Who's done better against the celtics: Embid or Butler?

[freethedevil]

Embid, one of the best defenders of the playoffs averaged 30 ppg on 60% shooting without his team's primary playmaker and very limited spacing.

Butler is averaging 17 points and 4 assists on a league average 56% TS.

Since butler is apparently a superstar now, and embid's not, do you think butler is playing better against than the celtics than embid?

[HeartBreakKid]

No, not at all - Jimmy is not playing better than Embiid. But people will probably phrase it in a way that implies Embiid's numbers are empty while Butler's are not.

Simply put - Butler has a better team and doesn't have to play that well for them to win. Embiid had an injury riddled team with his two all-star teammates (Horford and Hobias) playing like jabronis.

So sure - maybe Boston "let" Embiid score that much, but Embiid did as much that is reasonably possible for a star player. He has been incredibly unfairly judged (especially GSP going ham on him, which I don't get).

Funny thing is - Embiid and Butler nearly won a title last year, but for some reason people think Embiid is a loser. It's strange.

[ccameron]

I'm not going to argue he has been playing better than Embid, but I think Butler is the perfect example of why the game is a lot more than stats. Miami has some talent and good coaching, but I think a lot of their urgency and hustle has to do with Jimmy. You can plug a wing player with better stats on this team and it's not a guarantee that the Heat play as well as they have. Jimmy is a leader, and he really doesn't care about how he only has 17 ppg in a two game sample size.

Reasonable to think Embid is a better player, but you're massively underrating all that Jimmy brings ot this team by summing him up this way.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm not going to argue he has been playing better than Embid in your two game sample size, but I think Butler is the perfect example of why the game is a lot more than stats. Miami has some talent and good coaching, but I think a lot of their urgency and hustle has to do with Jimmy. You can plug a wing player with better stats on this team and it's not a guarantee that the Heat play as well as they have. Jimmy is a leader, and he really doesn't care about your thread on how he only has 17 ppg in the last two games.

Reasonable to think Embid is a better player, but you're massively underrating all that Jimmy brings ot this team by just looking at those stats.

Sure, but there is such a thing as taking an inch and making it a mile. Jimmy might be the heart and soul of the team, but it doesn't mean he is never able to have a bad game.

With what you're saying we basically can never say Butler isn't playing well, because you can always use the intangible argument to save face - when the answer is the two are not binary. Jimmy Butler can still inspire hustle into his teammates and still play poorly.

Here is a better question - if Butler switches places with Embiid what is Butler's reputation now? His team just got swept by the Celtics, and now people look at Bustler as a prima donna who blames and leaves franchises on their failures instead of himself. That is exactly what would happen - because people were basically saying this about him before he joined Miami.

But now the narrative is Embiid is a softy who creates his offense from too far from the rim (which may or may not be true, but does ignore that there is no one to get him the ball in a good position regardless) and a real star would never be swept in the first round (which is absolutely not true, even Shaq was swept in the first). No one is fully acknowledging that the Sixers should have lost in 4 games.

[70sFan]

Such a different situation that it'a almost impossible to compare. That said, Embiid played well against the Celtics. He wasn't that good defensively but he had no help from any side of the floor. Anyone, who tries to sell the narrative that you can't win anything with Embiid as your star based on this series, has no idea what he's talking about.

[ccameron]

I'm not going to argue he has been playing better than Embid in your two game sample size, but I think Butler is the perfect example of why the game is a lot more than stats. Miami has some talent and good coaching, but I think a lot of their urgency and hustle has to do with Jimmy. You can plug a wing player with better stats on this team and it's not a guarantee that the Heat play as well as they have. Jimmy is a leader, and he really doesn't care about your thread on how he only has 17 ppg in the last two games.

Reasonable to think Embid is a better player, but you're massively underrating all that Jimmy brings ot this team by just looking at those stats.

Sure, but there is such a thing as taking an inch and making it a mile. Jimmy might be the heart and soul of the team, but it doesn't mean he is never able to have a bad game.

With what you're saying we basically can never say Butler isn't playing well, because you can always use the intangible argument to save face - when the answer is the two are not binary. Jimmy Butler can still inspire hustle into his teammates and still play poorly.

Here is a better question - if Butler switches places with Embiid what is Butler's reputation now? His team just got swept by the Celtics, and now people look at Bustler as a prima donna who blames and leaves franchises on their failures instead of himself. That is exactly what would happen.

Absolutely agreed, so I'm not going to say Butler is better than Embid because of "intangibles." I just think in Butler's case, as in a few other great players, he really does provide a lift to his team that isn't captured by his individual stats and just shows up in actual winning. But I get it, it's a slippery slope, and actually winning can make you ignore bad play.

