also cracks the list and he is well after 50 (the Suns had 7, 11, and 37 but no one else).

I refer you to the ESPN ratings are trash thread, and the article in which the rankings author says Derrick White has a better case for being in the top 50 than outside the top 100.  That is all.

same thing generally with CBS or the other sites.  The simple reality is Boston has been out performing its talent for years and the team is not generally the most talented or so much talent.  At least not by these sort of things.  ESPN is one of the few rankings that even has Brown on the top 20 as most do not.

I think we need to be careful of shifting the burden of proof here. Is it really a reasonable leap to say that Boston is outperforming their talent based on a criteria-free list, crafted by committee, to elicit conversation?

I'm not shifting anything. I've been saying that for years.  Those lists just provide outsider support to what I've been saying.  The results Boston has had have have usurped the talent on the team.  There are very few teams in history that have even 3 CF with roughly the same key players without a top 5 player on the team (the Wallace Pistons being the other main team for an extended period).  Boston has done it 5 times in the last 7 years and has done it many of those years without a top 10 player (Tatum the last 2 times, but the other 3 no top ten player - unless you count IT4 that 1 great season).  Most of those 7 years, Boston has had just 1 top 20 player on the roster.

[Kernewek]

But here's the point of contention with that, I think: if a situation is more common than not, perhaps - some might even say by definition - we should consider that it isn't an exception to the rule.

edit: The Ringer's new rankings are up. White comes in at 56:
https://nbarankings.theringer.com/

For anyone that doesn't want to give Simmons & co. more traffic:
Tatum - 5
Jaylen - 22
Jrue - 37
White - 56
Kristaps - 59
Horford - 82

[Who]

But here's the point of contention with that, I think: if a situation is more common than not, perhaps - some might even say by definition - we should consider that it isn't an exception to the rule.

edit: The Ringer's new rankings are up. White comes in at 56:
https://nbarankings.theringer.com/

For anyone that doesn't want to give Simmons & co. more traffic:
Tatum - 5
Jaylen - 22
Jrue - 37
White - 56
Kristaps - 59
Horford - 82

Porzingis down low again at 59. I am shocked he is low on each one of these rankings. I would expect him to be in the 30s. This is the 3rd one now.

Smart came in at 69.