The unspoken "real" issue with these celtics...

[gouki88]

Given the debate, I'll give my rankings to 50 for next season (broken into rough tiers). This is assuming health

Tier 1:
1. Jokic
2. Giannis

Tier 2:
3. Embiid
4. Tatum
5. Durant
6. Curry
7. Doncic

Tier 3:
8. Anthony Davis
9. Kawhi Leonard
10. Damian Lillard
11. Devin Booker
12. SGA
13. Jimmy Butler
14. LeBron James

Tier 4:
15. Donovan Mitchell
16. De'Aaron Fox
17. Jamal Murray
18. Harden
19. Morant
20. Adebayo
21. Young
22. Brown
23. Sabonis

Tier 5:
24. Anthony Edwards
25. Towns
26. Zion
27. Brunson
28. Paul George
29. Siakam
30. Haliburton
31. Ingram
32. Garland
33. Mikal Bridges

Tier 6:
34. Mobley
35. Porzingis
36. Jrue
37. Kyrie
38. Markannen
39. JJJ
40. Draymond
41. Beal
42. LaVine
43. DeRozan
44. Randle

Tier 7:
45. Ball
46. Dejounte Murray
47. Banchero
48. Jalen Williams
49. Franz Wagner
50. Maxey
etc.

[Who]

Porzingis Seems to be the one whose ranking is out of whack. At least in my opinion.  I expect him to be much better than 61.  We値l see.

I'd probably have him in the 30-40 range.
I'd have Brogdon in the 60-75 range.

The others all seem about right to me.

That seems really high for Porzingis.  The players the Ringer had in that range were in order from 30:

Zion
Towns
Haliburton
JJJ
Draymond
Garland
Mobley
Bridges
Holiday
Bane
Kyrie

Porzingis isn't better than any of those players.  41-50 in order

I would have Porzingis as better than Draymond & Mobley. Comparable to Kyrie. Not sure about Jrue.

So better than two of them, comparable to one and unsure about a 4th. I am unsure where to rate Jrue. His scoring in the playoffs has been very poor for a few years now. That is a major dent in his two-way value.

DeRozan
Beal
Randle
Murray
Gordon
Wiggins
LaVine
Paul
Middleton
LaMelo

You could maybe argue a couple of those guys, but again I don't think Porzingis is better than them if everyone is healthy.

I'd take Porzingis over DeRozan. Beal is a tough one. Porzingis is more talented but I am more comfortable relying on Beal. I'd take Porzingis over Randle. Not a fan of Randle. Aaron Gordon? Hmm, yeah I'd take Porzingis over A Gordon in most situations. Maybe not all situations. Porzingis vs Wigggins is an interesting one. Not sure. I prefer Z LaVine to Zinger. Porzingis over CP3.

Middleton and LaMelo both over Porzingis. Maybe giving Middleton too much credit but I need to see him next year before I drop him below Porzingis. So I have 3 players above Porzingis. Oh maybe 4 with Beal. One undecided. 5 players below Porzingis.

51-60

VanVleet
Gobert
Grant
Lopez
Maxey
Klay
Barnes
OG
Claxton
Banchero

I am taking Porzingis over VanVleet, Klay, B Lopez, J Grant, H Barnes, N Claxton. Banchero is not as good as Porzingis yet so I'll roll with Porzingis over Banchero for another season. Maxey I am not as sure about as others. I see some good things but I am not ready to put him that high up yet. So I'll go Porzingis over Maxey as well.

I probably take Gobert over Porzingis. Not as talented but very dependable. OG Anunoby is an interesting one. I am going undecided on that.

So Porzingis over 8 of the, undecided on 1 and 1 player ahead of Porzingis.

then you Porzingis and there are the guys directly after him

MPJ
Turner
Allen
Cunningham
Ayton
Horford
White
Giddey
Rob

I take Porzingis over MPJ, J Allen, Cade Cunningham, J Giddey, R Williams.

I am unsure about Horford and D White. Porzingis higher upside lower floor. I really like those guys. Yeah, I'd take Porzingis over Horford. D White? Hmm ... undecided.

I take Myles Turner ahead of Porzingis. Again, more reliable. I am not sure about Ayton but I lean towards Ayton. I am a big fan of Ayton. As I check my rankings to when I had thought about this earlier in the summer, they are the two guys I have ranked either side of Porzingis at center. M Turner at 7, Porzingis at 8, Ayton at 9. So I'll go with those listings. I probably gave it more thought then. 

