National Celtics discourse
- Thread starter RorschachsMask
- Start date
It’s also just a slam of the entire team, this Celtics team is miles ahead of that one.
And yeah, Tatum is much better than anyone on that team lol.
Yep. The national media, just like folks here and everywhere, have a percentage of people who simply cannot say "I was wrong". They'll say shit like this in order to cling to their bad takes like it's the remnants of an 8 ball after a long weekend.
The days of facts and honest analysis from most sports media are as bygone as black and white TV and phone booths.
Kudos to the few here and elsewhere who own up to their mistakes. They're fucking unicorns.
Kyrie seemed to think for a second before getting offended I expect it was "On a flat earth you wouldn't have fallen you would have kept travelling horizontally."
My HS french 1&2 (which took 3 years) is a little rusty..... But I think I heard "Petite Pritchard" which is awesome.
Please stop taking this guy seriously.
View: https://twitter.com/_JasonLT/status/1803954386667995237
View: https://twitter.com/_JasonLT/status/1803954386667995237
I’ve always felt Tatum & Brown were more like the Jordan/Pippen Bulls than the Spurs and don’t get the Pistons thing at all.
The Pistons comparison avoids a couple of really key points. Tatum is far better than anyone on that Pistons team (no one on that team ever even made 1st team all-NBA, while Tatum has made 3 straight), and the 24 Celtics lost a whopping 14 fewer games than the 04 Pistons, which is the difference between historically dominant and historical forgettable, at least from a statistical standpoint. Hell, part of the reason that Pistons team was such a big underdog is because even in that season, they weren't all that dominant until the year was finished (they were the 3 seed and had just the 6th most wins in the whole league).
That said, stylistically, I get it. When you're looking for deep, balanced starting 5s, that's where they start to look similar. This video was posted here a few days ago, the relevant part is just over a minute long, starting at 55 seconds in:
View: https://youtu.be/vh8IrVs6lto?si=VtGDXbvzHLmXmg_3&t=55
A lot of the national media is (and has been) using the 04 Pistons as a comparison to disparage Tatum (the 04 Pistons didn't have any superstars, which means the 24 Celtics don't have any superstars, which means Tatum isn't a superstar) and to take the entire team down a peg (that Pistons team only won a single title and that championship felt kind of fluky because their opponent was a super team that exploded in the finals, therefore this Boston team is fluky). That doesn't mean the comparison doesn't have merit, it's just not the way that some are talking about it.
I don't think I've heard anyone try to make it, but ironically the 89 Pistons might be a better comp. They were also extremely well rounded, were lead by a superstar who wasn't truly in the best player conversation, their 2nd best player was a 2-way all-star who won finals MVP, and they were dominant in both the regular season (63-19) and in the playoffs (15-2). That team won again the next year, which is probably why people don't like making the comparison. Everyone is much more comfortable thinking about this Celtics team as a one-off.
Last edited:
Tatum and Brown are both better than anyone on that Pistons team. The Pistons best player was Rasheed Wallace right?
for a generic NBA player, assuming their reaction is more reliable than fan behavior is reasonable.
for Kyrie Irving, based on his very public track record, assuming his reaction is more reliable than fan behavior is counter factual star-fucking behavior that should embarrass Breen and ABC.
that’s just the reality of Kyrie’s past behavior and as I said elsewhere, Breen should know better or should be off the air and replaced by someone with a more reality-based filter. And I like Breen—but his reaction here brings his ability to discern reality into serious question
In fairness to the Pistons, the took the Spurs to Game 7 the following season and then reached the ECF each of the succeeding three seasons. They were legit good and well-coached.
The East was also extremely weak during that period. Who was their competition? michael redd and the bucks?
They also made it to the ECF the year before they won, so 6 straight trips to the conference finals. Even in a weak east that's fairly impressive. Fair or not, if Boston doesn't win another with Tatum/Brown, they will absolutely be mentioned by many right alongside the 04 Pistons as an extremely well balanced team that made it to the final 4 a ton, and only broke through once.
I agree with most of the points about the 2003-04 Pistons: they are a good comp in terms of roster construction (I said this in a previous post too), this year's Celtics are way better, Tatum (and maybe Brown) are better than anyone on that Pistons team.
But, it's not fair to look at that entire 2003-04 season for them, because they got Rasheed Wallace at the trade deadline, he instantly had good chemistry and was instantly their 2nd best player (Billups was the best player that year). They were a much more dominant team after that trade, going 20-6 the rest of the season (63-win pace), and that includes losing their first two games after the trade. If you don't count those, they went 20-4 (68-win pace).
But, it's not fair to look at that entire 2003-04 season for them, because they got Rasheed Wallace at the trade deadline, he instantly had good chemistry and was instantly their 2nd best player (Billups was the best player that year). They were a much more dominant team after that trade, going 20-6 the rest of the season (63-win pace), and that includes losing their first two games after the trade. If you don't count those, they went 20-4 (68-win pace).
