Hornets (13-19) at Celtics (19-7) Game #27 12/22/19

[smokeablount]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

[nickagneta]

If you just came in from another planet

Walking into the Garden with three minutes to go

Listening to the crowd, you'd figure it was Tacko with 39 points

This bugged my a bit tonight. The Tacko chants were in full force with 8 minutes to go and still a 12-15 point lead and just when Tatum was going off and should have been the focus of the fans.

I get it. It's entertainment and the crowd gets to cheer as they wish. But the game was still in play and Tatum was going off for a career night. Cheer for them.

In other news, yes, I want all those darn kids off my lawn!!!!😄😋

[Somebody]

Great win!

[Somebody]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points but can't pass don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

[smokeablount]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

[Somebody]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

Oh okay. And I don't think he can really pass all that well from what I've seen, he misses too many easy passing looks for me to think that he's an adequate passer at all. It's not about him being selfish as well - he has a knack for making high quality interior dishes every now and then, I just think he's unable to see those passing opportunities because of his ball pounding tendencies.

And yeah he could make the leap, but even if he does become an adequate passer, his ceiling is looking more like Paul Pierce than an MVP calibre player.

[smokeablount]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

Oh okay. And I don't think he can really pass all that well from what I've seen, he misses too many easy passing looks for me to think that he's an adequate passer at all. It's not about him being selfish as well - he has a knack for making high quality interior dishes every now and then, I just think he's unable to see those passing opportunities because of his ball pounding tendencies.

And yeah he could make the leap, but even if he does become an adequate passer, his ceiling is looking more like Paul Pierce than an MVP calibre player.

Tatum, at 21, is averaging 21-7 as the 1b scoring option on a projected 55+ win team, and his defensive impact is already bigger than Pierce's was at any point in his career.  And I love PP.

Pierce at 21 as a rookie put up 16.5-6.4 on a .380 winning % team.  At 22 he put up 19.5-5.4 on an 35 win team (.427 winning %). He finally surpassed 21 points at 23 on a 36 win team.  He didn't play on a 50 win team until KG and Ray came to town.

Tatum is 21.  How many NBA players at age 21 can you name who averaged 21+ points on even a 50 win team?  Maybe take a look at those guys and see if any of them became MVPs?

[Somebody]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

Oh okay. And I don't think he can really pass all that well from what I've seen, he misses too many easy passing looks for me to think that he's an adequate passer at all. It's not about him being selfish as well - he has a knack for making high quality interior dishes every now and then, I just think he's unable to see those passing opportunities because of his ball pounding tendencies.

And yeah he could make the leap, but even if he does become an adequate passer, his ceiling is looking more like Paul Pierce than an MVP calibre player.

Tatum, at 21, is averaging 21-7 as the 1b scoring option on a projected 55+ win team, and his defensive impact is already bigger than Pierce's was at any point in his career.  And I love PP.

Pierce at 21 as a rookie put up 16.5-6.4 on a .380 winning % team.  At 22 he put up 19.5-5.4 on an 35 win team (.427 winning %). He finally surpassed 21 points at 23 on a 36 win team.  He didn't play on a 50 win team until KG and Ray came to town.

Tatum is 21.  How many NBA players at age 21 can you name who averaged 21+ points on even a 50 win team?  Maybe take a look at those guys and see if any of them became MVPs?

The offence of prime Pierce and the defence of Tatum doesn't equate to an MVP calibre player though. Btw I'm already accounting for Tatum to make a leap to even reach Pierce's peak offence, don't see why you're pulling out the player growth argument.

Also (again) box stats don't tell the whole story, I could ask you to name any player who averaged Tatum's stats and ended up fizzling out, just because he's playing on a good team and averaging gaudy offensive stats doesn't mean he's necessarily an MVP talent, it means he's playing with really good teammates. I notice you pulling out box stats and accolades a lot to prove your point, they don't really measure a player's impact well.