[Moranis]

Porzingis Seems to be the one whose ranking is out of whack. At least in my opinion.  I expect him to be much better than 61.  We値l see.

I'd probably have him in the 30-40 range.
I'd have Brogdon in the 60-75 range.

The others all seem about right to me.

That seems really high for Porzingis.  The players the Ringer had in that range were in order from 30:

Zion
Towns
Haliburton
JJJ
Draymond
Garland
Mobley
Bridges
Holiday
Bane
Kyrie

Porzingis isn't better than any of those players.  41-50 in order

DeRozan
Beal
Randle
Murray
Gordon
Wiggins
LaVine
Paul
Middleton
LaMelo

You could maybe argue a couple of those guys, but again I don't think Porzingis is better than them if everyone is healthy.

51-60

VanVleet
Gobert
Grant
Lopez
Maxey
Klay
Barnes
OG
Claxton
Banchero

then you Porzingis and there are the guys directly after him

MPJ
Turner
Allen
Cunningham
Ayton
Horford
White
Giddey
Rob

Porzingis seems about right to me.  He could be a few spots higher, but I can't see him jumping all the way up into the 30's.  There are just too many players better than him in that tier.

They had Herro at 74, Herro is better than Brogdon.  There is no way he should be in the 60's at all.  A few spots higher, sure, but not that big a jump.

"If everyone is healthy" presumably includes Porzingis too, right?

In which case, it is legitimately laughable that you would consider so many of those players to be his superior. Aaron freakin Gordon? Desmond Bane? Andrew Wiggins? Chris Paul??

I can't actually believe you to be serious when you say things like that. You just have to be baiting for engagement. Your criminal underrating of our talent + wildly overrating that of others is being taken to another level.

Gordon just had an incredible finals, shooting lights out and playing elite level defense as a 3rd or 4th option on his team.  Let's see what Porzingis does as a 3rd option, something he has never been, and the Ringer put that list out when they thought he'd be the 2nd option on the Wizards (behind beal).  It is more likely that Porzingis scores 15 than 20 (I suspect he will be in the 18 range) just because I don't think he will get the shots to score more than that.  He plays ok but unspectacular defense.  He is a bad rebounder for someone his size.  I like Porzingis, I'm glad we made the trade, but I'm not going to put on green colored glasses and call him the second coming and Boston's savior.  It isn't just health that porzingis has been an all star just 1 time and never made an all nba team.  He is a nice solid 3rd option and good ones of those are in the 50-75 range in the NBA.  Exactly where Porzingis is and should be. 

I don't work for the Ringer.  I didn't create that list.  ESPN and CBS usually put their lists out in September, so this is the only one we have right now.  I suspect ESPN will have Porzingis higher now that he is a Celtic.  Now sure the Ringer's list is a subjective list, but it isn't from anyone on here and involves national media who presumably don't have quite the fan level biases as we do on here.

[Moranis]

Porzingis Seems to be the one whose ranking is out of whack. At least in my opinion.  I expect him to be much better than 61.  We値l see.

I'd probably have him in the 30-40 range.
I'd have Brogdon in the 60-75 range.

The others all seem about right to me.

That seems really high for Porzingis.  The players the Ringer had in that range were in order from 30:

Zion
Towns
Haliburton
JJJ
Draymond
Garland
Mobley
Bridges
Holiday
Bane
Kyrie

Porzingis isn't better than any of those players.  41-50 in order

I would have Porzingis as better than Draymond & Mobley. Comparable to Kyrie. Not sure about Jrue.

So better than two of them, comparable to one and unsure about a 4th. I am unsure where to rate Jrue. His scoring in the playoffs has been very poor for a few years now. That is a major dent in his two-way value.

I just don't think Porzingis compares good enough to Draymond and Mobley defensively.  Those are two of the best defenders in the sport.  They are better rebounders and even Mobley in his 2nd year was already a better passer than Porzingis (and the 3rd year is when big men often take a massive leap - in fact I think it is more likely that Mobley has a top 25 season than that he is worse than Zinger).  The Zinger has an excellent face up game and will hit open shots.  He can do well if you get him the ball in the post in the right positions, but he isn't all that versatile offensively because he is a bad passer and dribbler.  I think he will do well as the 3rd option in Boston, but he is a poor creator for others. 