I wrote this earlier today to my brother and brother in law. Does anyone disagree with any of these points?
i think i can sum up this discussion in 4 points.
1) objectively / statistically it was one of the 5-10 best seasons in history
2) subjectively it doesn’t quite feel that way because a) easy path and b) non traditional best player in tatum (he’s not steph or lebron or mj or whatever)
3) next year chances are they will have a tougher road which will give them another opportunity to prove themselves, which ties into
4) all of the great all time teams we are discussing won at least 2 and i think more like 3+ titles. 80s celtics, 90s bulls, spurs, warriors. one of the reasons we don’t count the 2008 celtics (aside from the 16-10 playoff record) is them failing to win again. so, if the celts go back to back, they will absolutely get their due as one of the top all time teams. even just winning once more. look at the 2003-2004 patriots. the 2003 squeaked by every week including the super bowl so everyone kind of discounted them. then the 2004 team was much more dominant including in the playoffs so they got their due.
i think i can sum up this discussion in 4 points.
1) objectively / statistically it was one of the 5-10 best seasons in history
2) subjectively it doesn’t quite feel that way because a) easy path and b) non traditional best player in tatum (he’s not steph or lebron or mj or whatever)
3) next year chances are they will have a tougher road which will give them another opportunity to prove themselves, which ties into
4) all of the great all time teams we are discussing won at least 2 and i think more like 3+ titles. 80s celtics, 90s bulls, spurs, warriors. one of the reasons we don’t count the 2008 celtics (aside from the 16-10 playoff record) is them failing to win again. so, if the celts go back to back, they will absolutely get their due as one of the top all time teams. even just winning once more. look at the 2003-2004 patriots. the 2003 squeaked by every week including the super bowl so everyone kind of discounted them. then the 2004 team was much more dominant including in the playoffs so they got their due.
He’s a beaten man.
He did recently back off of his weird Tatum takes during the playoffs, at least.
I'm sure ESPN is paying him good money, but I'd love to see him come back home to The Ringer, where I'm sure he would be able to write and say whatever he wants instead of having to talk about the Lakers and react to Perk hot takes all day.
They have a spot open, KOC left for Yahoo, which makes the Ringer that much more listenable for me.
Lowe is the just about the only major national media guy to still have Embiid as a no-doubt top 5 player, his decade of playoff failures and injuries be damned (it doesn't even seem to register with him). He's just gotten lazy, and it's really disappointing because for a long time he was the single best national basketball writer. Too many commitments, too much time on TV, too much time next to Perk, all of the above, who knows. I'm not paying to read his columns and at this point I only listen to his podcast if I like the guest. Truly a shame.
I don't understand why ESPN doesn't grab Timpf. He is the most credible basketball guy who will get high on the Laker supply. Then you don't have to drag Lowe into fending off Perk hot takes.
This can't be accurate is it? I thought everyone pretty much had the same top 6 in some order Jokic, Luka, Embiid, SGA, Tatum with a whole bunch of them leaving Tatum out of the top 5?
It feels like there's been a bit of a preference cascade with Embiid recently, with more and more people feeling comfortable questioning his (very questionable) resume openly.
I'm not sure if you're saying Lowe doesn't have Embiid in his top 5 or if Lowe is one of the only national guys to have Embiid that high. Assuming the latter, we've spent entirely too much time on this board talking about Timpf over the last few months, and he has Embiid 11th. The ringer's final rankings of the year had Embiid 6th. We'll see how the rankings shake out as most outlets are only starting to think about that with the regular season still 5 weeks away. Maybe that's enough time to wipe away the stink of yet another spring failure for Embiid, but the way most people were talking about him over the summer (plus the very blah performance in the olympics) makes me think we might have temporarily turned a corner.
As lovegtm says most national people are pretty openly putting an asterisk next to his ranking if they have him near the top, questioning both his durability and complete lack of playoff success, while Lowe stands out for me because he's not even doing that (his latest podcast he discussed the chances of a Tatum MVP, and he nonchalantly mentions that there's an unimpeachable top 5 in some order that is Jokic, Giannis, Luka, Embiid and SGA). I fully expect these hedges and disclaimers to go away the first time he pounds a bottom five team into the dirt with a 55+ point performance in December, followed by some nagging injury, him not being 100% for the playoffs and another disappointing loss for the Sixers. Rinse and repeat for 7 years now.
Last edited:
Just because the conversation is happening in here already
View: https://twitter.com/TheDunkCentral/status/1836127849440309714
View: https://twitter.com/TheDunkCentral/status/1836127849440309714
Quite a few comments specifically singling out Tatum as being ranked too high since this is the thread of national Celtics discourse. What is the criteria here? Regular season....Post-Season...combination of the two....does durability matter, etc etc. That's the thing i hate about lists like this. I guess in general I can put 4 through 10 in pretty much any order and be able to make a case for it. Overall, a pretty decent list without many if any insane rankings like Austin Reeves 7th or crazy stuff like that but some are a little low. Nothing egregious though.
