I mean clearly Defense Matters!!! except when it doesn't as with Steph, Dame, LeBron, Luka, and Harden. I mean not only are those guys not "elite", bad defense would be an improvement for four of them. (And, frankly, Jokic also belongs on that list, his defense is sneaky terrible.) And clearly Health Matters!!! except when it doesn't, as with LeBron, Kawhi, and Anthony Davis. And somehow I'm the crazy one.This conversation won't ever get anywhere because people are just judging it on completely different things. Even if you asked these 'reputable sources' what their criteria is they wouldn't be consistent. For players like Kyrie or Lebron, so much of it is clearly based off of a theoretical maximum effort + talent + no injury type of situation. Defense, real or theoretical, is often discounted or ignored. Factors like Lebron or Dame's clutchness always factor in in a way that you can't trump. Some people are comparing complete seasons for some players at the same time that they're extrapolating partial seasons for another player. So many posts in and we're still quibbling over the word 'clearly' when people obviously can't even agree on criteria. In one regard we should all strive to post better but in another regard, maybe don't read other people's posts so narrowly? Can we really not see where Benhogan is operating from?
+1The whole exercise is futile - its entirely subjective. As such, its unlikely to change anyone's opinion. I will just say that if Tatum is widely considered to be one of the top two or three players in the NBA in a few years - around the league, in the media and on messageboards - it won't be a shock. He is amongst the top X right now imo.
There is zero debate about whether we would take Tatum over Giannis. This is getting ridiculous. Giannis is only 26 years old.Would anyone here take Giannis right now instead of Tatum?
I mean that seems like a pretty easy litmus test.
Who are the 10 guys you would take right now instead?
Not sure I take Lebron....RIGHTNOW Lebron....over JT. Nor AD....or Curry. or CP3 (who is doing amazing things in the playoffs) or Dame or Kawhi.
I could be totally wrong. But the fact that its debatable (which I think it is) speaks volumes.
The debate is that in a playoff series you might be better off with Tatum. Hack-a-Greek is a viable strategy and I'm not sure you want Giannis taking the last shot in a big game. The Bucks finally realized this and Middleton is their go-to in crunch time it seems.There is zero debate about whether we would take Tatum over Giannis. This is getting ridiculous. Giannis is only 26 years old.
That's all well and good, but replace Giannis with Tatum and that team isn't in the championship gameThe debate is that in a playoff series you might be better off with Tatum. Hack-a-Greek is a viable strategy and I'm not sure you want Giannis taking the last shot in a big game. The Bucks finally realized this and Middleton is their go-to in crunch time it seems.
Just so we are clear. You would not trade Tatum for Giannis if offered straight up?Covid-Tatum? No. Actual late March and after Tatum? Yes.
So really what we mean when we say clearly a top 10 player is clearly a top 10 young wing?Well you can assume 100% health at your peril.
AD for instance? When did you seem him recently healthy in the playoffs? And Betting on 34YOs+ health is iffy at best so Bron, Paul and Curry all have some serious risk. Dame could Kemba at any moment.
And Kawhis health hasn't been steller.
JT had covid. Unless he is a long hauler his Future...which includes this coming season is Much brighter then any of the guys above.
All this isnt even taking into account the pretty much taken for scripture that an Elite Wing is better than an Elite Guard or Center (looking at you too Embiid and Giannis).
Sure a transcendent player like Joker or Luka have a place on the list. No one is arguing otherwise. But Tatum sure seems like he is right there.
Giannis, at age 26, is largely a finished product. Better defensively, but offensively his inability to shoot outside of medium ranges is problematic. So, no, I wouldn't deal Tatum for him because it is, at best, a lateral move. And I say this as a huge fan of the Greek Freak. I wanted him in draft night in '13. Had Boston not been focused on building the Rondo/Love Celtics they'd probably have a title or two in hand. Because surrounded by Brown and Tatum you don't need to worry about Giannis's shooting.
I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of my predictions. Not sure I ever said what I thought Tatum would become. Maybe I did though?Given your track record on Tatum predictions that's about as good a guarantee as we can get that he's going to win an MVP award in that time frame.
In that list of five, LeBron wasn't the one I was talking about. But Dame, Luka, Steph, and Harden? Not good defensive players. Much less the elite standard that only counts when evaluators want it to.Having not watched a single Lakers game in 2021 with the exception of the game when Smart injured his calf, I will take exception to characterizing Lebron as a not great defender purely on the basis that the Lakers were far and away the best defensive team in the NBA this past season. How bad could he be?
He outplayed Embiid in the bubble playoffs just one year ago, and by a good margin. I don't think it's all that unrealistic to expect Tatum to overtake Embiid. And, to be fair, Tatum got schooled big time by Butler in the subsequent series, but Tatum had a better season than Butler did this past year, despite the All-NBA balloting quirks.
