Jayson tatum slander all over media

[Moranis]

It is the Most VALUABLE Player award.  How good your team is when you aren't in the game absolutely affects your value.  If the team is still very good without you, how valuable are you? 

[jambr380]

To be clear, I also think he makes first team. The Celtics are going to finish like 8+ games ahead of everyone else and Tatum will play in like 77/82 games and put up great numbers and that will get him 1st team. He'll likely finish 5th (maybe 4th) in MVP voting behind Shai, Giannis, Jokic and maybe Luka becasue fair or not the team is awesome when he's out there, and almost as awesome when he's not. 

Some parts of Tatum are overrated: He's never been as good a scorer as people think, just not as efficient as the bets guys.
Some parts are underrated: The guy ABSOLUTELY shows up in big games. Ask Milwaukee or Phili.

Overall i think he's properly rated as the 6th to 8th best player in the NBA who finishes higher than that in MVP because he never misses games.

One last thing: There are no positions for all-nba this year.

I have been thinking about this and assessing my opinion based on all the responses.  In particular, the On-Off aspect of Tatum's production.  Tatum happens to play on a really good team.  When he is on the court, they are the best team by a fair margin, when he is not on the court, they are still a very good team.  Other teams like DAL, MIL, OKC drop off more when Luka, Giannis, or Shai are not on the court.  Is that because of the individual players or the rest of the team?  The answer is both of course.   I don't think it is something that is easily quantified.  Should Tatum be "punished" or viewed as less valuable because the rest of his team is much better than the rest of the team of these other stars? 

I concede is it a factor, but I don't think it is a deciding factor.  If Tatum was on a worse team, like last season and other seasons, than his On-Off would be more in line.  The On Off is more about who replaces Tatum when he is not on the court relative to who replaces Shai (for example) than it is about Tatum relative to Shai.  Or at least it is about both.

As to Tatum's scoring, I think he would score more points if he wanted to or needed to.  His scoring efficiency is quantifiable so I can't dispute that he is a less efficient score than Shai (for example) and that is a factor that should be considered in the overall MVP or All NBA consideration.  But there are a lot of factors that need to be considered and everyone considers them differently (part of the problem with the whole concept of MVP).

It's funny, because in the past, on/off was Tatum's calling card. The team was almost always awful with him off the court or when he missed the game. And it was quite the opposite with Jaylen where the team didn't seem to miss him whether or not he was there.

I agree that it is a factor and probably should prevent him from being the actual MVP, but there are other factors, too - namely who he plays with when he is with the bench and who the other starters play with when they are with the bench.

Glancing at the most used line-ups on NBA.com, the top two 5-man units without Tatum are the other 4 starters with either Horford or Hauser. The top two 5-man units with Tatum and without Brown all include Jrue, Pritchard, and Hauser - and then one of Horford or Kornet.

So I would conclude that the team is often quite a bit less talented when Tatum is with the 'bench players' than when Brown is out there without Tatum. The minutes samples are fairly low overall, though, so I'm sure there is a lot more nuance than what I'm describing. However, it does seem to follow the eye test when watching games - you see a lot of Brown, White, and KP out there without Tatum (our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best players).

[Kernewek]

It is the Most VALUABLE Player award.  How good your team is when you aren't in the game absolutely affects your value.  If the team is still very good without you, how valuable are you?

It's high time we start assigning the award by the overall dollar value of their sponsorship portfolios.

[Vermont Green]

It is the Most VALUABLE Player award.  How good your team is when you aren't in the game absolutely affects your value.  If the team is still very good without you, how valuable are you?

If you were a 0.500 team with the top player and a 0.450 team without the top player or NRtg of 0.2 with and 0.0 without (so nearly as good), I would say not so valuable.  But if you are a player that can take a team that would otherwise be good but not great, and make it into the best team in the league by a wide margin, and the favorite to win the title, isn't that pretty valuable?  I don't know the answer to this, it isn't something that can be measured.  Everyone is going to have their own impression.  I am trying to make sense of this.

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games with +11.2, and both will probably improve based on their remaining schedule.  OKC is on pace to win 57 games with +7.6.  What people seem to be saying is that the Celtics might be a 58 win team with +6.0 or something without Tatum because of how good the rest of the team would be, and this means Tatum's value is diminished.  Where as OKC might be a 48 win team and +2.0 or something so that is an indication that Shai is more valuable due to the larger differential.  I get this, but I don't think it is that simple.

