Poll

Who is our best player?

Jaylen
36 (51.4%)
Jayson
34 (48.6%)

Total Members Voted: 70

Author Topic: Who is our best player?  (Read 21510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #120 on: January 25, 2021, 10:01:40 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #121 on: January 26, 2021, 12:29:29 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #122 on: January 26, 2021, 12:57:34 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
I mean its either Tatum or Brown. Beyond that who really cares? We arent winning anything anytime soon unless BOTH are incredible.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #123 on: January 26, 2021, 01:16:37 AM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
Brown is playing unbelievably so far. I don’t think it’s a fluke start.

Yet I’d still take Tatum if I had to choose one.

Luckily we don’t have to, we will have both in green for a long time.
CELTICS 2024

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #124 on: January 26, 2021, 09:31:32 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
And yet historically that stat has been a pretty darn accurate predictor of actual importance to winning.  Look at champions.  The Warriors, for example, Curry, not Durant, is what made them tick.  Durant was a better player than Curry, but he wasn't more critical to the Warriors success.  That was Curry.  Without Curry the Warriors were a good team, with Curry the Warriors were an all time great team and that wasn't the case for Durant.  We saw this quite well during the 17-18 season when the Warriors were 41-10 in Curry's 51 games and 17-14 in the 31 games he missed.  They were 49-19 with Durant so 9-5 without him (there was some overlap in missed games).  Curry's on/off differential was +12.1.  Durant was +1.9.  And that was fairly consistent all 3 of their seasons together.  Curry made the Warriors go even though Durant was the better player.  You see it doesn't necessarily equate to skill, talent, etc., merely how integral the player is to the team. 

Tatum is far more integral to the success of Boston than Brown is.  We've seen this pretty consistently over the last 3 years in that Boston just isn't very good in games Tatum has missed and plays about the same (or better) when Brown is out.  It doesn't mean Brown isn't a good player, he absolutely is, but his value to the scoreboard just isn't very high and the reality is, Boston has just been better with him on the bench over the last 2+ seasons, while Tatum has been by far the leader in that category.  The fact that they both start and have played similar minutes makes that way more striking as you generally find units to have fairly similar numbers, especially when the individual production has been similar enough.  Boston needs Tatum, Boston doesn't need Brown.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #125 on: January 26, 2021, 10:23:20 AM »

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2757
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • Always offline from 9pm till 3am
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
And yet historically that stat has been a pretty darn accurate predictor of actual importance to winning.  Look at champions.  The Warriors, for example, Curry, not Durant, is what made them tick.  Durant was a better player than Curry, but he wasn't more critical to the Warriors success.  That was Curry.  Without Curry the Warriors were a good team, with Curry the Warriors were an all time great team and that wasn't the case for Durant.  We saw this quite well during the 17-18 season when the Warriors were 41-10 in Curry's 51 games and 17-14 in the 31 games he missed.  They were 49-19 with Durant so 9-5 without him (there was some overlap in missed games).  Curry's on/off differential was +12.1.  Durant was +1.9.  And that was fairly consistent all 3 of their seasons together.  Curry made the Warriors go even though Durant was the better player.  You see it doesn't necessarily equate to skill, talent, etc., merely how integral the player is to the team. 

Tatum is far more integral to the success of Boston than Brown is.  We've seen this pretty consistently over the last 3 years in that Boston just isn't very good in games Tatum has missed and plays about the same (or better) when Brown is out.  It doesn't mean Brown isn't a good player, he absolutely is, but his value to the scoreboard just isn't very high and the reality is, Boston has just been better with him on the bench over the last 2+ seasons, while Tatum has been by far the leader in that category.  The fact that they both start and have played similar minutes makes that way more striking as you generally find units to have fairly similar numbers, especially when the individual production has been similar enough.  Boston needs Tatum, Boston doesn't need Brown.

What is it in Tatum's game that I'm missing that makes him that great, if we're following your reasoning?

