What (if anything) is wrong with Jaylen?

[Moranis]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Sure there have been a lot of changes and the games looks different, but all of the recent champions have also all been anchored by a top 5 player. 

Basketball (and perhaps the QB position) is where 1 guy can mean the difference between winning a title and missing the playoffs entirely.  Talent wins.  Sure the sport may look different, but you still need that guy at the top, just like you always have.  That isn't going to change either since it hasn't changed since the first season in 1948.  If you have one of the truly elite players, you can compete for and win championships, and by large when you don't have that truly elite player you don't.  That is how it has always worked and will continue to work.

I don't even think I disagree with your point. I'm just not in love with the haughty way that you have presented it.

Clearly basketball is a star driven league, and there's no debate here. My question is with your choice of top 5. Why not make it top 3 or top 8? I don't understand why top 5 is the sticking point. This is relevant, as we have a player that is arguably top 5. You have a hard and fast rule, but we're not certain if he fits your criteria. Does this make the future uncertain, or can we start engraving the trophy? I unfortunately don't have a great read on the future, and would love to see how I can use your knowledge to make a bet or two. I'll split my winnings with you.

Because it is based on actual history.  Look at the champions.  It isn't arbitrary. 

[Kernewek]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Sure there have been a lot of changes and the games looks different, but all of the recent champions have also all been anchored by a top 5 player. 

Basketball (and perhaps the QB position) is where 1 guy can mean the difference between winning a title and missing the playoffs entirely.  Talent wins.  Sure the sport may look different, but you still need that guy at the top, just like you always have.  That isn't going to change either since it hasn't changed since the first season in 1948.  If you have one of the truly elite players, you can compete for and win championships, and by large when you don't have that truly elite player you don't.  That is how it has always worked and will continue to work.

I don't even think I disagree with your point. I'm just not in love with the haughty way that you have presented it.

Clearly basketball is a star driven league, and there's no debate here. My question is with your choice of top 5. Why not make it top 3 or top 8? I don't understand why top 5 is the sticking point. This is relevant, as we have a player that is arguably top 5. You have a hard and fast rule, but we're not certain if he fits your criteria. Does this make the future uncertain, or can we start engraving the trophy? I unfortunately don't have a great read on the future, and would love to see how I can use your knowledge to make a bet or two. I'll split my winnings with you.

Because it is based on actual history.  Look at the champions.  It isn't arbitrary.

How can you be sure these players are not susceptible to post hoc movement into the top 5 in a given season after winning the championship?

[Roy H.]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Sure there have been a lot of changes and the games looks different, but all of the recent champions have also all been anchored by a top 5 player. 

Basketball (and perhaps the QB position) is where 1 guy can mean the difference between winning a title and missing the playoffs entirely.  Talent wins.  Sure the sport may look different, but you still need that guy at the top, just like you always have.  That isn't going to change either since it hasn't changed since the first season in 1948.  If you have one of the truly elite players, you can compete for and win championships, and by large when you don't have that truly elite player you don't.  That is how it has always worked and will continue to work.

I don't even think I disagree with your point. I'm just not in love with the haughty way that you have presented it.

Clearly basketball is a star driven league, and there's no debate here. My question is with your choice of top 5. Why not make it top 3 or top 8? I don't understand why top 5 is the sticking point. This is relevant, as we have a player that is arguably top 5. You have a hard and fast rule, but we're not certain if he fits your criteria. Does this make the future uncertain, or can we start engraving the trophy? I unfortunately don't have a great read on the future, and would love to see how I can use your knowledge to make a bet or two. I'll split my winnings with you.

Because it is based on actual history.  Look at the champions.  It isn't arbitrary.

How can you be sure these players are not susceptible to post hoc movement into the top 5 in a given season after winning the championship?

Moranis showed his work to some extent:

Lakers - 5 with Kareem/Magic - 3 with Shaq/Kobe - 2 with Kobe/Pau
Celtics - 3 with Bird, 1 with KG
Sixers - 1 with Moses/Dr. J
Pistons - 2 with Thomas, 1 with no arguable top 5
Bulls - 6 with Jordan/Pippen
Rockets - 2 with Hakeem
Spurs - 5 with Duncan (though the last he wasn't top 5 anymore)
Heat - 2 with Lebron/Wade - 1 with Shaq/Wade
Mavericks - 1 with Dirk
Warriors - 3 with Curry (2 of which had Durant)
Cavs - 1 with Lebron
Raptors - 1 with Kawhi
Bucks - 1 with Giannis

Aside from the Spurs in 14 and Pistons in 04 and perhaps the Mavericks in 11, which of those teams didn't have basically a consensus top 5 player entering the playoffs of that season.

