Tatum is the best rookie I have ever seen

[FlatearthZorro]

I'm sorry but I refuse to even entertain the notion that Tatum was better this year than Tim Duncan was as a rookie. Love the kid and don't blame people for being excited about him, but this is just way too much. Timmy was an MVP candidate that year.

How old was Duncan when he entered the legue? Did he play more than one year in college. Have no idea that's why I'm asking.

[RSCD3_]

I'm sorry but I refuse to even entertain the notion that Tatum was better this year than Tim Duncan was as a rookie. Love the kid and don't blame people for being excited about him, but this is just way too much. Timmy was an MVP candidate that year.

but bastillon didnt see him as a rooki, I take it

[bleeds_purple]

Not to mention he's basically going to be their 3rd string SF/SG... And probably won't get to do much ball handling.

Eh. Hayward will eventually fill the Iggy role for the Celts once he hits his 30s. Its inevitable unless players move.

[Green_teamer]

Not to mention he's basically going to be their 3rd string SF/SG... And probably won't get to do much ball handling.

Eh. Hayward will eventually fill the Iggy role for the Celts once he hits his 30s. Its inevitable unless players move.

Brown hayward and Tatum will all start..

[Texas Chuck]

I'm sorry but I refuse to even entertain the notion that Tatum was better this year than Tim Duncan was as a rookie. Love the kid and don't blame people for being excited about him, but this is just way too much. Timmy was an MVP candidate that year.

How old was Duncan when he entered the legue? Did he play more than one year in college. Have no idea that's why I'm asking.

Actually I think you do know and that's why you're asking.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm sorry but I refuse to even entertain the notion that Tatum was better this year than Tim Duncan was as a rookie. Love the kid and don't blame people for being excited about him, but this is just way too much. Timmy was an MVP candidate that year.

but bastillon didnt see him as a rooki, I take it

I got that--he made it clear. I was responding to the post immediately above mine seemingly suggesting we don't know if Shaq or Duncan were better rookies than Tatum because of position.

[FlatearthZorro]

I'm sorry but I refuse to even entertain the notion that Tatum was better this year than Tim Duncan was as a rookie. Love the kid and don't blame people for being excited about him, but this is just way too much. Timmy was an MVP candidate that year.

How old was Duncan when he entered the legue? Did he play more than one year in college. Have no idea that's why I'm asking.

Actually I think you do know and that's why you're asking.

I have no idea, I asked randomly. I was 10 in 99

[Texas Chuck]

I'll give you this -- you are committed to the bit.

[Eskobar13]

How old was Duncan when he entered the legue? Did he play more than one year in college. Have no idea that's why I'm asking.

Actually I think you do know and that's why you're asking.

I have no idea, I asked randomly. I was 10 in 99

So you're 28/29 and don't know how to use google yet?

Anyway, I might actually have to agree with this take (the playoffs part of it). I'm trying hard to remember having seen a better rookie in the playoffs and I can't come up with anyone since 2003 to have played this good, this much and be as impactful as him.

[pelifan]

Mitchell is a better player and it's not close

Based off of what? Tatum was more effecient on both ends of the court in the regular season and in the playoffs Tatum had a better ts, win share, PER, etc... Tatum was also a plus 19 when Mitchell was a negative 2. That's in no way diminishing wha Mitchell has done, but to say it wasn't close is just comical when the evidence points to the opposite.

Easy to do as one of 4 options. Mitchell is a 1st option and forces the issue out of neccessity, the second option was Rubio and after he got hurt Joe Ingles. In the playoffs, almost 50% of Tatum's baskets were unassisted scores. almost 80% of Mitchell's were unassisted. Winshare and +- stats require your team to actually be winning games, something Boston has gotten to do against far easier opponents than Utah has in the playoffs, raw plus minus is a mostly useless stat. The only thing comical here is pretending to be objective with a username like Patsfan.

[HeartBreakKid]

What's the argument that he's even better than Towns was 2 years ago?

Whats Town's argument that he's better this year?

