slick_watts wrote:ForeverTFC wrote:
The issue like i said is narrative.  The MVPs in Boston are the system and the FO.  They can win as much as they want, no one is attributing it to Tatum.  And it wouldn't necessarily be incorrect, 51 3s a game, ~7 more than the number 2 team in 3PA tells us everything we need to know.
 i think it's quite easy to ignore that gap, considering the nuggets with nikola jokic in the game perform about the same as the celtics do when jayson tatum is in the game, and jokic is obvioulsy far more productive than tatum.
i'd like to hear why you think the celtics' performance without tatum and the nuggets' performance without jokic has (or should have) any bearing at all on which player should win mvp. are they emitting gamma rays from the bench that influence game outcomes when they aren't on the court? i'm open to any explanation you have.
 
This seems like a strong effort to minimize Tatum to the benefit of just about anything or anyone else. As I pointed out in my previous post, Tatum has finished quite high in MVP voting over the last 3 years, and we have seen others get consideration whose only claim to being in the convo was team success given 1) their largely pedestrian output and 2) the fact they were nowhere close to being the best player in the league (Billups, Gobert, Draymond Green, Ben Wallace, Marc Gasol, and Joakim Noah all fit this). That's not my opinion, but rather the opinion of those who actually vote for the award. 
The issue to me is not narrative, but rather a lack of a concrete set of criteria on which we judge the MVP. If it's the best player in the league, Tatum is never going to win the award. So long as it continues to be a subjective take on an amalgamation of player output and team success, Tatum will continue to get some consideration for the award if/when Boston continues to have one of the top teams in the league and Tatum is far and away their best player.