What (if anything) is wrong with Jaylen?

[slamtheking]

I still don't think Brown and Tatum are a great fit stylistically.  They obviously are both very talented, but in many respects they both play better when the other is on the bench.

of course not.  you've got to keep beating that dead horse.  they continue make the ECF as a pair, this year as the top 2 players on the team and are expected to not just get to the finals but are the favorites to win it.  I think your narrative on this has been effectively disproven.

also, your other favorite narrative of title teams requiring a top 5 player to win it is going to take a hit should the C's win it this year since they do not have a top 5 player.  As good as Tatum has been the second half this season, I seem to recall in various threads you putting the following players ahead of him or in the top 5: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Curry, Luka, Lebron, Kawhi, Durant.  That's not getting into KAT, Booker, Harden, Simmons, Mitchell, AD, PG, Zion being posted around here as better players.  I don't agree that all of them are better than Tatum but a you've often made the case he's not top 5, this list of players containing most name you've used to support that is a fair argument but as such would shoot down your theory you can't win a title without a top 5 player.  Granted, the C's still have to finish off Miami and would have to get through either Curry or Luka to win the title but C's are currently the favorites to take the title right now.

Well, he could be right about needing a top 5 guy and is just wrong about Tatum being there yet. I think these playoffs are proving that Tatum is a top 5 player and maybe Brown is a top 15 player. If not both aren't more than a slot or two away from being that good.

How about looking at it this way.  Is Tatum top 5 of the players still playing and with a chance at a title?  Top 3?  Doesn't that matter more at this point than where he ranks against players that are already out?  Does it matter that Giannis would be ranked higher for example?

Some sports outlets are predicting that Luka and Tatum will be first team all-NBA this season.  Steph Curry second team.  Butler no team.  So I guess is Tatum is no worse than Top 2 of the players left playing?

You could also look at this from a chicken or egg perspective.  Before this season, or even half way through this season, not too many would considered Tatum a top 5 player.  But if he wins a title does that change?  So did he win a title because he is a top 5 player (metaphorical chicken) or has he achieved top 5 player status because he won a title (metaphorical egg)?  Which come first?

I know, this is kind of philosophical for a Friday afternoon, my work is suffering.  Having trouble focusing on anything not Celtics.

that's moving the goalposts.  the theory he's put forth repeatedly is you cannot get to a title without a top 5 player -- as in a top 5 player throughout the season, not just a player that's one of the 5 best left standing in the playoffs.  using that sliding scale, it would any team making it to the finals would pretty much be automatically able to win the title because surely someone on their team would be one of the 5 best players in that series.

[Moranis]

On the fit stylistically / compatibility / chemistry question:

Who is a good fit for Jaylen? Not Tatum. Jaylen.

Who are the players in the league where Jaylen would not have similar questions placed against him as a #2 option that he has next to Tatum. Is it really any different next to Giannis or Embiid or Durant? Steph? Morant? Donovan Mitchell? Booker?

Maybe Jokic.

But ...

As far as I can see, many of the complaints about Jaylen as a fit / compatible would remain next to almost all of these other players just as they do next to Tatum.

Ergo, I see this more as a question of one player's skill-set rather than a question of fit & compatibility. To go back to an earlier post when I said that Jaylen can feel peripheral offensively when isn't making or taking many shots. He doesn't impact the game much offensively when not scoring because of his so-so handle & passing.

I'd also be reluctant to call Jaylen a great defender. Early on it looked like he was going to be that but now he seems more settled on being an above average defender & rebounder. This is good positive steady contributions throughout the game even when he is not scoring but is rarely dominating / leading a game. So along with the handle and passing, this makes Jaylen quite dependent on his shot making to go from solid role player to star player level impact.

And I see this as fairly constant across the board when thinking about him as a #2 next to those other stars as well. So I do not see this as a question of fit next to Tatum.

Although, I do understand Moranis in posts the past also felt this was about maximizing Tatum's impact and building the team to make Tatum the best possible Tatum which my post does not speak to.