I don't usually do asterisks, but the injury luck that Giannis had to take his team to the Finals is very outlier. Honestly, the Celtics looked a lot better against the 3-stars Nets than Milwaukee looked against the 2-stars Nets, and then Kyrie went down.Giannis is a defensive player of the year caliber defender, something you seem to be pushing aside. He has won two MVP's and now has taken his team to the NBA finals. He can not improve one bit over the next 5 years, and there is way better than not chance that he is a superior player to Tatum in every single one of those years
Zion ahead of Tatum and Jokic? I don't think I agree. I am not sure Zion makes the top 5 for me.If I were starting a team today, Tatum would be Top 3
Doncic,
Zion
Tatum
Jokic
Trae
Booker
Mitchell
Jaylen Brown
Morant
Bam
Jaylen ahead KAT. Jaylen ahead of a lot of guys really.Zion ahead of Tatum and Jokic? I don't think I agree. I am not sure Zion makes the top 5 for me.
FWIW, unless a guy is still on his rookie deal, your window of real control is 2-3 years. So that would be the horizon I would be looking at in this exercise and would be inclined to include guys like Durant, AD and Giannis who already at their peak.If I were starting a team today, Tatum would be Top 3
Doncic,
Zion
Tatum
Jokic
Trae
Booker
Mitchell
Jaylen Brown
Morant
Bam
Giannis not on the list at all? Man…If I were starting a team today, Tatum would be Top 3
Doncic,
Zion
Tatum
Jokic
Trae
Booker
Mitchell
Jaylen Brown
Morant
Bam
Seriously. He is all of 2 months older than JokicGiannis not on the list at all? Man…
I’m not even a Giannis guy and would start a team with him over at least half of that list.Giannis not on the list at all? Man…
The C's should offer Milwaukee Jaylen Brown for Giannis and a pick right after the season.Giannis not on the list at all? Man…
I would be quite interested in your specific thoughts about Tatum. Where do you rank him? How do you rate his offense and his defense? How do you project him to improve or regress or over the next handful of years. Because as far as I can tell from reading several pages of this thread, your contributions to the discussion seem mostly to be in the form of one- or two-sentence posts in which you dismiss others as homers, tell them they’re nuts, or throw your hands up in despair over the ridiculousness of the group-think on this board. Several posters have made detailed and specific points about why they believe or don’t believe that Tatum is a top-ten player. What are your thoughts about Tatum?I say this as not a huge fan of Giannis. You are nuts.
The staff of the Ringer did a top 25 prior to the playoffs. They had Tatum 17.I would be quite interested in your specific thoughts about Tatum. Where do you rank him? How do you rate his offense and his defense? How do you project him to improve or regress or over the next handful of years. Because as far as I can tell from reading several pages of this thread, your contributions to the discussion seem mostly to be in the form of one- or two-sentence posts in which you dismiss others as homers, tell them they’re nuts, or throw your hands up in despair over the ridiculousness of the group-think on this board. Several posters have made detailed and specific points about why they believe or don’t believe that Tatum is a top-ten player. What are your thoughts about Tatum?
I didn’t realize Giannis was still that young. He’d probably be four.Giannis not on the list at all? Man…
Marketing? This is the first time I've ever seen someone on this board take things from the owner's perspective and not the GM. Unless you mean other players are going to want to play with Zion.I didn’t realize Giannis was still that young. He’d probably be four.
I have Zion that high because of marketing as well as his ability. I think under the right coach he could be a monster as a scorer and a set up man.
I also forgot Melo Ball.
I think he will be a draw for some of the younger players. I think Tatum will also be a draw for talent. But yes, if I were starting a team, having a superstar player that fans want to see would be a consideration.Marketing? This is the first time I've ever seen someone on this board take things from the owner's perspective and not the GM. Unless you mean other players are going to want to play with Zion.
Which demonstrates that their NBA writers shouldn’t be considered a reputable source.The staff of the Ringer did a top 25 prior to the playoffs. They had Tatum 17.
Or that reasonable minds can differ. Where did the cap/tax level come in at this year? Would Myles Turner fetch the MLE this offseason?Which demonstrates that their NBA writers shouldn’t be considered a reputable source.
No scenario for me where Tatum is behind Embid.The staff of the Ringer did a top 25 prior to the playoffs. They had Tatum 17.
Top 10 were:
Luka
AD
Harden
Giannis
Kahwi
Durant
Curry
Embid
Lebron
Jokic
There isn’t a GM working in the NBA that would pick 16 players before Jayson Tatum. By default that list is going to include guys like Kyrie, whose inclusion would just be comical.Or that reasonable minds can differ. Where did the cap/tax level come in at this year? Would Myles Turner fetch the MLE this offseason?
Unless the Pope is posting in here, all of us are fallible and its worth remembering. For the record I though the Vonleh was a better prospect than Smart.
These lists are current value, not who you would take to start a team right now, correct?No scenario for me where Tatum is behind Embid.
