Poll

Who is our best player?

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

Total Members Voted: 70

Author Topic: Who is our best player?  (Read 10114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #135 on: January 26, 2021, 12:47:12 PM »

Offline td450

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1471
  • Tommy Points: 170
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You want this to be true pretty badly, but again, your example belies your argument.

Utah had a very strong roster. A top 5 all-time point guard. Jeff Hornacek, Byron Russell, Greg Ostertag, Antoine Carr and several other talented players who couldn't get time because of roster depth. They would have been easily over .500 without Malone.

You could easily switch the two players on their respective rosters, and Jordan would have roasted him all the same, and you know that.


Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #136 on: January 26, 2021, 12:52:41 PM »

Offline bopna

  • NGT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2237
  • Tommy Points: 131
Tacko.

He can stop Embiid but Brad could not muster enough courage to do it.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #137 on: January 26, 2021, 02:07:08 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42573
  • Tommy Points: 8208
Tacko.

He can stop Embiid but Brad could not muster enough courage to do it.
This is such a comical take, but.....I honestly think you believe this to be true, which is kinda scary.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #138 on: January 26, 2021, 10:18:51 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6875
  • Tommy Points: 477
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You want this to be true pretty badly, but again, your example belies your argument.

Utah had a very strong roster. A top 5 all-time point guard. Jeff Hornacek, Byron Russell, Greg Ostertag, Antoine Carr and several other talented players who couldn't get time because of roster depth. They would have been easily over .500 without Malone.

You could easily switch the two players on their respective rosters, and Jordan would have roasted him all the same, and you know that.
As I said there are more robust versions of +/- data out there which account for the flaws in raw on/off, the stuff that Moranis is worshipping as the holy grail of measuring situational value is the worst at doing so in its family :laugh:

Anyways about Jordan and Malone, here's the only PI RAPM sample of their overlapping prime years in 1998 (the 1997 sample is NPI, which is considerably noisier): http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/12/1997-98-rapm-prior-informed-rpi.html?m=1

They really weren't super far apart with Jordan having a small advantage in overall RAPM. Considering how Jordan usually ramps up in the playoffs while Malone's scoring limitations (eg. his low release point) dented his numbers in the playoffs a bit I think it's safe to say that Jordan was more valuable to his team as well as being better than Malone in 1998 (a rough analysis of their situation would say that they were in pretty similar spots, both were the focal point of some pretty strong casts even though you could argue that Malone was overburdened in Utah due to their lack of a resilient second option).
Jaylen for All-NBA

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #139 on: January 26, 2021, 10:21:36 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6875
  • Tommy Points: 477
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
You're missing the fact that raw on/off numbers are incredibly noisy. Tatum isn't doing that well in adjusted plus-minus metrics.
Jaylen for All-NBA

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #140 on: January 27, 2021, 07:12:59 PM »

Offline Spicoli

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1157
  • Tommy Points: 130
Brown and Tatum remind me of Carter and McGrady. Two awesome players who have different skill sets. One is a freak athlete and the other a smooth operator. Brown is more consistent while Tatum is streakier but Tatum has more potential. He is 6'9", long, has handles and a jumpshot. You can't teach that. He still has not put it all together yet and when he does it will be scary. So right now i would say Brown is the better, more consistent offensive player, but Tatum with far more potential and is a better all around player. 

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #141 on: January 27, 2021, 08:10:35 PM »

Offline coco

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2082
  • Tommy Points: 123
I didnít vote yet.  50/50 looks good 😌

One thing I want to add is just how fortunate that our two best players are also two-way players.

...that is rare.  Good character as well.

We are in good hands.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #142 on: January 27, 2021, 08:44:51 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24622
  • Tommy Points: 1190
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
You're missing the fact that raw on/off numbers are incredibly noisy. Tatum isn't doing that well in adjusted plus-minus metrics.
Except you know you can actually see Boston's record in games when Tatum is out and games when Brown is out.  I've put that in this thread plenty of times but it bears repeating again.

