Whether or not we win a title all comes down to JT and JB right?

[RodyTur10]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

I'm not trying to trick you. But does your statement imply that in your opinion there's a 95% chance a MVP-level player is going to win the championship?

For this season that would be in your view Jokic, Embiid and Antetokounmpo I imagine.
Is there a name that should be added to that short list? Tatum, Curry, Doncic or SGA?

[celticsclay]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

History is history according to your rules here though. I agree you need a top player for sure but the 5 is kind of just an imaginary data point you created and then you are counting players like curry last year and Dirk as top to satisfy your own rule when by most objective measures they were not top 5 players. Your argument would be a lot stronger and get a lot less pushback if you just said top 10 (of which Tatum clearly is now).

[celticsclay]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

I'm not trying to trick you. But does your statement imply that in your opinion there's a 95% chance a MVP-level player is going to win the championship?

For this season that would be in your view Jokic, Embiid and Antetokounmpo I imagine.
Is there a name that should be added to that short list? Tatum, Curry, Doncic or SGA?

My the rule Moranis is stating he believes there is a 95% chance that the bucks, nuggets, 76ers or Dallas will win the title. Phoenix, lakers, Boston, clippers could not with the possible exception of Celtics if Moranis considers Tatum top 5. I think the top 4 are pretty clear in most people’s minds unclear who the 5th best player in league is (again why this whole arbitrary number of 5 is quite silly).

[keevsnick]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

I'm not trying to trick you. But does your statement imply that in your opinion there's a 95% chance a MVP-level player is going to win the championship?

For this season that would be in your view Jokic, Embiid and Antetokounmpo I imagine.
Is there a name that should be added to that short list? Tatum, Curry, Doncic or SGA?

My the rule Moranis is stating he believes there is a 95% chance that the bucks, nuggets, 76ers or Dallas will win the title. Phoenix, lakers, Boston, clippers could not with the possible exception of Celtics if Moranis considers Tatum top 5. I think the top 4 are pretty clear in most people’s minds unclear who the 5th best player in league is (again why this whole arbitrary number of 5 is quite silly).

To make this less subjective: Since the year 2000 there have been 24 NBA champions. By my count 22 of those teams had a player on them who had won an MVP award BEFORE they won the title. The only two exceptions was Toronto in 2019 and Detroit in 2004.

[celticsclay]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

I'm not trying to trick you. But does your statement imply that in your opinion there's a 95% chance a MVP-level player is going to win the championship?

For this season that would be in your view Jokic, Embiid and Antetokounmpo I imagine.
Is there a name that should be added to that short list? Tatum, Curry, Doncic or SGA?

My the rule Moranis is stating he believes there is a 95% chance that the bucks, nuggets, 76ers or Dallas will win the title. Phoenix, lakers, Boston, clippers could not with the possible exception of Celtics if Moranis considers Tatum top 5. I think the top 4 are pretty clear in most people’s minds unclear who the 5th best player in league is (again why this whole arbitrary number of 5 is quite silly).

To make this less subjective: Since the year 2000 there have been 24 NBA champions. By my count 22 of those teams had a player on them who had won an MVP award BEFORE they won the title. The only two exceptions was Toronto in 2019 and Detroit in 2004.

This is more of just a random stat for like a bar trivia. I don’t think the warriors won the title because curry was previously an mvp or the mavericks won cause Dirk was an mvp years earlier. I think it is a lot easier to just say what teams could be contenders this year rather than some random factoid about how you rank their best player or if he previously won an mvp (look out for memphis cause they have Derrick rose now). I think the suns, nuggets or Celtics could all clearly win the title this year with good health and a few breaks. Whether Durant is a top 5 player or Tatum is a top 5 player in our own minds is completely irrevelant.

[Moranis]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

I'm not trying to trick you. But does your statement imply that in your opinion there's a 95% chance a MVP-level player is going to win the championship?

For this season that would be in your view Jokic, Embiid and Antetokounmpo I imagine.
Is there a name that should be added to that short list? Tatum, Curry, Doncic or SGA?

