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

[jpotter33]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Having watched the player of the C's the last few seasons I think its REALLY hard to argue Tatum has been as good as the Jokic run this year, the Giannis run, Kawhi in 2019 or even AD in the bubble. He's an awesome player, but he's just never quite reached THAT height.

Could the C's win with Tatum playing at the level he has the last two years? Yes, they could. But it is without a doubt harder than it would be if he was a clear cut MVP level guy. He might very well play at that level this year, but if he doesn't they need health/shooting luck ect to make up the difference.

4th in MVP voting on 30, 9, and 5 for the second best record in the league for a just turned 25 year old is not a “clear cut MVP level guy”? Really?

And let’s not even mention you saying Tatum’s run isn’t like a 2019 Kawhi (26.6, 7.3, and 3.3 - 9th in MVP voting) or Bubble AD (27.7, 9.7, and 3.5 - 6th in MVP voting) - who he’s clearly on par if not better than.

Crazy the amount of slander this guy gets, all while doing this at a younger age than any of them.

[Kernewek]

Well, one key difference is that 2019 Kawhii and Bubble AD both won a championship. But I think Tatum's ceiling is higher than both of them because of his youth - however we've all been acutely attuned to his ups and downs, so maybe the intimacy (plus the lack of a ring) contributes to this?

[celticsclay]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Yeah you are kind of inventing what people are disagreeing with here. We all agree you need a great player. The debate is more about whether they have to be top 3 top 5 or top 10 and how do you determine what that means. The things people have pushed back on is you arbitrarily decided on top 5 and then declared we could only use your declaration of whether the player was top 5 that year. For Dirk you argue his playoff matchups made him top 5. For curry you have decided to use his preseason ranking to justify him as top 5. That’s the kind of strange part. You’ve just created this weird delineation that only you can decide. I say we stop being silly like that and say you just need a great player and Tatum is clearly great enough with the right teammates, good health and some breaks.

[keevsnick]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Having watched the player of the C's the last few seasons I think its REALLY hard to argue Tatum has been as good as the Jokic run this year, the Giannis run, Kawhi in 2019 or even AD in the bubble. He's an awesome player, but he's just never quite reached THAT height.

Could the C's win with Tatum playing at the level he has the last two years? Yes, they could. But it is without a doubt harder than it would be if he was a clear cut MVP level guy. He might very well play at that level this year, but if he doesn't they need health/shooting luck ect to make up the difference.

4th in MVP voting on 30, 9, and 5 for the second best record in the league for a just turned 25 year old is not a “clear cut MVP level guy”? Really?

And let’s not even mention you saying Tatum’s run isn’t like a 2019 Kawhi (26.6, 7.3, and 3.3 - 9th in MVP voting) or Bubble AD (27.7, 9.7, and 3.5 - 6th in MVP voting) - who he’s clearly on par if not better than.

Crazy the amount of slander this guy gets, all while doing this at a younger age than any of them.

Yep, he got 0 1st, 0 2nd and a single third place vote. He was not, in any sense, close to winning MVP. That is, by definition, not an "MVP level guy" given that's he's never been in serious consideration for MVP.

He's really really really good. Its not "slander" to say he's been a single notch below MVP level so far through his 26th birthday. Its just a fact. It very well might change next year.

[Vermont Green]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Having watched the player of the C's the last few seasons I think its REALLY hard to argue Tatum has been as good as the Jokic run this year, the Giannis run, Kawhi in 2019 or even AD in the bubble. He's an awesome player, but he's just never quite reached THAT height.

Could the C's win with Tatum playing at the level he has the last two years? Yes, they could. But it is without a doubt harder than it would be if he was a clear cut MVP level guy. He might very well play at that level this year, but if he doesn't they need health/shooting luck ect to make up the difference.

I didn't try to argue that.  What I said was Tatum is at a level of Curry in 2022.  I don't think Tatum is going to play like Giannis when he won or like Jokic last season.   I am not sure about Kawhi the year Toronto won.  I don't remember that so well, but I feel like Tatum can be that good or is that good.  Davis was much more dominant back in the bubble that he is going to be ever again, but I don't disagree that vintage Davis is better than Tatum has been to date.