What I am trying to get at is what is more valuable, the player that can take a team from being a good team to to being the absolute best team, or a player that can take an above average team to being a really good team?  I am an engineer, so bear with me, the 5 wins it takes to go from say 60 to 65 winds are harder and more valuable than the 5 wins to go from 50 wins to 55 wins.  That would also apply to the corresponding differential, going from +8 to +11 is harder than going from +5 to +8, or whatever.  I see it as overly simplistic to discount Tatum's value just because the rest of the team is better than the rest of the team on every other top team.

Tatum's impact or value is taking a team that might win 60 games or 57 games and be maybe top 5, and turning it into a team that may win 67 or so and is by most any statistical measure, the best team in the league by a fair margin.  And he is doing that by playing out of position, sacrificing scoring, and doing other things the team needs.  He is leading the team in total points (1,703) and total rebounds (523).   Tatum should not need to lead the team in rebounds, but he is.  He is essentially tied for the team lead in Assists with 307 (White has 308 and Holiday has 297), an indication of really good team passing, that is often dictated by Tatum's lead.  I know these are old school stats and people will point to scoring efficiency, and that is fair, it is all part of the equation, but I am still not "unconvinced" that Tatum is more valuable than SGA,  but this has been an interesting debate.

[Moranis]

It is the Most VALUABLE Player award.  How good your team is when you aren't in the game absolutely affects your value.  If the team is still very good without you, how valuable are you?

If you were a 0.500 team with the top player and a 0.450 team without the top player or NRtg of 0.2 with and 0.0 without (so nearly as good), I would say not so valuable.  But if you are a player that can take a team that would otherwise be good but not great, and make it into the best team in the league by a wide margin, and the favorite to win the title, isn't that pretty valuable?  I don't know the answer to this, it isn't something that can't be measured.  Everyone is going to have their own impression.  I am trying to make sense of this.

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games with +11.2, and both will probably improve based on their remaining schedule.  OKC is on pace to win 57 games with +7.6.  What people seem to be saying is that the Celtics might be a 58 win team with +6.0 or something without Tatum because of how good the rest of the team would be, and this means Tatum's value is diminished.  Where as OKC might be a 48 win team and +2.0 or something so that is an indication that Shai is more valuable due to the larger differential.  I get this, but I don't think it is that simple.

What I am trying to get at is what is more valuable, the player that can take a team from being a good team to to being the absolute best team, or a player that can take an above average team to being a really good team?  I am an engineer, so bear with me, the 5 wins it takes to go from say 60 to 65 winds are harder and more valuable than the 5 wins to go from 50 wins to 55 wins.  That would also apply to the corresponding differential, going from +8 to +11 is harder than going from +5 to +8, or whatever.  I see it as overly simplistic to discount Tatum's value just because the rest of the team is better than the rest of the team on every other top team.

Tatum's impact or value is taking a team that might win 60 games or 57 games and be maybe top 5, and turning it into a team that may win 67 or so and is by most any statistical measure, the best team in the league by a fair margin.  And he is doing that by playing out of position, sacrificing scoring, and doing other things the team needs.  He is leading the team in total points (1,703) and total rebounds (523).   Tatum should not need to lead the team in rebounds, but he is.  He is essentially tied for the team lead in Assists with 307 (White has 308 and Holiday has 297), an indication of really good team passing, that is often dictated by Tatum's lead.  I know these are old school stats and people will point to scoring efficiency, and that is fair, it is all part of the equation, but I am still not "unconvinced" that Tatum is more valuable than SGA,  but this has been an interesting debate.

I certainly agree that getting from 60 to 65 is more valuable than getting 50 to 55, but you are making an assumption that the numbers reflect 5 wins each. They don't, the numbers reflect more like the Thunder go from 35 to 55 with Shai or something like that.  Shai has better numbers and has a better differential.  He is pretty clearly a more valuable player than Tatum is this year. It isn't particularly close either.

[Vermont Green]

It's funny, because in the past, on/off was Tatum's calling card. The team was almost always awful with him off the court or when he missed the game. And it was quite the opposite with Jaylen where the team didn't seem to miss him whether or not he was there.

