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

[Moranis]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with most of what you say.

Where I disagree lies in the bold above. I don't think there's a consensus. It's why they vote, instead of declare, the 3 All NBA teams and MVP.

You're using a hard line saying "X isn't top 5 or top 10", then couching it with terms like "most of the time". You're flip-flopping on what is concrete fact, and what is subjective.

And yes, we know that you're not putting this theory up for a peer reviewed journal. It's a fun thought exercise that needs more refinement. I do like where you're heading. I think you've spent a lot of time explaining the idea that the best players win championships. Very few will disagree with that.

best season and best player aren't the same thing. There is no vote for best player and never has been one.

[green_bballers13]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with most of what you say.

Where I disagree lies in the bold above. I don't think there's a consensus. It's why they vote, instead of declare, the 3 All NBA teams and MVP.

You're using a hard line saying "X isn't top 5 or top 10", then couching it with terms like "most of the time". You're flip-flopping on what is concrete fact, and what is subjective.

And yes, we know that you're not putting this theory up for a peer reviewed journal. It's a fun thought exercise that needs more refinement. I do like where you're heading. I think you've spent a lot of time explaining the idea that the best players win championships. Very few will disagree with that.

best season and best player aren't the same thing. There is no vote for best player and never has been one.

Ok, you think there's a consensus on the top 5. I don't. My top 5 are:

Jokic
Giannis
Curry
KD
Tatum

Do you also think these are the top 5 players? If not, doesn't that mean that there can be room for discussion?

[Moranis]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with most of what you say.

Where I disagree lies in the bold above. I don't think there's a consensus. It's why they vote, instead of declare, the 3 All NBA teams and MVP.

You're using a hard line saying "X isn't top 5 or top 10", then couching it with terms like "most of the time". You're flip-flopping on what is concrete fact, and what is subjective.

And yes, we know that you're not putting this theory up for a peer reviewed journal. It's a fun thought exercise that needs more refinement. I do like where you're heading. I think you've spent a lot of time explaining the idea that the best players win championships. Very few will disagree with that.

best season and best player aren't the same thing. There is no vote for best player and never has been one.

Ok, you think there's a consensus on the top 5. I don't. My top 5 are:

Jokic
Giannis
Curry
KD
Tatum

Do you also think these are the top 5 players? If not, doesn't that mean that there can be room for discussion?

I do think there will be a general consensus this year, and you are against the grain by having Tatum and not the defending MVP.

[green_bballers13]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with most of what you say.

Where I disagree lies in the bold above. I don't think there's a consensus. It's why they vote, instead of declare, the 3 All NBA teams and MVP.

You're using a hard line saying "X isn't top 5 or top 10", then couching it with terms like "most of the time". You're flip-flopping on what is concrete fact, and what is subjective.

And yes, we know that you're not putting this theory up for a peer reviewed journal. It's a fun thought exercise that needs more refinement. I do like where you're heading. I think you've spent a lot of time explaining the idea that the best players win championships. Very few will disagree with that.

best season and best player aren't the same thing. There is no vote for best player and never has been one.

Ok, you think there's a consensus on the top 5. I don't. My top 5 are:

Jokic
Giannis
Curry
KD
Tatum

Do you also think these are the top 5 players? If not, doesn't that mean that there can be room for discussion?

I do think there will be a general consensus this year, and you are against the grain by having Tatum and not the defending MVP.

Oh, Embiid is an all world regular season basketball player. He tends to underperform in the playoffs. This factors into my analysis. You said that the best players are great consistently. Embiid had 15 points twice this year in the playoffs vs. the Celtics. If he was more consistent, they may have won that series.

This shows that people can have differing opinions, which eats away at your theory.

[droopdog7]

I feel like my initial point, or what I was thinking at the time, is that the Celts are not going to win a title unless a player leads them there.  That most certainly is related to having a top 5 player.  And I suppose the argument is kinda circular, in that you don't really know whether a guy can do it until he does. 

That said, JT has not really had the time of play for the duration of the playoffs to win it all.  Part of it has been  bad games/series for sure.  But the other part is being able to play at an MVP level for long stretches. 