My the rule Moranis is stating he believes there is a 95% chance that the bucks, nuggets, 76ers or Dallas will win the title. Phoenix, lakers, Boston, clippers could not with the possible exception of Celtics if Moranis considers Tatum top 5. I think the top 4 are pretty clear in most people’s minds unclear who the 5th best player in league is (again why this whole arbitrary number of 5 is quite silly).

To make this less subjective: Since the year 2000 there have been 24 NBA champions. By my count 22 of those teams had a player on them who had won an MVP award BEFORE they won the title. The only two exceptions was Toronto in 2019 and Detroit in 2004.

And in the 90's you had the Pistons in 90 (no MVP winner but defending champions), then the 3 Bulls with MJ (MVP), then the Rockets 2 in which Hakeem won the MVP in 94 (so technically he won the MVP before they won the 1st, ha), 3 more MJ Bulls, and the the Robinson Spurs (TD would win after the first). So 1, arguably 2 in the 90's.

The 80's much of the same with only the Celtics in 81 and then 84 (the year Bird win his first) and Pistons in 89 not having a MVP before winning.

Even the 70's really only had the last 3 i.e. Sonics, Bullets, and Blazers while the Warriors in 75 had the MVP on the team that season (McAdoo).

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

[Vermont Green]

To make this less subjective: Since the year 2000 there have been 24 NBA champions. By my count 22 of those teams had a player on them who had won an MVP award BEFORE they won the title. The only two exceptions was Toronto in 2019 and Detroit in 2004.

I think the MVP test is fair, not perfect, but fair.  You could tighten it up if you said that the team won a title within say 3 years of their star being the MVP.  That would filter out the cases where a player was a MVP some years ago but was no longer a "top handful of players" talent at the point the title was won.  Curry for example, was MVP in 2016, does that factor into him winning a title in 2022 where he was 8th in MVP voting with 4 5th place votes?  Tatum was 6th in the voting that season.

[Moranis]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

I think you just agreed with the argument that others are making.  Sure, often teams win titles with dominant single players leading the way.  Current top 5; all-time top 25, however you want to define "dominant single players".  But that is not the only way.  As I said, I don't think that Curry was playing at a "dominant" level in 2022.  He may go down as a top 25 all-time player based on his body of work, but I did not see him play at that level in 2022.  He certainly played at a very high level, the "B" level as was described above, but he did not play at that "A" level of dominance, in my view.  Jokic was certainly dominant for DEN in 2023.

And I also agree that in general, teams are not going to have extended title runs without that one dominant, A level player, although I think SAN in the Duncan years is an exception to this.  Tim Duncan was not a level A, dominant player.  He was really good, a top player, but there was much more to them winning than him dominating.  They had the coach, they had a strong core unit that was together along time.

Tatum has not so far played at that A level of dominance.  He may get there, he may not.  But I think the Celtics could win a title even if he doesn't.  They probably won't be able to sustain a "dynasty" of winning without Tatum reaching that level.  But they could win a title or more over Tatum's career even if Tatum only gets to the B level of dominance (which I think he is already at).

Before that season started ESPN had Curry as the 5th best player. Tatum was 14th.  Before the start of the next season (last year), Curry was still ranked 5th by ESPN, but Tatum moved up to 7 likely in large part because of the run to the Finals.

[Moranis]

Also, we don't have ESPN's rankings yet for this season, but the Ringer has Curry at 2 behind only Jokic with Giannis 3, Durant 4, and Embiid 5. Tatum is 6 ahead of Luka at 7.

It not only shouldn't be controversial to say Curry was a top 5 player in 2022, it should generally be accepted as true.

As an aside, I also have him as a top 15 player all time. 

He is also 1 of only 2 players shorter than 6'3" to be the best player on a title team multiple times (along with Thomas).

[Vermont Green]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

[keevsnick]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Having watched the player of the C's the last few seasons I think its REALLY hard to argue Tatum has been as good as the Jokic run this year, the Giannis run, Kawhi in 2019 or even AD in the bubble. He's an awesome player, but he's just never quite reached THAT height.

Could the C's win with Tatum playing at the level he has the last two years? Yes, they could. But it is without a doubt harder than it would be if he was a clear cut MVP level guy. He might very well play at that level this year, but if he doesn't they need health/shooting luck ect to make up the difference.

