NBA First Team: Tatum or Edwards?

[Moranis]

Not only did Jayson Tatum fall out of the MVP race but I think its highly likely he falls out of the first team all nba race, I think he’s becoming one of the more hated and disrespected players in the game and while I’m a big fan of his unfortunately some it’s warranted. He’s a really good player, nothing more….hopefully he proves me wrong this postseason because imo that’s what’s holding us from a championship

He's a top-five player, particularly when you factor in defense.

Is he?  I mean it seems pretty clear that he is behind Jokic, Giannis, Luka, and SGA at least at this point.  And I think most people would have a hard time calling him a better player than Embiid (obviously he is much healthier than Joel), which makes him no better than 6th.  Then you still have the older guys like Curry, Durant, and Kawhi.  Tatum was definitely trending towards clear top 5, but I think he hit the wall and I'm not sure he is getting over it.  A strong consistent and deep playoff run could certainly swing that tide back some though, so let's all hope that happens.

He's a top-five player this year.  Defense, durability and winning matter.

He absolutely should be on the 1st Team All NBA, but that is not the same thing as a top-five player.

[celticsclay]

Not only did Jayson Tatum fall out of the MVP race but I think its highly likely he falls out of the first team all nba race, I think he’s becoming one of the more hated and disrespected players in the game and while I’m a big fan of his unfortunately some it’s warranted. He’s a really good player, nothing more….hopefully he proves me wrong this postseason because imo that’s what’s holding us from a championship

He's a top-five player, particularly when you factor in defense.

Is he?  I mean it seems pretty clear that he is behind Jokic, Giannis, Luka, and SGA at least at this point.  And I think most people would have a hard time calling him a better player than Embiid (obviously he is much healthier than Joel), which makes him no better than 6th.  Then you still have the older guys like Curry, Durant, and Kawhi.  Tatum was definitely trending towards clear top 5, but I think he hit the wall and I'm not sure he is getting over it.  A strong consistent and deep playoff run could certainly swing that tide back some though, so let's all hope that happens.

He's a top-five player this year.  Defense, durability and winning matter.

He absolutely should be on the 1st Team All NBA, but that is not the same thing as a top-five player.

Given Embid missed half the season you can’t say he was better than Tatum this year. Given Embid now has another injury under his belt and turns 31 next year it’s unclear if we have already seen the best of him. Curry is definitely not in the conversation with Tatum right now, if he was they wouldn’t be in Cancun right now. his defense and play making have declined a lot. Leonard put up a few months were he was good this year, but he is injured again and not really in the convo. Durant just isn’t either though his peak is similar, he just can’t bring it ever game any more. So at worst he is 6th right now. But could very well be 5th this year.

[Moranis]

Lowe did what I talked about earlier i.e.  Tatum on 1st team All NBA, but Brunson ahead of him in 5th on his mvp ballot.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/39970480/lowe-naming-2023-24-all-nba-all-defense-all-rookie-teams

• The first four spots are a given. The final first-team spot came down to Tatum, Brunson and Davis. I had Brunson fifth -- over Tatum -- on my (theoretical) MVP ballot. Flipping them here reflects the difference in what the respective awards symbolize -- and the power of that pliable word "valuable."

Factoring in Tatum's superior defense, the two had more or less equal seasons. Brunson had to do a bit more heavy lifting on a less talented team that lost three starters to injury for much of the season. That's where valuable came in on the MVP ballot.

Remove team context and Tatum's size and positional versatility -- plus his track record -- make him a slightly better overall player. That's what matters most for All-NBA. Team success factors in too. Boston ran away from everyone; if it's close -- and it is -- it deserves the last first-team spot.

[Moranis]

Lowe had Brown on the 3rd Team. He was the last pick and just edged out Sabonis and George even if the advanced metrics didn't favor Brown.  Ultimately he chose Brown because Boston was just so much better than everyone else and felt the team deserved 2 on the all nba teams.

White made 2nd Team All Defense.  No other. Celtics were on any of his team or award voting.

[Vermont Green]

Lowe did what I talked about earlier i.e.  Tatum on 1st team All NBA, but Brunson ahead of him in 5th on his mvp ballot.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/39970480/lowe-naming-2023-24-all-nba-all-defense-all-rookie-teams

• The first four spots are a given. The final first-team spot came down to Tatum, Brunson and Davis. I had Brunson fifth -- over Tatum -- on my (theoretical) MVP ballot. Flipping them here reflects the difference in what the respective awards symbolize -- and the power of that pliable word "valuable."