Moranis identified three teams without top-5 guys, or where it was arguable.  I guess I'd add the Isiah Thomas Pistons, and perhaps the Wade / Shaq Miami team.  Wade was 6th in MVP voting and made All-NBA Second Team (so he was on the cusp, at the very least, and performed like a top-5 player in those playoffs).  Thomas is harder to argue, as he was left off the All-NBA team in 1989 and 1990.  Dumars made 3rd team in 1990.  I don't think Thomas was on the radar of most people in terms of Top-5 (Jordan, Magic, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Stockton, Ewing, etc.) 

[nickagneta]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Sure there have been a lot of changes and the games looks different, but all of the recent champions have also all been anchored by a top 5 player. 

Basketball (and perhaps the QB position) is where 1 guy can mean the difference between winning a title and missing the playoffs entirely.  Talent wins.  Sure the sport may look different, but you still need that guy at the top, just like you always have.  That isn't going to change either since it hasn't changed since the first season in 1948.  If you have one of the truly elite players, you can compete for and win championships, and by large when you don't have that truly elite player you don't.  That is how it has always worked and will continue to work.

I don't even think I disagree with your point. I'm just not in love with the haughty way that you have presented it.

Clearly basketball is a star driven league, and there's no debate here. My question is with your choice of top 5. Why not make it top 3 or top 8? I don't understand why top 5 is the sticking point. This is relevant, as we have a player that is arguably top 5. You have a hard and fast rule, but we're not certain if he fits your criteria. Does this make the future uncertain, or can we start engraving the trophy? I unfortunately don't have a great read on the future, and would love to see how I can use your knowledge to make a bet or two. I'll split my winnings with you.

Because it is based on actual history.  Look at the champions.  It isn't arbitrary.

How can you be sure these players are not susceptible to post hoc movement into the top 5 in a given season after winning the championship?

Moranis showed his work to some extent:

Lakers - 5 with Kareem/Magic - 3 with Shaq/Kobe - 2 with Kobe/Pau
Celtics - 3 with Bird, 1 with KG
Sixers - 1 with Moses/Dr. J
Pistons - 2 with Thomas, 1 with no arguable top 5
Bulls - 6 with Jordan/Pippen
Rockets - 2 with Hakeem
Spurs - 5 with Duncan (though the last he wasn't top 5 anymore)
Heat - 2 with Lebron/Wade - 1 with Shaq/Wade
Mavericks - 1 with Dirk
Warriors - 3 with Curry (2 of which had Durant)
Cavs - 1 with Lebron
Raptors - 1 with Kawhi
Bucks - 1 with Giannis

Aside from the Spurs in 14 and Pistons in 04 and perhaps the Mavericks in 11, which of those teams didn't have basically a consensus top 5 player entering the playoffs of that season.

Moranis identified three teams without top-5 guys, or where it was arguable.  I guess I'd add the Isiah Thomas Pistons, and perhaps the Wade / Shaq Miami team.  Wade was 6th in MVP voting and made All-NBA Second Team (so he was on the cusp, at the very least, and performed like a top-5 player in those playoffs).  Thomas is harder to argue, as he was left off the All-NBA team in 1989 and 1990.

I think Isiah Thomas, Wade with Shaq, Duncan once with the Spurs, and Dirk were all ad hoc additions as top 5 guys. Looking at that, suddenly you are adding 5 more teams without top 5 players.

Generally, I agree with Moranis in this but I think it's not so black and white as he mentions. In ten years, if the C's win this title, I could see people calling Tatum a top 5 player in the league when I am not sure he is. Top 10 yeah.

[Moranis]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Sure there have been a lot of changes and the games looks different, but all of the recent champions have also all been anchored by a top 5 player. 

Basketball (and perhaps the QB position) is where 1 guy can mean the difference between winning a title and missing the playoffs entirely.  Talent wins.  Sure the sport may look different, but you still need that guy at the top, just like you always have.  That isn't going to change either since it hasn't changed since the first season in 1948.  If you have one of the truly elite players, you can compete for and win championships, and by large when you don't have that truly elite player you don't.  That is how it has always worked and will continue to work.

I don't even think I disagree with your point. I'm just not in love with the haughty way that you have presented it.