Boston's record without Brown available / with Brown
17-18 season - 8-4 / 47-23
18-19 season - 8-0 / 41-33
19-20 season - 10-5 / 38-19
20-21 season - 0-0 / 10-6

So 26-9 without Brown or 74.3% and 136-81 with Brown or 62.7%


Tatum has been far healthier so more room for variance here and there, but here are his splits
17-18 season - 2-0 / 53-27 (Tatum's rookie year)
18-19 season - 1-2 / 48-31
19-20 season - 2-4 / 46-20
20-21 season - 2-3 / 8-3

So 7-9 without Tatum or 43.8% and 155-81 with Tatum or 65.7%


You can call the stat noisy all you want, but the only place any of this matters is the actual wins and losses and in that, Tatum is way more important than Brown.  It isn't close and it hasn't been close since basically Tatum stepped foot on the floor.  And over the approximate half a season Brown has missed in the last 4 years, Boston actually wins those games at a much higher percentage than in the games Brown actually plays in.  That quite simply is a fact.  Boston wins more when Brown doesn't play.  Period.
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73, Don Buse 77, Terrell Brandon 96
SG - Chet Walker 67, Michael Cooper 87, Raja Bell 06
SF - Predrag "Peja" Stojakovic 04, Kiki Vandeweghe 87, Robert Covington 18
PF - Karl Malone 97, Spencer Haywood 73, David West 08
C - Ben Wallace 04, George Mikan 50, Al Jefferson 08

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #143 on: January 27, 2021, 10:25:27 PM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4986
  • Tommy Points: 643
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
You're missing the fact that raw on/off numbers are incredibly noisy. Tatum isn't doing that well in adjusted plus-minus metrics.
Except you know you can actually see Boston's record in games when Tatum is out and games when Brown is out.  I've put that in this thread plenty of times but it bears repeating again.

Boston's record without Brown available / with Brown
17-18 season - 8-4 / 47-23
18-19 season - 8-0 / 41-33
19-20 season - 10-5 / 38-19
20-21 season - 0-0 / 10-6

So 26-9 without Brown or 74.3% and 136-81 with Brown or 62.7%


Tatum has been far healthier so more room for variance here and there, but here are his splits
17-18 season - 2-0 / 53-27 (Tatum's rookie year)
18-19 season - 1-2 / 48-31
19-20 season - 2-4 / 46-20
20-21 season - 2-3 / 8-3

So 7-9 without Tatum or 43.8% and 155-81 with Tatum or 65.7%


You can call the stat noisy all you want, but the only place any of this matters is the actual wins and losses and in that, Tatum is way more important than Brown.  It isn't close and it hasn't been close since basically Tatum stepped foot on the floor.  And over the approximate half a season Brown has missed in the last 4 years, Boston actually wins those games at a much higher percentage than in the games Brown actually plays in.  That quite simply is a fact.  Boston wins more when Brown doesn't play.  Period.

This is typical analysis from the guy that said steve nash was a good defender.

Stats without context and analysis is pointless. You have to know 1) who else is missing in those games 2) who are they playing? Are the opponent full strength as well? 3) is it b2b or 3 in 4 etc? 5) even the wins and lose arent the same. For all we know they couldve lost or won more with him in there. 6) small sample size edp in tatums case.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #144 on: January 27, 2021, 11:30:49 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24622
  • Tommy Points: 1190
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
You're missing the fact that raw on/off numbers are incredibly noisy. Tatum isn't doing that well in adjusted plus-minus metrics.
Except you know you can actually see Boston's record in games when Tatum is out and games when Brown is out.  I've put that in this thread plenty of times but it bears repeating again.

Boston's record without Brown available / with Brown
17-18 season - 8-4 / 47-23
18-19 season - 8-0 / 41-33
19-20 season - 10-5 / 38-19
20-21 season - 0-0 / 10-6

So 26-9 without Brown or 74.3% and 136-81 with Brown or 62.7%


Tatum has been far healthier so more room for variance here and there, but here are his splits
17-18 season - 2-0 / 53-27 (Tatum's rookie year)
18-19 season - 1-2 / 48-31
19-20 season - 2-4 / 46-20
20-21 season - 2-3 / 8-3

So 7-9 without Tatum or 43.8% and 155-81 with Tatum or 65.7%


You can call the stat noisy all you want, but the only place any of this matters is the actual wins and losses and in that, Tatum is way more important than Brown.  It isn't close and it hasn't been close since basically Tatum stepped foot on the floor.  And over the approximate half a season Brown has missed in the last 4 years, Boston actually wins those games at a much higher percentage than in the games Brown actually plays in.  That quite simply is a fact.  Boston wins more when Brown doesn't play.  Period.