These on/off numbers suggest that Tatum is basically as important as what LeBron James is to the Lakers.
Anthony Davis is a great player, but according (and also to the eye test to be honest) to the numbers the Lakers are only functioning at top level because of LeBron. Same with Harden in Houston in comparison with any other star that played there (Paul, Westbrook).

To me Jayson Tatum looks like 15-20 as a player ranking in the NBA and Jaylen Brown like 25-30. How come this isn't reflected in the numbers?

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?


Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #126 on: January 26, 2021, 10:29:40 AM »

Offline ETNCeltics

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2720
  • Tommy Points: 306
I mean its either Tatum or Brown. Beyond that who really cares? We arent winning anything anytime soon unless BOTH are incredible.

I don't get this attitude. We're one game out of first in spite of Kemba missing most of the year and Tatum missing the last 2 weeks.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #127 on: January 26, 2021, 10:32:58 AM »

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
And yet historically that stat has been a pretty darn accurate predictor of actual importance to winning.  Look at champions.  The Warriors, for example, Curry, not Durant, is what made them tick.  Durant was a better player than Curry, but he wasn't more critical to the Warriors success.  That was Curry.  Without Curry the Warriors were a good team, with Curry the Warriors were an all time great team and that wasn't the case for Durant.  We saw this quite well during the 17-18 season when the Warriors were 41-10 in Curry's 51 games and 17-14 in the 31 games he missed.  They were 49-19 with Durant so 9-5 without him (there was some overlap in missed games).  Curry's on/off differential was +12.1.  Durant was +1.9.  And that was fairly consistent all 3 of their seasons together.  Curry made the Warriors go even though Durant was the better player.  You see it doesn't necessarily equate to skill, talent, etc., merely how integral the player is to the team. 

Tatum is far more integral to the success of Boston than Brown is.  We've seen this pretty consistently over the last 3 years in that Boston just isn't very good in games Tatum has missed and plays about the same (or better) when Brown is out.  It doesn't mean Brown isn't a good player, he absolutely is, but his value to the scoreboard just isn't very high and the reality is, Boston has just been better with him on the bench over the last 2+ seasons, while Tatum has been by far the leader in that category.  The fact that they both start and have played similar minutes makes that way more striking as you generally find units to have fairly similar numbers, especially when the individual production has been similar enough.  Boston needs Tatum, Boston doesn't need Brown.

You seem to be casting the Curry/Durant example as an explanation of why you are right, whereas I read it as a good example of why your analysis isn't useful. If you took two identical teams and had Curry on one and Durant on the other, I can assure you with some confidence that Curry's team wouldn't win a series very often.

One thing I hope we can agree on is that this is a rapidly moving target and the answer doesn't matter much. They both are improving so fast there isn't much point in analyzing this based on past performance, and it is very cool that they don't seem to get in each other's way or resent each other's success.

I think we have two guys who are at least 2nd team all NBA this year and maybe better. Even based on current output, there is plenty more room for growth.

We have our two superstars.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #128 on: January 26, 2021, 10:41:04 AM »

Offline Walker Wiggle

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 613
  • Tommy Points: 125
Celtics fans waking up to the fact that they've got two top-15 players, each of which could be MVP candidates at some point in their careers, locked up for at least the next four years. Oh yeah, plus the guy who started last year's all-star game at PG whose knee looks pretty good right now.

Absolutely no reason not to expect this team to compete for a title in 2021, and keep competing especially as the BKN, MIL, and LAL title windows start to close.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #129 on: January 26, 2021, 10:57:46 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
And yet historically that stat has been a pretty darn accurate predictor of actual importance to winning.  Look at champions.  The Warriors, for example, Curry, not Durant, is what made them tick.  Durant was a better player than Curry, but he wasn't more critical to the Warriors success.  That was Curry.  Without Curry the Warriors were a good team, with Curry the Warriors were an all time great team and that wasn't the case for Durant.  We saw this quite well during the 17-18 season when the Warriors were 41-10 in Curry's 51 games and 17-14 in the 31 games he missed.  They were 49-19 with Durant so 9-5 without him (there was some overlap in missed games).  Curry's on/off differential was +12.1.  Durant was +1.9.  And that was fairly consistent all 3 of their seasons together.  Curry made the Warriors go even though Durant was the better player.  You see it doesn't necessarily equate to skill, talent, etc., merely how integral the player is to the team. 