[therealbig3]

Butler is in a perfect situation, his bad games get ignored because his team is so good around him that he doesn't have to do much scoring at all sometimes, and they can still win games. And when he does have a good game, it's hyped up as the greatest thing ever.

I've liked Butler for a long time and have always thought he's underrated...but unfortunately, as is the case with the unsung heroes that are all of a sudden given attention because their teams start winning a lot, they immediately start getting overrated and all of their flaws get ignored, all of their bad games get ignored, and their good games are hyped up like crazy. And in the case of stars that we've grown tired of hearing about, we do the complete opposite and totally ignore their good games while hyper-focusing on their bad games...even in a situation like Embiid's, where he averaged 30 ppg on 60% TS, many people try to spin it as empty stats and how he basically sucked and that's why the Sixers got swept. The other player that gets that kind of treatment is Harden.

Butler's stock has fallen imo, not risen, with these playoffs. And that's not because he's played poorly (although he hasn't been anything special in this round, and he was pretty inconsistent against the Bucks). It's because it's become blatantly obvious how deep and well-coached and talented the team around him is, and how they basically protect him from the criticism any other superstar would normally get, because they can carry him through bad games. He may not even be their best player, if you look at total contribution. I'm strongly considering Bam as their actual best player. I mean, he's clearly their best defender, and he's not a nobody on offense, he actually plays a pivotal role on their offense with his finishing ability, his passing, his screening, and his occasional ability to hit a jumper. So I really don't see how Butler warrants consideration among that clear top tier of superstars (LeBron/Davis/Harden/Luka/Kawhi/Giannis/Jokic). I would certainly have him among that 2nd tier, along with Tatum, but there's a clear difference between those first 7 and the Butler/Tatum level. And I would have Bam, Embiid, and Gobert there in the 2nd tier as well.

[therealbig3]

As for the question, the answer is clearly Embiid.

[70sFan]

I agree - Butler becomes overrated if anything. He's not consistent and he has excellent team around him. It's not only Bam - Dragic is probably their best offensive player on the team.

I see no case for Butler in top 5, like some people try to argue. Nobody called anyone from 2014 Spurs top 5 in the league, even though they dominated as a team (and they had solidified all-time great in Duncan).

[Leslie Forman]

Replace Embiid with Butler and that Sixers team is absolutely not getting swept, that's for damn sure.

[70sFan]

Replace Embiid with Butler and that Sixers team is absolutely not getting swept, that's for damn sure.

Why not?

[HeartBreakKid]

Replace Embiid with Butler and that Sixers team is absolutely not getting swept, that's for damn sure.

They absolutely would be. Jimmy isn't out producing Embiid in that series, and he's not going to magically make Tobias Harris useful.

I don't think people realize the gap in talent and coaching between the Sixers and the Celtics. The Celtics have at a minimum 4/5 of the best players in that series - and Jason Tatum is a bit better than Jimmy Butler on top of that.

[Bel]

These sound like exactly the arguments I used to hear from older fans about Wilt vs Russell. 'Oh Wilt didn't have any help around him. Russell had 8 all stars, his team was amazing," or "If you swapped teams for them you'd swap their ring count too." etc etc. Obviously neither Embid or Butler are remotely near the former two, but it's the exact same logic flaw: players are not independent variables. You don't know what they're capable of until they're in the right situation, with a top leader around them. Rookie Larry Bird took his team from last to first not because he himself was worth +32 wins, but because he (with a coach change) fixed their dysfunction and got everyone playing their best.

If you can point to people saying Jimmy had a great team around him at the beginning of the season, then you can make that argument now. I never saw that though. I saw lots of thoughts about how Jimmy went to a mediocre team to be the man and live in Miami. If they happen to win the title this year, they would be by far the biggest underdog winner since betting records have been noted. Their preseason expected wins were just above .500. If they happen to win the title at +6000 (T14th) odds, obviously still 6 hard wins away, they would be by far the biggest underdog winner since these odds have been recorded (the 2015 Warriors were +2500). If you tried to find people to bet preseason that the Heat would 4-1 a 9.41 SRS Bucks squad and go up 2-0 vs a 5.83 Celtics team despite some very unfavorable reffing, what kind of insane odds would you have had to give them?