Edit: This is a useful compare and contrast with Pippen as a #2 guy. Pippen could still have a big impact on games consistently when his shot wasn't falling because he one of the best SF defenders in league history & the best or 2nd ball-handling and passing SF in the league for many years along with being a plus rebounder.

Another good compare and contrast could be with Klay Thompson who I see as more comparable to Jaylen as a #2 option. Klay was an explosive shooter / scorer who could score in bunches but could be quiet for long stretches also. He was a steady defender probably a bit more consistent than Jaylen but not too dissimilar. Not a rebounder. Not much of a ball-handler or passer. So largely reliant on his scoring to take him from solid player to star level impact; like Jaylen. Klay got more attention for the threat of his outside shooting which helped him more when not scoring. Still, they are quite similar.

It is also why I thought Draymond was more important than Klay in that 73 win season. Draymond was more like Pippen and drove more of their success that season.

This I think is the real meat of the issue.  I just don't think Jaylen Brown is a good enough SG.  He is a natural SF.  He is a bit bigger and slower and does better playing and guarding the bigger slower SF's than he does the quicker faster SG's.  His offensive skill set is also much more suited at SF for all of the reasons you are talking about.  Tatum and Brown are both at their best at SF, yet they both can't play SF, which is where the real issue is. 

I think Brown would be fine with basically anyone that isn't a SF.  I think he'd work well with someone like Curry or Doncic or big guys like Jokic or Embiid. 

Tatum needs someone that is a better playmaker next to him.  I think part of their success this year has really been playing Smart most of the time with Tatum.  He needs that sort of guy next to him, it just would be nice if Smart could actually shoot the ball.  I think one of the reasons that Hayward worked so well with Tatum was he was such a great playmaker.  That is what Tatum needs, a guy that can create for others, himself on occasion, and who can hit the open shot.  Brown is 2 of the 3, he just isn't enough of a creator to really unlock Tatum.  They do also occupy the same space on the floor a lot.  Tatum has pretty consistently increased not only his totals, but also his shooting in the games Brown has missed.  Tatum just operates better without Brown next to him.  They are good enough and talented enough that they can make it work, but it doesn't mean they are optimizing each other either.  Lebron and Wade are a pretty classic example of two guys that weren't a great fit, but were such talents that it didn't matter, of course if they were a better fit they might have won 4 (or more) titles. 

[Moranis]

I still don't think Brown and Tatum are a great fit stylistically.  They obviously are both very talented, but in many respects they both play better when the other is on the bench.

of course not.  you've got to keep beating that dead horse.  they continue make the ECF as a pair, this year as the top 2 players on the team and are expected to not just get to the finals but are the favorites to win it.  I think your narrative on this has been effectively disproven.

also, your other favorite narrative of title teams requiring a top 5 player to win it is going to take a hit should the C's win it this year since they do not have a top 5 player.  As good as Tatum has been the second half this season, I seem to recall in various threads you putting the following players ahead of him or in the top 5: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Curry, Luka, Lebron, Kawhi, Durant.  That's not getting into KAT, Booker, Harden, Simmons, Mitchell, AD, PG, Zion being posted around here as better players.  I don't agree that all of them are better than Tatum but a you've often made the case he's not top 5, this list of players containing most name you've used to support that is a fair argument but as such would shoot down your theory you can't win a title without a top 5 player.  Granted, the C's still have to finish off Miami and would have to get through either Curry or Luka to win the title but C's are currently the favorites to take the title right now.

Well, he could be right about needing a top 5 guy and is just wrong about Tatum being there yet. I think these playoffs are proving that Tatum is a top 5 player and maybe Brown is a top 15 player. If not both aren't more than a slot or two away from being that good.

How about looking at it this way.  Is Tatum top 5 of the players still playing and with a chance at a title?  Top 3?  Doesn't that matter more at this point than where he ranks against players that are already out?  Does it matter that Giannis would be ranked higher for example?