I agree that it is a factor and probably should prevent him from being the actual MVP, but there are other factors, too - namely who he plays with when he is with the bench and who the other starters play with when they are with the bench.

Glancing at the most used line-ups on NBA.com, the top two 5-man units without Tatum are the other 4 starters with either Horford or Hauser. The top two 5-man units with Tatum and without Brown all include Jrue, Pritchard, and Hauser - and then one of Horford or Kornet.

So I would conclude that the team is often quite a bit less talented when Tatum is with the 'bench players' than when Brown is out there without Tatum. The minutes samples are fairly low overall, though, so I'm sure there is a lot more nuance than what I'm describing. However, it does seem to follow the eye test when watching games - you see a lot of Brown, White, and KP out there without Tatum (our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best players).

Yeah, the "eye test" is the thing that is hard to quantify.  Everyone sees something different.  I am with you regarding the rotations.  And also on the past few seasons (which I know shouldn't matter for this season's MVP voting), but Tatum was always the one with the off the chart differentials while Shai was the best player on a lottery team. 

So now the rotation is that when Tatum is resting, it is Brown as the primary scorer on the floor more often with 3 other starters and Tatum is deployed more often to kind of prop up the units with more bench players when Brown is resting.  Brown gets White and Holiday and Porzingis when Tatum is resting, Tatum gets Pritchard and Hauser and Kornet when Brown is resting.  Just to further back this up (2-man units minutes), Tatum is playing more with the bench and they play about the same with the other starters (Tatum more with Holiday, Brown more with White and Porzingis).  Tatum has also played more than Brown with Brissett, Queta, and Tillman.  So there is some tangible explanation to why Tatum's on-off differentials are less than past years.  The coaching staff has made what appears to be adjustments to mitigate what had been a large differential in the past.  In the past, it was Brown out there with the bench more and people were all over his on-off differential.  This appears to be a tactical measure to sacrifice Tatum's individual performance to help the overall team.

Tatum + Pritchard/Hauser/Kornet     755 min / 743 min / 416 min
Brown + Pritchard/Hauser/Kornet     468 min / 575 min / 266 min

Tatum + White/Holiday/Porzingis     1654 min / 1489 min / 1065 min
Brown + White/Holiday/Porzingis     1345 min / 1588 min / 1121 min

The most used non-SGA line up for OKC is J. Giddey - A. Wiggins - C. Holmgren - J. Williams - C. Wallace.  For some reason, they don't play Dort when SGA is off the court but he is part of the top 3 most used line ups with SGA.  So it isn't just Wiggins in for SGA, it is also Wallace in for Dort.  Rotations and other factors matter when looking at these on-off differentials.  For example, SGA's DRtg is helped because he is on the court a lot with Dort.  When SGA is off the court, for some reason, Dort is off the court also.

Maybe without SGA and Dort, OKC is a 35 win team, but I am not sure how you can state that as fact.  Too many variables.  It looks like PHI is a 45 win team without Embiid, that you can state as fact.  I am not so sure OKC is as bad as a 35 win team without SGA.  But they have been a lottery team with him.  I think the main point is that over-relying on stats may not capture the whole picture.

[Vermont Green]

It is the Most VALUABLE Player award.  How good your team is when you aren't in the game absolutely affects your value.  If the team is still very good without you, how valuable are you?

If you were a 0.500 team with the top player and a 0.450 team without the top player or NRtg of 0.2 with and 0.0 without (so nearly as good), I would say not so valuable.  But if you are a player that can take a team that would otherwise be good but not great, and make it into the best team in the league by a wide margin, and the favorite to win the title, isn't that pretty valuable?  I don't know the answer to this, it isn't something that can't be measured.  Everyone is going to have their own impression.  I am trying to make sense of this.

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games with +11.2, and both will probably improve based on their remaining schedule.  OKC is on pace to win 57 games with +7.6.  What people seem to be saying is that the Celtics might be a 58 win team with +6.0 or something without Tatum because of how good the rest of the team would be, and this means Tatum's value is diminished.  Where as OKC might be a 48 win team and +2.0 or something so that is an indication that Shai is more valuable due to the larger differential.  I get this, but I don't think it is that simple.