Really though, Towns is truly dreadful defensively. He has the glam stats, but guys like Mitchell and Simmons just seem like players who help their teams win more. I suppose Tatum's role might not have been big enough during the RS, but you could make an argument he can help a team win more than Towns did his rookie season.

Towns was slightly overrated because he was such an offensive force and filled up the boxscore sheet. People laughed off the minority of folk who were pushing for Jokic as ROY, and now the idea that Jokic is better than Towns doesn't seem all that silly - and nothing has really changed between the two since their rookie years.

[HeartBreakKid]

Mitchell is a better player and it's not close

Based off of what? Tatum was more effecient on both ends of the court in the regular season and in the playoffs Tatum had a better ts, win share, PER, etc... Tatum was also a plus 19 when Mitchell was a negative 2. That's in no way diminishing wha Mitchell has done, but to say it wasn't close is just comical when the evidence points to the opposite.

Easy to do as one of 4 options. Mitchell is a 1st option and forces the issue out of neccessity, the second option was Rubio and after he got hurt Joe Ingles. In the playoffs, almost 50% of Tatum's baskets were unassisted scores. almost 80% of Mitchell's were unassisted. Winshare and +- stats require your team to actually be winning games, something Boston has gotten to do against far easier opponents than Utah has in the playoffs, raw plus minus is a mostly useless stat. The only thing comical here is pretending to be objective with a username like Patsfan.

It's certainly not easy to do - and the Jazz are just as talented as the Celtics are, the Celtics win on defense just like the Jazz do.

Mitchell is a lead guard, Tatum is a wing - so naturally Mitchell will be unassisted less, by the same token Tatum is a better off ball player. Tatum's specialty is isolation play...he could easily score more unassisted if need be, but that isn't how the Celtics play this season.

[pelifan]

Based off of what? Tatum was more effecient on both ends of the court in the regular season and in the playoffs Tatum had a better ts, win share, PER, etc... Tatum was also a plus 19 when Mitchell was a negative 2. That's in no way diminishing wha Mitchell has done, but to say it wasn't close is just comical when the evidence points to the opposite.

Easy to do as one of 4 options. Mitchell is a 1st option and forces the issue out of neccessity, the second option was Rubio and after he got hurt Joe Ingles. In the playoffs, almost 50% of Tatum's baskets were unassisted scores. almost 80% of Mitchell's were unassisted. Winshare and +- stats require your team to actually be winning games, something Boston has gotten to do against far easier opponents than Utah has in the playoffs, raw plus minus is a mostly useless stat. The only thing comical here is pretending to be objective with a username like Patsfan.

It's certainly not easy to do - and the Jazz are just as talented as the Celtics are, the Celtics win on defense just like the Jazz do.

Mitchell is a lead guard, Tatum is a wing - so naturally Mitchell will be unassisted less, by the same token Tatum is a better off ball player. Tatum's specialty is isolation play...he could easily score more unassisted if need be, but that isn't how the Celtics play this season.

Jayson Tatum's playoff isolation stats

3.1 possessions per game .61 PPP

regular season
1.4 possessions per game .82 PPP

going to have to disagree that Tatum' specialty is as an iso player.

[HeartBreakKid]

Easy to do as one of 4 options. Mitchell is a 1st option and forces the issue out of neccessity, the second option was Rubio and after he got hurt Joe Ingles. In the playoffs, almost 50% of Tatum's baskets were unassisted scores. almost 80% of Mitchell's were unassisted. Winshare and +- stats require your team to actually be winning games, something Boston has gotten to do against far easier opponents than Utah has in the playoffs, raw plus minus is a mostly useless stat. The only thing comical here is pretending to be objective with a username like Patsfan.

It's certainly not easy to do - and the Jazz are just as talented as the Celtics are, the Celtics win on defense just like the Jazz do.

Mitchell is a lead guard, Tatum is a wing - so naturally Mitchell will be unassisted less, by the same token Tatum is a better off ball player. Tatum's specialty is isolation play...he could easily score more unassisted if need be, but that isn't how the Celtics play this season.

Jayson Tatum's playoff isolation stats

3.1 possessions per game .61 PPP

regular season
1.4 possessions per game .82 PPP

going to have to disagree that Tatum is a good iso player.