Some sports outlets are predicting that Luka and Tatum will be first team all-NBA this season.  Steph Curry second team.  Butler no team.  So I guess is Tatum is no worse than Top 2 of the players left playing?

You could also look at this from a chicken or egg perspective.  Before this season, or even half way through this season, not too many would considered Tatum a top 5 player.  But if he wins a title does that change?  So did he win a title because he is a top 5 player (metaphorical chicken) or has he achieved top 5 player status because he won a title (metaphorical egg)?  Which come first?

I know, this is kind of philosophical for a Friday afternoon, my work is suffering.  Having trouble focusing on anything not Celtics.

that's moving the goalposts.  the theory he's put forth repeatedly is you cannot get to a title without a top 5 player -- as in a top 5 player throughout the season, not just a player that's one of the 5 best left standing in the playoffs.  using that sliding scale, it would any team making it to the finals would pretty much be automatically able to win the title because surely someone on their team would be one of the 5 best players in that series.

It seems pretty strange to call actual NBA history a theory.  There have been 3 teams in the entire history of the NBA that have won a championship without a guy that was arguably a top 5 player (and only a few where there was even an argument). 

Just so there isn't any confusion those teams without an arguable top 5 player are:

2014 Spurs (TD, Parker, Manu, rising Kawhi)
2004 Pistons (Ben, Chauncey, Sheed, Rip)
1979 Sonics (DJ, Sikma)

The ones where there would even be an argument

2011 Mavericks (Dirk)
1978 Bullets (Hayes)
1973 Knicks (Frazier)

That's it.  So obviously you can win without a top 5 player, it just doesn't happen very often and those teams tend to have a nice 2 or 3 season run and then fade off into the sunset of actual contention.  It isn't a sustainable model.

[GreenlyGreeny]

I still don't think Brown and Tatum are a great fit stylistically.  They obviously are both very talented, but in many respects they both play better when the other is on the bench.

of course not.  you've got to keep beating that dead horse.  they continue make the ECF as a pair, this year as the top 2 players on the team and are expected to not just get to the finals but are the favorites to win it.  I think your narrative on this has been effectively disproven.

also, your other favorite narrative of title teams requiring a top 5 player to win it is going to take a hit should the C's win it this year since they do not have a top 5 player.  As good as Tatum has been the second half this season, I seem to recall in various threads you putting the following players ahead of him or in the top 5: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Curry, Luka, Lebron, Kawhi, Durant.  That's not getting into KAT, Booker, Harden, Simmons, Mitchell, AD, PG, Zion being posted around here as better players.  I don't agree that all of them are better than Tatum but a you've often made the case he's not top 5, this list of players containing most name you've used to support that is a fair argument but as such would shoot down your theory you can't win a title without a top 5 player.  Granted, the C's still have to finish off Miami and would have to get through either Curry or Luka to win the title but C's are currently the favorites to take the title right now.

Well, he could be right about needing a top 5 guy and is just wrong about Tatum being there yet. I think these playoffs are proving that Tatum is a top 5 player and maybe Brown is a top 15 player. If not both aren't more than a slot or two away from being that good.

How about looking at it this way.  Is Tatum top 5 of the players still playing and with a chance at a title?  Top 3?  Doesn't that matter more at this point than where he ranks against players that are already out?  Does it matter that Giannis would be ranked higher for example?

Some sports outlets are predicting that Luka and Tatum will be first team all-NBA this season.  Steph Curry second team.  Butler no team.  So I guess is Tatum is no worse than Top 2 of the players left playing?

You could also look at this from a chicken or egg perspective.  Before this season, or even half way through this season, not too many would considered Tatum a top 5 player.  But if he wins a title does that change?  So did he win a title because he is a top 5 player (metaphorical chicken) or has he achieved top 5 player status because he won a title (metaphorical egg)?  Which come first?