He finished 2nd in the MVP voting this year, and will be a perennial MVP (and DPOY) candidate for the rest of his prime. He likely would have won the MVP this year if he'd stayed healthy, which is of course the rub with him. After missing over 200 games his first 3 seasons (we'll just call it semi-intentional, red shirting multiple seasons), he's missed an average of 20 games per season over his last 4 years. When he's on the court he's better than Tatum, though he's a less flexible star to build around (the nature of having a star big man instead of a star wing). He's a far better rebounder and defender, and a far more efficient volume scorer. I prefer Tatum over Embiid because of the injury concerns with the latter, but when they are both on the court it isn't particularly close right now. Tatum has more room to grow and maybe he can hit his ultimate upside (IMO this would be a slightly shorter, quicker Durant) and be a better player, but he's not there yet.These lists are current value, not who you would take to start a team right now, correct?
The Embiid hate around here is so strange. The guy is currently so clearly one of the top 5 players in the NBA and obviously better than Tatum at this moment.
Agree with your entire post.Tatum has more room to grow and maybe he can hit his ultimate upside (IMO this would be a slightly shorter, quicker Durant) and be a better player, but he's not there yet.
There's the rub.These lists are current value, not who you would take to start a team right now, correct?
The Embiid hate around here is so strange. The guy is currently one of the top 5 players in the NBA and obviously better than Tatum at this moment.
He was just 2nd in the MVP voting, and might have won if he didn't miss any games due to injury.
Embiid is ludonkrously good. If healthy, I think he's the best young player in the league, pretty clearly. The problem is that the "if healthy" part has cost him great chances at titles in 2 of the past 3 years, and has to be priced in.These lists are current value, not who you would take to start a team right now, correct?
The Embiid hate around here is so strange. The guy is currently one of the top 5 players in the NBA and obviously better than Tatum at this moment.
He was just 2nd in the MVP voting, and might have won if he didn't miss any games due to injury.
Very persuasive post. How do these factors affect your rankings or tier-placement of players like Embiid and Jokic, or as you put it, cornerstone centers in the NBA?The argument against Embiid is really the argument about cornerstone centers in the playoffs.
Embiid can protect the rim and make you pay at the other end if you try to "Gobert" him (playing 5 out) in a way Gobert cannot. But Embiid still only plays drop coverage. Every playoff team with a chance to win a title is going to have multiple guys who can run a high PnR into a makeable 3 point shot off the dribble. Against drop coverage, that shot is always there. Yes, other teams also have drop coverage centers, but they aren't being paid the max (or supermax, or supehrmahx -- I tried to do that in French).
Philly still hasn't made it out of the second round of the playoffs in the lesser conference. MVP Jokic (similar drop coverage issues, but without the rim protection) couldn't make it out of the second round (and got destroyed by PnR). I've turned Gobert into a verb which tells you all you need to know about the Jazz in the playoffs.
Maybe if Philly finally gets rid of Simmons, gets their own version of a guy that can run a high PnR, and surrounds Embiid with the right kinds of players we'll see that Embiid isn't just an 82 (well, more like 65) game player but a 16 game player as well. I have some doubts.
Edit: There are also some offensive complications caused by having your best offensive player be a post scorer that I didn't get into.
It depends on what you value, which is what makes these tier lists hard. If you're championship or bust, these cornerstone centers might not be the best way to get there.Very persuasive post. How do these factors affect your rankings or tier-placement of players like Embiid and Jokic, or as you put it, cornerstone centers in the NBA?
Yes I think you’re hitting a similar point to the one @Rustjive was making in his excellent post upthread, when he said: “This conversation won't ever get anywhere because people are just judging it on completely different things. Even if you asked these 'reputable sources' what their criteria is they wouldn't be consistent.”It depends on what you value, which is what makes these tier lists hard. If you're championship or bust, these cornerstone centers might not be the best way to get there.
If you're an owner looking to sell tickets in a market with, frankly, not great prospects of winning championships because of your inability to attract free agent talent... you might have a different tier list.
I think I'd put this a bit differently. I'd say the chances that Tatum will be that guy are greater than the chances the Celtics will be able to acquire that guy (and still have good enough supporting talent) through other means. So my thinking is whether or not Tatum is the guy, the Celtics should proceed under the assumption he is (even if I believe the odds of that being true are quite a bit lower than most here.)The most useful framing I have seen in this discussion is whether we believe that, right now, Tatum is good enough to be the best player on a championship team. I believe that he is, and that the Celtics understand the urgency in building a better roster around him.
good posts. You don't have to be all that high on Tatum to realize:I think I'd put this a bit differently. I'd say the chances that Tatum will be that guy are greater than the chances the Celtics will be able to acquire that guy (and still have good enough supporting talent) through other means. So my thinking is whether or not Tatum is the guy, the Celtics should proceed under the assumption he is (even if I believe the odds of that being true are quite a bit lower than most here.)
Edit: As to the other point, I've frequently found myself wondering whether Milwaukee would have a better chance of winning in these Finals against Phoenix with Tatum than they do with Giannis, even if Giannis is clearly the better player (well, clearly better 82 game player). I go back and forth. I think they actually might have a better chance with Tatum, and I'm not exactly high (relative to others) on Tatum.