The Heat tried to salary dump Dragic before the season, so you can't claim that this is all just some perfect GM moves with Bam and Herro (even though Riley is amazing). Spos a good coach, but the coach can only do so much. Obviously the Heat players of a certain mold that makes it work, since Butler failed to inspire KAT/Wiggins to unexpected heights. But Butler is very clearly the heart and soul of the team. These guys weren't supposed to excel, but they are. Jimmy isn't trying to pad his stats to the moon, but so what? He gets graded on whether he wins, not whether he hits some bull stat metric. Let's see how far they go.

Obviously Jimmy is not near Bill Russell, because Jimmy hasn't been doing this every year, nor has he won yet. You can only argue he did it this year, and perhaps last year to a degree (where they came inches from beating a fantastic team). Thus it seems that Jimmy needs a specific environment around him, which the Heat provide. We can determine that the even the dysfunctional 2019->2020 Sixers difference without Butler is very large, despite Simmons and Embid theoretically having another key year to grow.

In short, Jimmy doesn't have an excellent team around him. He made them into an excellent team, where he does the dirty work and fills in the holes. With no Jimmy, there's no reason to assume Bam and Herro would be anything more than random players nobody talks about, and Dragic wouldn't be a 1x all star past his prime, done after injuries. In order to make the argument that Embid is better, you'd have to argue that if you swapped Embid to the Heat, all the other guys would be playing just as well. Given what we've seen on the Sixers where a lot of guys played below expectations, there doesn't seem to be any grounds to sustain that.

I'm reminded here of Isiah Thomas determining that doing less yourself is better, because you get more out of your teammates. Given how the Clippers underperformed this year, it would seem to be a tough argument that anyone in the league could have done what Butler is doing in Miami. That doesn't mean Butler is better on the court, just that he's more impactful than anyone in a team like Miami.

I agree - Butler becomes overrated if anything. He's not consistent and he has excellent team around him. It's not only Bam - Dragic is probably their best offensive player on the team.

I see no case for Butler in top 5, like some people try to argue. Nobody called anyone from 2014 Spurs top 5 in the league, even though they dominated as a team (and they had solidified all-time great in Duncan).

Duncan was clearly the most impactful player in the league though. The Spurs were not seen as some great set of talent, none of those guys were expected to be amazing in 2014 given their age. They had a unified, driving purpose. They improved immensely in the offseason, and had impeccable teamwork that sustained a difficult playstyle. If you had asked before the season for people to bet that the Spurs would get 62W/8 SRS and win the finals vs the Heat in the biggest blowout of all time, with one of the prettiest offenses ever, how many takers would you have gotten? There's been enough insider quotes in the old threads proving Duncan's inside impact that it's safe to say he should be given the lion share of the credit.

[HeartBreakKid]

Bill Russell wasn't better than Wilt Chamberlain because he was the heart and soul of his team, he was better than him because of his actual on court play. A lot of what you're saying Bel has nothing to do with Jimmy Butler's play.

Intangibles can mean a lot of things - and while Bill Russell does have heart, drive and all of that - a lot of his "intangibles" came from defense which at the time could not be measured (though Bill Russell's impact is so large we actually can somewhat quantify it).

Either way, I don't think the analogy is a very accurate one. Talking about front office and coaching decisions seems like strawman territory. The Heat needed a star to take the next leap - that's what Butler was for them. Anything more than that is hyperbole.

[Leslie Forman]

They absolutely would be. Jimmy isn't out producing Embiid in that series, and he's not going to magically make Tobias Harris useful.

I don't think people realize the gap in talent and coaching between the Sixers and the Celtics. The Celtics have at a minimum 4/5 of the best players in that series - and Jason Tatum is a bit better than Jimmy Butler on top of that.

Is this really still so hard for people to see, when it's playing out right in front of our eyes?

Butler helps make the game easier for everyone on his team. His ballhandling. His playmaking. His defense. His versatility. His motor. This all helps everybody a ton. Richardson, Harris, Horford would all be better with Jimmy next to them.

Embiid doesn't help sh*t. Production? Sure. Whatever. So you'd take Russell Westbrook over Scottie Pippen then, right?

Even off a torn MCL with a trash ass Minnesota team, going up against that monster 2018 Houston team, he didn't get swept. This Celtics team is gonna sweep him? No F'n chance.

[HeartBreakKid]

They absolutely would be. Jimmy isn't out producing Embiid in that series, and he's not going to magically make Tobias Harris useful.

I don't think people realize the gap in talent and coaching between the Sixers and the Celtics. The Celtics have at a minimum 4/5 of the best players in that series - and Jason Tatum is a bit better than Jimmy Butler on top of that.

Is this really still so hard for people to see, when it's playing out right in front of our eyes?

Butler helps make the game easier for everyone on his team. His ballhandling. His playmaking. His defense. His versatility. His motor. This all helps everybody a ton. Richardson, Harris, Horford would all be better with Jimmy next to them.

