Has Tatum already surpassed Kyrie career wise?

[Owly]

This would be a lot easier to answer if Tatum had the same killer mentality that Irving has shown. That said, Kyrie has been remarkably efficient in the Playoffs throughout his career.

Really? That’s interesting. Kyrie and Tatum have virtually the same efficiency stats. That’s with Tatum scoring more and being the first option as well.

46% vs. 44% from the field, 39% vs. 34.5% from 3, 88% vs. 84% from the stripe. Tatum has also been very efficient, but Kyrie takes it to another level. Very similar statistically speaking, and when you factor in both winning a championship as the #2 player on their team, it's almost uncanny.

A couple of problems with these as means of aggregating scoring efficiency.

1) It double counts 3 point attempt efficiency (specifically makes and attempts). Once by itself and once in fg%. If one is dividing it into component parts 2 point percentage should probably be used rather than FG% (fwiw this would shift it to a narrow Tatum victory .495 to .489).

2) Scoring efficiency is also about shot diet. One can score more efficiently in all 3 aspects and score less efficiently overall. Hollinger called the stuff FG% misses secondary percentage. It's the stuff missing from it that goes into TS%, one of which you kind of mention: 3 pointers additional point (though as above doesn't require counting); one you do mention (FT%) but the big one is how much you are getting to the line. For most players it's a really good shot so a higher proportion of the most efficient shot helps.

In this case Tatum got to the line more (.364 FTr to .226) and so his TS% is very, very slightly better .566 to .565.

Now playoff opponent levels will differ, when samples come will differ, league norms will differ (to the extent people don't play the exact same era) so interpretation can vary regarding playoffs in a way that's maybe more art than science, right now at least.

Fwiw, in this context I wouldn't call either "very efficient".

[Owly]

Tatum and it isn’t really close.
Weird topic imo. I’d agree the gold medals don’t move the needle though.
Kyrie has never been successful as the best player on his Team. Tatum has been in that role since 3/4 the way through his first season.

There's some merit to Tatum's much more chill personality. Kyrie hasn't really had a lot of opportunities to run "his own" team much, but when he was with the Celtics, they won 55 games and lost in 7 in the Conference Finals to the Cavs. That's actually pretty good stuff. He was never the best player on Cleveland or Brooklyn, and certainly isn't now in Dallas, so the window you're describing is quite small.

Kyrie probably was the best player in his first two years in Cleveland for whatever that's worth.

Regarding his window in Boston ... is that window's closure not somewhat on him, maybe? (Also as others noted above '18 playoffs - and a fair chunk of the RS is without Irving).

I wouldn't particularly argue for team success as notional best player as particularly accurate, fair measure.


Anyway Irving was at his apex a bit more box productive. Tatum is a much better defender and has a significantly better overall impact signal so far as I can tell. Irving has more minutes but some are in somewhat incomplete seasons which might take the edge off that lead at the margins.

Irving brings a lot of baggage that could explode his availability or value at any time for a franchise invested in him (and cause problems beyond merely himself). He left multiple, perhaps all previous locales in less than harmonious manners.

So Tatum.

[tsherkin]

Kyrie probably was the best player in his first two years in Cleveland for whatever that's worth.

Ooh, true. I forgot how bad Jamison was at that point.

Regarding his window in Boston ... is that window's closure not somewhat on him, maybe? (Also as others noted above '18 playoffs - and a fair chunk of the RS is without Irving).

It was, which is why I remarked about personality. Regardless, as I mentioned in my initial reply, I agree that Tatum has surpassed him career-wise at at this point.