I know, this is kind of philosophical for a Friday afternoon, my work is suffering.  Having trouble focusing on anything not Celtics.

that's moving the goalposts.  the theory he's put forth repeatedly is you cannot get to a title without a top 5 player -- as in a top 5 player throughout the season, not just a player that's one of the 5 best left standing in the playoffs.  using that sliding scale, it would any team making it to the finals would pretty much be automatically able to win the title because surely someone on their team would be one of the 5 best players in that series.

It seems pretty strange to call actual NBA history a theory.  There have been 3 teams in the entire history of the NBA that have won a championship without a guy that was arguably a top 5 player (and only a few where there was even an argument). 

Just so there isn't any confusion those teams without an arguable top 5 player are:

2014 Spurs (TD, Parker, Manu, rising Kawhi)
2004 Pistons (Ben, Chauncey, Sheed, Rip)
1979 Sonics (DJ, Sikma)

The ones where there would even be an argument

2011 Mavericks (Dirk)
1978 Bullets (Hayes)
1973 Knicks (Frazier)

That's it.  So obviously you can win without a top 5 player, it just doesn't happen very often and those teams tend to have a nice 2 or 3 season run and then fade off into the sunset of actual contention.  It isn't a sustainable model.

Love ya both, but Moranis is right: It’s extremely rare to win a title without a top five player. We’re headed to another year like 2011: Golden State (Curry is still top five IMHO but it’s arguable), Miami (Butler is like Dirk in terms of standing), or Boston (Tatum is arguably a top five player now) are the possibilities. None of the players on those teams are undeniable top five players, but an argument could be made just like it is for Dirk in 2011 (he certainly played in the Finals that year like a top 5 player).

[bopna]

If we win this year then we get included in that conversation of no top 5 player to lead but won because we did it by having the number 1 defense..Tatum is not top 5 but just because he beat Giannis doesnt mean he is top 5...top 5 players in the league doesnt lay an egg or score a mere 10 points in the playoffs and JT did it 2x.

[angryguy77]

If we win this year then we get included in that conversation of no top 5 player to lead but won because we did it by having the number 1 defense..Tatum is not top 5 but just because he beat Giannis doesnt mean he is top 5...top 5 players in the league doesnt lay an egg or score a mere 10 points in the playoffs and JT did it 2x.

If tatum finishes this series without another clunker, and leads his team to a title, he will be considered top 5. Big if.

[nebist]

Yeah, I think most people would probably rank Tatum in the 5-10 range currently. The only way for him to really cement himself as a top 5 talent in the NBA is to win a title. He has said so himself. And, of course, it is the hardest step to take. But, in a results-oriented field, it is only fair. Tatum needs to win a title to be truly considered top 5 in the NBA. The same likely goes for Doncic.

Top Tier in terms of how they are viewed overall (All with Titles - No exact order):
Giannis
Durant
LeBron
Curry
Kawhi (when healthy -- obviously he hasn't been)

Knocking on the door (top 5 talent - don't yet have the career results):
Jokic
Doncic
Tatum
Embiid

[td450]

I still don't think Brown and Tatum are a great fit stylistically.  They obviously are both very talented, but in many respects they both play better when the other is on the bench.

of course not.  you've got to keep beating that dead horse.  they continue make the ECF as a pair, this year as the top 2 players on the team and are expected to not just get to the finals but are the favorites to win it.  I think your narrative on this has been effectively disproven.

also, your other favorite narrative of title teams requiring a top 5 player to win it is going to take a hit should the C's win it this year since they do not have a top 5 player.  As good as Tatum has been the second half this season, I seem to recall in various threads you putting the following players ahead of him or in the top 5: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Curry, Luka, Lebron, Kawhi, Durant.  That's not getting into KAT, Booker, Harden, Simmons, Mitchell, AD, PG, Zion being posted around here as better players.  I don't agree that all of them are better than Tatum but a you've often made the case he's not top 5, this list of players containing most name you've used to support that is a fair argument but as such would shoot down your theory you can't win a title without a top 5 player.  Granted, the C's still have to finish off Miami and would have to get through either Curry or Luka to win the title but C's are currently the favorites to take the title right now.

