And yet in the history of the game the vast majority of titles have been won by teams with one of the 25 best players in the sports history. And almost all of those players have won multiple championships. That isn't a coincidence, it isn't a fluke, and it isn't really all that subjective (until the last few players in an all time list). Basketball, more than any other sport, is driven by the mega stars. It is why teams will tank for years for the chance to get one of those players. It is why year after year the NBA champion has one of those players. It quite simply matters.
Of course - to be considered one of the best, once you’ve hung up your sneakers, it really helps to win a title or two (or eleven). But how many of those top 25 players had a HOF-ready resume at the point in their NBA career where Tatum now finds himself?
And from the ESPN list, quite a few of them (Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Pippen) couldn’t hack it as “the guy” on a championship-winning team, so from that criteria our top 25-30 is actually considerably narrower, no?
Obviously no one in their right mind is going to put rings above all else (if Tatum can get to the same level as Chuck in his prime I suspect we’ll all be very happy, but we’d all be quite disappointed if he wound up at Robert Horry’s level), but I think we have to keep in mind that resumes are best evaluated when the dust settles, not before.
Sure, don't disagree, of course as you pointed out, almost all those guys had won a MVP before they broke through with a title. Tatum doesn't yet have a MVP so he isn't yet at that level of player. We all hope this can be the year and Tatum wins the MVP and leads Boston to a title, and frankly it will almost certainly require Tatum to be at that level because that is what it takes.
Ultimately, people may disagree with my phrasing, but at the end of the day almost every title in the entire history of the sport has been won by a team with one of the truly special players the league has had (and the vast majority of those said player was in his prime). Not just a great HOF level player, but the best of the best among that limited group. It isn't a coincidence, it isn't random, it's quite simply a prerequisite almost every year.
Can we move on from the idea that people are challenging your assertion that the best players win championships? You keep trying to make that point, and no one disagrees. It is quite an obvious statement. It's almost like saying the least talented teams will win the least amount of games.
The point where you annoy Celtics fans is when you state that Tatum isn't that guy. How do you know? He's super young. No one knows what the future may hold. Celtics fans on Celtics Strong probably overrate Tatum's abilities, and underrate players on other teams. This is not earth shattering news.
Just make your statement- you don't think Tatum is capable of winning a championship. You can use as many data points as you want- this is an opinion, and everyone here can share their opinion.
I never said Tatum isn't that guy, I've said he hasn't been that guy. No where near the same thing. In fact I've consistently said, including in the post you responded to, that I hope he becomes that guy this year. I mean if you are going to respond at least read what you are responding to and don't project things I've never said onto me. It isn't helpful.
Ok, to summarize. You believe that:
-Top 5 players win 95% of the championships
-Jayson Tatum hasn't been a top 5 player yet. The lack of a Celtics championship proves this.
I agree with both of those sentences. I have read many of your posts, and those two lines seem to represent your perspective. Did I miss anything?
I also think the perceived latitude towards Joel Embiid and Luka Doncic can be seen as a slight to Tatum. Embiid is injury prone, and Doncic is out of shape and only plays 1/2 the court. I disagree that either are better than Tatum, as I think actual results matter. That being said, you can have a preference and no one can fault you.
I don't think the lack of a title proves Tatum is not a top 5 player. Only 1 (sometimes 2) of those guys can win any year, but that is otherwise correct. New season, still has to play out, but going into the season, Tatum is not a top 5 player in my view. He is close enough that some elevation in his play and he could get there. He does have to raise his game though. He can't fade down the stretch and then disappear in the biggest moments like he has the last couple. Especially since websites like the Ringer only have Tatum as a top 10, Brown as a top 25, and no other Celtic in the top 60. That is a general dearth of top end talent that teams typically need to win. That is why I say Boston has overachieved the last couple of years in particular. The team has great depth 4-8, bit is weaker 1-3 than most of the other top teams. And time and time again it is the top 3 that yield playoff series wins.
I don't know how many other teams have better top end talent.
Denver? Maybe. Jokic is a beast. Murray was great in the playoffs, but is injury prone and can't be relied upon. Same story with MPJ.
Phoenix? Booker is a stud, as is KD. KD has begun the demise, and I wouldn't be surprised if he continues to miss even more games. I don't remember the last time Beal played in a meaningful game.
Atlanta? Pass on Trae Young. I like Okungwu and Murray is pretty good.
LA Lakers? Lebron is a beast. AD is also unreliable. I think the rest of that squad is meh.
Sacramento? I like their young core. Once they hit the conference finals, I will consider them.
Memphis? Ja is awesome, but he can't be relied upon to play D or make great decisions off the court. JJJ is injury prone but talented.
Philly? Embiid is a stud, yet can be relied upon to be healthy in the playoffs. Maxey is a promising young player, even if he doesn't play great D.
Cleveland? Mitchell, Garland, and Mobley present a nice opportunity for the future. I think they are one of the most talented young teams. They might still be years away from competing for a title.
OKC? They have one absolute stud in SGA. Giddey is also very good. Still, we have no idea what Holmgren, Poku, will bring.
GS? Curry and a bunch of old guys. I'm curious to see if Kuminga and Moody take their game to the next level. I do like Wiggins.
Minnesota? I love Antman, and can't stand Towns. Gobert and Towns are a weird fit.
LAC? Absolute trainwreck with PG13 and Kawhi. Might be the most painful fan experience in the league.
I'm sure I'm missing someone. Right now, I think the Celtics top 3 can hang with any of those teams mentioned.