[smokeablount]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

Oh okay. And I don't think he can really pass all that well from what I've seen, he misses too many easy passing looks for me to think that he's an adequate passer at all. It's not about him being selfish as well - he has a knack for making high quality interior dishes every now and then, I just think he's unable to see those passing opportunities because of his ball pounding tendencies.

And yeah he could make the leap, but even if he does become an adequate passer, his ceiling is looking more like Paul Pierce than an MVP calibre player.

Tatum, at 21, is averaging 21-7 as the 1b scoring option on a projected 55+ win team, and his defensive impact is already bigger than Pierce's was at any point in his career.  And I love PP.

Pierce at 21 as a rookie put up 16.5-6.4 on a .380 winning % team.  At 22 he put up 19.5-5.4 on an 35 win team (.427 winning %). He finally surpassed 21 points at 23 on a 36 win team.  He didn't play on a 50 win team until KG and Ray came to town.

Tatum is 21.  How many NBA players at age 21 can you name who averaged 21+ points on even a 50 win team?  Maybe take a look at those guys and see if any of them became MVPs?

The offence of prime Pierce and the defence of Tatum doesn't equate to an MVP calibre player though. Btw I'm already accounting for Tatum to make a leap to even reach Pierce's peak offence, don't see why you're pulling out the player growth argument.

Also (again) box stats don't tell the whole story, I could ask you to name any player who averaged Tatum's stats and ended up fizzling out, just because he's playing on a good team and averaging gaudy offensive stats doesn't mean he's necessarily an MVP talent, it means he's playing with really good teammates.

Good thing his offensive upside isn't Paul Pierce and 21 y.o.'s tend to improve at NBA defense.

Of course he could fizzle out, that's why we're talking about his upside.  He's on a very good team averaging good offensive and defensive stats, could be a 21 year old all star if his efficiency continues trending up, and of course he has good teammates. 

He's also the 2nd leading scorer and rebounder on that team, and one of the keys to the defense, so again, since we're talking upside, what 21 year olds have averaged 21+ on a 50+ win team?  Are there any MVPs candidate-level players?  I bet there are, and I wonder how short that list is.  Box stats don't have to tell the whole story to serve as a reference point.

[wiley]

If you just came in from another planet

Walking into the Garden with three minutes to go

Listening to the crowd, you'd figure it was Tacko with 39 points

This bugged my a bit tonight. The Tacko chants were in full force with 8 minutes to go and still a 12-15 point lead and just when Tatum was going off and should have been the focus of the fans.

I get it. It's entertainment and the crowd gets to cheer as they wish. But the game was still in play and Tatum was going off for a career night. Cheer for them.

In other news, yes, I want all those darn kids off my lawn!!!!😄😋

me too....C's fans...cool it with the Tacko chants if the game is still in question.
 

[Somebody]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

Oh okay. And I don't think he can really pass all that well from what I've seen, he misses too many easy passing looks for me to think that he's an adequate passer at all. It's not about him being selfish as well - he has a knack for making high quality interior dishes every now and then, I just think he's unable to see those passing opportunities because of his ball pounding tendencies.

And yeah he could make the leap, but even if he does become an adequate passer, his ceiling is looking more like Paul Pierce than an MVP calibre player.

Tatum, at 21, is averaging 21-7 as the 1b scoring option on a projected 55+ win team, and his defensive impact is already bigger than Pierce's was at any point in his career.  And I love PP.

Pierce at 21 as a rookie put up 16.5-6.4 on a .380 winning % team.  At 22 he put up 19.5-5.4 on an 35 win team (.427 winning %). He finally surpassed 21 points at 23 on a 36 win team.  He didn't play on a 50 win team until KG and Ray came to town.

Tatum is 21.  How many NBA players at age 21 can you name who averaged 21+ points on even a 50 win team?  Maybe take a look at those guys and see if any of them became MVPs?

The offence of prime Pierce and the defence of Tatum doesn't equate to an MVP calibre player though. Btw I'm already accounting for Tatum to make a leap to even reach Pierce's peak offence, don't see why you're pulling out the player growth argument.