Well, he could be right about needing a top 5 guy and is just wrong about Tatum being there yet. I think these playoffs are proving that Tatum is a top 5 player and maybe Brown is a top 15 player. If not both aren't more than a slot or two away from being that good.

How about looking at it this way.  Is Tatum top 5 of the players still playing and with a chance at a title?  Top 3?  Doesn't that matter more at this point than where he ranks against players that are already out?  Does it matter that Giannis would be ranked higher for example?

Some sports outlets are predicting that Luka and Tatum will be first team all-NBA this season.  Steph Curry second team.  Butler no team.  So I guess is Tatum is no worse than Top 2 of the players left playing?

You could also look at this from a chicken or egg perspective.  Before this season, or even half way through this season, not too many would considered Tatum a top 5 player.  But if he wins a title does that change?  So did he win a title because he is a top 5 player (metaphorical chicken) or has he achieved top 5 player status because he won a title (metaphorical egg)?  Which come first?

I know, this is kind of philosophical for a Friday afternoon, my work is suffering.  Having trouble focusing on anything not Celtics.

that's moving the goalposts.  the theory he's put forth repeatedly is you cannot get to a title without a top 5 player -- as in a top 5 player throughout the season, not just a player that's one of the 5 best left standing in the playoffs.  using that sliding scale, it would any team making it to the finals would pretty much be automatically able to win the title because surely someone on their team would be one of the 5 best players in that series.

It seems pretty strange to call actual NBA history a theory.  There have been 3 teams in the entire history of the NBA that have won a championship without a guy that was arguably a top 5 player (and only a few where there was even an argument). 

Just so there isn't any confusion those teams without an arguable top 5 player are:

2014 Spurs (TD, Parker, Manu, rising Kawhi)
2004 Pistons (Ben, Chauncey, Sheed, Rip)
1979 Sonics (DJ, Sikma)

The ones where there would even be an argument

2011 Mavericks (Dirk)
1978 Bullets (Hayes)
1973 Knicks (Frazier)

That's it.  So obviously you can win without a top 5 player, it just doesn't happen very often and those teams tend to have a nice 2 or 3 season run and then fade off into the sunset of actual contention.  It isn't a sustainable model.

Love ya both, but Moranis is right: It’s extremely rare to win a title without a top five player. We’re headed to another year like 2011: Golden State (Curry is still top five IMHO but it’s arguable), Miami (Butler is like Dirk in terms of standing), or Boston (Tatum is arguably a top five player now) are the possibilities. None of the players on those teams are undeniable top five players, but an argument could be made just like it is for Dirk in 2011 (he certainly played in the Finals that year like a top 5 player).

Top 5 is a bit of BS.

Most times when a team wins, they have someone who is retroactively declared top 5. The teams mentioned are the teams that are so lacking in top level superstars that you can't even try to do that.

Yes, Tatum will be declared a top 5 guy if we win the title. But we all know he hasn't proven that yet. If we win, the real dominance will come from the team defense, not Tatum.

The idea is that you have someone who can dominate enough to give your team enough of an edge to carry you through.

There often isn't someone like that in the league.  Giannis is the only one this year who qualifies.

However, someone has to win. That's really hard without a top 10-12 guy being part of your team, and they get re-evaluated as top 5 if they get their team there. Kevin Garnett was 3rd team All-NBA the year before our last title, and suddenly became top 5 for us. Because it worked out.

The more interesting idea is whether you have a player who is clearly the best player in the league. There isn't always a guy like that: Giannis is the only one capable of such separation. If you have THAT GUY, you have slightly better than a 50% chance at a title. If its a Russell or a Jordan, the odds go way up from there.