What I am trying to get at is what is more valuable, the player that can take a team from being a good team to to being the absolute best team, or a player that can take an above average team to being a really good team?  I am an engineer, so bear with me, the 5 wins it takes to go from say 60 to 65 winds are harder and more valuable than the 5 wins to go from 50 wins to 55 wins.  That would also apply to the corresponding differential, going from +8 to +11 is harder than going from +5 to +8, or whatever.  I see it as overly simplistic to discount Tatum's value just because the rest of the team is better than the rest of the team on every other top team.

Tatum's impact or value is taking a team that might win 60 games or 57 games and be maybe top 5, and turning it into a team that may win 67 or so and is by most any statistical measure, the best team in the league by a fair margin.  And he is doing that by playing out of position, sacrificing scoring, and doing other things the team needs.  He is leading the team in total points (1,703) and total rebounds (523).   Tatum should not need to lead the team in rebounds, but he is.  He is essentially tied for the team lead in Assists with 307 (White has 308 and Holiday has 297), an indication of really good team passing, that is often dictated by Tatum's lead.  I know these are old school stats and people will point to scoring efficiency, and that is fair, it is all part of the equation, but I am still not "unconvinced" that Tatum is more valuable than SGA,  but this has been an interesting debate.

I certainly agree that getting from 60 to 65 is more valuable than getting 50 to 55, but you are making an assumption that the numbers reflect 5 wins each. They don't, the numbers reflect more like the Thunder go from 35 to 55 with Shai or something like that.  Shai has better numbers and has a better differential.  He is pretty clearly a more valuable player than Tatum is this year. It isn't particularly close either.

No, you must not have read my post very carefully.  I was using the 5 wins example to illustrate that the relative importance or difficulty of each win increases as the overall wins for a team increase.

What I said, based on off the cuff estimates, is that the Celtics might be a 57-60 win team without Tatum and 65-68 win team with him (I think that is pretty conservative).  For OKC, they are headed towards being a 57 win team with SGA, so not even as good as the Celtics without Tatum which is probably a stretch, and maybe 45-50 win team without SGA?  It is not possible to say definitively what either team would be without Tatum or SGA.  But say Tatum makes the Celtics 8 wins better (it is probably more than that) and SGA makes OKC 12 wins better?  My point is that the 8 wins going from say 60-68 are not the same as 8 (of 12) wins going from 45 to 57 wins, which you seemed to agree with.  Now if you think SGA takes OKC from 35 wins to 57 wins, what can I say.  They were a 22 win team in 2020-21 and a 24 win team in 2021-22 with SGA.  So would they have not won any games those two seasons without SGA, if he makes a 22 game difference?

[W8ting2McHale]

If you remove Tatum from the Celtics and estimate the team is 8 games worse without him, what is the difference if he was replaced with SGA? Is it 12 wins, or 8, or something less?

I think SGA’s effect on team wins for the Celtics would be about the same. (Edit - 8 games) This team is loaded and while he would elevate the team, the differential would be less than for OKC.

Conversely, I think adding Tatum to OKC in place of SGA would result in a bigger impact than he has on the Celtics. Is that a 12 game differential or 10? Still stuck on 8?  I’m thinking it’s at least 12 because Tatum replacing Dort is going to have a bigger impact than SGA displacing Brown or Holiday.

There’s just a bigger gap in talent between the starting 5 for each team. The chances of Giddy taking on a bigger scoring role and Tatum being able to increase his numbers to offset the lose of SGA are greater than SGA being able to retain his numbers on a loaded roster, and that they would be reduced to be in line with what Tatum’s putting up here now.

If that’s the case and in my opinion it is, then Tatum shouldn’t be penalized for playing for the better team. Last year’s team relied more heavily on him and his scoring average was higher as a result.

[Big333223]

If you remove Tatum from the Celtics and estimate the team is 8 games worse without him, what is the difference if he was replaced with SGA? Is it 12 wins, or 8, or something less?

I think SGA’s effect on team wins for the Celtics would be about the same. (Edit - 8 games) This team is loaded and while he would elevate the team, the differential would be less than for OKC.

Conversely, I think adding Tatum to OKC in place of SGA would result in a bigger impact than he has on the Celtics. Is that a 12 game differential or 10? Still stuck on 8?  I’m thinking it’s at least 12 because Tatum replacing Dort is going to have a bigger impact than SGA displacing Brown or Holiday.