Also (again) box stats don't tell the whole story, I could ask you to name any player who averaged Tatum's stats and ended up fizzling out, just because he's playing on a good team and averaging gaudy offensive stats doesn't mean he's necessarily an MVP talent, it means he's playing with really good teammates.

Good thing his offensive upside isn't Paul Pierce and 21 y.o.'s tend to improve at NBA defense.

Of course he could fizzle out, that's why we're talking about his upside.  He's on a very good team averaging good offensive and defensive stats, could be a 21 year old all star if his efficiency continues trending up, and of course he has good teammates. 

He's also the 2nd leading scorer and rebounder on that team, and one of the keys to the defense, so again, since we're talking upside, what 21 year olds have averaged 21+ on a 50+ win team?  Are there any MVPs candidate-level players?  I bet there are, and I wonder how short that list is.  Box stats don't have to tell the whole story to serve as a reference point.

You can make those lists to serve as a reference point - a poor one. You can find every 21 year old who fits your criteria and I'll guarantee that most of them drove their teams' offences to some pretty respectable heights, that's not Jayson Tatum.

And yeah his offensive upside isn't Paul Pierce, it's likely even lower . As for his defence I do wonder how much he can improve, I'm skeptical of him making a significant leap in the areas he's lacking at right now (eg. lateral quickness) to improve his man defence. Maybe incremental growth but nothing spectacular imo.

[RockinRyA]

Tatum can become a better scorer than Pierce but I have my doubts defensively. Pierce is also a good playmaker, something Tatum really lacks right now.

[smokeablount]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

Oh okay. And I don't think he can really pass all that well from what I've seen, he misses too many easy passing looks for me to think that he's an adequate passer at all. It's not about him being selfish as well - he has a knack for making high quality interior dishes every now and then, I just think he's unable to see those passing opportunities because of his ball pounding tendencies.

And yeah he could make the leap, but even if he does become an adequate passer, his ceiling is looking more like Paul Pierce than an MVP calibre player.

Tatum, at 21, is averaging 21-7 as the 1b scoring option on a projected 55+ win team, and his defensive impact is already bigger than Pierce's was at any point in his career.  And I love PP.

Pierce at 21 as a rookie put up 16.5-6.4 on a .380 winning % team.  At 22 he put up 19.5-5.4 on an 35 win team (.427 winning %). He finally surpassed 21 points at 23 on a 36 win team.  He didn't play on a 50 win team until KG and Ray came to town.

Tatum is 21.  How many NBA players at age 21 can you name who averaged 21+ points on even a 50 win team?  Maybe take a look at those guys and see if any of them became MVPs?

The offence of prime Pierce and the defence of Tatum doesn't equate to an MVP calibre player though. Btw I'm already accounting for Tatum to make a leap to even reach Pierce's peak offence, don't see why you're pulling out the player growth argument.

Also (again) box stats don't tell the whole story, I could ask you to name any player who averaged Tatum's stats and ended up fizzling out, just because he's playing on a good team and averaging gaudy offensive stats doesn't mean he's necessarily an MVP talent, it means he's playing with really good teammates.

Good thing his offensive upside isn't Paul Pierce and 21 y.o.'s tend to improve at NBA defense.

Of course he could fizzle out, that's why we're talking about his upside.  He's on a very good team averaging good offensive and defensive stats, could be a 21 year old all star if his efficiency continues trending up, and of course he has good teammates. 

He's also the 2nd leading scorer and rebounder on that team, and one of the keys to the defense, so again, since we're talking upside, what 21 year olds have averaged 21+ on a 50+ win team?  Are there any MVPs candidate-level players?  I bet there are, and I wonder how short that list is.  Box stats don't have to tell the whole story to serve as a reference point.

You can make those lists to serve as a reference point - a poor one. You can find every 21 year old who fits your criteria and I'll guarantee that most of them drove their teams' offences to some pretty respectable heights, that's not Jayson Tatum.

And yeah his offensive upside isn't Paul Pierce, it's likely even lower . As for his defence I do wonder how much he can improve, I'm skeptical of him making a significant leap in the areas he's lacking at right now (eg. lateral quickness) to improve his man defence. Maybe incremental growth but nothing spectacular imo.