Comparing to Curry, he lead a team to a championship when he was 8th in MVP voting, that same season.  MVP voting isn't the end all, just a reference or guide, but Tatum can be better than 8th best in the league. What Curry did have in the finals was more poise than Tatum had.  He had been there and done that, and it showed.  Curry's experience was important relative to Tatum's experience.

[celticsclay]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Having watched the player of the C's the last few seasons I think its REALLY hard to argue Tatum has been as good as the Jokic run this year, the Giannis run, Kawhi in 2019 or even AD in the bubble. He's an awesome player, but he's just never quite reached THAT height.

Could the C's win with Tatum playing at the level he has the last two years? Yes, they could. But it is without a doubt harder than it would be if he was a clear cut MVP level guy. He might very well play at that level this year, but if he doesn't they need health/shooting luck ect to make up the difference.

I didn't try to argue that.  What I said was Tatum is at a level of Curry in 2022.  I don't think Tatum is going to play like Giannis when he won or like Jokic last season.   I am not sure about Kawhi the year Toronto won.  I don't remember that so well, but I feel like Tatum can be that good or is that good.  Davis was much more dominant back in the bubble that he is going to be ever again, but I don't disagree that vintage Davis is better than Tatum has been to date.

Comparing to Curry, he lead a team to a championship when he was 8th in MVP voting, that same season.  MVP voting isn't the end all, just a reference or guide, but Tatum can be better than 8th best in the league. What Curry did have in the finals was more poise than Tatum had.  He had been there and done that, and it showed.  Curry's experience was important relative to Tatum's experience.

Vg is right here and I don’t really see how it can be debated with respect to curry and Tatum.

[Moranis]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Having watched the player of the C's the last few seasons I think its REALLY hard to argue Tatum has been as good as the Jokic run this year, the Giannis run, Kawhi in 2019 or even AD in the bubble. He's an awesome player, but he's just never quite reached THAT height.

Could the C's win with Tatum playing at the level he has the last two years? Yes, they could. But it is without a doubt harder than it would be if he was a clear cut MVP level guy. He might very well play at that level this year, but if he doesn't they need health/shooting luck ect to make up the difference.

I didn't try to argue that.  What I said was Tatum is at a level of Curry in 2022.  I don't think Tatum is going to play like Giannis when he won or like Jokic last season.   I am not sure about Kawhi the year Toronto won.  I don't remember that so well, but I feel like Tatum can be that good or is that good.  Davis was much more dominant back in the bubble that he is going to be ever again, but I don't disagree that vintage Davis is better than Tatum has been to date.

Comparing to Curry, he lead a team to a championship when he was 8th in MVP voting, that same season.  MVP voting isn't the end all, just a reference or guide, but Tatum can be better than 8th best in the league. What Curry did have in the finals was more poise than Tatum had.  He had been there and done that, and it showed.  Curry's experience was important relative to Tatum's experience.

Or maybe you are just underselling a multiple time MVP winner and champion, still very much in his prime.  Curry averaged 31.2 ppg, 6 rpg, 5.3 apg, and 2 spg while shooting 43.7% from 3 in the Finals.  He did that because that is what top 5 players and all time greats do when the team needs them to do that.  Tatum, couldn't do it, because he wasn't on Curry's level.  In 2022, Curry was quite simply a better player than Tatum.  He proved that in the finals. 

MVP voting also doesn't tell you who is better it is more who had a better season.  I mean when the Durant/Curry Warriors won back to back titles and were dominating the league, neither one of those guys finished in the top 5 for MVP (nor did they the following year when they had the injuries and Toronto beat them).  Yet, if you asked pretty much everyone, they'd tell you both Durant and Curry were top 5 players in the sport that year (along with Lebron - you might get some debate on the other 2 guys in the top 5).  the first of those years, IT4 finished 5th and Westbrook won.  No one is going to tell you either of those guys was better than Curry or Durant, but they both deserved their votes.  They had great seasons. 

[celticsclay]

The comments in this thread are just strange. I thought everyone knew the history of the sport when it comes to champions almost exclusively having the mega talents.  I'm not on some island here.  You need one of the handful of best players in the world to win a title historically.  It doesn't mean some team, maybe even the Celtics, won't win this year, it would just be an anomaly.

I am not sure anyone is disagreeing that you need that one really good player to win a title, at least I am not disagreeing with that.  The debate or disagreement is how good does that one player need to be for a team to win one title (and how can you quantify that) and whether or not Tatum is that good already.