This is typical analysis from the guy that said steve nash was a good defender.

Stats without context and analysis is pointless. You have to know 1) who else is missing in those games 2) who are they playing? Are the opponent full strength as well? 3) is it b2b or 3 in 4 etc? 5) even the wins and lose arent the same. For all we know they couldve lost or won more with him in there. 6) small sample size edp in tatums case.
Um you have me mistaken with someone else.  Nash was a terrible defender.  Couldn't guard a chair.  I've always maintained that and have absolutely never said otherwise.  And I acknowledged Tatum was healthier and thus more room for variance.

And feel free to look at the 35 games Brown has missed.  You will find a fairly even mix of home and away, good teams and bad teams, etc.  You start to get a representative sample size when you start approaching a half of a season missed.  last year alone the 15 games he missed included 4 wins over playoff teams (MIL, LAC, IND, ORL) and losses to MIL, OKC, and UTA.  So 4-3 against playoff teams without Brown last year, and so that means they were 6-2 against teams that didn't make the playoffs with the 2 losses being Phoenix which was 2 days after the loss at Milwaukee (Walker was also out that game) and then the last game of the bubble when basically none of the starters played to Washington (so not a good game to include just given the context - of course taking it out makes the analysis worse for Brown, so I left it in). 

It doesn't matter how you look at it, Boston has won a higher percentage of games without Brown then with Brown over the last 3+ seasons.  And it is enough games that you start to lose some of the randomness, like with Tatum who just hasn't missed enough games to get a real gauge for, though the on/off differential paints that picture.  Boston needs Tatum.  He is the one guy that drives the won/loss record for the Celtics.  Boston goes at Tatum goes.
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73, Don Buse 77, Terrell Brandon 96
SG - Chet Walker 67, Michael Cooper 87, Raja Bell 06
SF - Predrag "Peja" Stojakovic 04, Kiki Vandeweghe 87, Robert Covington 18
PF - Karl Malone 97, Spencer Haywood 73, David West 08
C - Ben Wallace 04, George Mikan 50, Al Jefferson 08

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #145 on: January 27, 2021, 11:32:43 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6875
  • Tommy Points: 477
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
You're missing the fact that raw on/off numbers are incredibly noisy. Tatum isn't doing that well in adjusted plus-minus metrics.
Except you know you can actually see Boston's record in games when Tatum is out and games when Brown is out.  I've put that in this thread plenty of times but it bears repeating again.

Boston's record without Brown available / with Brown
17-18 season - 8-4 / 47-23
18-19 season - 8-0 / 41-33
19-20 season - 10-5 / 38-19
20-21 season - 0-0 / 10-6

So 26-9 without Brown or 74.3% and 136-81 with Brown or 62.7%


Tatum has been far healthier so more room for variance here and there, but here are his splits
17-18 season - 2-0 / 53-27 (Tatum's rookie year)
18-19 season - 1-2 / 48-31
19-20 season - 2-4 / 46-20
20-21 season - 2-3 / 8-3

So 7-9 without Tatum or 43.8% and 155-81 with Tatum or 65.7%


You can call the stat noisy all you want, but the only place any of this matters is the actual wins and losses and in that, Tatum is way more important than Brown.  It isn't close and it hasn't been close since basically Tatum stepped foot on the floor.  And over the approximate half a season Brown has missed in the last 4 years, Boston actually wins those games at a much higher percentage than in the games Brown actually plays in.  That quite simply is a fact.  Boston wins more when Brown doesn't play.  Period.
This is typical analysis from the guy that said steve nash was a good defender.

Stats without context and analysis is pointless. You have to know 1) who else is missing in those games 2) who are they playing? Are the opponent full strength as well? 3) is it b2b or 3 in 4 etc? 5) even the wins and lose arent the same. For all we know they couldve lost or won more with him in there. 6) small sample size edp in tatums case.
Did anyone say that? I've never seen a post on this forum saying that Nash was anything other than a terrible defender, which imo underrates the things he does well to mitigate his shortcomings (I personally have him as a below average defender, but I don't think he bleeds a ton of value on that end as a PG).
Jaylen for All-NBA

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #146 on: January 27, 2021, 11:34:01 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6875
  • Tommy Points: 477
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
You're missing the fact that raw on/off numbers are incredibly noisy. Tatum isn't doing that well in adjusted plus-minus metrics.
Except you know you can actually see Boston's record in games when Tatum is out and games when Brown is out.  I've put that in this thread plenty of times but it bears repeating again.