They didn’t drive their teams to respectable heights at 21 anymore than Tatum has. You aren’t seeming to understand that his age matters when considering upside other than your point about man to man D where I agree that his growth may be limited. And if you’re allergic to ppg their are any number of advanced metrics that show that Tatum is ahead of Pierce at at a younger age. Or, you could look at 21 year old all stars on 50+ win teams instead (a bit premature, but what the heck), as Tatum has a real chance to achieve that, and that’s pretty certain to have MVP candidates.

We’ll check back in a few years about whether his upside is lower than Paul Pierce. While there’s a good chance he never gets better than PP, his upside isn’t lower. With all due respect to an astute poster, I have to say I think that’s a laughable statement.

[nickagneta]

I think what Tatum is doing while on a 50 win team is important because of a context you just are not going to get from looking at stats, and I really don't care how box scorey or advanced those starts are.

What Tatum is showing is that he can be an important cog on a winning team while playing winning basketball. No, not that he plays basketball for a team that wins, but plays winning basketball.

For instance, Marcus Smart has been on losing, mediocre and good teams here in Boston but always played winning basketball. Some bad stat years, both advanced and box score, but he played winning basketball. It is sort of like that old saying about p0rnography, not sure it can be completely explained what it is but you sure know it when you see it.

You just don't find a lot of 21 year olds that play winning basketball while performing at a very high production level and being a major contributor to a team that is a contender. That is unusual and hard to find.

[Somebody]

Like it or not, people will have to get used to Tatum eventually being the #1 option.

The Celtics brass understand that this team becomes Championship caliber when he becomes a top 10 player, which is why his minutes are staggered so he plays with the bench as the focal point and has free reign to shoot when he wants even with the starters.

The kid is a star in the making and all the short-sighted Celtics pessimist can focus on is his inefficiency. The vast majority of great players have these years of growth until they become efficient.

TP, I think you hit the nail on the head and I agree with pretty much all of this, except that you don't have to be a pessimist to criticize Tatum.

I also just realized the bolded part a few days ago after the Pistons game.  Previously, I'd been fairly annoyed with the 'JT & The Scrubby 4' lineups. 

Got a big test Christmas Day vs. Toronto on the road.  Hopefully we have Hayward because it seems unlikely we'll have Smart.  If we lose, at least we get another shot on 12/28 but it's the 2nd night of a b2b, just like the 2nd & 3rd Philly games (which is a load of crap).

I don't think the "Tatum pessimists" are fixated on his currently inefficient volume scoring: I think it'll stabilise with time. I'm worried about Tatum's potential because of his inability to consistently make simple passing reads, a high volume scorer who scores oodles of moderate (or even high) efficiency points don't push teams to the elite, they usually peak at All-NBA status unless they're elite on the defensive end or provide extra offensive value with some non scoring/passing traits (eg. GOAT level offensive rebounding/shooting+off ball movement). Sure an All-NBA player can become a top 10 guy in the league, but when you have multiple guys who're cheesing the league with historic seasons as MVP candidates you probably need something more than an All-NBA player to lead your squad if you want anything more than a potential fluke run to the finals.

That's specifically why I said 'criticize Tatum' without mentioning efficiency.  His passing could be a concern but I've seen evidence that makes me believe it's more of him being selfish and looking to score than an issue with ability.  I've seen him play at least a few games this year where he looked to pass and made numerous good passes, but he needs to make it a consistent part of his game over time.  I also think Jaylen made a leap in his passing in year 4 at 23 and that gives me hope for Tatum, who's had a lot more PT thru 3 seasons but he'll be just 22 in year 4 (until March).

Oh okay. And I don't think he can really pass all that well from what I've seen, he misses too many easy passing looks for me to think that he's an adequate passer at all. It's not about him being selfish as well - he has a knack for making high quality interior dishes every now and then, I just think he's unable to see those passing opportunities because of his ball pounding tendencies.

And yeah he could make the leap, but even if he does become an adequate passer, his ceiling is looking more like Paul Pierce than an MVP calibre player.

