Are we witnessing Jayson Tatum becoming a top 5 NBA player?

[PhoSita]

It seems like whenever Tatum starts going out of his way to create space to launch 3's, that's generally going to be a bad-Tatum game.  Absolutely horrible shot attempts, and he's going at it like it's the most desirable shot in the NBA if he can get one off.

Same flaw as Paul George that held PG13 back from becoming a top line offensive player. That settling for long distance jump-shots off the dribble instead of driving more and getting to the rim for easier shots or to the FT line for easy points.

Also comparable links between PG13 and Tatum in terms of ball-handling and passing limitations. Those stopped PG13 from becoming a Tracy McGrady type multi-faceted offensive weapon.

Tatum = Paul George

I'm not sure what the comp is for Brown. A lesser scoring focused wing. Not on the level of Middleton but better than, say, Harrison Barnes.

Would we expect a team built around Paul George and Khris Middleton, without any comparable third talent, to be particularly good?

Given Paul George was an MVP candidate prior to his shoulder injuries and Middleton has proven to be a capable #2 alongside an MVP level talent, maybe.

Should he have ever really been talked about as a MVP candidate? When did Paul George ever carry a team?

Early in his career his Pacers teams went deep into the playoffs ...when his team was loaded with talent.  Sound familiar?

At the apex of his individual ability, George's Thunder teams won about 50 games and lost in the first round.

Hmmm....

He was incredible in his final season at OKC. Winning doesn't determine how good a player is, ya know?

I think team success says a great deal about how impactful a player is when he's the best player on his team.

[gouki88]

It seems like whenever Tatum starts going out of his way to create space to launch 3's, that's generally going to be a bad-Tatum game.  Absolutely horrible shot attempts, and he's going at it like it's the most desirable shot in the NBA if he can get one off.

Same flaw as Paul George that held PG13 back from becoming a top line offensive player. That settling for long distance jump-shots off the dribble instead of driving more and getting to the rim for easier shots or to the FT line for easy points.

Also comparable links between PG13 and Tatum in terms of ball-handling and passing limitations. Those stopped PG13 from becoming a Tracy McGrady type multi-faceted offensive weapon.

Tatum = Paul George

I'm not sure what the comp is for Brown. A lesser scoring focused wing. Not on the level of Middleton but better than, say, Harrison Barnes.

Would we expect a team built around Paul George and Khris Middleton, without any comparable third talent, to be particularly good?

Given Paul George was an MVP candidate prior to his shoulder injuries and Middleton has proven to be a capable #2 alongside an MVP level talent, maybe.

Should he have ever really been talked about as a MVP candidate? When did Paul George ever carry a team?

Early in his career his Pacers teams went deep into the playoffs ...when his team was loaded with talent.  Sound familiar?

At the apex of his individual ability, George's Thunder teams won about 50 games and lost in the first round.

Hmmm....

He was incredible in his final season at OKC. Winning doesn't determine how good a player is, ya know?

I think team success says a great deal about how impactful a player is when he's the best player on his team.

I think that is a very narrow way of looking at it. We've seen countless players who have been massively impactful, only to be hindered by their team situation. Kevin Garnett is the perfect example of this.

[PhoSita]

It seems like whenever Tatum starts going out of his way to create space to launch 3's, that's generally going to be a bad-Tatum game.  Absolutely horrible shot attempts, and he's going at it like it's the most desirable shot in the NBA if he can get one off.

Same flaw as Paul George that held PG13 back from becoming a top line offensive player. That settling for long distance jump-shots off the dribble instead of driving more and getting to the rim for easier shots or to the FT line for easy points.

Also comparable links between PG13 and Tatum in terms of ball-handling and passing limitations. Those stopped PG13 from becoming a Tracy McGrady type multi-faceted offensive weapon.

Tatum = Paul George

I'm not sure what the comp is for Brown. A lesser scoring focused wing. Not on the level of Middleton but better than, say, Harrison Barnes.

Would we expect a team built around Paul George and Khris Middleton, without any comparable third talent, to be particularly good?

Given Paul George was an MVP candidate prior to his shoulder injuries and Middleton has proven to be a capable #2 alongside an MVP level talent, maybe.

Should he have ever really been talked about as a MVP candidate? When did Paul George ever carry a team?

Early in his career his Pacers teams went deep into the playoffs ...when his team was loaded with talent.  Sound familiar?

At the apex of his individual ability, George's Thunder teams won about 50 games and lost in the first round.

Hmmm....

He was incredible in his final season at OKC. Winning doesn't determine how good a player is, ya know?

I think team success says a great deal about how impactful a player is when he's the best player on his team.