There’s just a bigger gap in talent between the starting 5 for each team. The chances of Giddy taking on a bigger scoring role and Tatum being able to increase his numbers to offset the lose of SGA are greater than SGA being able to retain his numbers on a loaded roster, and that they would be reduced to be in line with what Tatum’s putting up here now.

If that’s the case and in my opinion it is, then Tatum shouldn’t be penalized for playing for the better team. Last year’s team relied more heavily on him and his scoring average was higher as a result.

I think the flaw with this thinking is it doesn't take into consideration the construction of the rosters around the stars.

Maybe Tatum is better than SGA but OKC doesn't have anybody who can approximate what SGA does when he's not on the floor whereas the Celtics have other guys who can handle the ball and make plays when Tatum is sitting. If OKC had a better backup PG then SGA's team wouldn't suffer from his absence quite as much, thus making his appear less valuable, even though SGA isn't any better or worse than he is now.

[Moranis]

It is the Most VALUABLE Player award.  How good your team is when you aren't in the game absolutely affects your value.  If the team is still very good without you, how valuable are you?

If you were a 0.500 team with the top player and a 0.450 team without the top player or NRtg of 0.2 with and 0.0 without (so nearly as good), I would say not so valuable.  But if you are a player that can take a team that would otherwise be good but not great, and make it into the best team in the league by a wide margin, and the favorite to win the title, isn't that pretty valuable?  I don't know the answer to this, it isn't something that can't be measured.  Everyone is going to have their own impression.  I am trying to make sense of this.

The Celtics are on pace to win 65 games with +11.2, and both will probably improve based on their remaining schedule.  OKC is on pace to win 57 games with +7.6.  What people seem to be saying is that the Celtics might be a 58 win team with +6.0 or something without Tatum because of how good the rest of the team would be, and this means Tatum's value is diminished.  Where as OKC might be a 48 win team and +2.0 or something so that is an indication that Shai is more valuable due to the larger differential.  I get this, but I don't think it is that simple.

What I am trying to get at is what is more valuable, the player that can take a team from being a good team to to being the absolute best team, or a player that can take an above average team to being a really good team?  I am an engineer, so bear with me, the 5 wins it takes to go from say 60 to 65 winds are harder and more valuable than the 5 wins to go from 50 wins to 55 wins.  That would also apply to the corresponding differential, going from +8 to +11 is harder than going from +5 to +8, or whatever.  I see it as overly simplistic to discount Tatum's value just because the rest of the team is better than the rest of the team on every other top team.

Tatum's impact or value is taking a team that might win 60 games or 57 games and be maybe top 5, and turning it into a team that may win 67 or so and is by most any statistical measure, the best team in the league by a fair margin.  And he is doing that by playing out of position, sacrificing scoring, and doing other things the team needs.  He is leading the team in total points (1,703) and total rebounds (523).   Tatum should not need to lead the team in rebounds, but he is.  He is essentially tied for the team lead in Assists with 307 (White has 308 and Holiday has 297), an indication of really good team passing, that is often dictated by Tatum's lead.  I know these are old school stats and people will point to scoring efficiency, and that is fair, it is all part of the equation, but I am still not "unconvinced" that Tatum is more valuable than SGA,  but this has been an interesting debate.

I certainly agree that getting from 60 to 65 is more valuable than getting 50 to 55, but you are making an assumption that the numbers reflect 5 wins each. They don't, the numbers reflect more like the Thunder go from 35 to 55 with Shai or something like that.  Shai has better numbers and has a better differential.  He is pretty clearly a more valuable player than Tatum is this year. It isn't particularly close either.

No, you must not have read my post very carefully.  I was using the 5 wins example to illustrate that the relative importance or difficulty of each win increases as the overall wins for a team increase.

What I said, based on off the cuff estimates, is that the Celtics might be a 57-60 win team without Tatum and 65-68 win team with him (I think that is pretty conservative).  For OKC, they are headed towards being a 57 win team with SGA, so not even as good as the Celtics without Tatum which is probably a stretch, and maybe 45-50 win team without SGA?  It is not possible to say definitively what either team would be without Tatum or SGA.  But say Tatum makes the Celtics 8 wins better (it is probably more than that) and SGA makes OKC 12 wins better?  My point is that the 8 wins going from say 60-68 are not the same as 8 (of 12) wins going from 45 to 57 wins, which you seemed to agree with.  Now if you think SGA takes OKC from 35 wins to 57 wins, what can I say.  They were a 22 win team in 2020-21 and a 24 win team in 2021-22 with SGA.  So would they have not won any games those two seasons without SGA, if he makes a 22 game difference?