[keevsnick]

History is history.  The fact remains, 95% of the champions in the history of the league have had a top 5 player on their team.  Sure there is a bit of subjectivity on whether a certain player is a top 5 player and sometimes the winning establishes a guy in that tier that was close (i.e. Tatum might be currently considered a top 5 player, had the C's won the title), but you can't argue against the simple reality that NBA champions have top 5 players on their team.  That is the historical reality.  And the very few times it has happened without a top 5 player, the teams won just 1 title and often were only competing for titles for 2 or 3 seasons.  You need the top end talent and always have to win.  And to win a lot, you need the really special talents, you know the top 25 on history type players.  I mean since the Sonics title in 79, the only 2 (or 4) champions without a top 25 player are Kawhi's Raptors, Wallace's Pistons, and arguably the 2 Thomas' Pistons.  And of those 4, Thomas is close to top 25 all time if not in it and Kawhi was certainly on that path before injuries (I'm counting Jokic though he may still not be quite that high, I am just projecting him to get there).

So it isn't even just a top 5 player in the league, it is almost always one of the very best players in the history of the league.

I'm not trying to trick you. But does your statement imply that in your opinion there's a 95% chance a MVP-level player is going to win the championship?

For this season that would be in your view Jokic, Embiid and Antetokounmpo I imagine.
Is there a name that should be added to that short list? Tatum, Curry, Doncic or SGA?

My the rule Moranis is stating he believes there is a 95% chance that the bucks, nuggets, 76ers or Dallas will win the title. Phoenix, lakers, Boston, clippers could not with the possible exception of Celtics if Moranis considers Tatum top 5. I think the top 4 are pretty clear in most people’s minds unclear who the 5th best player in league is (again why this whole arbitrary number of 5 is quite silly).

To make this less subjective: Since the year 2000 there have been 24 NBA champions. By my count 22 of those teams had a player on them who had won an MVP award BEFORE they won the title. The only two exceptions was Toronto in 2019 and Detroit in 2004.

This is more of just a random stat for like a bar trivia. I don’t think the warriors won the title because curry was previously an mvp or the mavericks won cause Dirk was an mvp years earlier. I think it is a lot easier to just say what teams could be contenders this year rather than some random factoid about how you rank their best player or if he previously won an mvp (look out for memphis cause they have Derrick rose now). I think the suns, nuggets or Celtics could all clearly win the title this year with good health and a few breaks. Whether Durant is a top 5 player or Tatum is a top 5 player in our own minds is completely irrevelant.

The Nuggets and Suns both have MVP's on their roster, so that kind of supports my point. Who else could reasonably win it next year?

Sixers: MVP Embiid
Bucks: MVP Giannis
Lakers: MVP Lebron, AD could also win it.
Warriors: MVP Curry
Suns: MVP Durant

Of the top 7 teams by NBA title odd's 6 have former MVP's on their roster. The c's do not.

Again: The Celtics COULD win it if Tatum stays about where he is right now, which is like the 6th-8th best player in the NBA. But it is harder than if he was an MVP level guy.

[Who]

I thought Tatum was one of the leaders for MVP last season up until the All-Star break.

[Donoghus]

I thought Tatum was one of the leaders for MVP last season up until the All-Star break.

He was.

[Moranis]

I thought Tatum was one of the leaders for MVP last season up until the All-Star break.

he was and then he petered out, though still finished 4th.  That does not mean he was the 4th best player though unless you are going to tell me someone like IT4 was the 5th best player when he finished 5th in MVP voting.

I have been one ofTatum's biggest backers on here for years.  I've said since basically his 2nd year, the team will only go as far as Tatum takes them and he has the potential to take them to the title.  That said, Tatum needs to up his level of play from where he was last year for the C's to have a real shot at the title.  He just isn't consistently good enough.  He can't have off nights as often as he does.  He has to be the mega elite player every night especially since the rest of the team isn't good enough.  If Boston had another top 20 player and multiple top 50 players, then perhaps Tatum in the 6 to 8 range would be good enough, but Boston doesn't, so Tatum has to be better. He had to be a top 5 player.  If he is, Boston has a reasonable shot at the title, if he isn't Boston has virtually no shot at winning.