Jayson tatum slander all over media

[Vermont Green]

Wanted to bump this thread after reading the following on reddit today:   

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games. If we do win 65 games, this Celtics team will be the only team in NBA history to win 65 games without an MVP or a player who has won MVP.

The disrespect the league and the media has shown Tatum despite being the best player on one of the best regular season teams of all time is literally historic.

Do you think he's the MVP? I don't, and I think most of us biased Celtics fans think it is Jokic.

I think that if Tatum was second behind only Jokic, everyone would be fine with that. But Tatum is currently running fifth.  The top 5 are all good players. All of them are stars. So it is tough. 

[Donoghus]

I mean, he's not MVP.  I don't think there is really a compelling argument for MVP outside of being "best player on best team" which isn't much of an argument, IMO. 

He's all star. He'll probably be first time all-NBA, and he'll most likely be Finals MVP come June when the Celtics win the title.   His seasonal resume to date is just fine. 

He's going to get his day in the sun.

[Moranis]

Wanted to bump this thread after reading the following on reddit today:   

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games. If we do win 65 games, this Celtics team will be the only team in NBA history to win 65 games without an MVP or a player who has won MVP.

The disrespect the league and the media has shown Tatum despite being the best player on one of the best regular season teams of all time is literally historic.

Do you think he's the MVP? I don't, and I think most of us biased Celtics fans think it is Jokic.

I think that if Tatum was second behind only Jokic, everyone would be fine with that. But Tatum is currently running fifth.  The top 5 are all good players. All of them are stars. So it is tough.

They have all had better and more valuable years as well.  Tatum has had the 5th best season.  That is just reality.

[Silas]

I don't think JT is the most valuable player in the NBA this season.  I found the info on reddit about MVPs and winning 65 games interesting.  That's all.

[green_bballers13]

I don't think JT is the most valuable player in the NBA this season.  I found the info on reddit about MVPs and winning 65 games interesting.  That's all.

I think it's a testament to the amount of talent that Brad/Danny accumulated. Horford, Brown, and Tatum were all the third pick in their draft. Porzingis went 4th, and Jrue went 17th.

[bdm860]

Wanted to bump this thread after reading the following on reddit today:   

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games. If we do win 65 games, this Celtics team will be the only team in NBA history to win 65 games without an MVP or a player who has won MVP.

The disrespect the league and the media has shown Tatum despite being the best player on one of the best regular season teams of all time is literally historic.

I think the "or a player who has won MVP" is really twisting the "stat" to fit an agenda.

Yes, there's a high correlation between a lot of wins and MVP, but it doesn't mean it should just be given to a player on a team with a lot of wins either. 

'72 Lakers (69 wins) didn't have an MVP that year,  Jerry West, their best player that year, never won an MVP.  But they had Wilt who won an MVP 4 years earlier on a different team.  Should that really count?

'97 Bulls (69 wins), Michael Jordan didn't win MVP that year.  Does it really matter if he them before? 

'16 Spurs (67 wins).  Sure 39 year old Duncan won an MVP 13 years prior.  But he was like the 6th best player on that team by 5th-6th best player on that team (by PER or WS, or minutes or PPG, etc.).  At best you could argue he was 3rd best, but that still leaves disrespect for Kawhi (though this one would be an asterisks because well the Warriors won 72 that same year).

'17 Warriors (67 wins).  No MVP that year for Steph, didn't even finish top 5, okay maybe voter fatigue here as he won the last 2.

'08 Celtics (66 wins).  I don't care that Garnett won MVP on another team 4 years prior.  Where's the respect for the Celtics?

'09 Lakers (65 wins).  I can give this one an asterisks too, because MVP LeBron led the Cavs to 66 wins.

There's more if we go past the arbitrary threshold of 65 wins.  You have the '06 Pistons (64 wins), the '22 Suns (64 wins), the '89 Pistons (63 wins), the '91 Blazers (63 wins), '94 Sonics (63 wins), etc.

So I don't think there's really anything in the history books that shows players who lead their teams to a lot of wins have a right to win MVP.

If the team only had Derrick Rose or Russell Westbrook on the bench though, they'd be okay.

[Kernewek]

Wanted to bump this thread after reading the following on reddit today:   

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games. If we do win 65 games, this Celtics team will be the only team in NBA history to win 65 games without an MVP or a player who has won MVP.