I would say that if Curry was good enough in 2022, when he finished 8th in the MVP voting, than Tatum is going to be good enough in 2023-24, and has been good enough the last couple of seasons.  Tatum is not right now the kind of dominant player that is going to lead the team to a dynasty run, but Curry isn't anymore either.  But put the right players around either of these guys, and either could win a title in any given year.  Teams like MIL and DEN, if Giannis and Jokic are fully healthy, are going to be tough outs for either GSW or BOS, but I am not sure their chances are all that much greater, just based on the talent of their best player.  Maybe they have a little more tolerance for what is around them, but they need a lot to go right on their teams too.

Having watched the player of the C's the last few seasons I think its REALLY hard to argue Tatum has been as good as the Jokic run this year, the Giannis run, Kawhi in 2019 or even AD in the bubble. He's an awesome player, but he's just never quite reached THAT height.

Could the C's win with Tatum playing at the level he has the last two years? Yes, they could. But it is without a doubt harder than it would be if he was a clear cut MVP level guy. He might very well play at that level this year, but if he doesn't they need health/shooting luck ect to make up the difference.

I didn't try to argue that.  What I said was Tatum is at a level of Curry in 2022.  I don't think Tatum is going to play like Giannis when he won or like Jokic last season.   I am not sure about Kawhi the year Toronto won.  I don't remember that so well, but I feel like Tatum can be that good or is that good.  Davis was much more dominant back in the bubble that he is going to be ever again, but I don't disagree that vintage Davis is better than Tatum has been to date.

Comparing to Curry, he lead a team to a championship when he was 8th in MVP voting, that same season.  MVP voting isn't the end all, just a reference or guide, but Tatum can be better than 8th best in the league. What Curry did have in the finals was more poise than Tatum had.  He had been there and done that, and it showed.  Curry's experience was important relative to Tatum's experience.

Or maybe you are just underselling a multiple time MVP winner and champion, still very much in his prime.  Curry averaged 31.2 ppg, 6 rpg, 5.3 apg, and 2 spg while shooting 43.7% from 3 in the Finals.  He did that because that is what top 5 players and all time greats do when the team needs them to do that.  Tatum, couldn't do it, because he wasn't on Curry's level.  In 2022, Curry was quite simply a better player than Tatum.  He proved that in the finals. 

MVP voting also doesn't tell you who is better it is more who had a better season.  I mean when the Durant/Curry Warriors won back to back titles and were dominating the league, neither one of those guys finished in the top 5 for MVP (nor did they the following year when they had the injuries and Toronto beat them).  Yet, if you asked pretty much everyone, they'd tell you both Durant and Curry were top 5 players in the sport that year (along with Lebron - you might get some debate on the other 2 guys in the top 5).  the first of those years, IT4 finished 5th and Westbrook won.  No one is going to tell you either of those guys was better than Curry or Durant, but they both deserved their votes.  They had great seasons.

Vintage mo here. Tommy point

[Celtics4ever]

The real thing that separates Jokic from Tatum is basketball IQ.    Joker's basketball IQ is off the charts.  I don't think this is even debatable.

[kraidstar]

The real thing that separates Jokic from Tatum is basketball IQ.    Joker's basketball IQ is off the charts.  I don't think this is even debatable.

The Celtics problem is our lack of passing and general choke artistry. When Ime had us playing as a team we were near-unbeatable for a couple months.

That fell apart late in the playoffs when the pressure was on.

This team needs that Warriors-like season where everything clicks and they start trusting each other again. Tatum has the talent to win it all. The guy is a freak. But he and the team need better composure and better cohesion. Usually that comes with maturity.

Unless we're destined to be the Durant Thunder 2.0

[green_bballers13]

Moranis' point is pretty much right, but he's taking a strange, hard line to get there. That part puts him on the island.

His points:
-We need a top 5 player to win a ring (with a 5% chance we don't).
-The top 5 ranking is scientific and objective. There shall be no argument who falls into this category.

The second point is so obviously false that its hard for people to take the first part seriously. Who is to say what a top 5 player is? Statistics? MVP voting? Whether they play any defense?

There's no way to objectively be right about the ranking of the top 10 players, or 50 for that matter. Saying that someone is or isn't top 5 is an opinion. Certainly not a fact. Purporting opinions as facts hurts credibility.

