Whether or not we win a title all comes down to JT and JB right?

[celticsclay]

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.

You realize using the same arbitrary and subjective arguments to make a random point doesn’t make them any less arbitrary or subjective no matter how many times you repeat it? Again not a single person in this thread has argued you need a great player to win championships. That is extremely obvious whether it is kobe, Lebron, jordan, russell, kareem, bird, magic, Shaq and someone would be an idiot to argue against it. You keep buckling down on the obvious part that everyone agrees with and ignoring the problematic subjective part of your posts that a lot of people disagree with. This is one of those times it is frustrating because I know you understand what people are saying about Tatum being good enough to win a championship and you keep ignoring that and doubling down on a part
Nobody disagrees with you on all while acting like you discovered the moon and we are all mindless peons. And someone brought up the gambling earlier with your extreme confidence in all things. Why are you not writing us all from your own island in Fiji right now jd you are right as often as you cite? And so many things are “quite simply what matters.”

[Moranis]

Tatum hasn't been good enough to win a title, that is why Boston hasn't won one.  If Tatum was good enough, Boston would have won.  Tatum could be good enough at some point, but he hasn't been yet.  And there is nothing arbitrary about looking at actual champions and figuring out what they have in common.  In virtually every instance that is not just a HOFer, but a truly special player in the sports history.  Tatum is not yet a truly special player, maybe he gets there, but maybe he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, it will be very very difficult to win a championship because the truly special players are the ones that win championships.  If Tatum does elevate into that class, then Boston should win a title because almost all of the truly special players have won a championship.

[celticsclay]

Tatum hasn't been good enough to win a title, that is why Boston hasn't won one.  If Tatum was good enough, Boston would have won.  Tatum could be good enough at some point, but he hasn't been yet.  And there is nothing arbitrary about looking at actual champions and figuring out what they have in common.  In virtually every instance that is not just a HOFer, but a truly special player in the sports history.  Tatum is not yet a truly special player, maybe he gets there, but maybe he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, it will be very very difficult to win a championship because the truly special players are the ones that win championships.  If Tatum does elevate into that class, then Boston should win a title because almost all of the truly special players have won a championship.

Again this is literally nonsense. They were in a 6 game finals when Tatum had a broken wrist. Smart could have had a crazy game where he went 9 for 11 from three point where we win easily
Because of it or curry could have got in foul trouble of game 4 and fouled out and we win easily. Acting like the only possible way we could have won a title is if Tatum played like an all time great is frankly just gettin progressively Asinine and you are better than this.

[gouki88]

Tatum hasn't been good enough to win a title, that is why Boston hasn't won one.  If Tatum was good enough, Boston would have won.  Tatum could be good enough at some point, but he hasn't been yet.  And there is nothing arbitrary about looking at actual champions and figuring out what they have in common.  In virtually every instance that is not just a HOFer, but a truly special player in the sports history.  Tatum is not yet a truly special player, maybe he gets there, but maybe he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, it will be very very difficult to win a championship because the truly special players are the ones that win championships.  If Tatum does elevate into that class, then Boston should win a title because almost all of the truly special players have won a championship.

This is mind-numbingly simplistic, in an unhelpful way

[droopdog7]

Tatum hasn't been good enough to win a title, that is why Boston hasn't won one.  If Tatum was good enough, Boston would have won.  Tatum could be good enough at some point, but he hasn't been yet.  And there is nothing arbitrary about looking at actual champions and figuring out what they have in common.  In virtually every instance that is not just a HOFer, but a truly special player in the sports history.  Tatum is not yet a truly special player, maybe he gets there, but maybe he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, it will be very very difficult to win a championship because the truly special players are the ones that win championships.  If Tatum does elevate into that class, then Boston should win a title because almost all of the truly special players have won a championship.

Again this is literally nonsense. They were in a 6 game finals when Tatum had a broken wrist. Smart could have had a crazy game where he went 9 for 11 from three point where we win easily
Because of it or curry could have got in foul trouble of game 4 and fouled out and we win easily. Acting like the only possible way we could have won a title is if Tatum played like an all time great is frankly just gettin progressively Asinine and you are better than this.

Man, what venom.  No one is saying it is impossible to win without JT playing like a superstar.  Obviously there are examples of teams winning without a star.  So we KNOW it is possible.  But the numbers don't lie either.  Stars win titles. 

As for your alternate realities, who cares what might have happened.  There are an infinite number of other realities, some we win, some we may even get swept. What does that have to do with anything?

As for the wrist, I'm sorry but excuses are for the losers.  No one cares about that, and frankly, I don't personally believe that is why wiggins locked JT up.

[celticsclay]

Tatum hasn't been good enough to win a title, that is why Boston hasn't won one.  If Tatum was good enough, Boston would have won.  Tatum could be good enough at some point, but he hasn't been yet.  And there is nothing arbitrary about looking at actual champions and figuring out what they have in common.  In virtually every instance that is not just a HOFer, but a truly special player in the sports history.  Tatum is not yet a truly special player, maybe he gets there, but maybe he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, it will be very very difficult to win a championship because the truly special players are the ones that win championships.  If Tatum does elevate into that class, then Boston should win a title because almost all of the truly special players have won a championship.

Again this is literally nonsense. They were in a 6 game finals when Tatum had a broken wrist. Smart could have had a crazy game where he went 9 for 11 from three point where we win easily
Because of it or curry could have got in foul trouble of game 4 and fouled out and we win easily. Acting like the only possible way we could have won a title is if Tatum played like an all time great is frankly just gettin progressively Asinine and you are better than this.