Tatum is far more integral to the success of Boston than Brown is.  We've seen this pretty consistently over the last 3 years in that Boston just isn't very good in games Tatum has missed and plays about the same (or better) when Brown is out.  It doesn't mean Brown isn't a good player, he absolutely is, but his value to the scoreboard just isn't very high and the reality is, Boston has just been better with him on the bench over the last 2+ seasons, while Tatum has been by far the leader in that category.  The fact that they both start and have played similar minutes makes that way more striking as you generally find units to have fairly similar numbers, especially when the individual production has been similar enough.  Boston needs Tatum, Boston doesn't need Brown.

You seem to be casting the Curry/Durant example as an explanation of why you are right, whereas I read it as a good example of why your analysis isn't useful. If you took two identical teams and had Curry on one and Durant on the other, I can assure you with some confidence that Curry's team wouldn't win a series very often.

One thing I hope we can agree on is that this is a rapidly moving target and the answer doesn't matter much. They both are improving so fast there isn't much point in analyzing this based on past performance, and it is very cool that they don't seem to get in each other's way or resent each other's success.

I think we have two guys who are at least 2nd team all NBA this year and maybe better. Even based on current output, there is plenty more room for growth.

We have our two superstars.
Except, Curry's team did in fact beat Durant's team, in the playoffs, in a 7 game series.  It was that series that allowed Durant to move from OKC to GS to begin with.  It is the only time they've played in the post season and Curry came out ahead. 

And to be clear, value isn't necessarily the same thing as best.  It never has been.  It is why Karl Malone in back to back seasons was named the most VALUABLE player, when everyone in the world knew Michael Jordan was the best player in the world.  Or why Curry could win it back to back instead of James, who was clearly the best player in the world (also arguably as valuable).  Or why Nash won it twice.  And the countless other times that the best player in the world was not named the MVP despite having their usual great seasons. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #130 on: January 26, 2021, 11:13:44 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
And yet historically that stat has been a pretty darn accurate predictor of actual importance to winning.  Look at champions.  The Warriors, for example, Curry, not Durant, is what made them tick.  Durant was a better player than Curry, but he wasn't more critical to the Warriors success.  That was Curry.  Without Curry the Warriors were a good team, with Curry the Warriors were an all time great team and that wasn't the case for Durant.  We saw this quite well during the 17-18 season when the Warriors were 41-10 in Curry's 51 games and 17-14 in the 31 games he missed.  They were 49-19 with Durant so 9-5 without him (there was some overlap in missed games).  Curry's on/off differential was +12.1.  Durant was +1.9.  And that was fairly consistent all 3 of their seasons together.  Curry made the Warriors go even though Durant was the better player.  You see it doesn't necessarily equate to skill, talent, etc., merely how integral the player is to the team. 

Tatum is far more integral to the success of Boston than Brown is.  We've seen this pretty consistently over the last 3 years in that Boston just isn't very good in games Tatum has missed and plays about the same (or better) when Brown is out.  It doesn't mean Brown isn't a good player, he absolutely is, but his value to the scoreboard just isn't very high and the reality is, Boston has just been better with him on the bench over the last 2+ seasons, while Tatum has been by far the leader in that category.  The fact that they both start and have played similar minutes makes that way more striking as you generally find units to have fairly similar numbers, especially when the individual production has been similar enough.  Boston needs Tatum, Boston doesn't need Brown.

What is it in Tatum's game that I'm missing that makes him that great, if we're following your reasoning?