[gouki88]

Porzingis Seems to be the one whose ranking is out of whack. At least in my opinion.  I expect him to be much better than 61.  We値l see.

I'd probably have him in the 30-40 range.
I'd have Brogdon in the 60-75 range.

The others all seem about right to me.

That seems really high for Porzingis.  The players the Ringer had in that range were in order from 30:

Zion
Towns
Haliburton
JJJ
Draymond
Garland
Mobley
Bridges
Holiday
Bane
Kyrie

Porzingis isn't better than any of those players.  41-50 in order

DeRozan
Beal
Randle
Murray
Gordon
Wiggins
LaVine
Paul
Middleton
LaMelo

You could maybe argue a couple of those guys, but again I don't think Porzingis is better than them if everyone is healthy.

51-60

VanVleet
Gobert
Grant
Lopez
Maxey
Klay
Barnes
OG
Claxton
Banchero

then you Porzingis and there are the guys directly after him

MPJ
Turner
Allen
Cunningham
Ayton
Horford
White
Giddey
Rob

Porzingis seems about right to me.  He could be a few spots higher, but I can't see him jumping all the way up into the 30's.  There are just too many players better than him in that tier.

They had Herro at 74, Herro is better than Brogdon.  There is no way he should be in the 60's at all.  A few spots higher, sure, but not that big a jump.

"If everyone is healthy" presumably includes Porzingis too, right?

In which case, it is legitimately laughable that you would consider so many of those players to be his superior. Aaron freakin Gordon? Desmond Bane? Andrew Wiggins? Chris Paul??

I can't actually believe you to be serious when you say things like that. You just have to be baiting for engagement. Your criminal underrating of our talent + wildly overrating that of others is being taken to another level.

Gordon just had an incredible finals, shooting lights out and playing elite level defense as a 3rd or 4th option on his team.  Let's see what Porzingis does as a 3rd option, something he has never been, and the Ringer put that list out when they thought he'd be the 2nd option on the Wizards (behind beal).  It is more likely that Porzingis scores 15 than 20 (I suspect he will be in the 18 range) just because I don't think he will get the shots to score more than that.  He plays ok but unspectacular defense.  He is a bad rebounder for someone his size.  I like Porzingis, I'm glad we made the trade, but I'm not going to put on green colored glasses and call him the second coming and Boston's savior.  It isn't just health that porzingis has been an all star just 1 time and never made an all nba team.  He is a nice solid 3rd option and good ones of those are in the 50-75 range in the NBA.  Exactly where Porzingis is and should be. 

I don't work for the Ringer.  I didn't create that list.  ESPN and CBS usually put their lists out in September, so this is the only one we have right now.  I suspect ESPN will have Porzingis higher now that he is a Celtic.  Now sure the Ringer's list is a subjective list, but it isn't from anyone on here and involves national media who presumably don't have quite the fan level biases as we do on here.

Gordon is playing next to one of the best to ever do it when it comes to improving his teammates.

[Who]

In which case, it is legitimately laughable that you would consider so many of those players to be his superior. Aaron freakin Gordon? Desmond Bane? Andrew Wiggins? Chris Paul??

Not about Porzingis ...

Bane is getting interesting. I wonder about him relative to Morant and JJJ in Memphis. He is so efficient offensively and provides extra value in terms of spacing. He is solid defensively unlike Morant. He gives you some secondary passing and ball-handling to boost his value beyond his scoring.

21.5ppg 5rpg 4.4apg

47% on 7 threes a game. 60.6% TS%.

Low low mistake player. Rarely does anything that hurts his side. Does not take things off the table. Doesn't negate his positives the way Ja Morant often does. Morant with higher positives but much higher negatives. I wonder if Morant's net impact is really higher than Bane's.

I don't know where exactly I rate Bane but I feel like have been too low on him in the past. That I haven't given him enough credit.

[gouki88]

In which case, it is legitimately laughable that you would consider so many of those players to be his superior. Aaron freakin Gordon? Desmond Bane? Andrew Wiggins? Chris Paul??

Not about Porzingis ...

Bane is getting interesting. I wonder about him relative to Morant and JJJ in Memphis. He is so efficient offensively and provides extra value in terms of spacing. He is solid defensively unlike Morant. He gives you some secondary passing and ball-handling to boost his value beyond his scoring.

21.5ppg 5rpg 4.4apg

47% on 7 threes a game. 60.6% TS%.