[Kernewek]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with you, mostly, but I would point out that the bolded is verging on tautology, which is what people are honing in on re: your comment - if we retroactively say that the best players are the players that performed the best during a given season (which is reasonable), then - as greenbb13 pointed out - you're essentially saying "the best players are the best players because they win, and the best players were the best players because we won".

So while this is true, we do have to balance this logical fact (how can you be the best if you don't win, after all) with the notion that 'past performance is no guarantee of future results' - which is particularly pertinent to athletes, who tend to curdle like milk. We can say that these guys have been better than Tatum thus far, and I don't think anyone disagrees, but to say that Tatum will always be worse than those guys (however we want to define better/worse) because he's always been worse than those guys thus far is self-evidently incorrect. That's what people are reacting to.

[Moranis]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with you, mostly, but I would point out that the bolded is verging on tautology, which is what people are honing in on re: your comment - if we retroactively say that the best players are the players that performed the best during a given season (which is reasonable), then - as greenbb13 pointed out - you're essentially saying "the best players are the best players because they win, and the best players were the best players because we won".

So while this is true, we do have to balance this logical fact (how can you be the best if you don't win, after all) with the notion that 'past performance is no guarantee of future results' - which is particularly pertinent to athletes, who tend to curdle like milk. We can say that these guys have been better than Tatum thus far, and I don't think anyone disagrees, but to say that Tatum will always be worse than those guys (however we want to define better/worse) because he's always been worse than those guys thus far is self-evidently incorrect. That's what people are reacting to.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats. 

[green_bballers13]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with you, mostly, but I would point out that the bolded is verging on tautology, which is what people are honing in on re: your comment - if we retroactively say that the best players are the players that performed the best during a given season (which is reasonable), then - as greenbb13 pointed out - you're essentially saying "the best players are the best players because they win, and the best players were the best players because we won".

So while this is true, we do have to balance this logical fact (how can you be the best if you don't win, after all) with the notion that 'past performance is no guarantee of future results' - which is particularly pertinent to athletes, who tend to curdle like milk. We can say that these guys have been better than Tatum thus far, and I don't think anyone disagrees, but to say that Tatum will always be worse than those guys (however we want to define better/worse) because he's always been worse than those guys thus far is self-evidently incorrect. That's what people are reacting to.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Using this logic, how is Embiid a top 5 player?

[Moranis]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with you, mostly, but I would point out that the bolded is verging on tautology, which is what people are honing in on re: your comment - if we retroactively say that the best players are the players that performed the best during a given season (which is reasonable), then - as greenbb13 pointed out - you're essentially saying "the best players are the best players because they win, and the best players were the best players because we won".

So while this is true, we do have to balance this logical fact (how can you be the best if you don't win, after all) with the notion that 'past performance is no guarantee of future results' - which is particularly pertinent to athletes, who tend to curdle like milk. We can say that these guys have been better than Tatum thus far, and I don't think anyone disagrees, but to say that Tatum will always be worse than those guys (however we want to define better/worse) because he's always been worse than those guys thus far is self-evidently incorrect. That's what people are reacting to.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Using this logic, how is Embiid a top 5 player?

Embiid hasn't been healthy in the playoffs the last couple of seasons.  Injuries affect performance

[Kernewek]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

[celticsclay]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with most of what you say.

Where I disagree lies in the bold above. I don't think there's a consensus. It's why they vote, instead of declare, the 3 All NBA teams and MVP.

You're using a hard line saying "X isn't top 5 or top 10", then couching it with terms like "most of the time". You're flip-flopping on what is concrete fact, and what is subjective.

And yes, we know that you're not putting this theory up for a peer reviewed journal. It's a fun thought exercise that needs more refinement. I do like where you're heading. I think you've spent a lot of time explaining the idea that the best players win championships. Very few will disagree with that.