SGA is both a significantly better and significantly more valuable player than he was those seasons.  But even then you kind of backed into the argument for SGA.  Let's take 2020-21.  The Thunder were 22-50, but SGA played in just 35 games.  They were 16-19 in those 35 games and were 6-31 in the 37 games he didn't play.  That seems like a pretty valuable player to me. The next year, SGA played in more games and didn't have the same level of impact, but he was coming back from a season ending injury the year before and then got hurt several different times that season.  As a result of the injuries it was by FAR his worst shooting season in his career.  Like significantly worse from everywhere on the floor.  The Thunder were also pretty clearly tanking and played 26 players (most of which had no business in the NBA). Last year, SGA was back to full health, put his shooting back up to elite levels and started to have the impact again (finishing 5th in MVP voting last year), which he has carried over by about a fairly significant magnitude this season.  SGA should finish 2nd in MVP voting to Jokic this year.  His impact is undeniable as are his stats.  Giannis may finish ahead of him, but that would be based more on name recognition not the current season.

[W8ting2McHale]

If you remove Tatum from the Celtics and estimate the team is 8 games worse without him, what is the difference if he was replaced with SGA? Is it 12 wins, or 8, or something less?

I think SGA’s effect on team wins for the Celtics would be about the same. (Edit - 8 games) This team is loaded and while he would elevate the team, the differential would be less than for OKC.

Conversely, I think adding Tatum to OKC in place of SGA would result in a bigger impact than he has on the Celtics. Is that a 12 game differential or 10? Still stuck on 8?  I’m thinking it’s at least 12 because Tatum replacing Dort is going to have a bigger impact than SGA displacing Brown or Holiday.

There’s just a bigger gap in talent between the starting 5 for each team. The chances of Giddy taking on a bigger scoring role and Tatum being able to increase his numbers to offset the lose of SGA are greater than SGA being able to retain his numbers on a loaded roster, and that they would be reduced to be in line with what Tatum’s putting up here now.

If that’s the case and in my opinion it is, then Tatum shouldn’t be penalized for playing for the better team. Last year’s team relied more heavily on him and his scoring average was higher as a result.

I think the flaw with this thinking is it doesn't take into consideration the construction of the rosters around the stars.

Maybe Tatum is better than SGA but OKC doesn't have anybody who can approximate what SGA does when he's not on the floor whereas the Celtics have other guys who can handle the ball and make plays when Tatum is sitting. If OKC had a better backup PG then SGA's team wouldn't suffer from his absence quite as much, thus making his appear less valuable, even though SGA isn't any better or worse than he is now.

That was kind of the point. Removing that from the equation. I did mention that the Celtics have more overall talent in their top 5-6, and that I thought Giddy could expand his role, since OKC wouldn’t be so guard focused.

Besides, Tatum has played plenty of games without a true point guard and does just fine. After all, he was an all star with Marcus Smart running point.

[Roy H.]

If you remove Tatum from the Celtics and estimate the team is 8 games worse without him, what is the difference if he was replaced with SGA? Is it 12 wins, or 8, or something less?

I think SGA’s effect on team wins for the Celtics would be about the same. (Edit - 8 games) This team is loaded and while he would elevate the team, the differential would be less than for OKC.

Conversely, I think adding Tatum to OKC in place of SGA would result in a bigger impact than he has on the Celtics. Is that a 12 game differential or 10? Still stuck on 8?  I’m thinking it’s at least 12 because Tatum replacing Dort is going to have a bigger impact than SGA displacing Brown or Holiday.

There’s just a bigger gap in talent between the starting 5 for each team. The chances of Giddy taking on a bigger scoring role and Tatum being able to increase his numbers to offset the lose of SGA are greater than SGA being able to retain his numbers on a loaded roster, and that they would be reduced to be in line with what Tatum’s putting up here now.