[nebist]

I still don't think Brown and Tatum are a great fit stylistically.  They obviously are both very talented, but in many respects they both play better when the other is on the bench.

of course not.  you've got to keep beating that dead horse.  they continue make the ECF as a pair, this year as the top 2 players on the team and are expected to not just get to the finals but are the favorites to win it.  I think your narrative on this has been effectively disproven.

also, your other favorite narrative of title teams requiring a top 5 player to win it is going to take a hit should the C's win it this year since they do not have a top 5 player.  As good as Tatum has been the second half this season, I seem to recall in various threads you putting the following players ahead of him or in the top 5: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Curry, Luka, Lebron, Kawhi, Durant.  That's not getting into KAT, Booker, Harden, Simmons, Mitchell, AD, PG, Zion being posted around here as better players.  I don't agree that all of them are better than Tatum but a you've often made the case he's not top 5, this list of players containing most name you've used to support that is a fair argument but as such would shoot down your theory you can't win a title without a top 5 player.  Granted, the C's still have to finish off Miami and would have to get through either Curry or Luka to win the title but C's are currently the favorites to take the title right now.

Well, he could be right about needing a top 5 guy and is just wrong about Tatum being there yet. I think these playoffs are proving that Tatum is a top 5 player and maybe Brown is a top 15 player. If not both aren't more than a slot or two away from being that good.

How about looking at it this way.  Is Tatum top 5 of the players still playing and with a chance at a title?  Top 3?  Doesn't that matter more at this point than where he ranks against players that are already out?  Does it matter that Giannis would be ranked higher for example?

Some sports outlets are predicting that Luka and Tatum will be first team all-NBA this season.  Steph Curry second team.  Butler no team.  So I guess is Tatum is no worse than Top 2 of the players left playing?

You could also look at this from a chicken or egg perspective.  Before this season, or even half way through this season, not too many would considered Tatum a top 5 player.  But if he wins a title does that change?  So did he win a title because he is a top 5 player (metaphorical chicken) or has he achieved top 5 player status because he won a title (metaphorical egg)?  Which come first?

I know, this is kind of philosophical for a Friday afternoon, my work is suffering.  Having trouble focusing on anything not Celtics.

that's moving the goalposts.  the theory he's put forth repeatedly is you cannot get to a title without a top 5 player -- as in a top 5 player throughout the season, not just a player that's one of the 5 best left standing in the playoffs.  using that sliding scale, it would any team making it to the finals would pretty much be automatically able to win the title because surely someone on their team would be one of the 5 best players in that series.

It seems pretty strange to call actual NBA history a theory.  There have been 3 teams in the entire history of the NBA that have won a championship without a guy that was arguably a top 5 player (and only a few where there was even an argument). 

Just so there isn't any confusion those teams without an arguable top 5 player are:

2014 Spurs (TD, Parker, Manu, rising Kawhi)
2004 Pistons (Ben, Chauncey, Sheed, Rip)
1979 Sonics (DJ, Sikma)

The ones where there would even be an argument

2011 Mavericks (Dirk)
1978 Bullets (Hayes)
1973 Knicks (Frazier)

That's it.  So obviously you can win without a top 5 player, it just doesn't happen very often and those teams tend to have a nice 2 or 3 season run and then fade off into the sunset of actual contention.  It isn't a sustainable model.

Love ya both, but Moranis is right: It’s extremely rare to win a title without a top five player. We’re headed to another year like 2011: Golden State (Curry is still top five IMHO but it’s arguable), Miami (Butler is like Dirk in terms of standing), or Boston (Tatum is arguably a top five player now) are the possibilities. None of the players on those teams are undeniable top five players, but an argument could be made just like it is for Dirk in 2011 (he certainly played in the Finals that year like a top 5 player).

Top 5 is a bit of BS.

Most times when a team wins, they have someone who is retroactively declared top 5. The teams mentioned are the teams that are so lacking in top level superstars that you can't even try to do that.

Yes, Tatum will be declared a top 5 guy if we win the title. But we all know he hasn't proven that yet. If we win, the real dominance will come from the team defense, not Tatum.