Embiid doesn't help sh*t. Production? Sure. Whatever. So you'd take Russell Westbrook over Scottie Pippen then, right?

Even off a torn MCL with a trash ass Minnesota team, going up against that monster 2018 Houston team, he didn't get swept. This Celtics team is gonna sweep him? No F'n chance.

Is it really hard for people to see, what has played out in our eyes? Al Horford is old and Tobias Harris was never a very good player. Those things have nothing to do with Joel Embiid, and Jimmy Butler wouldn't make them super heroes.

The fact that you brought up production and then linked "So you must think Westbrook is better than Pippen" actually shows you don't know why Pippen is better than Westbrook. Pippen isn't better than Westbrook because of intangibles - his impact is can reasonably measured, and Westbrook has high production but poor efficiency. Scottie Pippen actually doesn't have good leadership skills, isn't particularity mentally strong, not a killer etc - it's almost like you have over simplified to think that intangibles = low points.

To summarize, Scottie Pippen is better than Russell Westbrook for tangible reasons, his intangibles are worse than Russell Westbrooks. The fact that you seem to infer that Scottie Pippen is better than Russell Westbrook for intangible reasons actually shows that you are the one who looks too deeply into statlines - as you are merely associating winning with modest numbers as intangibles.

Your argument really doesn't add up much. Shaq's was swept in the first round. Garnett was swept in the first round. McGrady was swept in the first round. Grant Hill was swept. Wade was gentlemen swept. Kareem Abdul Jabar missed the playoffs while in his prime, Oscar Robertson missed the playoffs multiple seasons.

You're lazily saying that Embiid can't make his teammates better - which may or may not be true, but it isn't something you can get from his first round series. The Celtics would have swept the Sixers regardless. I mean what are you actually arguing, that if Butler was on the Sixers they would have won one game - even if that was true, it wouldn't mean he was a better player in the grand scheme of things. All it would do is support that the Sixers are a highly flawed team, and that if you were to make a list of reasons why they lost Joel Embiid shouldn't be anywhere near the top of it.


Break it down some more. Write in detail how Butler makes the Sixers a much better team. Saying he was on the Timberwolves and they lost in 5 isn't an actual analysis or reason - you actually overlooked about 100 variables by lazily pointing that out. What does Butler do that lessons the gigantic coaching and talent gap, let's see if you can explain it without having to use buzz words. Because it's very easy to use heroics and say "stop looking the numbers nerd (even though I am really not, you can tell just from watching that Joel Embiid was very hard for the Celtics to stop and that his teammates weren't playing well) and witness the hustle and heart" - but that only works when a team is winning.

If the Heat weren't winning - you would probably not say that about Butler, and speaking from anecdotal experience as a guy who has championed for Butler including when he was pegged as a prima donna - I know exactly why people think Jimmy Butler is a winner now - because of confirmation bias.

[Leslie Forman]

To summarize, Scottie Pippen is better than Russell Westbrook for tangible reasons, his intangibles are worse than Russell Westbrooks. The fact that you seem to infer that Scottie Pippen is better than Russell Westbrook for intangible reasons actually shows that you are the one who looks too deeply into statlines - as you are merely associating winning with modest numbers as intangibles.

I've seen some gaslighting bad takes on here, but this one…this is one of the worst.

[Joey Wheeler]

Not really an even comparison. Butler is a great player, but Embiid is a special all-time talent. He was clearly better against the Celtics and he's just clearly better in general

[freethedevil]

These sound like exactly the arguments I used to hear from older fans about Wilt vs Russell. 'Oh Wilt didn't have any help around him. Russell had 8 all stars, his team was amazing," or "If you swapped teams for them you'd swap their ring count too." etc etc. Obviously neither Embid or Butler are remotely near the former two, but it's the exact same logic flaw: players are not independent variables. You don't know what they're capable of until they're in the right situation, with a top leader around them. Rookie Larry Bird took his team from last to first not because he himself was worth +32 wins, but because he (with a coach change) fixed their dysfunction and got everyone playing their best.

If you can point to people saying Jimmy had a great team around him at the beginning of the season, then you can make that argument now. I never saw that though. I saw lots of thoughts about how Jimmy went to a mediocre team to be the man and live in Miami. If they happen to win the title this year, they would be by far the biggest underdog winner since betting records have been noted. Their preseason expected wins were just above .500. If they happen to win the title at +6000 (T14th) odds, obviously still 6 hard wins away, they would be by far the biggest underdog winner since these odds have been recorded (the 2015 Warriors were +2500). If you tried to find people to bet preseason that the Heat would 4-1 a 9.41 SRS Bucks squad and go up 2-0 vs a 5.83 Celtics team despite some very unfavorable reffing, what kind of insane odds would you have had to give them?