[Cavsfansince84]

Kyrie didn’t even play the first time that the Cavs made the finals. Stunk the bed on the Celtics while Tatum lead the same team to the ECF multiple times. And Kyrie disappointed on the big 3 nets. Also missed the playoffs with Luka. Not sure how you’re saying that I’m penalizing Kyrie for missing games (which should be a penalty regardless, if D Rose had availability, he’d be one of the best PGs ever but that’s not reality), Kyrie is just less accomplished and has done less when put in the same position as Tatum

I'm not seeing much here which I didn't already mention above tbh. So not much point in giving some kind of well thought out reply. The 2019 Celtics did crash and burn(which Kyrie deserves the most criticism for since he was the one who was in his prime and supposed to lead them) but Tatum was also on that team and had a terrible series against the Bucks as well(12/8/2 on 46% ts). So if you want to rank Tatum higher in your own personal top 100 then do so. You seem to be acting like I am anti Tatum or something but it's more just a matter of the reasons I already outlined above and Tatum will likely pass him in a few more years.

[bigboi]

Kyrie didn’t even play the first time that the Cavs made the finals. Stunk the bed on the Celtics while Tatum lead the same team to the ECF multiple times. And Kyrie disappointed on the big 3 nets. Also missed the playoffs with Luka. Not sure how you’re saying that I’m penalizing Kyrie for missing games (which should be a penalty regardless, if D Rose had availability, he’d be one of the best PGs ever but that’s not reality), Kyrie is just less accomplished and has done less when put in the same position as Tatum

I'm not seeing much here which I didn't already mention above tbh. So not much point in giving some kind of well thought out reply. The 2019 Celtics did crash and burn(which Kyrie deserves the most criticism for since he was the one who was in his prime and supposed to lead them) but Tatum was also on that team and had a terrible series against the Bucks as well(12/8/2 on 46% ts). So if you want to rank Tatum higher in your own personal top 100 then do so. You seem to be acting like I am anti Tatum or something but it's more just a matter of the reasons I already outlined above and Tatum will likely pass him in a few more years.

Tatum was a second year player lmao. You can’t be serious. Again, you’re not listing any reasons.

Tatum has won a ring as the lead, has better career stats than Kyrie in the playoffs, has more all nba teams, has performed better as the leader of the team. I don’t see where there is an argument tbh. I never thought Kyrie deserved top 75 in the first place, Kyrie isn’t better than prime Dwight in any shape or form. Kyrie’s saving grace is the Cavs championship and playing with Bron, other than that, his career is very midgrade.

[bigboi]

Kyrie didn’t play in the playoffs that year. He played in 60 games. Tatum led that team to the ECF.

That isn't exactly accurate. And of course had they been able to play Kyrie, that's maybe a title team.

Marcus Smart was an 18/4/5 player, plus his defense. Horford was a 16/8/3 guy. Terry Rozier was at about 17/5/6. Tatum was around 19/4/4 and played very well, but describing him as "leading" that team to the ECF isn't really accurate. He actually stunk like ass in the first round, and was their 4th-leading scorer in that series. They exited the first round in spite of him, not because of him. That script flipped nicely against the Sixers, as Embiid folded up inside himself and failed to score effectively against Boston, which had nothing to do with Tatum, but JT was much better on offense and a significant part of how Boston dominated that element of the series, for sure. And then they lost to the Cavs (expected, to be fair), a series during which he had a mix of rough games and good ones. Certainly not bad for a rookie.

I think you're overcrediting him a little bit there; that team had significant depth and veteran presence. Still, Tatum was a strong contributor, which is relevant to his overall quality.

You have no clue what you’re talking about lmao. Kyrie was inconsistent the entire Boston tenure.

In addition Smart was 10/4/5 on 34PERCENT shooting. Please don’t lie like this. It’s actually ridiculous. Marcus smart is a SCRUB without Boston and probably would’ve been out the league a long time ago. Tatum is a much higher impact player than Kyrie, it’s just that simple.

[bigboi]

46% vs. 44% from the field, 39% vs. 34.5% from 3, 88% vs. 84% from the stripe. Tatum has also been very efficient, but Kyrie takes it to another level. Very similar statistically speaking, and when you factor in both winning a championship as the #2 player on their team, it's almost uncanny.