These on/off numbers suggest that Tatum is basically as important as what LeBron James is to the Lakers.
Anthony Davis is a great player, but according (and also to the eye test to be honest) to the numbers the Lakers are only functioning at top level because of LeBron. Same with Harden in Houston in comparison with any other star that played there (Paul, Westbrook).

To me Jayson Tatum looks like 15-20 as a player ranking in the NBA and Jaylen Brown like 25-30. How come this isn't reflected in the numbers?

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
I have no idea what you are missing.  Tatum is that valuable.  The wins and losses bear that out.  Boston's record when Tatum is out vs. any other player shows this over the last 2+ seasons.  Boston is a well below .500 team in the games Tatum misses.  That isn't true of any other player (and that includes players like Irving when he was here).  And Tatum doesn't even need to play all that well, he just has to play.  Boston goes as Tatum goes.  Boston needs Tatum. 

Lebron James is the most valuable Laker.  It isn't close.  We saw this on their respective teams before joining up.  Davis has never been a player that drives winning teams.  Look at his history in New Orleans.  That team underperformed a lot during the regular season and as a result had limited playoff success.  The one time Davis had a truly elite on/off (11.0) is the one season New Orleans won a playoff series.  It isn't a coincidence.  Whereas, everywhere Lebron goes they win a lot more games when he is on the court and lose a lot more games when he isn't on the court (or leaves).  You can even see it with Lebron, the one season he was really going through the motions for the vast majority of the season, was his last year in Cleveland.  He was still +1.9, but that was by far Cleveland's worst season.  It was full of turmoil and it was a mess.  But in the playoffs, he kicked it up some and was a more respectable +7.5 (and upped his minutes) and the Cavs made the Finals yet again.  Lebron for his career is +11.3 and has two ok seasons, that one and his rookie year at 2.2.  He had one other season at 7, but otherwise has not been below 8.1 in his career.  And his teams win and win a lot because he generally doesn't miss games.  The only time he has missed the playoffs since his first couple of seasons, was his first year in LA when he was injured and played in just 55 games (they were 28-27 in those games and 9-18 in the 27 games he missed). 

As for Houston, yeah Harden is what made them go.  He always has been.  Now some of that is how ball dominant Harden is, but some of it is he is just that good and important.  Harden didn't miss many games which also helps that out.  Even Paul's last year the team was still 14-10 without him, not near the same level, but also not terrible, because they had Harden still. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #131 on: January 26, 2021, 11:29:45 AM »

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
And yet historically that stat has been a pretty darn accurate predictor of actual importance to winning.  Look at champions.  The Warriors, for example, Curry, not Durant, is what made them tick.  Durant was a better player than Curry, but he wasn't more critical to the Warriors success.  That was Curry.  Without Curry the Warriors were a good team, with Curry the Warriors were an all time great team and that wasn't the case for Durant.  We saw this quite well during the 17-18 season when the Warriors were 41-10 in Curry's 51 games and 17-14 in the 31 games he missed.  They were 49-19 with Durant so 9-5 without him (there was some overlap in missed games).  Curry's on/off differential was +12.1.  Durant was +1.9.  And that was fairly consistent all 3 of their seasons together.  Curry made the Warriors go even though Durant was the better player.  You see it doesn't necessarily equate to skill, talent, etc., merely how integral the player is to the team. 

Tatum is far more integral to the success of Boston than Brown is.  We've seen this pretty consistently over the last 3 years in that Boston just isn't very good in games Tatum has missed and plays about the same (or better) when Brown is out.  It doesn't mean Brown isn't a good player, he absolutely is, but his value to the scoreboard just isn't very high and the reality is, Boston has just been better with him on the bench over the last 2+ seasons, while Tatum has been by far the leader in that category.  The fact that they both start and have played similar minutes makes that way more striking as you generally find units to have fairly similar numbers, especially when the individual production has been similar enough.  Boston needs Tatum, Boston doesn't need Brown.