Factoring in Tatum's superior defense, the two had more or less equal seasons. Brunson had to do a bit more heavy lifting on a less talented team that lost three starters to injury for much of the season. That's where valuable came in on the MVP ballot.

Remove team context and Tatum's size and positional versatility -- plus his track record -- make him a slightly better overall player. That's what matters most for All-NBA. Team success factors in too. Boston ran away from everyone; if it's close -- and it is -- it deserves the last first-team spot.

This is an interesting perspective by Lowe.  It is fair to interpret "most valuable" differently than "best".  The difference is not clearly defined and will be interpreted differently by each of the people who score this, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that there is some difference.  To me, 1st team or the 5 best players is easy:

Jokic
Giannis
Tatum
SGA
Doncic

I don't see any issue with this.  It gets harder when you start debating "most valuable".  MVP traditionally implies team performance is a factor, not just individual stats.  Is it that the team is better because the best player is more valuable, or is it just that the team is better and the best player is not the most valuable?  It doesn't really matter if you think Tatum is more or less valuable (how ever you define valuable) than Brunson.  Jokic is going to be the MVP, it is a winner take all award.  This debate is nothing new.  Even this year, it is really one player out of the top 6 in the MVP race that may fall out of the 1st team.  This mostly lines up.

But the argument that Brunson is more valuable on a lesser team but Tatum is a better player, is backwards from how the MVP has been traditionally applied.  By this logic, if you viewed Brunson and Tatum as exactly equal in terms of "best" you would give the MVP to the player on the lesser team, not the one on the better team.  So Tatum is a better player (per Lowe) but because he is on a better team, a team that won a lot more, he is somehow ranked lower in the MVP.  I can't wrap my head around that.

[Roy H.]

Why does Kendrick Perkins have an MVP vote, but Zach Lowe doesn't?  Does anybody know how voters are determined?

I'm fine with Brunson over Tatum on the MVP ballot, although I think too much emphasis is placed on the Knicks finishing in second.  Yes, they were second in the conference, but only hit 50 wins.  That doesn't impress me a whole lot, at least in terms of MVP criteria.  (That said, I do think Thibs should pick up some COTY votes for turning that talent into a top-10 team both offensively and defensively.)

[celticinorlando]

SGA
Luka
Tatum
Giannis
Jokic

Second team

Brunson
Edwards
KD
AD
Curry

[Moranis]

Lowe did what I talked about earlier i.e.  Tatum on 1st team All NBA, but Brunson ahead of him in 5th on his mvp ballot.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/39970480/lowe-naming-2023-24-all-nba-all-defense-all-rookie-teams

• The first four spots are a given. The final first-team spot came down to Tatum, Brunson and Davis. I had Brunson fifth -- over Tatum -- on my (theoretical) MVP ballot. Flipping them here reflects the difference in what the respective awards symbolize -- and the power of that pliable word "valuable."

Factoring in Tatum's superior defense, the two had more or less equal seasons. Brunson had to do a bit more heavy lifting on a less talented team that lost three starters to injury for much of the season. That's where valuable came in on the MVP ballot.

Remove team context and Tatum's size and positional versatility -- plus his track record -- make him a slightly better overall player. That's what matters most for All-NBA. Team success factors in too. Boston ran away from everyone; if it's close -- and it is -- it deserves the last first-team spot.

This is an interesting perspective by Lowe.  It is fair to interpret "most valuable" differently than "best".  The difference is not clearly defined and will be interpreted differently by each of the people who score this, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that there is some difference.  To me, 1st team or the 5 best players is easy:

Jokic
Giannis
Tatum
SGA
Doncic

I don't see any issue with this.  It gets harder when you start debating "most valuable".  MVP traditionally implies team performance is a factor, not just individual stats.  Is it that the team is better because the best player is more valuable, or is it just that the team is better and the best player is not the most valuable?  It doesn't really matter if you think Tatum is more or less valuable (how ever you define valuable) than Brunson.  Jokic is going to be the MVP, it is a winner take all award.  This debate is nothing new.  Even this year, it is really one player out of the top 6 in the MVP race that may fall out of the 1st team.  This mostly lines up.