Boston's record without Brown available / with Brown
17-18 season - 8-4 / 47-23
18-19 season - 8-0 / 41-33
19-20 season - 10-5 / 38-19
20-21 season - 0-0 / 10-6

So 26-9 without Brown or 74.3% and 136-81 with Brown or 62.7%


Tatum has been far healthier so more room for variance here and there, but here are his splits
17-18 season - 2-0 / 53-27 (Tatum's rookie year)
18-19 season - 1-2 / 48-31
19-20 season - 2-4 / 46-20
20-21 season - 2-3 / 8-3

So 7-9 without Tatum or 43.8% and 155-81 with Tatum or 65.7%

You can call the stat noisy all you want, but the only place any of this matters is the actual wins and losses and in that, Tatum is way more important than Brown.  It isn't close and it hasn't been close since basically Tatum stepped foot on the floor.  And over the approximate half a season Brown has missed in the last 4 years, Boston actually wins those games at a much higher percentage than in the games Brown actually plays in.  That quite simply is a fact.  Boston wins more when Brown doesn't play.  Period.
Aaaaaaaand adjusted +/- metrics absolutely crush raw on/off when it comes to predicting wins! :laugh:
Jaylen for All-NBA

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #147 on: January 28, 2021, 02:21:12 AM »

Online SparzWizard

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9997
  • Tommy Points: 579
So far? It has to be Jaylen Brown.

Until Tatum starts putting up 30ppg.

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #148 on: January 28, 2021, 06:21:42 AM »

Offline Birdman

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6087
  • Tommy Points: 146
Still think itís Tatum..
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Who is our best player?
« Reply #149 on: January 28, 2021, 07:59:17 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24622
  • Tommy Points: 1190
This will be debated all season, and beyond.
You really think so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And will the improvement of Jaylen Brown change this difference between Tatum and Brown?
You're missing the fact that raw on/off numbers are incredibly noisy. Tatum isn't doing that well in adjusted plus-minus metrics.
Except you know you can actually see Boston's record in games when Tatum is out and games when Brown is out.  I've put that in this thread plenty of times but it bears repeating again.

Boston's record without Brown available / with Brown
17-18 season - 8-4 / 47-23
18-19 season - 8-0 / 41-33
19-20 season - 10-5 / 38-19
20-21 season - 0-0 / 10-6

So 26-9 without Brown or 74.3% and 136-81 with Brown or 62.7%


Tatum has been far healthier so more room for variance here and there, but here are his splits
17-18 season - 2-0 / 53-27 (Tatum's rookie year)
18-19 season - 1-2 / 48-31
19-20 season - 2-4 / 46-20
20-21 season - 2-3 / 8-3

So 7-9 without Tatum or 43.8% and 155-81 with Tatum or 65.7%

You can call the stat noisy all you want, but the only place any of this matters is the actual wins and losses and in that, Tatum is way more important than Brown.  It isn't close and it hasn't been close since basically Tatum stepped foot on the floor.  And over the approximate half a season Brown has missed in the last 4 years, Boston actually wins those games at a much higher percentage than in the games Brown actually plays in.  That quite simply is a fact.  Boston wins more when Brown doesn't play.  Period.
Aaaaaaaand adjusted +/- metrics absolutely crush raw on/off when it comes to predicting wins! :laugh:
You say that and yet you see the actual results when they miss games.  If what you are relying on doesn't match reality, then it isn't reality.
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73, Don Buse 77, Terrell Brandon 96
SG - Chet Walker 67, Michael Cooper 87, Raja Bell 06
SF - Predrag "Peja" Stojakovic 04, Kiki Vandeweghe 87, Robert Covington 18
PF - Karl Malone 97, Spencer Haywood 73, David West 08
C - Ben Wallace 04, George Mikan 50, Al Jefferson 08