Kyrie's a career 58.3% TS guy. Tatum's a career 58.3% TS guy.

In 2024, Tatum was at 60.4% TS, and Kyrie was at 60.8%.

They're quite similar in the RS.

In the playoffs in 2024, Tatum was at 54.9% and Kyrie at 56.6%. League average TS% in the playoffs was 56.6%.

That said, I don't think it's correct calling Tatum the #2 player on his team. It's clear he was primarily shouldering the burden, and Finals MVP notwithstanding, he was the guy whose number they were calling most often for the bulk of the RS and the PS.

Keep in mind that we are also comparing a 6'2" guard vs. a 6'8" wing. You have players like LBJ who are at 50% from the field for their playoff career. The #2 option bit was in jest...

Who cares about their height? This is about who is better. Curry is 6’3 and more efficient than both.

[tsherkin]

You have no clue what you’re talking about lmao. Kyrie was inconsistent the entire Boston tenure.

He played two seasons in Boston. And he was a rookie and early on in Cleveland. He never really had time to grow into the role of focal player during his career... and they were doing quite well with him in that first Boston season.

In addition Smart was 10/4/5 on 34PERCENT shooting. Please don’t lie like this.

Mmm, yes. I borked the numbers there because I was doing too many things at once. In the ECFs in 2018, Brown was a 20/5 guy, Horford was a 14/8/3 guy, Rozier was a 14/5/6 guy. Marcus MORRIS was a 13/6 guy. And Smart was a 9/3/6 guy.

My bad.

Regardless, the rest of what I said stands. Tatum had a lot of help, and was himself quite poor in that first round against the Bucks. Brown, Rozier and Horford carried the effective scoring load, and Tatum got better as the postseason moved along. But inconsistent, as you'd expect a rookie, and a guy in his first postseason, for sure.

[OhayoKD]

I think from an availability perspective, you have to at least consider it. Kyrie's statistically a more efficient player and, 18-21, a higher-impact guy than Tatum's best

Eh?

This stretch covers multiple years his team literally was not better when he played. Context and variance and all but where are we getting kyrie as higher-impact than Tatum's best from?

[mcfly1204]

Kyrie's a career 58.3% TS guy. Tatum's a career 58.3% TS guy.

In 2024, Tatum was at 60.4% TS, and Kyrie was at 60.8%.

They're quite similar in the RS.

In the playoffs in 2024, Tatum was at 54.9% and Kyrie at 56.6%. League average TS% in the playoffs was 56.6%.

That said, I don't think it's correct calling Tatum the #2 player on his team. It's clear he was primarily shouldering the burden, and Finals MVP notwithstanding, he was the guy whose number they were calling most often for the bulk of the RS and the PS.

Keep in mind that we are also comparing a 6'2" guard vs. a 6'8" wing. You have players like LBJ who are at 50% from the field for their playoff career. The #2 option bit was in jest...

Who cares about their height? This is about who is better. Curry is 6’3 and more efficient than both.

I would expect/hope a 6'8" wing would be taking higher percentage shots than a 6'2" PG.

[Cavsfansince84]

Tatum was a second year player lmao. You can’t be serious. Again, you’re not listing any reasons.

Tatum has won a ring as the lead, has better career stats than Kyrie in the playoffs, has more all nba teams, has performed better as the leader of the team. I don’t see where there is an argument tbh. I never thought Kyrie deserved top 75 in the first place, Kyrie isn’t better than prime Dwight in any shape or form. Kyrie’s saving grace is the Cavs championship and playing with Bron, other than that, his career is very midgrade.

At the end of the day its 5 high level seasons for Tatum to 10 for Kyrie here bro. Stop acting like you can't understand where I am coming from, its just disingenuous on your part to act like you can't understand it. So its a matter of how much you downgrade those 10 seasons for Kyrie due to injuries and whatnot. So if you see it as Tatum's 5 are > Kyrie's 10 that's fine. No one else on here is obligated to see it that way just because you do though. Please don't be one of those 'I see it this way and am offended someone disagrees with me on the internet' type of posters.