But the argument that Brunson is more valuable on a lesser team but Tatum is a better player, is backwards from how the MVP has been traditionally applied.  By this logic, if you viewed Brunson and Tatum as exactly equal in terms of "best" you would give the MVP to the player on the lesser team, not the one on the better team.  So Tatum is a better player (per Lowe) but because he is on a better team, a team that won a lot more, he is somehow ranked lower in the MVP.  I can't wrap my head around that.

Brunson is more valuable to the Knicks than Tatum is to the Celtics isn't unreasonable at all.  The advanced metrics support that position.  Brunson's on/off differential per 100 possessions is +11.8 while Tatum was actually negative at -1.2.  I mean Boston was better when Tatum was on the bench this year.  Couple that with the Knicks being gar less healthy and it is pretty easy to find Brunson more valuable even though Tatum is a better player on a better team.  It isn't the best player award it is the most valuable player award.

[bdm860]

Why does Kendrick Perkins have an MVP vote, but Zach Lowe doesn't?  Does anybody know how voters are determined?

Lowe could have a vote if he wanted, but it was stressing him out too much with influencing players' potential salaries, so he's taking a break from it.

https://awfulannouncing.com/nba/zach-lowe-nba-awards-ballot-icky-contracts.html

“I surrendered mine, just to take a break,” Lowe said. “I was like, ‘I’m gonna take a break from having a ballot and all the noise.’ Not for All-Star necessarily, but the determination of some bonuses and super maxes. I was like, ‘I’m starting to feel a little icky.’ I’m out of the ballots for a year.”

[Vermont Green]

Lowe did what I talked about earlier i.e.  Tatum on 1st team All NBA, but Brunson ahead of him in 5th on his mvp ballot.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/39970480/lowe-naming-2023-24-all-nba-all-defense-all-rookie-teams

• The first four spots are a given. The final first-team spot came down to Tatum, Brunson and Davis. I had Brunson fifth -- over Tatum -- on my (theoretical) MVP ballot. Flipping them here reflects the difference in what the respective awards symbolize -- and the power of that pliable word "valuable."

Factoring in Tatum's superior defense, the two had more or less equal seasons. Brunson had to do a bit more heavy lifting on a less talented team that lost three starters to injury for much of the season. That's where valuable came in on the MVP ballot.

Remove team context and Tatum's size and positional versatility -- plus his track record -- make him a slightly better overall player. That's what matters most for All-NBA. Team success factors in too. Boston ran away from everyone; if it's close -- and it is -- it deserves the last first-team spot.

This is an interesting perspective by Lowe.  It is fair to interpret "most valuable" differently than "best".  The difference is not clearly defined and will be interpreted differently by each of the people who score this, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that there is some difference.  To me, 1st team or the 5 best players is easy:

Jokic
Giannis
Tatum
SGA
Doncic

I don't see any issue with this.  It gets harder when you start debating "most valuable".  MVP traditionally implies team performance is a factor, not just individual stats.  Is it that the team is better because the best player is more valuable, or is it just that the team is better and the best player is not the most valuable?  It doesn't really matter if you think Tatum is more or less valuable (how ever you define valuable) than Brunson.  Jokic is going to be the MVP, it is a winner take all award.  This debate is nothing new.  Even this year, it is really one player out of the top 6 in the MVP race that may fall out of the 1st team.  This mostly lines up.

But the argument that Brunson is more valuable on a lesser team but Tatum is a better player, is backwards from how the MVP has been traditionally applied.  By this logic, if you viewed Brunson and Tatum as exactly equal in terms of "best" you would give the MVP to the player on the lesser team, not the one on the better team.  So Tatum is a better player (per Lowe) but because he is on a better team, a team that won a lot more, he is somehow ranked lower in the MVP.  I can't wrap my head around that.

Brunson is more valuable to the Knicks than Tatum is to the Celtics isn't unreasonable at all.  The advanced metrics support that position.  Brunson's on/off differential per 100 possessions is +11.8 while Tatum was actually negative at -1.2.  I mean Boston was better when Tatum was on the bench this year.  Couple that with the Knicks being gar less healthy and it is pretty easy to find Brunson more valuable even though Tatum is a better player on a better team.  It isn't the best player award it is the most valuable player award.