The idea is that you have someone who can dominate enough to give your team enough of an edge to carry you through.

There often isn't someone like that in the league.  Giannis is the only one this year who qualifies.

However, someone has to win. That's really hard without a top 10-12 guy being part of your team, and they get re-evaluated as top 5 if they get their team there. Kevin Garnett was 3rd team All-NBA the year before our last title, and suddenly became top 5 for us. Because it worked out.

The more interesting idea is whether you have a player who is clearly the best player in the league. There isn't always a guy like that: Giannis is the only one capable of such separation. If you have THAT GUY, you have slightly better than a 50% chance at a title. If its a Russell or a Jordan, the odds go way up from there.

This is a fair way of viewing the situation. There are probably in the vicinity of 8-15 players in the league at any one moment in time that can be the best player on a team that wins the championship (my list of 9 above would probably be my current list with guys like Ja, Booker, etc. in the mix too). In order for that group of 8-15 to be considered a top 5 guy they need to win a chip. That's the retroactive piece. Good way of putting it.

[Moranis]

I still don't think Brown and Tatum are a great fit stylistically.  They obviously are both very talented, but in many respects they both play better when the other is on the bench.

of course not.  you've got to keep beating that dead horse.  they continue make the ECF as a pair, this year as the top 2 players on the team and are expected to not just get to the finals but are the favorites to win it.  I think your narrative on this has been effectively disproven.

also, your other favorite narrative of title teams requiring a top 5 player to win it is going to take a hit should the C's win it this year since they do not have a top 5 player.  As good as Tatum has been the second half this season, I seem to recall in various threads you putting the following players ahead of him or in the top 5: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Curry, Luka, Lebron, Kawhi, Durant.  That's not getting into KAT, Booker, Harden, Simmons, Mitchell, AD, PG, Zion being posted around here as better players.  I don't agree that all of them are better than Tatum but a you've often made the case he's not top 5, this list of players containing most name you've used to support that is a fair argument but as such would shoot down your theory you can't win a title without a top 5 player.  Granted, the C's still have to finish off Miami and would have to get through either Curry or Luka to win the title but C's are currently the favorites to take the title right now.

Well, he could be right about needing a top 5 guy and is just wrong about Tatum being there yet. I think these playoffs are proving that Tatum is a top 5 player and maybe Brown is a top 15 player. If not both aren't more than a slot or two away from being that good.

How about looking at it this way.  Is Tatum top 5 of the players still playing and with a chance at a title?  Top 3?  Doesn't that matter more at this point than where he ranks against players that are already out?  Does it matter that Giannis would be ranked higher for example?

Some sports outlets are predicting that Luka and Tatum will be first team all-NBA this season.  Steph Curry second team.  Butler no team.  So I guess is Tatum is no worse than Top 2 of the players left playing?

You could also look at this from a chicken or egg perspective.  Before this season, or even half way through this season, not too many would considered Tatum a top 5 player.  But if he wins a title does that change?  So did he win a title because he is a top 5 player (metaphorical chicken) or has he achieved top 5 player status because he won a title (metaphorical egg)?  Which come first?

I know, this is kind of philosophical for a Friday afternoon, my work is suffering.  Having trouble focusing on anything not Celtics.

that's moving the goalposts.  the theory he's put forth repeatedly is you cannot get to a title without a top 5 player -- as in a top 5 player throughout the season, not just a player that's one of the 5 best left standing in the playoffs.  using that sliding scale, it would any team making it to the finals would pretty much be automatically able to win the title because surely someone on their team would be one of the 5 best players in that series.

It seems pretty strange to call actual NBA history a theory.  There have been 3 teams in the entire history of the NBA that have won a championship without a guy that was arguably a top 5 player (and only a few where there was even an argument). 