[Owly]

Keep in mind that we are also comparing a 6'2" guard vs. a 6'8" wing. You have players like LBJ who are at 50% from the field for their playoff career. The #2 option bit was in jest...

Who cares about their height? This is about who is better. Curry is 6’3 and more efficient than both.

I would expect/hope a 6'8" wing would be taking higher percentage shots than a 6'2" PG.

If we were to take at face value that being of greater height should equal greater shooting efficiency ...

1) the original post/position on efficiency (post #11) didn't come with this qualification. Of course one can clarify or change positions but that position might have been clearer from the beginning.

2) Are we then grading the overall player in manner where we boost for lower height? If not, if say shooting is being evaluated as a contribution towards the overall player (as is the broader context here) then we shouldn't boost for height in shooting. If so, why? There is no obligation to play a quota of players of particular height. And Bogues is probably the GoaT.

[bigboi]

You have no clue what you’re talking about lmao. Kyrie was inconsistent the entire Boston tenure.

He played two seasons in Boston. And he was a rookie and early on in Cleveland. He never really had time to grow into the role of focal player during his career... and they were doing quite well with him in that first Boston season.

In addition Smart was 10/4/5 on 34PERCENT shooting. Please don’t lie like this.

Mmm, yes. I borked the numbers there because I was doing too many things at once. In the ECFs in 2018, Brown was a 20/5 guy, Horford was a 14/8/3 guy, Rozier was a 14/5/6 guy. Marcus MORRIS was a 13/6 guy. And Smart was a 9/3/6 guy.

My bad.

Regardless, the rest of what I said stands. Tatum had a lot of help, and was himself quite poor in that first round against the Bucks. Brown, Rozier and Horford carried the effective scoring load, and Tatum got better as the postseason moved along. But inconsistent, as you'd expect a rookie, and a guy in his first postseason, for sure.

Sounds like excuses…. Tatum was the defacto focal point of Boston by 3rd year and people have been expecting him to lead the team to the finals since then… lmao.

And Kyrie is a higher impact player based on what? Lmao. Kyrie has missed the playoffs multiple times while Tatum has been pretty much a lock to ECF for most of his career. They have both played for the same exact teams in the same exact roles except one player performed much better than the other. Tatum is just a flat out better player in literally almost every aspect: he scores pretty much just as well, both are average playmakers, 10x better at defense, much better rebounder. This whole playoffs, Celtics had Tatum pretty much playing PF/Center because Porzingis was out. Kyrie could never do something like that therefore is way less impactful.

2021- Celtics weren’t even predicted to make the finals. There’s absolutely 0 chance that Kyrie is as successful as Tatum with these Celtics teams. Matter fact, you place Tatum on those Nets teams, they probably would’ve won a ring

[tsherkin]

Sounds like excuses…. Tatum was the defacto focal point of Boston by 3rd year and people have been expecting him to lead the team to the finals since then… lmao.

Which is weird, to be sure. He wasn't a Jordan-level player as a rookie and that means he required time to develop. He's done quite well overall.

[bigboi]

Tatum was a second year player lmao. You can’t be serious. Again, you’re not listing any reasons.

Tatum has won a ring as the lead, has better career stats than Kyrie in the playoffs, has more all nba teams, has performed better as the leader of the team. I don’t see where there is an argument tbh. I never thought Kyrie deserved top 75 in the first place, Kyrie isn’t better than prime Dwight in any shape or form. Kyrie’s saving grace is the Cavs championship and playing with Bron, other than that, his career is very midgrade.