I think that is a very narrow way of looking at it. We've seen countless players who have been massively impactful, only to be hindered by their team situation. Kevin Garnett is the perfect example of this.

Kevin Garnett won MVP and had at least one run where he carried a pretty lame Timberwolves team, as I recall.

Also Jayson Tatum doesn't do half the things Kevin Garnett did.

[gouki88]

It seems like whenever Tatum starts going out of his way to create space to launch 3's, that's generally going to be a bad-Tatum game.  Absolutely horrible shot attempts, and he's going at it like it's the most desirable shot in the NBA if he can get one off.

Same flaw as Paul George that held PG13 back from becoming a top line offensive player. That settling for long distance jump-shots off the dribble instead of driving more and getting to the rim for easier shots or to the FT line for easy points.

Also comparable links between PG13 and Tatum in terms of ball-handling and passing limitations. Those stopped PG13 from becoming a Tracy McGrady type multi-faceted offensive weapon.

Tatum = Paul George

I'm not sure what the comp is for Brown. A lesser scoring focused wing. Not on the level of Middleton but better than, say, Harrison Barnes.

Would we expect a team built around Paul George and Khris Middleton, without any comparable third talent, to be particularly good?

Given Paul George was an MVP candidate prior to his shoulder injuries and Middleton has proven to be a capable #2 alongside an MVP level talent, maybe.

Should he have ever really been talked about as a MVP candidate? When did Paul George ever carry a team?

Early in his career his Pacers teams went deep into the playoffs ...when his team was loaded with talent.  Sound familiar?

At the apex of his individual ability, George's Thunder teams won about 50 games and lost in the first round.

Hmmm....

He was incredible in his final season at OKC. Winning doesn't determine how good a player is, ya know?

I think team success says a great deal about how impactful a player is when he's the best player on his team.

I think that is a very narrow way of looking at it. We've seen countless players who have been massively impactful, only to be hindered by their team situation. Kevin Garnett is the perfect example of this.

Kevin Garnett won MVP and had at least one run where he carried a pretty lame Timberwolves team, as I recall.

Also Jayson Tatum doesn't do half the things Kevin Garnett did.

I feel like you're moving the goalposts now. What about Chris Paul? Has played on numerous stacked teams, should be in MVP considerations in your words, yet has routinely fallen short of winning. What's up with that?

[cltc5]

Tatum and brown are exactly what they are gonna be.  Two guys that will give you decent amount of points sporadically but can稚 carry a team nor do the things to make everyone else and the team better. 

[nickagneta]

Back to earth with a thud? 

 

Oz isn't wrong. All the talk was after two amazing games and then Tatum laid an egg last night. The main component of being a top 5-10 star in the league is to CONSISTENTLY  be amazing. Not be amazing for two games then not good for a game then amazing for a game then meh to bad for three then rinse and repeat for the next 7 games.

Tatum has shot poorly all year. His scoring on most nights sure seems like stat padding on a bad team by scoring 26 points on a ton of night on 24-26 shots. He shoots a whole bunch of bad shots out of the rhythm of the offense every night. That simply is not top 5 NBA player material.

Is it? Steph Curry, James Harden and Paul George have all been wildly inconsistent in their shooting this season, yet I don't think many would argue that they are not top 10. Maybe PG13 isn't, but Harden and Curry are firmly in it.

Steph Curry in particular has been very much like that this season. He almost has as many games under 30% from the field as he does over 50% from the field, and yet none of this kind of criticism is directed his way. In fact, he's been in MVP talks all year. The wonders of competent coaching.

"This year" is the part of your argument that falls apart.

Those guys became established as 5-10 top stars by first being consistently amazing over time, like for years. They are having a down year "this year", but history tells us they are consistently great.

Tatum doesn't have that top 5-10 player history for even one year, nevermind years of it. His consistency is not good. Isn't this year, wasn't last year, and before his All-NBA year his results weren't that of a top 10 player. Even that All-NBA year it was only top 15. He has had exactly one consistent and great year, but it was a top 15 year.

Consistency over time matters. Your opinion misses on that front.

[gouki88]

Back to earth with a thud? 

 

Oz isn't wrong. All the talk was after two amazing games and then Tatum laid an egg last night. The main component of being a top 5-10 star in the league is to CONSISTENTLY  be amazing. Not be amazing for two games then not good for a game then amazing for a game then meh to bad for three then rinse and repeat for the next 7 games.

Tatum has shot poorly all year. His scoring on most nights sure seems like stat padding on a bad team by scoring 26 points on a ton of night on 24-26 shots. He shoots a whole bunch of bad shots out of the rhythm of the offense every night. That simply is not top 5 NBA player material.