If that’s the case and in my opinion it is, then Tatum shouldn’t be penalized for playing for the better team. Last year’s team relied more heavily on him and his scoring average was higher as a result.

I think the flaw with this thinking is it doesn't take into consideration the construction of the rosters around the stars.

Maybe Tatum is better than SGA but OKC doesn't have anybody who can approximate what SGA does when he's not on the floor whereas the Celtics have other guys who can handle the ball and make plays when Tatum is sitting. If OKC had a better backup PG then SGA's team wouldn't suffer from his absence quite as much, thus making his appear less valuable, even though SGA isn't any better or worse than he is now.

That was kind of the point. Removing that from the equation. I did mention that the Celtics have more overall talent in their top 5-6, and that I thought Giddy could expand his role, since OKC wouldn’t be so guard focused.

Besides, Tatum has played plenty of games without a true point guard and does just fine. After all, he was an all star with Marcus Smart running point.

I think that certain stats will generally increase when a player is asked to do more:  points, assists, rebounds.  So, when comparing Tatum and SGA, I don't focus on Tatum scoring fewer points.  I think he could do that on a less talented team.

But, the more impressive thing to me is that SGA is more efficient than Tatum, at greater volume.  He leads in FG%, eFG%, TS%, FT%, FTA and turnovers.  And, although it's not my favorite stat, SGA has a significantly better ORtg than Tatum.  Since Tatum is playing in a historically great offense, it's impressive to me that OKC's offense is even better when SGA is on the floor.

I like arguing Devil's advocate sometimes, but I just don't think there's any argument for Tatum over SGA other than "best player on the best team". 

[Moranis]

If you remove Tatum from the Celtics and estimate the team is 8 games worse without him, what is the difference if he was replaced with SGA? Is it 12 wins, or 8, or something less?

I think SGA’s effect on team wins for the Celtics would be about the same. (Edit - 8 games) This team is loaded and while he would elevate the team, the differential would be less than for OKC.

Conversely, I think adding Tatum to OKC in place of SGA would result in a bigger impact than he has on the Celtics. Is that a 12 game differential or 10? Still stuck on 8?  I’m thinking it’s at least 12 because Tatum replacing Dort is going to have a bigger impact than SGA displacing Brown or Holiday.

There’s just a bigger gap in talent between the starting 5 for each team. The chances of Giddy taking on a bigger scoring role and Tatum being able to increase his numbers to offset the lose of SGA are greater than SGA being able to retain his numbers on a loaded roster, and that they would be reduced to be in line with what Tatum’s putting up here now.

If that’s the case and in my opinion it is, then Tatum shouldn’t be penalized for playing for the better team. Last year’s team relied more heavily on him and his scoring average was higher as a result.

I think the flaw with this thinking is it doesn't take into consideration the construction of the rosters around the stars.

Maybe Tatum is better than SGA but OKC doesn't have anybody who can approximate what SGA does when he's not on the floor whereas the Celtics have other guys who can handle the ball and make plays when Tatum is sitting. If OKC had a better backup PG then SGA's team wouldn't suffer from his absence quite as much, thus making his appear less valuable, even though SGA isn't any better or worse than he is now.

That was kind of the point. Removing that from the equation. I did mention that the Celtics have more overall talent in their top 5-6, and that I thought Giddy could expand his role, since OKC wouldn’t be so guard focused.

Besides, Tatum has played plenty of games without a true point guard and does just fine. After all, he was an all star with Marcus Smart running point.

I think that certain stats will generally increase when a player is asked to do more:  points, assists, rebounds.  So, when comparing Tatum and SGA, I don't focus on Tatum scoring fewer points.  I think he could do that on a less talented team.

But, the more impressive thing to me is that SGA is more efficient than Tatum, at greater volume.  He leads in FG%, eFG%, TS%, FT%, FTA and turnovers.  And, although it's not my favorite stat, SGA has a significantly better ORtg than Tatum.  Since Tatum is playing in a historically great offense, it's impressive to me that OKC's offense is even better when SGA is on the floor.

I like arguing Devil's advocate sometimes, but I just don't think there's any argument for Tatum over SGA other than "best player on the best team".

and even then how much does that matter when the other guy is the best player on the 2nd best team in the sport.

[Silas]

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.

[green_bballers13]

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.