Last edited:
It looks like a durability is important list.
Tatum will be ranked 6-7 in every ranking that comes out, I’d assume.
Is it though? Kawhi is 18th. There isn't much consistency to it.
Yeah that's a fair range for Tatum. As I said I can see the case for a couple notches higher as well as a couple lower.
I think it's pretty clearly regular season only, even if it's not meant to be. Postseason success and play isn't taken into account here, at all. Guys 1-5 have made a combined 6 conference finals, 3 finals and have 2 rings while guys 6-10 have made a combined 30 conference finals, 22 finals and have 11 rings. Obviously the latter group is older, but 6-10 has an average age of 32, vs an average age of 28 for 1-5. That's not the biggest gap in the world.
There is a real lack of playoff success at the top of the current individual rankings. The last 8 MVPs (2017-2024) have a combined 2 titles. That is, historically speaking, abysmal. As a comparison, the 8 MVPs before that (2009-2016) have 10 titles, the 8 MVPs before that (2001-2008) had 12 titles, the 8 MVPs before that (1993-2000) had 15 titles, the 8 MVPs before that (1985-1992) had 14 titles, the 8 MVPs before that (1977-1984) had 13, etc etc. It's very likely that some guys in that group will win more titles before they retire, but they have a LONG way to go to match earlier MVPs. Maybe it's just the historic age of parity that we're currently living in, or maybe the most recent crop of NBA MVPs and individual superstars are, for whatever reason, not nearly as good at winning titles as their historical peers.
Last edited:
I get that. His last two regular seasons are arguably better than someone like Tatum, but considering they are both 26 and he has fewer playoff game wins (11) than Tatum has playoff series wins (14), it is a bit glaring how scoring efficiency at volume is valued above all else. I'll say this for SGA, it's very possible that he leads his team to the best record in the NBA while also being the only all-star on his team. That's pretty impressive, but it's worth noting that this is the first time in his career he's entering a season with actual expectations. I'm curious to see how it goes.
This seems fair...
#7 Tatum
#15 Brown
#32 Jrue
#36 D White
#40 KP
nitpicking...if Smart is 93 and Klay is 99 then Horford may have a case for TOP100
It is a bit glaring that the basketball intelligentsia thinks this way. To be completely frank, it's fucking astonishing to me when folks here think this way. But many of us do.
I'm imagining a main board post where someone tried to claim that Kyle Schwarber was a top-10 MLB player because of a high OBP and a bunch of bombs and the laughter that would ensue. And that guy has a ring at least.
I never would have guessed they were the same age. That's actually nuts. Tatum seems like 2 or 3 years older
It really is, it feels like he came onto the scene the same time as Ant (3 years younger than both guys). The benefit of being a bit slower to level up (although he did average 19/6/3 in his 2nd season), plus playing on average to terrible teams in a small market city. Tatum is likely closer to his ceiling given that he was drafted a year earlier (and the 90 extra playoff games would tend to accelerate development, I think) but it really is eye-opening that both guys are theoretically at the very beginning of their prime at just about the same individual skill level with dramatically different resumes of team success. Tatum has been carrying heavy expectations since his superstar turn in 2020 (age 21!), SGA just got here this past season.
Yup, it's one of those funny things where SGA has been seen as the "breaking out 2nd year guy", while really he's one draft class younger than Tatum, has been to the playoffs twice, and has as many 2nd round appearances as Tatum has NBA titles.
SGA is a great player, but people really love them those raw efficiency numbers and the perception that a guy is young.
Volume scoring has yo yo'd in the analytics community. I think the first wave of basketball analytics were way too harsh on high volume lower efficiency players. This is how you get articles about how actually Dennis Rodman was the greatest player of all time. As impact metrics have matured I think volume offensive creation has been more properly valued. And it's really valuable. I wouldn't consider a lot of these top N lists to be coming from the "intelligentsia" though, like this CBS one.
How about Booker over Brown?
Is the Olympics part of this?
It seems Tatum's playoffs are used against him but Browns don't count for him.
Is the Olympics part of this?
It seems Tatum's playoffs are used against him but Browns don't count for him.
Can someone smarter than me explain why KOC left for flyover country, Yahoo? I assume money obviously but isn't this a career grave?
Brown's playoffs definitely helped. At a glance, the ringer had him ranked 25th in April 10th, and jumped him all the way up to 15th after the playoffs. I think this is pretty typical, no one had Brown as high as 15 (I think most had him just outside the top 20, he finished 16th in all-nba voting which means he wasn't in the top 15 even accounting for guys who missed the 65 game cutoff) before his playoff run. Booker for the last couple of years has been a solid level above him, just outside the top 10 in that 11-15 range. I don't know if the Olympics are giving Booker a boost, but Brown is definitely seen in a different, friendlier light since June. I don't find it insulting that Booker is ahead of Brown, 5 months ago they weren't even in the same conversation nationally.