That wasn't what I said. Also, low sample size....

This was the first time he had a 3 and D role in his basketball career, and he excelled in it. You really think that if he played the style that he's actually worked at his entire career, he wouldn't be a good isolation player? He has the handles to get separation, he can get into the paint and finish, he can hit pull ups from mid range, he's long enough to shoot over guards - it's rather obvious he doesn't need to be assisted...he's gotten plenty of buckets when needed. Pretty obvious he is not Shane Battier.

This reminds me of when people thought Jabari Parker couldn't shoot 3s even though in college he was a solid shooter.

[pelifan]

It's certainly not easy to do - and the Jazz are just as talented as the Celtics are, the Celtics win on defense just like the Jazz do.

Mitchell is a lead guard, Tatum is a wing - so naturally Mitchell will be unassisted less, by the same token Tatum is a better off ball player. Tatum's specialty is isolation play...he could easily score more unassisted if need be, but that isn't how the Celtics play this season.

Jayson Tatum's playoff isolation stats

3.1 possessions per game .61 PPP

regular season
1.4 possessions per game .82 PPP

going to have to disagree that Tatum is a good iso player.

That wasn't what I said. Also, low sample size....

This was the first time he had a 3 and D role in his basketball career, and he excelled in it. You really think that if he played the style that he's actually worked at his entire career, he wouldn't be a good isolation player? He has the handles to get separation, he can get into the paint and finish, he can hit pull ups from mid range, he's long enough to shoot over guards - it's rather obvious he doesn't need to be assisted...he's gotten plenty of buckets when needed. Pretty obvious he is not Shane Battier.

This reminds me of when people thought Jabari Parker couldn't shoot 3s even though in college he was a solid shooter.

how on earth is that a low sample size? That's 138 total possessions (28 playoffs, 110 regular season) That's plenty of sample size.

As far as the eye test component Mitchell is clearly the better eye test player. Tatum's argument centers around efficiency and only the shallowest of advanced stats. I think Tatum will become a good iso player given time but that's not my point. Mitchell is asked to do more against tougher competition, and when you break it down by playtype it becomes obvious Mitchell is the better player. Tatum is an a system that gave Jae Crowder similarly successful basic box scores last year and that's really the only reason for his officiency dominantion. If you asked Tatum to be on a team where he holds more offensive responsibility his officiency would drop accross the board.

Edit yes I made up the word officiency.

[Ron Swanson]

What's the argument that he's even better than Towns was 2 years ago?

Whats Town's argument that he's better this year?

Really though, Towns is truly dreadful defensively. He has the glam stats, but guys like Mitchell and Simmons just seem like players who help their teams win more. I suppose Tatum's role might not have been big enough during the RS, but you could make an argument he can help a team win more than Towns did his rookie season.

Towns was slightly overrated because he was such an offensive force and filled up the boxscore sheet. People laughed off the minority of folk who were pushing for Jokic as ROY, and now the idea that Jokic is better than Towns doesn't seem all that silly - and nothing has really changed between the two since their rookie years.

"Rookie KAT didn't make it to the playoffs but Tatum did so therefore Tatum helps you win more" doesn't seem like that compelling of an argument to me. I don't see a compelling statistical argument for it when he's been at best, only the 3rd best rookie this season. I could have said last season that "Malcolm Brogdon is the best rookie I've ever seen" and think that he "helps me win more games than rookie KAT", but that doesn't make that statement any less hyperbolic or downright ridiculous.

[HeartBreakKid]

What's the argument that he's even better than Towns was 2 years ago?

Whats Town's argument that he's better this year?

Really though, Towns is truly dreadful defensively. He has the glam stats, but guys like Mitchell and Simmons just seem like players who help their teams win more. I suppose Tatum's role might not have been big enough during the RS, but you could make an argument he can help a team win more than Towns did his rookie season.

Towns was slightly overrated because he was such an offensive force and filled up the boxscore sheet. People laughed off the minority of folk who were pushing for Jokic as ROY, and now the idea that Jokic is better than Towns doesn't seem all that silly - and nothing has really changed between the two since their rookie years.