You missed the point.  Lowe conceded that Tatum is a better player than Brunson, I think most people agree with this, in spite of any advanced metrics.  Clearly the Celtics team was more successful than the Knicks, that is easy, same division, way more wins.  When has it ever happened that a lesser player on a lesser team won the MVP over a better player on a better team?  I know that in this case it is only about ranking as Jokic is going to win but imagine that Tatum and Brunson were 1 and 2.  Should the player who isn't as good and whose team wasn't as good win the MVP?  Just because of some advanced metrics that are more about how good your back up is?  This is completely contrary to the traditional way that the MVP has been awarded.

[Moranis]

I didn't miss the point at all. 

Tatum 10.4 WS
Brunson 11.2 WS

So Brunson generated more wins than Tatum.  His WS/48 is also better so it isn't the 3 extra games and 80 or so minutes more either.

So the Knicks are much worse with Brunson on the bench while the Celtics are better with Tatum on the bench, and while on the floor Brunson generates more wins. 

Brunson has a better VORP and better BPM.

All of the metrics that measure value favor Brunson.  He was more valuable than Tatum was this year.

[Vermont Green]

I didn't miss the point at all. 

Tatum 10.4 WS
Brunson 11.2 WS

So Brunson generated more wins than Tatum.  His WS/48 is also better so it isn't the 3 extra games and 80 or so minutes more either.

So the Knicks are much worse with Brunson on the bench while the Celtics are better with Tatum on the bench, and while on the floor Brunson generates more wins. 

Brunson has a better VORP and better BPM.

All of the metrics that measure value favor Brunson.  He was more valuable than Tatum was this year.

So are you saying that you think Brunson is a better player than Tatum?  This is not what Lowe said.  He said that Tatum is "a slightly better overall player".  So slightly better overall player on a much better team or slightly worse player on a much worse team?  I can't remember a slightly worse player from a much worse team ever winning MVP.  Even if a big part of why the team was not that good was injuries.

Now if you want to argue that Brunson is a better player or had a better season, that is a different argument.  I think Tatum is better, and more than slightly better.  If I was picking players, I pick Tatum before I pick Brunson.  Not quite as easy as Barkley over the 12 year old kid, but a pretty easy call for me.  But I am sure there are some that would argue Brunson is better or had a better season, in which case, he should be first team over Tatum.

[Moranis]

I agree with Lowe completely on this and would have the same votes i.e. Tatum on 1st team but behind Brunson in mvp voting because Brunson is more valuable to his team this year (that includes Tatum being a better player).  I said that awhile ago on here. The numbers don't lie either. Value numbers favor Brunson, totals favor Tatum. The MVP is not and never has been a best player award.   Early in the year I had Mitchell very high on the mvp list because he was carrying a mash unit Cavs squad,  but he isn't even a top 10 player in the league.

[Vermont Green]

I agree with Lowe completely on this and would have the same votes i.e. Tatum on 1st team but behind Brunson in mvp voting because Brunson is more valuable to his team this year (that includes Tatum being a better player).  I said that awhile ago on here. The numbers don't lie either. Value numbers favor Brunson, totals favor Tatum. The MVP is not and never has been a best player award.   Early in the year I had Mitchell very high on the mvp list because he was carrying a mash unit Cavs squad,  but he isn't even a top 10 player in the league.

That is fine, that is your opinion/take.  In the past, there have been plenty of cases where a better player from a lesser team has won MVP, it has not always been the best player on the best team.  Jokic is not the best player on the best team (although they are the 2nd favorite to win the title).  There have probably also been cases were a lesser player from the best team has won.  That may have been the case when David Robinson won MVP in 1994-95 and the Spurs won 62 games.  But a lesser player from a lesser team?  If this is how they start handing this out, it will be a total change.

I can see the argument for the best player overall and one of the best teams or one of the best players overall and the best team.  But if you are a better player and your team is better, you should win over a lesser player from a lesser team.

[Moranis]

Lots of years lesser players from lesser teams won. Heck just lat year Embiid won instead of Giannis who was better and on a better team or Jokic who was better and on a nearly identical team.  The 2 years Jokic won the Nuggets won 47 and 48 games. Giannis was better and on a better team last year and was better the first year Jokic won.  The 2nd of Giannis' back to back is basically the last time the best player in the league won the award (Jokic will this year as well) and the Bucks that year were also the best team in the sport.