You seem to be casting the Curry/Durant example as an explanation of why you are right, whereas I read it as a good example of why your analysis isn't useful. If you took two identical teams and had Curry on one and Durant on the other, I can assure you with some confidence that Curry's team wouldn't win a series very often.

One thing I hope we can agree on is that this is a rapidly moving target and the answer doesn't matter much. They both are improving so fast there isn't much point in analyzing this based on past performance, and it is very cool that they don't seem to get in each other's way or resent each other's success.

I think we have two guys who are at least 2nd team all NBA this year and maybe better. Even based on current output, there is plenty more room for growth.

We have our two superstars.
Except, Curry's team did in fact beat Durant's team, in the playoffs, in a 7 game series.  It was that series that allowed Durant to move from OKC to GS to begin with.  It is the only time they've played in the post season and Curry came out ahead. 

And to be clear, value isn't necessarily the same thing as best.  It never has been.  It is why Karl Malone in back to back seasons was named the most VALUABLE player, when everyone in the world knew Michael Jordan was the best player in the world.  Or why Curry could win it back to back instead of James, who was clearly the best player in the world (also arguably as valuable).  Or why Nash won it twice.  And the countless other times that the best player in the world was not named the MVP despite having their usual great seasons.

OK, Durant did lose to Curry in 2015-16, but those rosters weren't close to even. Playing with Russell Westbrook practically guarantees you can't win a championship.

It also seems weird that you keep hedging by arguing who is better vs who is more valuable. Karl Malone was never more valuable than Michael Jordan on the court. He only won because of voting psychology. The same thing with the Curry vs James comparison. There is no real basketball gap between the two ideas.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #132 on: January 26, 2021, 11:54:37 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6857
  • Tommy Points: 391
I can see why people would want to argue that Brown has reached Tatum’s level, but better? I don’t see it. Maybe when teams start game planning to stop Brown over Tatum - throwing box and 1’s at him or doubling him as soon as he catches the ball - can I start to be convinced otherwise.
- LilRip

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #133 on: January 26, 2021, 12:03:48 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

Tatum missed 5 games, Boston went 2-3 despite getting Walker back for the last 4.  They were 7-3 with Tatum to start the year and without Walker playing at all (and when they close out the Bulls will be 8-3 with Tatum and no Walker).  And despite the Cleveland game yesterday, Boston is still 3.4 points per 100 possessions better when Brown is on the bench.

Tatum is the most valuable Celtic because he is the best Celtic and frankly I don't think it is all that close.
Genuinely cannot believe you're clinging so desperately to the laughable idea that we're a better team with Brown on the bench by using raw on/off. Funny stuff
And yet historically that stat has been a pretty darn accurate predictor of actual importance to winning.  Look at champions.  The Warriors, for example, Curry, not Durant, is what made them tick.  Durant was a better player than Curry, but he wasn't more critical to the Warriors success.  That was Curry.  Without Curry the Warriors were a good team, with Curry the Warriors were an all time great team and that wasn't the case for Durant.  We saw this quite well during the 17-18 season when the Warriors were 41-10 in Curry's 51 games and 17-14 in the 31 games he missed.  They were 49-19 with Durant so 9-5 without him (there was some overlap in missed games).  Curry's on/off differential was +12.1.  Durant was +1.9.  And that was fairly consistent all 3 of their seasons together.  Curry made the Warriors go even though Durant was the better player.  You see it doesn't necessarily equate to skill, talent, etc., merely how integral the player is to the team. 

Tatum is far more integral to the success of Boston than Brown is.  We've seen this pretty consistently over the last 3 years in that Boston just isn't very good in games Tatum has missed and plays about the same (or better) when Brown is out.  It doesn't mean Brown isn't a good player, he absolutely is, but his value to the scoreboard just isn't very high and the reality is, Boston has just been better with him on the bench over the last 2+ seasons, while Tatum has been by far the leader in that category.  The fact that they both start and have played similar minutes makes that way more striking as you generally find units to have fairly similar numbers, especially when the individual production has been similar enough.  Boston needs Tatum, Boston doesn't need Brown.