Yep you keep pointing out the same problem with Moranis argument and he keeps kind of bending and twisting and not adjusting on it. There is no clear top 5 or in many years even top 3. Right now I think the only thing people would agree on is that joker is number one. After that? There is clearly zero consensus or anything close to it. I’m sure there are people on this board that have Giannis 2, reigning mvp Embid 2, doncic 2. We would probably get at least 10 players with multiple votes for top 5 if we opened it up for the whole board. And even without any homerism Tatum would get significant votes for top 5 based on his play last season (curry, sga, Durant would all clearly get them also). It’s why the whole premise has gotten pretty ridiculous here of trying to create a rule. So for like the 4th time you just ask is Tatum a good enough player that if brown, porzingas white and Rob Williams all play great the Celtics win a title? Clearly that is true. So why are we doing all this top player stuff?

[celticsclay]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with you, mostly, but I would point out that the bolded is verging on tautology, which is what people are honing in on re: your comment - if we retroactively say that the best players are the players that performed the best during a given season (which is reasonable), then - as greenbb13 pointed out - you're essentially saying "the best players are the best players because they win, and the best players were the best players because we won".

So while this is true, we do have to balance this logical fact (how can you be the best if you don't win, after all) with the notion that 'past performance is no guarantee of future results' - which is particularly pertinent to athletes, who tend to curdle like milk. We can say that these guys have been better than Tatum thus far, and I don't think anyone disagrees, but to say that Tatum will always be worse than those guys (however we want to define better/worse) because he's always been worse than those guys thus far is self-evidently incorrect. That's what people are reacting to.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Using this logic, how is Embiid a top 5 player?

Embiid hasn't been healthy in the playoffs the last couple of seasons.  Injuries affect performance

This was an L mo. You cant keep arguing how important playoff performance is including a few pages back basing your entire argument for Dirk being top 5 on it then discount a guy that has been underachieving in playoffs every single year injuries or not. You absolutely can’t have it both ways on that. So which is it?

[Donoghus]

I think, as so eloquently stated by Celtics2021, it's a "load of BS".

The bulk of this is way too subjective and arbitrary. 

[Moranis]

Surely the fact that he's consistently injured (or at least slowed down) every season by the time we get to the playoffs has to factor into his ranking though. Healthy Embiid rampaging through the playoffs has never happened, and is increasingly likely never to happen.

I'm not saying Tatum won't be that level of player at some point in the future, I think he can as I've consistently stated since basically his rookie year (and maybe this is the year he does take that leap).  I'm saying he hasn't been that player yet and that is a very large reason why Boston hasn't won a title and is why I've said Boston has significantly over achieved the last 5 years.  To win at this level without a top 5 player and no other top 20 player is absolutely amazing (and it is only the last 2 years Tatum has become a top 10 player).

I get the stat argument, but it isn't the stats that make the player a top 5 guy, it is the fact that they are a top 5 guy, which is why they have the stats they have in the most important games.  The stats don't make the talent, the talent makes the stats.

Right - but let's say the ball bounces a few different ways and Boston does win a title in 2022 but Tatum plays roughly the same way; does that mean that Tatum would have been that level of player, or would you be chalking that up to a celestial alignment ala one of your examples like the 2004 Pistons?

the injuries with Embiid is certainly fair.  He is hurt a lot. The last time he was healthy for a playoff series he was 30/13/4 with 2 blocks and a steal, though he probably wasn't even a top 5 player then.  He was right on the cusp though. He has had some amazing regular seasons since then, including winning the MVP, but he hasn't been healthy.  That still didn't stop the Ringer from having as the 5th best player for the up coming season though.

As for your Celtics question, if the ball bounces differently and the Celtics win, it probably would have been because Tatum played better and thus that probably would have been his coming out party and ascension to the elite tier.  Of course, if the ball bounces differently the C's might have lost to either Milwaukee or Miami also.  Tatum was very good against the Bucks that year (and was awesome in game 6), but was only good against the Heat, and was poor against the Warriors.  He wasn't good enough to bring the A+ game for a full playoff run.  That is the difference between where Tatum was and where he needs to be.  Tatum quite simply hasn't been good enough for the Celtics to win a title.  It isn't rocket science or a mystery, it is talent and Tatum and Boston as a whole haven't had enough.

[Celtics4ever]

Embiid is one of the best in the world for three quarters but wears down and is horrible in the fourth.  All a team has to do is stay close and he will fade out of the game and you can beat him.