The disrespect the league and the media has shown Tatum despite being the best player on one of the best regular season teams of all time is literally historic.

I think the "or a player who has won MVP" is really twisting the "stat" to fit an agenda.

Yes, there's a high correlation between a lot of wins and MVP, but it doesn't mean it should just be given to a player on a team with a lot of wins either. 

'72 Lakers (69 wins) didn't have an MVP that year,  Jerry West, their best player that year, never won an MVP.  But they had Wilt who won an MVP 4 years earlier on a different team.  Should that really count?

'97 Bulls (69 wins), Michael Jordan didn't win MVP that year.  Does it really matter if he them before? 

'16 Spurs (67 wins).  Sure 39 year old Duncan won an MVP 13 years prior.  But he was like the 6th best player on that team by 5th-6th best player on that team (by PER or WS, or minutes or PPG, etc.).  At best you could argue he was 3rd best, but that still leaves disrespect for Kawhi (though this one would be an asterisks because well the Warriors won 72 that same year).

'17 Warriors (67 wins).  No MVP that year for Steph, didn't even finish top 5, okay maybe voter fatigue here as he won the last 2.

'08 Celtics (66 wins).  I don't care that Garnett won MVP on another team 4 years prior.  Where's the respect for the Celtics?

'09 Lakers (65 wins).  I can give this one an asterisks too, because MVP LeBron led the Cavs to 66 wins.

There's more if we go past the arbitrary threshold of 65 wins. You have the '06 Pistons (64 wins), the '22 Suns (64 wins), the '89 Pistons (63 wins), the '91 Blazers (63 wins), '94 Sonics (63 wins), etc.

So I don't think there's really anything in the history books that shows players who lead their teams to a lot of wins have a right to win MVP.

If the team only had Derrick Rose or Russell Westbrook on the bench though, they'd be okay.

Very good post. I would just say that the 65-wins rule doesn't feel entirely arbitrary, because 65 games is the current threshold for games played in order for a player to be eligible for MVP.

Obviously wins=/=games, but the number is coming from somewhere.

[Vermont Green]

I am not sure anyone is trying to argue that it will be a slight if Tatum doesn't win MVP this season.  He probably has a better chance to win final MVP and that probably means more anyway.  But team success is a factor in the consideration of regular season MVP.  There are no set metrics so every voter and fan approaches it differently but team success is a factor and Tatum's team has the most wins by a pretty wide margin.

Individual stats and performance of course matter too and probably should be weighted heavier than team success.  People like to quote on/off point differential but that is tricky as it depends on the rest of the team.  I dug into the numbers earlier and Tatum is playing more with the bench and less with the starters than he did last season.  That is affecting his on/off.  Tatum is scoring less and taking less shots.  But does that make him less valuable?

The other thing that is impossible to measure or quantify is the "makes others better" factor.  I think everyone would agree that a player that makes other players better more than other top players make other players better is more valuable.  I think Tatum is making other players better, especially some of the bench players.  But how do you measure that relative to other top players?

The answer to all of these questions is that you just have to take in everything, stats, games, defense, team success, everything and make a judgement.  In my judgement, Tatum is more valuable Luka and Shai, and this season maybe even more valuable than Giannis.  A lot of that is based on things you can't measure or quantify in a stat.  For example, are Luka and Shai making others better?  Is Giannis?  Are they sacrificing shots or other opportunities to help the team win?  In my opinion, not as much as Tatum.

It is all really close.  I would vote for Jokic for MVP if I had a vote but I see 2-5 as really close.  I can't see the Celtics as having more wins if we traded Tatum for Luka or Shai, and probably not Giannis either.  Or being more likely to win a title.

[Moranis]

Luka literally doubles Tatum in apg. He scores more on a better efficiency. He rebounds more.  SGA scores more on a much better efficiency and gets more assists. He is also an equal overall defender that produces more defensive stats.

They are both statistically a lot better than Tatum and frankly are both probably better overall players.  It isn't particularly close either. There is after all a reason the final straw poll came out like it did with Tatum being closer to Brunson in 6th than he was to Giannis in 4th.

[Vermont Green]

Luka literally doubles Tatum in apg. He scores more on a better efficiency. He rebounds more.  SGA scores more on a much better efficiency and gets more assists. He is also an equal overall defender that produces more defensive stats.