Low low mistake player. Rarely does anything that hurts his side. Does not take things off the table. Doesn't negate his positives the way Ja Morant often does. Morant with higher positives but much higher negatives. I wonder if Morant's net impact is really higher than Bane's.

I don't know where exactly I rate Bane but I feel like have been too low on him in the past. That I haven't given him enough credit.

Bane is okay defensively, but not much more than that IMO. Reminds me a bit of CJ McCollum in terms of not seeing him quite reach All-Star level. I think he's on the fringe of being a top 50 guy.

[green_bballers13]

In which case, it is legitimately laughable that you would consider so many of those players to be his superior. Aaron freakin Gordon? Desmond Bane? Andrew Wiggins? Chris Paul??

Not about Porzingis ...

Bane is getting interesting. I wonder about him relative to Morant and JJJ in Memphis. He is so efficient offensively and provides extra value in terms of spacing. He is solid defensively unlike Morant. He gives you some secondary passing and ball-handling to boost his value beyond his scoring.

21.5ppg 5rpg 4.4apg

47% on 7 threes a game. 60.6% TS%.

Low low mistake player. Rarely does anything that hurts his side. Does not take things off the table. Doesn't negate his positives the way Ja Morant often does. Morant with higher positives but much higher negatives. I wonder if Morant's net impact is really higher than Bane's.

I don't know where exactly I rate Bane but I feel like have been too low on him in the past. That I haven't given him enough credit.

Bane is okay defensively, but not much more than that IMO. Reminds me a bit of CJ McCollum in terms of not seeing him quite reach All-Star level. I think he's on the fringe of being a top 50 guy.

This is probably why the Danny passed on picking Bane. His draft reputation was as a SG with a short wing span, lacking lateral agility, and an inability to effectively switch on D. He didn't fit the Celtics mold.

Guys like Bane give me hope that our draft picks in the late 20's can be useful going forward.

[gouki88]

In which case, it is legitimately laughable that you would consider so many of those players to be his superior. Aaron freakin Gordon? Desmond Bane? Andrew Wiggins? Chris Paul??

Not about Porzingis ...

Bane is getting interesting. I wonder about him relative to Morant and JJJ in Memphis. He is so efficient offensively and provides extra value in terms of spacing. He is solid defensively unlike Morant. He gives you some secondary passing and ball-handling to boost his value beyond his scoring.

21.5ppg 5rpg 4.4apg

47% on 7 threes a game. 60.6% TS%.

Low low mistake player. Rarely does anything that hurts his side. Does not take things off the table. Doesn't negate his positives the way Ja Morant often does. Morant with higher positives but much higher negatives. I wonder if Morant's net impact is really higher than Bane's.

I don't know where exactly I rate Bane but I feel like have been too low on him in the past. That I haven't given him enough credit.

Bane is okay defensively, but not much more than that IMO. Reminds me a bit of CJ McCollum in terms of not seeing him quite reach All-Star level. I think he's on the fringe of being a top 50 guy.

This is probably why the Danny passed on picking Bane. His draft reputation was as a SG with a short wing span, lacking lateral agility, and an inability to effectively switch on D. He didn't fit the Celtics mold.

Guys like Bane give me hope that our draft picks in the late 20's can be useful going forward.

Yeah, Bane's physical strength allows him to be decent on that end, but he is not a positive.

Getting someone who can be a fringe top 50 guy in the league with a late 1st is the dream!

[BitterJim]

Brown deserved his 2nd team appearance, but that doesn't mean he is a top 10 player.  Top 10 season, sure, player, nope.  Those are no where near the same thing. 

On June 14, the Ringer put out a list of the top 125 for the up coming season, and Brown was not in the top 20.  He was 22. They had Tatum at 6 (he was ahead of Luka who was 7, but the other 5 I had they had though a different order).  Brown was  between Bam and Trae with Edwards and George rounding out the top 25.  They had Towns outside the top 30 at 31.  Irving came in at 40 (which seems low even for me).  Porzingis was the next Celtic at 61 (listed as a wizard). Horford was 67, White 68, Rob 70 (Smart was 71), and Brogdon was 87.

So that list says what I've been saying, the Celtics are very good in the 4-7 range of the roster, but lack a lot of the top end talent that traditionally wins post season series.  And for as good as Tatum is, he isn't in that first class of player (at least not yet , if ever).

So Tatum at 6 and Brown at 22.  That isn't unreasonable.  For Tatum, I am not sure Durant is still better than him, but that is fine.  Tatum is 5 to 7 on most bingo cards.  That seems fair.