Is it? Steph Curry, James Harden and Paul George have all been wildly inconsistent in their shooting this season, yet I don't think many would argue that they are not top 10. Maybe PG13 isn't, but Harden and Curry are firmly in it.

Steph Curry in particular has been very much like that this season. He almost has as many games under 30% from the field as he does over 50% from the field, and yet none of this kind of criticism is directed his way. In fact, he's been in MVP talks all year. The wonders of competent coaching.

"This year" is the part of your argument that falls apart.

Those guys became established as 5-10 top stars by first being consistently amazing over time, like for years. They are having a down year "this year", but history tells us they are consistently great.

Tatum doesn't have that top 5-10 player history for even one year, nevermind years of it. His consistency is not good. Isn't this year, wasn't last year, and before his All-NBA year his results weren't that of a top 10 player. Even that All-NBA year it was only top 15. He has had exactly one consistent and great year, but it was a top 15 year.

Consistency over time matters. Your opinion misses on that front.

Sure. But for so many in this thread (not yourself) the assumption is that Tatum (and Brown) are finished products. Curry, Harden, Butler, Jokic and Embiid were not the MVP calibre guys they are today at 23.

[nickagneta]

Back to earth with a thud? 

 

Oz isn't wrong. All the talk was after two amazing games and then Tatum laid an egg last night. The main component of being a top 5-10 star in the league is to CONSISTENTLY  be amazing. Not be amazing for two games then not good for a game then amazing for a game then meh to bad for three then rinse and repeat for the next 7 games.

Tatum has shot poorly all year. His scoring on most nights sure seems like stat padding on a bad team by scoring 26 points on a ton of night on 24-26 shots. He shoots a whole bunch of bad shots out of the rhythm of the offense every night. That simply is not top 5 NBA player material.

Is it? Steph Curry, James Harden and Paul George have all been wildly inconsistent in their shooting this season, yet I don't think many would argue that they are not top 10. Maybe PG13 isn't, but Harden and Curry are firmly in it.

Steph Curry in particular has been very much like that this season. He almost has as many games under 30% from the field as he does over 50% from the field, and yet none of this kind of criticism is directed his way. In fact, he's been in MVP talks all year. The wonders of competent coaching.

"This year" is the part of your argument that falls apart.

Those guys became established as 5-10 top stars by first being consistently amazing over time, like for years. They are having a down year "this year", but history tells us they are consistently great.

Tatum doesn't have that top 5-10 player history for even one year, nevermind years of it. His consistency is not good. Isn't this year, wasn't last year, and before his All-NBA year his results weren't that of a top 10 player. Even that All-NBA year it was only top 15. He has had exactly one consistent and great year, but it was a top 15 year.

Consistency over time matters. Your opinion misses on that front.

Sure. But for so many in this thread (not yourself) the assumption is that Tatum (and Brown) are finished products. Curry, Harden, Butler, Jokic and Embiid were not the MVP calibre guys they are today at 23.

Neither are finished products. I see Brown as a Jimmy Butler type that can hit threes but not create as well in 3 or so years and I see Tatum as a Kevin Durant-lite player in 3-4 years.

They're only 24 and 25. We are seeing growing pains. We are seeing a better surrounding group is needed. We are seeing a better, more seasoned coach is needed.

Stevens is right about the Jays not being the problem. Everything else, including Brad, is the issue

[PhoSita]

I feel like you're moving the goalposts now. What about Chris Paul? Has played on numerous stacked teams, should be in MVP considerations in your words, yet has routinely fallen short of winning. What's up with that?

Chris Paul is the clear cut best player on the team with the best or second best record in the league.  That same team was pretty good not great before he joined them, now they're a contender.


I don't think this is actually that hard to understand.

[PhoSita]

Neither are finished products. I see Brown as a Jimmy Butler type that can hit threes but not create as well in 3 or so years and I see Tatum as a Kevin Durant-lite player in 3-4 years.

in 3-4 years Brown will have already hit UFA and Tatum will be about to hit UFA

[gouki88]

I feel like you're moving the goalposts now. What about Chris Paul? Has played on numerous stacked teams, should be in MVP considerations in your words, yet has routinely fallen short of winning. What's up with that?

Chris Paul is the clear cut best player on the team with the best or second best record in the league.  That same team was pretty good not great before he joined them, now they're a contender.


I don't think this is actually that hard to understand.

Please define clear-cut for me. Because there is absolutely no consensus that Chris Paul is better than Devin Booker.

Jayson Tatum was the best player on a Conference Finalist. It took Chris Paul until he was 35 to go any further than that. Your standards are all over the shop.