Tatum, at 21, is averaging 21-7 as the 1b scoring option on a projected 55+ win team, and his defensive impact is already bigger than Pierce's was at any point in his career.  And I love PP.

Pierce at 21 as a rookie put up 16.5-6.4 on a .380 winning % team.  At 22 he put up 19.5-5.4 on an 35 win team (.427 winning %). He finally surpassed 21 points at 23 on a 36 win team.  He didn't play on a 50 win team until KG and Ray came to town.

Tatum is 21.  How many NBA players at age 21 can you name who averaged 21+ points on even a 50 win team?  Maybe take a look at those guys and see if any of them became MVPs?

The offence of prime Pierce and the defence of Tatum doesn't equate to an MVP calibre player though. Btw I'm already accounting for Tatum to make a leap to even reach Pierce's peak offence, don't see why you're pulling out the player growth argument.

Also (again) box stats don't tell the whole story, I could ask you to name any player who averaged Tatum's stats and ended up fizzling out, just because he's playing on a good team and averaging gaudy offensive stats doesn't mean he's necessarily an MVP talent, it means he's playing with really good teammates.

Good thing his offensive upside isn't Paul Pierce and 21 y.o.'s tend to improve at NBA defense.

Of course he could fizzle out, that's why we're talking about his upside.  He's on a very good team averaging good offensive and defensive stats, could be a 21 year old all star if his efficiency continues trending up, and of course he has good teammates. 

He's also the 2nd leading scorer and rebounder on that team, and one of the keys to the defense, so again, since we're talking upside, what 21 year olds have averaged 21+ on a 50+ win team?  Are there any MVPs candidate-level players?  I bet there are, and I wonder how short that list is.  Box stats don't have to tell the whole story to serve as a reference point.

You can make those lists to serve as a reference point - a poor one. You can find every 21 year old who fits your criteria and I'll guarantee that most of them drove their teams' offences to some pretty respectable heights, that's not Jayson Tatum.

And yeah his offensive upside isn't Paul Pierce, it's likely even lower . As for his defence I do wonder how much he can improve, I'm skeptical of him making a significant leap in the areas he's lacking at right now (eg. lateral quickness) to improve his man defence. Maybe incremental growth but nothing spectacular imo.

They didn’t drive their teams to respectable heights at 21 anymore than Tatum has. You aren’t seeming to understand that his age matters when considering upside other than your point about man to man D where I agree that his growth may be limited. And if you’re allergic to ppg their are any number of advanced metrics that show that Tatum is ahead of Pierce at at a younger age. Or, you could look at 21 year old all stars on 50+ win teams instead (a bit premature, but what the heck), as Tatum has a real chance to achieve that, and that’s pretty certain to have MVP candidates.

We’ll check back in a few years about whether his upside is lower than Paul Pierce. While there’s a good chance he never gets better than PP, his upside isn’t lower. With all due respect to an astute poster, I have to say I think that’s a laughable statement.

Uhhhhhhhhh no, any youngster who's averaging those sorts of offensive numbers on a good team would be driving their teams' offences to respectable heights much more than Tatum did. For all your allegations that my statements are laughable, I think your opinion that Tatum is somehow quarterbacking an offence like the players who fit your cherry picked list (why don't you go check the legends who fill that list) is an absolute farce when compared to said statements.

You don't seem to understand how player growth is not linear, players can plateau even if they are at a young age, and Tatum not showing any significant signs of growth at passing is a worrying sign for his growth curve. I'm allergic to you throwing out box stats without bothering to look at any sort of context, Pierce definitely had a more refined offensive game than Tatum at age 21 (btw what sort of "advanced stats" are you looking at? I assume you'd look at box based stuff like WS and BPM, both of which favour Pierce. Impact metrics like RAPM favour Tatum, but that's a byproduct of Tatum's role on this team - his current role is nearly optimal for his skillset imo and we don't really have a viable replacement for him, which bump up his +/- stats, ntm that Pierce became an impact metric binkie after his rookie year).