You seem to be casting the Curry/Durant example as an explanation of why you are right, whereas I read it as a good example of why your analysis isn't useful. If you took two identical teams and had Curry on one and Durant on the other, I can assure you with some confidence that Curry's team wouldn't win a series very often.

One thing I hope we can agree on is that this is a rapidly moving target and the answer doesn't matter much. They both are improving so fast there isn't much point in analyzing this based on past performance, and it is very cool that they don't seem to get in each other's way or resent each other's success.

I think we have two guys who are at least 2nd team all NBA this year and maybe better. Even based on current output, there is plenty more room for growth.

We have our two superstars.
Except, Curry's team did in fact beat Durant's team, in the playoffs, in a 7 game series.  It was that series that allowed Durant to move from OKC to GS to begin with.  It is the only time they've played in the post season and Curry came out ahead. 

And to be clear, value isn't necessarily the same thing as best.  It never has been.  It is why Karl Malone in back to back seasons was named the most VALUABLE player, when everyone in the world knew Michael Jordan was the best player in the world.  Or why Curry could win it back to back instead of James, who was clearly the best player in the world (also arguably as valuable).  Or why Nash won it twice.  And the countless other times that the best player in the world was not named the MVP despite having their usual great seasons.

OK, Durant did lose to Curry in 2015-16, but those rosters weren't close to even. Playing with Russell Westbrook practically guarantees you can't win a championship.

It also seems weird that you keep hedging by arguing who is better vs who is more valuable. Karl Malone was never more valuable than Michael Jordan on the court. He only won because of voting psychology. The same thing with the Curry vs James comparison. There is no real basketball gap between the two ideas.
In 96-97, the Jazz were 21.9 points per 100 possessions better with Malone on the court vs. him off it, the Bulls were +8.0 with Jordan (Malone's other MVP was after Jordan retired the 2nd time, they weren't back to back I had that part wrong).  That was the first year they started tracking that stat on bball-ref, so I can't go back further.   Jordan and Malone both played all 82 games and over 36 mpg that season, so it is a bit tricky to fully gauge since neither missed any games (which is the best way to gauge how a team plays without a player).  Obviously the Bulls were a deeper and better team which also skews those numbers, but if you are talking about value, the Bulls would have been a very good team without Jordan.  The Jazz would have been terrible without Malone.  That is what made Malone more valuable despite not being as good.  And we saw that the Bulls were still a good team when Jordan walked away the first time with the Pippen led Bulls winning 55 games and a playoff series. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #134 on: January 26, 2021, 12:43:05 PM »

Offline tstorey_97

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Tommy Points: 586
Brown's stat line from his first year to today is scary.

If he gets one more notch in each category, he'll be top 5 in the NBA. He's already top 10.

That simplifies the discussion on Tatum, all he has to do is match Brown and it will be up to Ainge to get the rest of the team right so the J's can win some titles.

As far as Brown offensively over the last 8 games, he simply doesn't make mistakes. Opponents aren't crashing him very hard thus he gets to spots where he's comfortable shooting. His jumpers pretty much go in all the time. He's got Smart doing jumpers now also which is a miracle.

Brown is consistent on defense and so is Tatum. They simply don't make a lot of mistakes. They don't pile up fouls and most importantly, they play with their team mates on the floor. Everybody picks each other up.

Last night the Celtics were up 20 at about 7 minutes in the 4th. It was "Tatum and the benchers."

Bulls hit some threes and it was 10 points. At about 6 minutes Stevens put in Smart, Brown and Theis. From that point on Bulls couldn't hit a shot and the Celtics started hitting easy shots.
 
My point is that it is a team sport. Brown and Tatum have guys around them that play together, and they have been doing so for quite awhile.

Watch James, he knows the game as well as anyone. His teams are built on defense and on that end of the court each player has to pick up their team mate flawlessly to win playoff games.

If Tatum and Brown want to beat the Nets, Lakers or whomever? It will be on defense.