At the end of the day its 5 high level seasons for Tatum to 10 for Kyrie here bro. Stop acting like you can't understand where I am coming from, its just disingenuous on your part to act like you can't understand it. So its a matter of how much you downgrade those 10 seasons for Kyrie due to injuries and whatnot. So if you see it as Tatum's 5 are > Kyrie's 10 that's fine. No one else on here is obligated to see it that way just because you do though. Please don't be one of those 'I see it this way and am offended someone disagrees with me on the internet' type of posters.

At the end of the day, Kyrie has played double the time as Jayson Tatum and is already less accomplished. I don’t care about length of career. Either someone is better or they’re not. Tatum is simply better than Kyrie.

[bigboi]

Sounds like excuses…. Tatum was the defacto focal point of Boston by 3rd year and people have been expecting him to lead the team to the finals since then… lmao.

Which is weird, to be sure. He wasn't a Jordan-level player as a rookie and that means he required time to develop. He's done quite well overall.

Kyrie just never was that guy. Good number 2 player but never should be a focal point of an offense. Great scorer but weak to average at literally everything else.

[Cavsfansince84]

At the end of the day, Kyrie has played double the time as Jayson Tatum and is already less accomplished. I don’t care about length of career. Either someone is better or they’re not. Tatum is simply better than Kyrie.

Ok but the key words there are bolded bro. Your opinion matters the most to you. Not to anyone else. I'd agree that Tatum's avg prime season so far is better than Kyrie's but I'd still rank Kyrie higher and the idea that Tatum has accomplished so much more is also pretty subjective. He won a title where he was basically a co#1 on a team that was built on depth. Kyrie won a title where some see him as a co #1 but he's really a high scoring #2. Tatum then also has another finals where he underperformed, much like Kyrie just did. Then Kyrie also has another finals as a #2 where he helped take the only game off the goat team and another season where he helped get a team to the finals and then got reinjured. Tatum then has a few seasons where he made it to the ecf. So all in all I don't see much difference accomplishments wise.

[LA Bird]

I don't know if people realize but Kyrie has only averaged 22 ppg on 55% TS in the playoffs after leaving LeBron. Even if you ignore the missed games and the off-court stuff, Kyrie is not actually that great at the one thing he is supposed to be good at. One of the best highlight machines no doubt but don't think he is that close to Tatum as a player.

[brackdan70]

You have no clue what you’re talking about lmao. Kyrie was inconsistent the entire Boston tenure.

He played two seasons in Boston. And he was a rookie and early on in Cleveland. He never really had time to grow into the role of focal player during his career... and they were doing quite well with him in that first Boston season.

In addition Smart was 10/4/5 on 34PERCENT shooting. Please don’t lie like this.

Mmm, yes. I borked the numbers there because I was doing too many things at once. In the ECFs in 2018, Brown was a 20/5 guy, Horford was a 14/8/3 guy, Rozier was a 14/5/6 guy. Marcus MORRIS was a 13/6 guy. And Smart was a 9/3/6 guy.

My bad.

Regardless, the rest of what I said stands. Tatum had a lot of help, and was himself quite poor in that first round against the Bucks. Brown, Rozier and Horford carried the effective scoring load, and Tatum got better as the postseason moved along. But inconsistent, as you'd expect a rookie, and a guy in his first postseason, for sure.

Boston played better without Kyrie in his time there. Based on what he did the following season I don’t think they make the ECF if he was healthy.
Yeah Tatum had help, but he was the best player on that team. Rozier, Smart, Horford, Brown. I don’t think anyone is arguing he didn’t have help.
We are saying he didn’t have help from Kyrie, and that he was the 1 guy starting after Kyrie got injured in 2018. In 2019 Kyrie tried to take it back and led to disaster that season.

[tsherkin]

Kyrie just never was that guy. Good number 2 player but never should be a focal point of an offense. Great scorer but weak to average at literally everything else.

Pretty solid PnR playmaker, actually. He seems fine in charge of an offense, to be honest. His D is customarily his biggest issue after his personality, though both seem much improved in Dallas. For the moment.