It's crazy how much circumstance plays into our perception of how good players are

[Im Still Ballin]

You can make an argument that Porzingis is/has been the best player on the Celtics. Who would've thought that a year or more ago? He had a career year last season, but I don't think many people would've thought he'd be arguably the MVP of the Celtics with Tatum there.

The most impactful guy on the best team. I'm not saying he is; Tatum has played more games and carries a heavier load - at least on offense. But the fact it's not an outlandish question to ask.

There are even footprints that point to Kyrie being more impactful than Doncic. Not that that's what I'm saying. Just that they're there.

Circumstance (role, team scheme, personnel, lineups, substitution patterns) plays such an important role in our perceptions of how "good" a player is. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Stick an underachiever on another team and he's now a winner. Or give him enough talent to compete.

[Im Still Ballin]

EPM currently has Boston's core four at:

Porzingis: +4.4 per 100 possessions
Tatum: +4.4 per 100 possessions
White: +4.0 per 100 possessions
Brown: +2.8 per 100 possessions

[aj1987]

You can make an argument that Porzingis is/has been the best player on the Celtics. Who would've thought that a year or more ago? He had a career year last season, but I don't think many people would've thought he'd be arguably the MVP of the Celtics with Tatum there.

The most impactful guy on the best team. I'm not saying he is; Tatum has played more games and carries a heavier load - at least on offense. But the fact it's not an outlandish question to ask.

There are even footprints that point to Kyrie being more impactful than Doncic. Not that that's what I'm saying. Just that they're there.

Circumstance (role, team scheme, personnel, lineups, substitution patterns) plays such an important role in our perceptions of how "good" a player is. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Stick an underachiever on another team and he's now a winner. Or give him enough talent to compete.

They're on pace to win 62 games with him and 64 without him. He's not the best/most impactful player on the team. Also, he has ZERO argument for being the MVP of the Celtics. He's been amazing, but not even close to Tatum.

[Im Still Ballin]

But I suppose an argument for Tatum being the better player is that he's probably more valuable to a wider array of teams. His creation skillset is a premium. Porzingis has his rim protection and his efficient and complimentary offense.

You can argue who's the more valuable floor raiser; I guess it depends on the makeup of the team. But Tatum probably has more value on lower, barebones squads. But, once again, depends on what you're working with.

[Im Still Ballin]

They're on pace to win 62 games with him and 64 without him. He's not the best/most impactful player on the team. Also, he has ZERO argument for being the MVP of the Celtics. He's been amazing, but not even close to Tatum.

Sure. But you'd also have to consider sample size while also adjusting for strength of schedule (which includes injuries for both teams), and shooting luck/variance on open shots.

Tatum is the most valuable by virtue of playing more games. Value isn't a rate/per-game concept; it's accumulative. I get that. I suppose I should've clarified somewhat. On-court impact is more what I'm talking about. When they're both healthy and out there competing.

And I'm not saying KP is better/more impactful. Just that it's close enough that it could be argued either way and I wouldn't have an issue. On this team, anyways.

[RRR3]

Brown making the ASG over Porzingis was absurd. These idiots still just look at basic stats

[Im Still Ballin]

Kristaps Porzingis 2023-24 Post-up stats:

- 3.1 post-up possessions per game (7th in the NBA)
- 18.4% of offense (8th in the NBA)
- 1.41 PPP (1st in the NBA*)
- 68.9% FG (1st in the NBA*)
- 32.8% free-throw rate (1st in the NBA*)

* Minimum 1.3 post-ups per game

With the free throws added, it's like he's shooting 70.5% FG. Gawd-damn. Mr. MisMatch, the exploiter of switches.

[FKAri]

It's very matchup dependent. He's the best matchup exploiter on the team so if he has the right matchup, he's their 1st option on scoring. He can also be their best defender vs any lineup where he doesn't need to guard his man at the arc or bang with a true 5. In the right circumstance he's their best player.

But when KP doesn't have an exploitable matchup they tend to run the offense through Tatum and then Brown. They're both more balanced players with less variance. They're more effective vs their tougher matchups than KP is vs his. KP's also not as available in terms of minutes and back to backs and there is always a lingering injury concern.

Overall, Tatum's still their #1. But I think KP when healthy is emerging as a #2 if he can keep his pace.

[aj1987]

Sure. But you'd also have to consider sample size while also adjusting for strength of schedule (which includes injuries for both teams), and shooting luck/variance on open shots.

Tatum is the most valuable by virtue of playing more games. Value isn't a rate/per-game concept; it's accumulative. I get that. I suppose I should've clarified somewhat. On-court impact is more what I'm talking about. When they're both healthy and out there competing.

