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

[LilRip]

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.

This is so flawed. Kevin Garnett and Tmac sure are some bonafide bums then huh?

KG won MVP the year he got Cassell and Sprewell aka the year he made it out of the 1st round. Those weren’t some lame players. He finally got legit help. Prior to that though, KG was a perennial loser whose stats and impact didn’t translate to team playoff success.

[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.

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."

Most of your posts in this thread reek of “grass is always greener” syndrome. Points you’re willing to give to other non-Celtics are ones you aren’t willing to give to Tatum. Confusing, to say the least

[Somebody]

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."

Most of your posts in this thread reek of “grass is always greener” syndrome. Points you’re willing to give to other non-Celtics are ones you aren’t willing to give to Tatum. Confusing, to say the least

To be fair I think his actual evaluations aren't that bad - I wouldn't rate post-injury OKC George and Derrick Rose as MVP level players, but I absolutely think that Chris Paul had one of the finer peaks among floor generals.

[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.

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."

Most of your posts in this thread reek of “grass is always greener” syndrome. Points you’re willing to give to other non-Celtics are ones you aren’t willing to give to Tatum. Confusing, to say the least

To be fair I think his actual evaluations aren't that bad - I wouldn't rate post-injury OKC George and Derrick Rose as MVP level players, but I absolutely think that Chris Paul had one of the finer peaks among floor generals.

He said “Tatum = Paul George”, which I assumed to mean peak PG13 - absolutely an MVP calibre player. Rose is one I agree about, his MVP was narrative more than impact.

Chris Paul is someone I also think had an elite peak. But his peak was littered with playoff runs that didn’t go as far as most thought they would. And that was due to his team situation. Phosita gives leeway to Paul & KG for being held back by bad teams but not to Tatum, without explaining why.

[Moranis]

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."

While Tatum was a rookie on a team in the ECF and arguably its best player, Tatum was also on a ECF team in his 3rd year and was unquestioned and without a doubt the best player on that team and that team did not have Horford on it at all.

[Moranis]

Also, since he entered the league, Tatum has played in 50 playoff games.  I believe over that same 4 year period that only the Bucks have played in more playoff games as team.  And Tatum was the most important player, if not the best, on all 4 of those teams.

[nickagneta]

Also, since he entered the league, Tatum has played in 50 playoff games.  I believe over that same 4 year period that only the Bucks have played in more playoff games as team.  And Tatum was the most important player, if not the best, on all 4 of those teams.

A very strong argument can be made that on both those ECF runs, Brown was the most important player, as Brown was the second leading scorer who was also defending the vastly superior offensive player from the competition.

[PhoSita]

Most of your posts in this thread reek of “grass is always greener” syndrome. Points you’re willing to give to other non-Celtics are ones you aren’t willing to give to Tatum. Confusing, to say the least

See I think you're doing basically the same thing. Youre not willing to concede anything I have to say has merit because you need to defend this idea that Tatum is a great player.


I think an argument is always stronger if you're willing to concede that the other side has some valid points, unless you really think the other side is just being totally unreasonable and not acknowledging a basic reality.

Tatum, over the course of his career so far, has been a very good (not great) player.  He is an excellent scorer.  He has carried the offensive load of a lead scorer on multiple deep playoff runs.  He's shown that he can maintain scoring efficiency even against top playoff defenses.  He's done that despite never being particularly effective at drawing fouls and getting to the free throw line.  He's a pretty good (not great) defender.

This season, Tatum has not been up to his standard.  Mostly because his jumpshot has come and gone (more the latter than the former).  Without a jumpshot, Tatum's impact is greatly muted.  Because he still takes a lot of jumpshots, he he just doesn't hit them. 


To me, a great player impacts the game in multiple dimensions.  A great player -- i.e. top 10-15, MVP conversation type player -- doesn't have to hit jumpshots at a high percentage in order to make a big impact.  I am not convinced from what I have seen from Tatum the last two years that he consistently does that.  I 100% agree that Tatum is still young and still has room to grow --- though he's not that young.  He's been in the league for almost 5 seasons and he's been in a bunch of playoff games as well.  I don't know if room for growth is the same when a player has played a ton at the NBA level by a young age.


It's a bit mystifying to me that I'm on a Celtics forum and I have to explain the difference between what Kevin Garnett brought to the table versus Jayson Tatum.  Kevin Garnett wasn't just a scorer.  He wasn't just a good defensive rebounder.  He was just an elite individual scorer, though he was that.  Kevin Garnett was a monster, defensive leader.  KG changed the Celtics overnight.

Chris Paul has demonstrated the ability to have the same kind of impact.  He took a young Suns team with a lot of talent but not a lot of proven success and turned it into a contender.  He did a similar thing when he joined the Clippers and turned a fun young team with a couple of dunk targets into a perennial contender.

Neither Paul nor Garnett were perfect.  The whole reason the Celts were able to trade for KG is that he spent years not quite being able to take the T-Wolves all the way, because he didn't have enough help.  KG was a very good scorer and an amazing defensive anchor, but he was not really the kind of guy who would consistently take over his team's offense and score a la Lebron or Kobe or something. 