Clearly basketball is a star driven league, and there's no debate here. My question is with your choice of top 5. Why not make it top 3 or top 8? I don't understand why top 5 is the sticking point. This is relevant, as we have a player that is arguably top 5. You have a hard and fast rule, but we're not certain if he fits your criteria. Does this make the future uncertain, or can we start engraving the trophy? I unfortunately don't have a great read on the future, and would love to see how I can use your knowledge to make a bet or two. I'll split my winnings with you.

Because it is based on actual history.  Look at the champions.  It isn't arbitrary.

How can you be sure these players are not susceptible to post hoc movement into the top 5 in a given season after winning the championship?

Moranis showed his work to some extent:

Lakers - 5 with Kareem/Magic - 3 with Shaq/Kobe - 2 with Kobe/Pau
Celtics - 3 with Bird, 1 with KG
Sixers - 1 with Moses/Dr. J
Pistons - 2 with Thomas, 1 with no arguable top 5
Bulls - 6 with Jordan/Pippen
Rockets - 2 with Hakeem
Spurs - 5 with Duncan (though the last he wasn't top 5 anymore)
Heat - 2 with Lebron/Wade - 1 with Shaq/Wade
Mavericks - 1 with Dirk
Warriors - 3 with Curry (2 of which had Durant)
Cavs - 1 with Lebron
Raptors - 1 with Kawhi
Bucks - 1 with Giannis

Aside from the Spurs in 14 and Pistons in 04 and perhaps the Mavericks in 11, which of those teams didn't have basically a consensus top 5 player entering the playoffs of that season.

Moranis identified three teams without top-5 guys, or where it was arguable.  I guess I'd add the Isiah Thomas Pistons, and perhaps the Wade / Shaq Miami team.  Wade was 6th in MVP voting and made All-NBA Second Team (so he was on the cusp, at the very least, and performed like a top-5 player in those playoffs).  Thomas is harder to argue, as he was left off the All-NBA team in 1989 and 1990.

I think Isiah Thomas, Wade with Shaq, Duncan once with the Spurs, and Dirk were all ad hoc additions as top 5 guys. Looking at that, suddenly you are adding 5 more teams without top 5 players.

Generally, I agree with Moranis in this but I think it's not so black and white as he mentions. If the C's win this title, I could see people calling Tatum s top 5 player in the league when I am not sure he is. Top 10 yeah.

I think Dirk was pretty clearly a top 5 player in 2011 at 5th (Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Dwight).  In 2006, I think you could reasonably argue both Wade and Shaq were top 5 players (at least when healthy).  Shaq only played 59 games that year, but was still 1st Team All NBA and the year before in 2005 finished 2nd in MVP voting.  His health started to really fail him that season, but when healthy he still performed like a top 5 player (he just wasn't healthy for enough of the year to garner MVP votes).  Wade was 2nd Team All NBA and finished 6th in MVP that season.  He was probably a bit early, but it is arguable at least.

Thomas is always the interesting one.  None of his contemporaries (both players and writers - see him not being on Dream Team) liked him and I think it really hurt him when it came to end of the year voting, but he was absolutely a better player than guys like John Stockton who were consistently voted ahead of him based on stats.   I mean nothing says this more than the fact that Joe Dumars made the 3rd Team in 90 while Thomas didn't make any team despite the fact that Thomas played more games, had a higher ppg, apg, rpg, spg, bpg along with a higher PER, BPM, and VORP.  No one liked Thomas and that hurt him for all of the end of the year things.  I just believe his contributions to winning were incredible.  He is one of the most underrated players in league history.  It is hard to differentiate between big men and small guards like Thomas as well, and the Pistons obviously had a deep team, but that level of winning for that many years, puts Thomas ahead of guys like the Mailman and Barkley for me (great stats on much lesser teams), at least during those seasons (Thomas tailed off very quickly soon after those title runs).  That said, he probably should be in the arguable category since there were guys like those 2 along with Magic, Michael, Hakeem, an aging Bird, and guys like Ewing on the upswing. 

[celticsclay]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Yeah it’s a really good point on how three point shooting, the luxury tax, the super max and other things have changed how to build a team. Pretty much the top 3 guys for mvp were all out in the second round earlier. Here is a good article discussing if teams will move away from a big three model

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/33719050/lessons-brooklyn-nets-controversy-filled-season-superteam-era-over

[sgrogan]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Sure there have been a lot of changes and the games looks different, but all of the recent champions have also all been anchored by a top 5 player. 