It gets harder to rank say 15-30, there is a lot of parity.  I think they did a pretty good job.  Brown could easily end up top 20, but call it top 25.  How different really is top 20 vs. top 25.  Overall, I think they have some of the older players (Kawhi, Durant, Harden, George) all ranked a little high.  Maybe Davis and LeBron too.  But Brown at 22 is fair enough.

And I am going to make a bold prediction that Porzingis (61) is going to end up closer to Sabonis (20) or Markkanen (28) or even Adebayo (21) than he is to Nic Claxton (59) or Jarrett Allen (63).  I understand that he is hard to rank but even if he cracks the top 50, that is still pretty good for your 3rd best player.

It is fine, but here are the rankings of other top teams (I went through top 66 - so higher than Al)

Top contenders
Den - 1, 16, 45, 62
GS - 2, 34, 46, 48, 56
Mil - 3, 38, 49, 54
Pho - 4, 10, 42, 66
Phi - 5, 19, 55
Bos - 6, 22, 62

If healthy could easily win a title based on top 2
LAC - 8, 25
Mia - 9, 21
LAL - 11, 12

Probably 1 piece away (or need a young guy to take a leap)
Dal - 7, 40
Cle - 15, 35, 36, 64
Sac - 17, 20
Mem - 18, 33, 39
Min - 24, 31, 52
NYC - 26, 43
NO - 29, 30

All of the top contenders have a player ranked higher than Tatum, many have a different player ranked higher than Brown, and all have at least their 3rd player ranked higher than Zinger.  And this is the highest Tatum has been ranked and Brown has been in that range for a season or two. So the fact that Boston has over achieved (while a team like the Sixers has under achieved) has clouded judgment on the Celtics nationally.

Some things:

You have 62 on 2 different teams.

Do you really think Maxey is better than Porzingis, as the rankings suggest? Who would u start a team with?

At some point don't you believe that Philly isn't underachieving and Boston isn't overachieving, that despite what your calculus says, Boston is just better?

Bottom line, u rely waaaay too much on these subjective numbers. Basketball isn't won doing Math.

If it's any consolation, I don't think think Moranis is just basing his opinions on these subjective numbers. I think he already has the opinion and cherry picks some numbers or a source to support it.

If he was basing things off of numbers instead, he wouldn't claim things like (paraphrasing): "national and Celtics' reporters (aka everyone except me) over rates the team, but I don't"

[Vermont Green]

These are all the "bigs" that The Ringer has ahead of Porzingis

Jokic
Giannis
Embiid
Davis
Sabonis
Adebayo
Markkanen
Randle
Towns
Siakam
Gobert
Jackson
Green
Mobley
Gordon
Claxton
Banchero

I may not have the order completely right but you get the idea.  If Porzingis is no better than the 20th best big, the Celtics won't be one the top rosters likely.  But I think this ranking is really off.  You are always going to be able to nit pick any list like this, it is not definitive.  But I feel they are off on Porzingis.

As to Tatum and Brown, they are not too far off.  I do question Jamal Murray at 15 some.  I question whether he is ranked high because he won a title or did they win a title because he should be ranked high.  I don't see Murray as any better than Brown.  And I am not sure how much difference there is between 15 and 22.  But as I said, I think all this is within the margin of error for a list like this.

I still say the Celtics have one of the top rosters in the league going into this season and I expect Porzingis to be much better than Nic Claxton.   I will concede DEN, they are the champs, they have Jokic.  But I don't see PHI, MIL, or GSW as definitively better.  And PHX is a wild card.  I don't think they are going to end up being a top roster/team, but there certainly is potential.   The Lakers could be a wild card team also if LeBron and Davis hold up but I don't see them as a better roster than the Celtics.

[Celtics4ever]

That list is laughable in some regards.  Claxton better than Porzingas?  Gordon?

I concur with your assessment the list is way off.

This is probably why the Danny passed on picking Bane. His draft reputation was as a SG with a short wing span, lacking lateral agility, and an inability to effectively switch on D. He didn't fit the Celtics mold

And he could shoot from the get go, not the Celtics mold for a guard.