Paul has demonstrated similar limitations. He exerts amazing control over his team and instills structure that provides a high floor of consistent execution in the halfcourt.  He's a tremendous half court scorer, able to get to his spots in the mid-range and get a shot off against almost anyone.  But there's only so much you can do as a 5'11'' guard whose go-to is a 12 foot elbow jumper.


There's lots to commend about Tatum.  But if his three point jumper isn't falling, he hasn't consistently shown that he knows how to will his team to victory.  He, like the rest of this Celtics team the last few years, just keeps going back to the well hoping the threes will start falling.  Tatum has improved a lot as a creator and passer, but he's still not the kind of creator who you want to build an offense around. 

It would certainly help to improve the shooting around him, but I don't think it's that simple.  You're still gonna have a team that lacks a player who can consistently run pick and roll, break down a defense, and make crisp passes to open shooters or rolling big men.  You're still going to have an offense premised on having most of the shot attempts coming from two guys who take a lot of jumpshots and not a lot of free throws.  The DNA of the team is still going to be to try to beat the other team with haymaker threes rather than forcing the issue inside and dominating with athleticism or toughness.

Lastly, I'll reiterate that stating that Tatum is not currently a top 10-15 player is not the same thing as saying he'll never be one.  Saying that he has not been as good this season as he has been in the past is not the same as saying that he won't bounce back. 

I just don't know why it's so important to some people to continue to hold up Jayson Tatum as this wonderful player despite how much the team has struggled as the team has increasingly become centered around him the last couple of seasons.  It's possible to appreciate Tatum without insisting that he has no flaws and all the team's problems are due to everybody but him.

[Moranis]

So now we are blaming Tatum for the talent on the team becoming significantly worse and less talented.

[PhoSita]

So now we are blaming Tatum for the talent on the team becoming significantly worse and less talented.

a profoundly bad faith interpretation of what I'm saying

[Celtics2021]

Also, since he entered the league, Tatum has played in 50 playoff games.  I believe over that same 4 year period that only the Bucks have played in more playoff games as team.  And Tatum was the most important player, if not the best, on all 4 of those teams.

A very strong argument can be made that on both those ECF runs, Brown was the most important player, as Brown was the second leading scorer who was also defending the vastly superior offensive player from the competition.

I think you can make that argument for the first ECF, but Tatum was  team’s leading scorer, rebounder, and pretty much was dead even with Kemba in assists.  He went for 26/10/5, and played enough defense to lead the team in blocks.  I hate comparing the two, and I’m behind probably only you in my admiration for Jaylen Brown on this board, but Tatum was absolutely the team’s best player in the 2019-2020 season and playoffs.

[PhoSita]

Also, since he entered the league, Tatum has played in 50 playoff games.  I believe over that same 4 year period that only the Bucks have played in more playoff games as team.  And Tatum was the most important player, if not the best, on all 4 of those teams.

A very strong argument can be made that on both those ECF runs, Brown was the most important player, as Brown was the second leading scorer who was also defending the vastly superior offensive player from the competition.

I think you can make that argument for the first ECF, but Tatum was  team’s leading scorer, rebounder, and pretty much was dead even with Kemba in assists.  He went for 26/10/5, and played enough defense to lead the team in blocks.  I hate comparing the two, and I’m behind probably only you in my admiration for Jaylen Brown on this board, but Tatum was absolutely the team’s best player in the 2019-2020 season and playoffs.

I think you're totally right. Tatum was awesome in that playoff run.

The team, including Tatum, just wasn't very good at executing down the stretch of close games.  They managed to get past the Raps (who also really lacked a closer without Kawhi), but the Heat made them look hapless in the 4th quarter.  Unfortunately that has continued to be a big problem ever since.

[Rondo9]

I just don't know why it's so important to some people to continue to hold up Jayson Tatum as this wonderful player despite how much the team has struggled as the team has increasingly become centered around him the last couple of seasons.  It's possible to appreciate Tatum without insisting that he has no flaws and all the team's problems are due to everybody but him.

Who is saying that? If anything people are critical of Tatum, they just disagree with your assertions in this thread.

[Moranis]

So now we are blaming Tatum for the talent on the team becoming significantly worse and less talented.

a profoundly bad faith interpretation of what I'm saying

so you didn't say this in your concluding paragraph

I just don't know why it's so important to some people to continue to hold up Jayson Tatum as this wonderful player despite how much the team has struggled as the team has increasingly become centered around him the last couple of seasons.

I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way than how I interpreted it. 

[PhoSita]

So now we are blaming Tatum for the talent on the team becoming significantly worse and less talented.

a profoundly bad faith interpretation of what I'm saying

so you didn't say this in your concluding paragraph

I just don't know why it's so important to some people to continue to hold up Jayson Tatum as this wonderful player despite how much the team has struggled as the team has increasingly become centered around him the last couple of seasons.

I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way than how I interpreted it.

sure, this makes complete sense if you decide not to read anything else that I wrote

but yes, let's deal in false dichotomies. because that's how people who respect each other engage in discourse.

you have two options

(1) Jayson Tatum is awesome; he has no real flaws or holes in his game, and the only reason the team isn't great is because the talent around him is not good enough

(2) Tatum isn't actually that good, he was never good, he's completely overrated, not a winner, etc