Basketball (and perhaps the QB position) is where 1 guy can mean the difference between winning a title and missing the playoffs entirely.  Talent wins.  Sure the sport may look different, but you still need that guy at the top, just like you always have.  That isn't going to change either since it hasn't changed since the first season in 1948.  If you have one of the truly elite players, you can compete for and win championships, and by large when you don't have that truly elite player you don't.  That is how it has always worked and will continue to work.

I don't even think I disagree with your point. I'm just not in love with the haughty way that you have presented it.

Clearly basketball is a star driven league, and there's no debate here. My question is with your choice of top 5. Why not make it top 3 or top 8? I don't understand why top 5 is the sticking point. This is relevant, as we have a player that is arguably top 5. You have a hard and fast rule, but we're not certain if he fits your criteria. Does this make the future uncertain, or can we start engraving the trophy? I unfortunately don't have a great read on the future, and would love to see how I can use your knowledge to make a bet or two. I'll split my winnings with you.

Because it is based on actual history.  Look at the champions.  It isn't arbitrary.

How can you be sure these players are not susceptible to post hoc movement into the top 5 in a given season after winning the championship?

I don't think there's much debate that top end talent eases the championship run.

If we use 1st Team All-NBA as a starter for the converstion and MVP as a qualifier.

25-32 (78%) Champs have had a 1st Team All-NBA player in the championship season.
7 (22%) times that player was the current and a former MVP (Jordan, Duncan, LeBron)
14 (44%) times that player was a former MVP (Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Giannis)
3 (9%)times that player won the MVP, for the first time, in the championship season (Hakeem, Shaq, Curry)
1 (3%) time the player wasn't a current or former MVP (Duncan 1999)
The player made his reputation in the playoffs doesn't seem to hold water.
Prior to the playoffs in the championship year the players were agruably top5, with Duncan being the most arguable.
Next is probably Garnett as he was several years removed from MVP.

5-32 (16%) had a 2nd team All-NBA Player
2019 Kawhi Leonard, no MVP's, a prior Finals MVP winner, plus all the othe accolades.
2017 Kevin Durant / Steph Curry, both prior MVP winners.
2014 Kawhi Leonard / Tony Parker / Tim Duncan, Kawai was up and coming, Parker was 2nd team and a prior finals MVP, Duncan was an aging former MVP
2011 Dirk Nowitzki, Dirk only made 2nd team and was several years removed from his MVP
2004 Ben Wallace, 2nd team All-NBA

2-32 (6%) had a 3rd Team All-NBA player
1995 Hakeem Olajuwon, MVP the prior season, Finals MVP the prior season
1990 Joe Dumars, Finals MVP the prior season.

0-32 (0%) had no All-NBA Players

A quick glance suggests if you don't have this top end player, you need an elite defense.
Best case is Tatum is 1999 Duncan. He wins first Team All-NBA, Finals MVP and goes on to win League MVP and more finals, powered by an elite defense.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Kudos to Moranis and others that are putting stats out there. I guess I have a hard time with the philosophical idea of things not changing.

[sgrogan]

Kudos to Moranis and others that are putting stats out there. I guess I have a hard time with the philosophical idea of things not changing.

Of the 8 champs (out of the last 32) that didn't have an MVP, 6 had a DRtg in the top 5.

"You either need a 1st team All-NBA player or a top 5 DRtg team to win it all"
is 93% accurate over the last 32 years.

[pokeKingCurtis]

I don’t think history matters that much when we have changes in the game. Luxury tax, 3 pt line, defensive changes, offensive stylistic changes. This game is very different than when Bill Russell played. There’s way more parity in the league. The past is a good indicator of the future if the conditions are the same.

Top 5 is an arbitrary number. Not top 3? Top 6 or 8?

Yeah it’s a really good point on how three point shooting, the luxury tax, the super max and other things have changed how to build a team. Pretty much the top 3 guys for mvp were all out in the second round earlier. Here is a good article discussing if teams will move away from a big three model

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/33719050/lessons-brooklyn-nets-controversy-filled-season-superteam-era-over

TP, I've been trying to find this darn article but couldn't.

I just skimmed it quickly (so feel free to let me know if I'm misinterpreting). Basically it's saying superstars joining forces don't always guarantee a championship now, and homegrown talent is starting to win out again. Basically we're going in circles, lol.