Just so there isn't any confusion those teams without an arguable top 5 player are:

2014 Spurs (TD, Parker, Manu, rising Kawhi)
2004 Pistons (Ben, Chauncey, Sheed, Rip)
1979 Sonics (DJ, Sikma)

The ones where there would even be an argument

2011 Mavericks (Dirk)
1978 Bullets (Hayes)
1973 Knicks (Frazier)

That's it.  So obviously you can win without a top 5 player, it just doesn't happen very often and those teams tend to have a nice 2 or 3 season run and then fade off into the sunset of actual contention.  It isn't a sustainable model.

Love ya both, but Moranis is right: It’s extremely rare to win a title without a top five player. We’re headed to another year like 2011: Golden State (Curry is still top five IMHO but it’s arguable), Miami (Butler is like Dirk in terms of standing), or Boston (Tatum is arguably a top five player now) are the possibilities. None of the players on those teams are undeniable top five players, but an argument could be made just like it is for Dirk in 2011 (he certainly played in the Finals that year like a top 5 player).

Top 5 is a bit of BS.

Most times when a team wins, they have someone who is retroactively declared top 5. The teams mentioned are the teams that are so lacking in top level superstars that you can't even try to do that.

Yes, Tatum will be declared a top 5 guy if we win the title. But we all know he hasn't proven that yet. If we win, the real dominance will come from the team defense, not Tatum.

The idea is that you have someone who can dominate enough to give your team enough of an edge to carry you through.

There often isn't someone like that in the league.  Giannis is the only one this year who qualifies.

However, someone has to win. That's really hard without a top 10-12 guy being part of your team, and they get re-evaluated as top 5 if they get their team there. Kevin Garnett was 3rd team All-NBA the year before our last title, and suddenly became top 5 for us. Because it worked out.

The more interesting idea is whether you have a player who is clearly the best player in the league. There isn't always a guy like that: Giannis is the only one capable of such separation. If you have THAT GUY, you have slightly better than a 50% chance at a title. If its a Russell or a Jordan, the odds go way up from there.

That most definitely is not true.  I listed the 6 times where that was a possibility (I may have missed one here or there).  The other 70 times, it was pretty obvious that the best player on the champion was a top 5 player in the sport.  That is why the vast majority of championships have been won by teams with Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Reed/Frazier, Cowens/Hondo, Kareem/Magic, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry. 

Those are the multiple title winners and they account for something like 75% of the championships in league history.  It is an even greater percentage since 1980.  I mean look at the title winners since Kareem/Magic won their 1st together in that 1980 season

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

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

This idea that teams win without top 5 players, except in very rare circumstances, isn't borne in reality.  Now maybe years from now we are discussing whether or not Tatum was top 5 this season and this was his true ascension to greatness (which puts him more in the hayes, dirk, frazier category), or maybe it is just thought of as more an exception.  If Boston wins this year AND goes on a nice multi-season run and wins a couple, I suspect Tatum will end up in the 1st category more for what he did after rather than this particular season, but there will be metrics to support him as a top 5 i.e. 6th in MVP voting, likely 1st Team All NBA, etc. 

Again that doesn't mean Boston can't win, but fighting against history is an uphill battle.  It happens if the conditions fall correctly, but that doesn't mean it should be expected or counted on.  That was the point I've been making for basically a decade on here (you know when KG got hurt/old and was no longer a top 5 player).  You need the top 5 player, because top 5 players win you championships.  It is quite simply reality except in very rare cases.  Hopefully this year is a rare case and Boston pulls it out.  The door is certainly open as Boston is better than Miami and matches up very well with Golden State.  This is the year for Boston to pull it out.

[pokeKingCurtis]

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

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

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

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

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

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

[jambr380]

The Tatum/top 5 argument is weird. He is going to make 1st Team All-NBA. If the Cs win a Title, that's what people will look back on to confirm that he was Top 5 - both this season and over a span of several years.

As far as Jaylen, terrible shooting game for him last night, but that is obviously fine since we won in a laugher. Hopefully we see more of the game 3 shooting Jaylen (not dribbling) and we can eventually close this series out.

[Moranis]

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

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

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

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

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

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

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

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

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

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

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