And I'm not saying KP is better/more impactful. Just that it's close enough that it could be argued either way and I wouldn't have an issue. On this team, anyways.

They had two wins over the Sixers, one vs the Magic (when they were 16-7), one over the Wolves, one over the Clips, and one over Dallas.

[FultzNationRISE]

But I suppose an argument for Tatum being the better player is that he's probably more valuable to a wider array of teams. His creation skillset is a premium. Porzingis has his rim protection and his efficient and complimentary offense.

You can argue who's the more valuable floor raiser; I guess it depends on the makeup of the team. But Tatum probably has more value on lower, barebones squads. But, once again, depends on what you're working with.

These ideas of picking who is better between guys with different roles is a very "chicken and egg" sort of thing.

For instance you say who is better MJ or Pippen? People will say MJ because he scores more and has a 'wow' factor. But neither can win a championship without what the other guy brings. So how is one better than the other?

To use a more extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point, let's say there's a guy who protects the paint by just standing near it and having immense body odor, which is so foul it alters players shots. And he has no other skills, puts up no stats, just stands there like an oaf, but his BO is REALLY effective defensively. You pair him with a great offensive guy with a wide skill set and flashy moves and big scoring numbers, and together they win a chip.

Everyone will say the aesthetically impressive guy who averages 30+ points is 'better' but if they require each other in order to win, how is that really so? The scorer cant win it all without a guy who's as good at what he does as the smelly defender. They're equally necessary for winning at basketball. So what really makes one better, if we're talking about value on the court?

If two different roles are equally important, it doesnt really make SENSE to say a guy in one role is better than the other if they're equally irreplaceable in their respective roles.

People just like having definitive rankings because our minds want structure and certainty. In reality, the idea that 'player a is better than b, and b is better than c, and c is better than d' in the NBA is an illusion.

[FultzNationRISE]

They're on pace to win 62 games with him and 64 without him. He's not the best/most impactful player on the team. Also, he has ZERO argument for being the MVP of the Celtics. He's been amazing, but not even close to Tatum.

The Celtics have such a strong team they can win regular season games without any one player pretty consistently. Tatum has the best stats, but the thing is, they could still win if he didnt have those stats. If Porzingis took more shots and Tatum sat out more games, the Celtics would still be in the same position. That's OP's point. Your perception of Tatum being so much better and more valuable is the result of Tatum getting the highest usage in the offense and KP sitting regularly for injury prevention. Just because that's how they happen to approach it doesnt mean that's the ONLY road to Rome.

[90sgoat]

You can make an argument that Porzingis is/has been the best player on the Celtics. Who would've thought that a year or more ago?

Bruh..

I've literally stanned Zingis since his rookie season. I've said again and again that a healthy Zingis is an MVP level talent.

[90sgoat]

Kristaps Porzingis 2023-24 Post-up stats:

- 3.1 post-up possessions per game (7th in the NBA)
- 18.4% of offense (8th in the NBA)
- 1.41 PPP (1st in the NBA*)
- 68.9% FG (1st in the NBA*)
- 32.8% free-throw rate (1st in the NBA*)

* Minimum 1.3 post-ups per game

With the free throws added, it's like he's shooting 70.5% FG. Gawd-damn. Mr. MisMatch, the exploiter of switches.

You should add Points Allowed where Zingis is usually also in the top of the league.

Zingis is a true two way star.

[Duffy Pratt]

People just like having definitive rankings because our minds want structure and certainty. In reality, the idea that 'player a is better than b, and b is better than c, and c is better than d' in the NBA is an illusion.

But at that point, the person who is better is the one who is more difficult to replace. These days, guys who can light it up on offense are a dime a dozen, but the guy who can shut down the lane with his body odor is unique. Thus, he is the better player. You can build a team around him. You take the other guy and you have a hard time shutting down the paint as well.

[FultzNationRISE]

But at that point, the person who is better is the one who is more difficult to replace. These days, guys who can light it up on offense are a dime a dozen, but the guy who can shut down the lane with his body odor is unique. Thus, he is the better player. You can build a team around him. You take the other guy and you have a hard time shutting down the paint as well.

Well there are other guys who can protect the paint at a championship level, the reason I used the example of doing it with body odor is just to highlight theyre on opposite ends of the skill spectrum. Just so people cant say “well the rim protector is more valuable bc he does that plus adds 12 ppg on offense” or whatever. The idea is they are two purely separate players with equally necessary roles. People will call the 30 ppg highlight player the “star” and clearly more valuable… even if logically it’s unprovable. Because people want a hierarchy. They dont wanna be unsure. They want values clearly defined rather than muddled. And concepts you can physically see are more digestible than abstract ideas you have to intuit.