They are both statistically a lot better than Tatum and frankly are both probably better overall players.  It isn't particularly close either. There is after all a reason the final straw poll came out like it did with Tatum being closer to Brunson in 6th than he was to Giannis in 4th.

So if we swapped Luka for Tatum at the start of the season, how many more wins do you think the Celtics would have?  Same question for Shai?

Also, with all those points and assists, do you think Luka is making other players better?  I know this is impossible to measure or quantify, but I don't see it.  What I see is that if anything, Luka makes other players worse.  I have seen a lot less of Shai and most of his time in the league has been on lottery teams, so harder to judge if he is making anyone better.  I know that people will look at on/off stats, and that is fair but I don't think either of these players, in place of Tatum, would make the Celtics better, to the same degree that Tatum does.

[Moranis]

Luka literally doubles Tatum in apg. He scores more on a better efficiency. He rebounds more.  SGA scores more on a much better efficiency and gets more assists. He is also an equal overall defender that produces more defensive stats.

They are both statistically a lot better than Tatum and frankly are both probably better overall players.  It isn't particularly close either. There is after all a reason the final straw poll came out like it did with Tatum being closer to Brunson in 6th than he was to Giannis in 4th.

So if we swapped Luka for Tatum at the start of the season, how many more wins do you think the Celtics would have?  Same question for Shai?

Also, with all those points and assists, do you think Luka is making other players better?  I know this is impossible to measure or quantify, but I don't see it.  What I see is that if anything, Luka makes other players worse.  I have seen a lot less of Shai and most of his time in the league has been on lottery teams, so harder to judge if he is making anyone better.  I know that people will look at on/off stats, and that is fair but I don't think either of these players, in place of Tatum, would make the Celtics better, to the same degree that Tatum does.

neither of those guys can play PF, which makes it hard. I will say, I think Dallas is worse with Tatum than they are with Doncic.  Same probably holds true for OKC and Shai.  Those teams need their top guys to be what they are. Boston has enough talent that their top guy can have a lot of different strengths so you could more easily swap out Tatum for someone else.  I just don't think you can do that in Dallas at all and to a lesser extent on OKC.

[Vermont Green]

Luka literally doubles Tatum in apg. He scores more on a better efficiency. He rebounds more.  SGA scores more on a much better efficiency and gets more assists. He is also an equal overall defender that produces more defensive stats.

They are both statistically a lot better than Tatum and frankly are both probably better overall players.  It isn't particularly close either. There is after all a reason the final straw poll came out like it did with Tatum being closer to Brunson in 6th than he was to Giannis in 4th.

So if we swapped Luka for Tatum at the start of the season, how many more wins do you think the Celtics would have?  Same question for Shai?

Also, with all those points and assists, do you think Luka is making other players better?  I know this is impossible to measure or quantify, but I don't see it.  What I see is that if anything, Luka makes other players worse.  I have seen a lot less of Shai and most of his time in the league has been on lottery teams, so harder to judge if he is making anyone better.  I know that people will look at on/off stats, and that is fair but I don't think either of these players, in place of Tatum, would make the Celtics better, to the same degree that Tatum does.

neither of those guys can play PF, which makes it hard. I will say, I think Dallas is worse with Tatum than they are with Doncic.  Same probably holds true for OKC and Shai.  Those teams need their top guys to be what they are. Boston has enough talent that their top guy can have a lot of different strengths so you could more easily swap out Tatum for someone else.  I just don't think you can do that in Dallas at all and to a lesser extent on OKC.

Yeah, it is hard to say when considering swapping players around.  On Luka though, he has had a deep pocketed owner for several years, has had several good players around him, Porzingis, Brunson, and the team has still not done anything.  Those players left and got better, one of them coming to the Celtics.  I think if you brought in Luka, Brown, White, Porzingis, maybe others, would all regress.  On the other hand, give Tatum Brunson and Porzingis and what do you think would happen?

Shai is harder to judge on this aspect.  Not enough track record on a team that is good or should be good.  Tatum has shown he can make a good team into a great team, and he is doing it again this year.  Giannis has shown he can do it as well, he just isn't doing it this season to the same extent that Tatum is.

And I am not saying this is the deciding factor, but it is a factor that I believe should be considered when deciding MVP, along with compilation of personal stats, team success, etc.  I know I am in the minority, a place I don't mind being, but I think you and the mainstream sports writers are putting too much weight on the fact that Shai scores 30.3 ppg and Tatum "only" 27.2 ppg.  And yes, Tatum plays forward while Luka and Shai play guard, but I think that is just part of Tatum's value.