[nickagneta]

Neither are finished products. I see Brown as a Jimmy Butler type that can hit threes but not create as well in 3 or so years and I see Tatum as a Kevin Durant-lite player in 3-4 years.

in 3-4 years Brown will have already hit UFA and Tatum will be about to hit UFA

And?

Is your assumption that they leave in 2-3 years because of mediocre years in the beginning of their current contracts?

I think that's an assumption that could turn out to be a very, very bad one.

[PhoSita]

Neither are finished products. I see Brown as a Jimmy Butler type that can hit threes but not create as well in 3 or so years and I see Tatum as a Kevin Durant-lite player in 3-4 years.

in 3-4 years Brown will have already hit UFA and Tatum will be about to hit UFA

And?

Is your assumption that they leave in 2-3 years because of mediocre years in the beginning of their current contracts?

I think that's an assumption that could turn out to be a very, very bad one.

I think if the Celtics don't seem like a team on the rise again (rather than a team that has stagnated after looking like they were on the rise), Brown is going to explore his options in FA. If brown leaves, Tatum will follow the next summer.

There's still time, clearly. But not THAT much time. Next summer, Brown will be entering his last season before UFA.

[RJ87]

Back to earth with a thud? 

 

Oz isn't wrong. All the talk was after two amazing games and then Tatum laid an egg last night. The main component of being a top 5-10 star in the league is to CONSISTENTLY  be amazing. Not be amazing for two games then not good for a game then amazing for a game then meh to bad for three then rinse and repeat for the next 7 games.

Tatum has shot poorly all year. His scoring on most nights sure seems like stat padding on a bad team by scoring 26 points on a ton of night on 24-26 shots. He shoots a whole bunch of bad shots out of the rhythm of the offense every night. That simply is not top 5 NBA player material.

Is it? Steph Curry, James Harden and Paul George have all been wildly inconsistent in their shooting this season, yet I don't think many would argue that they are not top 10. Maybe PG13 isn't, but Harden and Curry are firmly in it.

Steph Curry in particular has been very much like that this season. He almost has as many games under 30% from the field as he does over 50% from the field, and yet none of this kind of criticism is directed his way. In fact, he's been in MVP talks all year. The wonders of competent coaching.

"This year" is the part of your argument that falls apart.

Those guys became established as 5-10 top stars by first being consistently amazing over time, like for years. They are having a down year "this year", but history tells us they are consistently great.

Tatum doesn't have that top 5-10 player history for even one year, nevermind years of it. His consistency is not good. Isn't this year, wasn't last year, and before his All-NBA year his results weren't that of a top 10 player. Even that All-NBA year it was only top 15. He has had exactly one consistent and great year, but it was a top 15 year.

Consistency over time matters. Your opinion misses on that front.

Sure. But for so many in this thread (not yourself) the assumption is that Tatum (and Brown) are finished products. Curry, Harden, Butler, Jokic and Embiid were not the MVP calibre guys they are today at 23.

Neither are finished products. I see Brown as a Jimmy Butler type that can hit threes but not create as well in 3 or so years and I see Tatum as a Kevin Durant-lite player in 3-4 years.

They're only 24 and 25. We are seeing growing pains. We are seeing a better surrounding group is needed. We are seeing a better, more seasoned coach is needed.

Stevens is right about the Jays not being the problem. Everything else, including Brad, is the issue

I saw the perfect tweet the other day. It said "people's biggest problem with Tatum is that he's not 27."

[PhoSita]

I feel like you're moving the goalposts now. What about Chris Paul? Has played on numerous stacked teams, should be in MVP considerations in your words, yet has routinely fallen short of winning. What's up with that?

Chris Paul is the clear cut best player on the team with the best or second best record in the league.  That same team was pretty good not great before he joined them, now they're a contender.


I don't think this is actually that hard to understand.

Please define clear-cut for me. Because there is absolutely no consensus that Chris Paul is better than Devin Booker.

Jayson Tatum was the best player on a Conference Finalist. It took Chris Paul until he was 35 to go any further than that. Your standards are all over the shop.

I don't really think Tatum was the best player on that ECF team to be honest. Horford was the best player on the team. Tatum was the leading scorer.  Which was still very impressive for a rookie. But Horford was the lynchpin of that squad.

I think what we're learning in this interaction is that we have very different ways to assessing players.

Booker is a good scorer. The Suns were a borderline playoff team with Booker as the lead scorer before Paul got there.

Then when Paul joined the team, they majorly leveled up.

As for Paul's career, I think you have to really willfully overlook what he's done to boil it down to "he didn't reach a conference finals until he was 35."