[Kernewek]

Given the debate, I'll give my rankings to 50 for next season (broken into rough tiers). This is assuming health

Tier 1:
1. Jokic
2. Giannis

Tier 2:
3. Embiid
4. Tatum
5. Durant
6. Curry
7. Doncic

Tier 3:
8. Anthony Davis
9. Kawhi Leonard
10. Damian Lillard
11. Devin Booker
12. SGA
13. Jimmy Butler
14. LeBron James

Tier 4:
15. Donovan Mitchell
16. De'Aaron Fox
17. Jamal Murray
18. Harden
19. Morant
20. Adebayo
21. Young
22. Brown
23. Sabonis

Tier 5:
24. Anthony Edwards
25. Towns
26. Zion
27. Brunson
28. Paul George
29. Siakam
30. Haliburton
31. Ingram
32. Garland
33. Mikal Bridges

Tier 6:
34. Mobley
35. Porzingis
36. Jrue
37. Kyrie
38. Markannen
39. JJJ
40. Draymond
41. Beal
42. LaVine
43. DeRozan
44. Randle

Tier 7:
45. Ball
46. Dejounte Murray
47. Banchero
48. Jalen Williams
49. Franz Wagner
50. Maxey
etc.

I think I probably drop Tatum, Embiid and Doncic down a tier (sending SGA, Dame, and LeBron to tier 4) but overall I think this is a reasonably solid list. I guess the big question is whether we think the Embiid who's going to cruise through the playoffs healthy is ever going to show up this far into his career - even 'assuming health' I don't think that's likely.

[Moranis]

In which case, it is legitimately laughable that you would consider so many of those players to be his superior. Aaron freakin Gordon? Desmond Bane? Andrew Wiggins? Chris Paul??

Not about Porzingis ...

Bane is getting interesting. I wonder about him relative to Morant and JJJ in Memphis. He is so efficient offensively and provides extra value in terms of spacing. He is solid defensively unlike Morant. He gives you some secondary passing and ball-handling to boost his value beyond his scoring.

21.5ppg 5rpg 4.4apg

47% on 7 threes a game. 60.6% TS%.

Low low mistake player. Rarely does anything that hurts his side. Does not take things off the table. Doesn't negate his positives the way Ja Morant often does. Morant with higher positives but much higher negatives. I wonder if Morant's net impact is really higher than Bane's.

I don't know where exactly I rate Bane but I feel like have been too low on him in the past. That I haven't given him enough credit.

the last 2 seasons, Jackson and Bane have had the best on/off differential  (Brooks has been high as well).  Morant has been far less important to the winning, which is why when Morant misses games they still win at a high level.

[jambr380]

These are all the "bigs" that The Ringer has ahead of Porzingis

Jokic
Giannis
Embiid
Davis
Sabonis
Adebayo
Markkanen
Randle
Towns
Siakam
Gobert
Jackson
Green
Mobley
Gordon
Claxton
Banchero

I may not have the order completely right but you get the idea.  If Porzingis is no better than the 20th best big, the Celtics won't be one the top rosters likely.  But I think this ranking is really off.  You are always going to be able to nit pick any list like this, it is not definitive.  But I feel they are off on Porzingis.

As to Tatum and Brown, they are not too far off.  I do question Jamal Murray at 15 some.  I question whether he is ranked high because he won a title or did they win a title because he should be ranked high.  I don't see Murray as any better than Brown.  And I am not sure how much difference there is between 15 and 22.  But as I said, I think all this is within the margin of error for a list like this.

I still say the Celtics have one of the top rosters in the league going into this season and I expect Porzingis to be much better than Nic Claxton.   I will concede DEN, they are the champs, they have Jokic.  But I don't see PHI, MIL, or GSW as definitively better.  And PHX is a wild card.  I don't think they are going to end up being a top roster/team, but there certainly is potential.   The Lakers could be a wild card team also if LeBron and Davis hold up but I don't see them as a better roster than the Celtics.

We just did this a couple of weeks ago and almost everybody had Porzingis just inside the top 10. I understand lists like these are subjective, but I think people who have him ranked low are thinking of the oft-injured, inconsistent Porzingis of a couple of years ago and not the super-productive rejuvenated unicorn of last year.

I agree that a lot depends on his health, but if the guy is healthy, he is an absolute force out there. Having Claxton ahead of him is even more hilarious because he is only two spots above KP, so they literally had to deliberate between the two, and decided, 'yeah, definitely Claxton at 59, then let's assume a breakout year by Paolo, and then Porzingis at 61'.

What is more intriguing is the rating of 3 of our other players just a few spots away, highlighted by Horford at 67.