It's a lot of anecdote, but I guess you don't really have hundreds, or even dozens, of superteams to look at in terms of sample size. They point to the Suns and the Grizz as being some of the top teams bucking the trend, but both have been knocked out. Of their examples only the Bucks have really won it all, but they have Giannis. I feel this article was published a bit too early - it's, in a way, for some people, all for naught if none of these so-to-speak un-Super Teams win championships. And just months after this article was published, Luka took the Suns' heart and ate it, and the Suns are now in purgatory.

They talked about how these superstar teams are mired by personal drama and issues, and listed the Kyrie-Celtics and Kyrie-Nets as being examples. For one, Kyrie is about as bad as it gets - had he stayed in Cleveland and he would probably have caused all this drama, and that would be a counterpoint against what the article is arguing for. And part of the reason these superteams were enabled is precisely because homegrown talent - Anthony Davis, Kyrie, KD, and possibly Zion - are uncooperative.

Hoping for change though. I do think the 3 point revolution and rule changes help (as others have suggested above), but might take a bit more time. Sad that LeBron managed to squeeze in his farcical Mickey Mouse COVID championship and slowed this process - I hate the Heat but at least they aren't just buying championships with their location, and are actually pretty revolutionary in what they've done vis a vis growing players.

[Moranis]

Kudos to Moranis and others that are putting stats out there. I guess I have a hard time with the philosophical idea of things not changing.

The league has changed immensely though, but at the end of the day winning basketball games is mostly about having more talent than the team you are playing.  Talent is always the driving force though and it always will be just by the nature of how basketball is played.  1 guy just has so much ability to control every aspect of the game.  There is no other team sport where that is the case.  Sure a great keeper (hockey or soccer) can deny the other team, but they can't score.  A pitcher isn't going to score runs, and a hitter isn't going to pitch, and even a great pitcher can only go every 5th game.  Even a QB, for as important as he is, doesn't play defense or special teams and obviously doesn't catch, block, play running back, etc.  And outside of hockey, those teams all have way more than 5 players in the game at any given time.  When you are 20% of your active team and you do everything on the court, you can just influence the game so much. The game will continue to evolve and change, but you will always need the truly elite talent to consistently contend for a title.  As I've shown, there are seasons here or there where that isn't the case, but those are the exception, and they will always be the exception.

[JumpingJudkins]

Man, just watching those highlights from game 3 when Jaylen dropped a 40 burger. He's improved so much...shooting, finishing inside, making things happen from the perimeter.

Jayson is the superstar here, but Jaylen's improvement and potential to improve more is awesome.

One thing I'm excited about for the remainder of this Heat series. Jaylen is liable to go for another big game. Let's see our boys finally grow up and step up.

Jaylen was red-hot for a stretch and absolutely fueled the fourth-quarter rally ... but if you only watched the highlights of Game 3 they didn't show you the numerous, brutal, unwatchable turnovers Jaylen made in that game. Then in Game 4 he looked like the worst player on the court -- eased off the turnovers, but shot horribly and had really poor shot selection.

Also, it's a small thing, but he seems incapable of taking the last shot in a quarter -- always goes with, like, 10 seconds still on the clock.

[pokeKingCurtis]

Kudos to Moranis and others that are putting stats out there. I guess I have a hard time with the philosophical idea of things not changing.

The league has changed immensely though, but at the end of the day winning basketball games is mostly about having more talent than the team you are playing.  Talent is always the driving force though and it always will be just by the nature of how basketball is played.  1 guy just has so much ability to control every aspect of the game.  There is no other team sport where that is the case.  Sure a great keeper (hockey or soccer) can deny the other team, but they can't score.  A pitcher isn't going to score runs, and a hitter isn't going to pitch, and even a great pitcher can only go every 5th game.  Even a QB, for as important as he is, doesn't play defense or special teams and obviously doesn't catch, block, play running back, etc.  And outside of hockey, those teams all have way more than 5 players in the game at any given time.  When you are 20% of your active team and you do everything on the court, you can just influence the game so much. The game will continue to evolve and change, but you will always need the truly elite talent to consistently contend for a title.  As I've shown, there are seasons here or there where that isn't the case, but those are the exception, and they will always be the exception.

What defines talented has probably changed though?

Grant Williams and Dreymond used to be undersized. Not sure about Curry and Lillard, but probably would probably have been less effective too.

Good wings have kept their value though, throughout the years.

Might take another decade for this all to catch up. Porzingas and Wiseman are theoretically the prototypical NBA players (shooting, defense), but neither have lived up to expectations.

Edit: So guess there's a bigger talent pool? Smaller guards like Curry and Lillard could feast where they couldn't before