[celticsclay]

Moranis' point is pretty much right, but he's taking a strange, hard line to get there. That part puts him on the island.

His points:
-We need a top 5 player to win a ring (with a 5% chance we don't).
-The top 5 ranking is scientific and objective. There shall be no argument who falls into this category.

The second point is so obviously false that its hard for people to take the first part seriously. Who is to say what a top 5 player is? Statistics? MVP voting? Whether they play any defense?

There's no way to objectively be right about the ranking of the top 10 players, or 50 for that matter. Saying that someone is or isn't top 5 is an opinion. Certainly not a fact. Purporting opinions as facts hurts credibility.

This is very well said and better written than how I tried to explain it earlier so to. The next logical step of this is just whether we think a team can win a title with Tatum as the best player. My opinion is that we certainly could it just may take a bit better supporting cast than it would for say joker. If porzingas is healthy and plays like year, brown is a bit more consistent and cuts down and his turnovers and we get decent health from the rest of our guys I would find it really weird to just vehemently argue we couldn’t win the title. How does that make sense? We made it to get
Game 6 of the and obviously if there were like 6 different plays in that series we would have won the championship.

[green_bballers13]

Moranis' point is pretty much right, but he's taking a strange, hard line to get there. That part puts him on the island.

His points:
-We need a top 5 player to win a ring (with a 5% chance we don't).
-The top 5 ranking is scientific and objective. There shall be no argument who falls into this category.

The second point is so obviously false that its hard for people to take the first part seriously. Who is to say what a top 5 player is? Statistics? MVP voting? Whether they play any defense?

There's no way to objectively be right about the ranking of the top 10 players, or 50 for that matter. Saying that someone is or isn't top 5 is an opinion. Certainly not a fact. Purporting opinions as facts hurts credibility.

This is very well said and better written than how I tried to explain it earlier so to. The next logical step of this is just whether we think a team can win a title with Tatum as the best player. My opinion is that we certainly could it just may take a bit better supporting cast than it would for say joker. If porzingas is healthy and plays like year, brown is a bit more consistent and cuts down and his turnovers and we get decent health from the rest of our guys I would find it really weird to just vehemently argue we couldn’t win the title. How does that make sense? We made it to get
Game 6 of the and obviously if there were like 6 different plays in that series we would have won the championship.

Agree. The other problem with Moranis' theory is that it has very little predictive power, as we can't tell who belongs in the top 5 club going into a year. One can look back and say this guy was probably a top 5 player in 1977 (again, we can't say this definitively, but I'm trying to give Mo a little slack here).

There's no way to accurately predict who will jump into that top 5 category in any given year. That's why they play the games.

[Moranis]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

[green_bballers13]

Most of the time there is in fact a consensus on who the best players are at least the 3 or 4 best.  Sure there are years where a couple of players may be 5th and it is true that the playoffs may help clarify that.  I never said it was scientific and you can nitpick a season here or there, but you know what you can't nit pick, 90% of the seasons, you know when Mikan, Bill, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Curry are winning multiple titles.

And I'd ask everyone to look at the last 10 Finals or so (you can go back further, it still generally holds true) and compare the stats of the best player on the champion verse the stats of the best player on the runner-up.  Pay special attention to the runner-ups stats when that guy is Lebron (a clear top 5 player), verse basically anyone else.  You can tell who the top 5 guys are on those final 2 teams.  There is a huge stat discrepancy nearly across the board (except Lebron and 1 Curry year).  I'd argue quite simply that is because of the clear talent gap between a special player verse merely a great one.  There is a reason guys like Jokic dominate, while a guy like Butler is arguably out performed by Bam.  The top 5 guys can do it night in and night out.  They don't have the huge spikes in performance.  That is what sets them apart and makes them a top 5 player. A guy capable of putting a team on his back and carrying them regardless or how anyone else plays.

I agree with most of what you say.

Where I disagree lies in the bold above. I don't think there's a consensus. It's why they vote, instead of declare, the 3 All NBA teams and MVP.

You're using a hard line saying "X isn't top 5 or top 10", then couching it with terms like "most of the time". You're flip-flopping on what is concrete fact, and what is subjective.

And yes, we know that you're not putting this theory up for a peer reviewed journal. It's a fun thought exercise that needs more refinement. I do like where you're heading. I think you've spent a lot of time explaining the idea that the best players win championships. Very few will disagree with that.