"Rookie KAT didn't make it to the playoffs but Tatum did so therefore Tatum helps you win more" doesn't seem like that compelling of an argument to me. I don't see a compelling statistical argument for it when he's been at best, only the 3rd best rookie this season. I could have said last season that "Malcolm Brogdon is the best rookie I've ever seen" and think that he "helps me win more games than rookie KAT", but that doesn't make that statement any less hyperbolic or downright ridiculous.

Where on earth did you get this from my post? I didn't mention the T-Wolves missing the playoffs or even the losing at all...that's a total strawman dude.

Guys like Simmons and Donovan are just more impactful players period. They play defense and run their teams offense. The same post I mention Jokic was better than Towns and the Nuggets haven't made the playoffs in years. You can make an argument that Tatum is better than Towns based on post season play - we never saw rookie Towns but we did see 3rd year Towns in the playoffs, and it's nothing special

Tatum being the 3rd best rookie (debatable) doesn't mean that he is a worse rookie than Towns...because Towns was worse than Mitchell and Simmons (and he wasn't the best rookie his year either).

And Tatum is certainly not the best rookie I have ever seen, of course the OP is hyperbolic.

[Ron Swanson]

People are basing this on what he's done in the playoffs, because there's no statistical argument that he has over rookie Karl Towns besides "he was really bad on defense", which isn't really a statistic so much as it is a preference on what you want from a rookie. The onus is on people to provide an argument that he's better than 3-4 other rookies in just the last 3 years alone, not the other why around.

[HeartBreakKid]

Jayson Tatum's playoff isolation stats

3.1 possessions per game .61 PPP

regular season
1.4 possessions per game .82 PPP

going to have to disagree that Tatum is a good iso player.

That wasn't what I said. Also, low sample size....

This was the first time he had a 3 and D role in his basketball career, and he excelled in it. You really think that if he played the style that he's actually worked at his entire career, he wouldn't be a good isolation player? He has the handles to get separation, he can get into the paint and finish, he can hit pull ups from mid range, he's long enough to shoot over guards - it's rather obvious he doesn't need to be assisted...he's gotten plenty of buckets when needed. Pretty obvious he is not Shane Battier.

This reminds me of when people thought Jabari Parker couldn't shoot 3s even though in college he was a solid shooter.

how on earth is that a low sample size? That's 138 total possessions (28 playoffs, 110 regular season) That's plenty of sample size.

As far as the eye test component Mitchell is clearly the better eye test player. Tatum's argument centers around efficiency and only the shallowest of advanced stats. I think Tatum will become a good iso player given time but that's not my point. Mitchell is asked to do more against tougher competition, and when you break it down by playtype it becomes obvious Mitchell is the better player. Tatum is an a system that gave Jae Crowder similarly successful basic box scores last year and that's really the only reason for his officiency dominantion. If you asked Tatum to be on a team where he holds more offensive responsibility his officiency would drop accross the board.

Edit yes I made up the word officiency.

Tatum has not isolated a lot, the same stats you just posted literally say that. 1.4 per possessions is small for an isolation player. If he had more reps as an iso player, then he would obviously be a better isolation player as he was in college.

I think Mitchell was a better player than Tatum was this year, but your point about Tatum being assisted while Mitchell is silly given their roles. You also keep mentioning things like system play and roster, even though the Jazz have comparable talent and one of the best coaches...you do realize that Mitchell isn't the best player on the Jazz nor is he the best playmaker, right? Mitchell has a different role than Tatum, but it isn't necessarily a superior role.

[HeartBreakKid]

People are basing this on what he's done in the playoffs, because there's no statistical argument that he has over rookie Karl Towns besides "he was really bad on defense", which isn't really a statistic so much as it is a preference on what you want from a rookie. The onus is on people to provide an argument that he's better than 3-4 other rookies in just the last 3 years alone, not the other why around.

Bad defense is a preference? Why would someone prefer a player to have bad defense?

There is statistical evidence that Karl Towns was a dreadful defender his rookie year, that isn't made up.