[ChillyWilly]

I mean, he's not MVP.  I don't think there is really a compelling argument for MVP outside of being "best player on best team" which isn't much of an argument, IMO. 

He's all star. He'll probably be first time all-NBA, and he'll most likely be Finals MVP come June when the Celtics win the title.   His seasonal resume to date is just fine. 

He's going to get his day in the sun.

My question to you is how is a player with all those accolades not in the top 3 for MVP? Is MVP just best offensive statistical player in the league?

[Moranis]

Luka literally doubles Tatum in apg. He scores more on a better efficiency. He rebounds more.  SGA scores more on a much better efficiency and gets more assists. He is also an equal overall defender that produces more defensive stats.

They are both statistically a lot better than Tatum and frankly are both probably better overall players.  It isn't particularly close either. There is after all a reason the final straw poll came out like it did with Tatum being closer to Brunson in 6th than he was to Giannis in 4th.

So if we swapped Luka for Tatum at the start of the season, how many more wins do you think the Celtics would have?  Same question for Shai?

Also, with all those points and assists, do you think Luka is making other players better?  I know this is impossible to measure or quantify, but I don't see it.  What I see is that if anything, Luka makes other players worse.  I have seen a lot less of Shai and most of his time in the league has been on lottery teams, so harder to judge if he is making anyone better.  I know that people will look at on/off stats, and that is fair but I don't think either of these players, in place of Tatum, would make the Celtics better, to the same degree that Tatum does.

neither of those guys can play PF, which makes it hard. I will say, I think Dallas is worse with Tatum than they are with Doncic.  Same probably holds true for OKC and Shai.  Those teams need their top guys to be what they are. Boston has enough talent that their top guy can have a lot of different strengths so you could more easily swap out Tatum for someone else.  I just don't think you can do that in Dallas at all and to a lesser extent on OKC.

Yeah, it is hard to say when considering swapping players around.  On Luka though, he has had a deep pocketed owner for several years, has had several good players around him, Porzingis, Brunson, and the team has still not done anything.  Those players left and got better, one of them coming to the Celtics.  I think if you brought in Luka, Brown, White, Porzingis, maybe others, would all regress.  On the other hand, give Tatum Brunson and Porzingis and what do you think would happen?

Shai is harder to judge on this aspect.  Not enough track record on a team that is good or should be good.  Tatum has shown he can make a good team into a great team, and he is doing it again this year.  Giannis has shown he can do it as well, he just isn't doing it this season to the same extent that Tatum is.

And I am not saying this is the deciding factor, but it is a factor that I believe should be considered when deciding MVP, along with compilation of personal stats, team success, etc.  I know I am in the minority, a place I don't mind being, but I think you and the mainstream sports writers are putting too much weight on the fact that Shai scores 30.3 ppg and Tatum "only" 27.2 ppg.  And yes, Tatum plays forward while Luka and Shai play guard, but I think that is just part of Tatum's value.

every single advanced metric SGA is better than Tatum and most aren't all that close.  He is more efficient shooting on more shots, he turns it over less, he generates more win shares (per 48 Shai is .271 and Tatum is just .191 - that is massive), they have the same DRTG at 111, but Shai's ORTG is 130 to Jay's 122, Shai has nearly double the BPM, 50% higher VORP,  a PER nearly 7 better. Basically the only thing Tatum does better is rebound (but a PF should do that better than a combo guard).  And even on/off the Celtics are barely better with Tatum on the floor at just +0.7, while SGA is at +11.5. 

There isn't a single objective factor you can use to make the case for Tatum over Shai.  Not a single one and it isn't close. 

[Moranis]

I mean, he's not MVP.  I don't think there is really a compelling argument for MVP outside of being "best player on best team" which isn't much of an argument, IMO. 

He's all star. He'll probably be first time all-NBA, and he'll most likely be Finals MVP come June when the Celtics win the title.   His seasonal resume to date is just fine. 

He's going to get his day in the sun.

My question to you is how is a player with all those accolades not in the top 3 for MVP? Is MVP just best offensive statistical player in the league?

because there are 24 all stars, 5 1st Team All NBA, and only 1 team can win the title.