Man, what venom.  No one is saying it is impossible to win without JT playing like a superstar.  Obviously there are examples of teams winning without a star.  So we KNOW it is possible.  But the numbers don't lie either.  Stars win titles. 

As for your alternate realities, who cares what might have happened.  There are an infinite number of other realities, some we win, some we may even get swept. What does that have to do with anything?

As for the wrist, I'm sorry but excuses are for the losers.  No one cares about that, and frankly, I don't personally believe that is why wiggins locked JT up.

Moranis literally said this in the post I was responding to. Lol!!! That was a rich response man. Tp

[gouki88]

Tatum hasn't been good enough to win a title, that is why Boston hasn't won one.  If Tatum was good enough, Boston would have won.  Tatum could be good enough at some point, but he hasn't been yet.  And there is nothing arbitrary about looking at actual champions and figuring out what they have in common.  In virtually every instance that is not just a HOFer, but a truly special player in the sports history.  Tatum is not yet a truly special player, maybe he gets there, but maybe he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, it will be very very difficult to win a championship because the truly special players are the ones that win championships.  If Tatum does elevate into that class, then Boston should win a title because almost all of the truly special players have won a championship.

Again this is literally nonsense. They were in a 6 game finals when Tatum had a broken wrist. Smart could have had a crazy game where he went 9 for 11 from three point where we win easily
Because of it or curry could have got in foul trouble of game 4 and fouled out and we win easily. Acting like the only possible way we could have won a title is if Tatum played like an all time great is frankly just gettin progressively Asinine and you are better than this.

Man, what venom.  No one is saying it is impossible to win without JT playing like a superstar.  Obviously there are examples of teams winning without a star.  So we KNOW it is possible.  But the numbers don't lie either.  Stars win titles. 

As for your alternate realities, who cares what might have happened.  There are an infinite number of other realities, some we win, some we may even get swept. What does that have to do with anything?

As for the wrist, I'm sorry but excuses are for the losers.  No one cares about that, and frankly, I don't personally believe that is why wiggins locked JT up.

It's weird for you to criticise "alternate realities" yet avoid the fact of our reality in Tatum's significant injury

[Kernewek]

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.

[LilRip]

History is a good basis and will be most useful for this conversation once Tatum retires. But right now, Tatum is playing and about to enter his prime in a couple of years. And unless we can predict his trajectory, it’s foolish to say he can’t lead this team to a title. At his best, Tatum (at his current talent level) is absolutely good enough to win you the title.

But the “at his best” is the operative phrase. I think consistency is the main thing holding Tatum back. The last MVPs (Embiid, Jokic, Giannis) are consistently dominant. Tatum has shown the talent to outplay them when he’s on, but it’s rare that those guys have an off-night whereas Tatum is more prone to fluctuations.

[Moranis]

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.

[green_bballers13]

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.

[Kernewek]

To be fair to Moranis, I actually think the MVP discussion is somewhat reasonable (which has already been covered earlier in the thread). Tatum's performance in the first two-thirds of the most recent season proves that - he was solidly in the conversation before the All-Star Break, then his performance fell back to earth somewhat, and he struggled alongside the team.

We're starting to really go in circles now, but it's worth pointing out again the reigning MVP is both notoriously unreliable in the postseason (save for the presence of injury & exhaustion), and making a strong case for taking the mantle from Steve Nash as "the guy everyone knows wasn't really the MVP but we didn't want to vote for the actual MVP again" in the season that he was awarded the title.

Regular season awards shouldn't reflect playoff success and all that, but I think the MVP vote in particular is prone to being heavily influenced by narrative if we're trying to hang our hats on something more objective.

[Moranis]

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.

[green_bballers13]

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.

[droopdog7]

Tatum hasn't been good enough to win a title, that is why Boston hasn't won one.  If Tatum was good enough, Boston would have won.  Tatum could be good enough at some point, but he hasn't been yet.  And there is nothing arbitrary about looking at actual champions and figuring out what they have in common.  In virtually every instance that is not just a HOFer, but a truly special player in the sports history.  Tatum is not yet a truly special player, maybe he gets there, but maybe he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, it will be very very difficult to win a championship because the truly special players are the ones that win championships.  If Tatum does elevate into that class, then Boston should win a title because almost all of the truly special players have won a championship.

Again this is literally nonsense. They were in a 6 game finals when Tatum had a broken wrist. Smart could have had a crazy game where he went 9 for 11 from three point where we win easily
Because of it or curry could have got in foul trouble of game 4 and fouled out and we win easily. Acting like the only possible way we could have won a title is if Tatum played like an all time great is frankly just gettin progressively Asinine and you are better than this.

Man, what venom.  No one is saying it is impossible to win without JT playing like a superstar.  Obviously there are examples of teams winning without a star.  So we KNOW it is possible.  But the numbers don't lie either.  Stars win titles. 

As for your alternate realities, who cares what might have happened.  There are an infinite number of other realities, some we win, some we may even get swept. What does that have to do with anything?

As for the wrist, I'm sorry but excuses are for the losers.  No one cares about that, and frankly, I don't personally believe that is why wiggins locked JT up.

It's weird for you to criticise "alternate realities" yet avoid the fact of our reality in Tatum's significant injury

Like I said, excuses are for the losers.  I know that's a tough pill to swallow, but it is what it is.  As for the injury, like I said, wiggins locks up JT either way IMO.  People can disagree but unless we can get into one of those alternate realities, then we won't know.