The Heat tried to salary dump Dragic before the season, so you can't claim that this is all just some perfect GM moves with Bam and Herro (even though Riley is amazing). Spos a good coach, but the coach can only do so much. Obviously the Heat players of a certain mold that makes it work, since Butler failed to inspire KAT/Wiggins to unexpected heights. But Butler is very clearly the heart and soul of the team. These guys weren't supposed to excel, but they are. Jimmy isn't trying to pad his stats to the moon, but so what? He gets graded on whether he wins, not whether he hits some bull stat metric. Let's see how far they go.

Obviously Jimmy is not near Bill Russell, because Jimmy hasn't been doing this every year, nor has he won yet. You can only argue he did it this year, and perhaps last year to a degree (where they came inches from beating a fantastic team). Thus it seems that Jimmy needs a specific environment around him, which the Heat provide. We can determine that the even the dysfunctional 2019->2020 Sixers difference without Butler is very large, despite Simmons and Embid theoretically having another key year to grow.

In short, Jimmy doesn't have an excellent team around him. He made them into an excellent team, where he does the dirty work and fills in the holes. With no Jimmy, there's no reason to assume Bam and Herro would be anything more than random players nobody talks about, and Dragic wouldn't be a 1x all star past his prime, done after injuries. In order to make the argument that Embid is better, you'd have to argue that if you swapped Embid to the Heat, all the other guys would be playing just as well. Given what we've seen on the Sixers where a lot of guys played below expectations, there doesn't seem to be any grounds to sustain that.

I'm reminded here of Isiah Thomas determining that doing less yourself is better, because you get more out of your teammates. Given how the Clippers underperformed this year, it would seem to be a tough argument that anyone in the league could have done what Butler is doing in Miami. That doesn't mean Butler is better on the court, just that he's more impactful than anyone in a team like Miami.

I agree - Butler becomes overrated if anything. He's not consistent and he has excellent team around him. It's not only Bam - Dragic is probably their best offensive player on the team.

I see no case for Butler in top 5, like some people try to argue. Nobody called anyone from 2014 Spurs top 5 in the league, even though they dominated as a team (and they had solidified all-time great in Duncan).

Duncan was clearly the most impactful player in the league though. The Spurs were not seen as some great set of talent, none of those guys were expected to be amazing in 2014 given their age. They had a unified, driving purpose. They improved immensely in the offseason, and had impeccable teamwork that sustained a difficult playstyle. If you had asked before the season for people to bet that the Spurs would get 62W/8 SRS and win the finals vs the Heat in the biggest blowout of all time, with one of the prettiest offenses ever, how many takers would you have gotten? There's been enough insider quotes in the old threads proving Duncan's inside impact that it's safe to say he should be given the lion share of the credit.

This analogy is dumber than rocks. Jimmy butler isn't a top tier defender. Embid is. Butler feeds of his teammates gravity, embid on the other hand is 98TH percentiale in box creation even with his passing woes

The reason "wilt had no teamamtes" was disregarded was russell kicked wilt's ass with weaker teamates at his weakest. What people thought of how butler's teammates would be has no relevance to how they actally played. Russell isn't greater than wilt because od intangibles. He's greater than wilt because he was usually more valuable on the court. Being the greatest leader in history is icing on the cake.

[HeartBreakKid]

To summarize, Scottie Pippen is better than Russell Westbrook for tangible reasons, his intangibles are worse than Russell Westbrooks. The fact that you seem to infer that Scottie Pippen is better than Russell Westbrook for intangible reasons actually shows that you are the one who looks too deeply into statlines - as you are merely associating winning with modest numbers as intangibles.

I've seen some gaslighting bad takes on here, but this one…this is one of the worst.

So let me get this straight

You some how think that because Westbrook has triple doubles and high volume, that his primary strength is arbitrary production - even though most of his impact is not directly correlated with his high box score numbers? Most of Westbrook's impact comes from floor generalship and pace. On top of that, players love him, he's fiercely competitive, he's incredibly loyal, he's not envious or jealous of anyone, he's mentally strong etc etc all of his weaknesses come from his on court play not his off court play. Tell me about his "weak" intangibles - and no, shot selection is not one, that is a tangible.

But Pippen to you, who may not have triple doubles but has a very good boxscore and an incredibly large defensive reputation has "better off court intangibles", even though we know that Pippen was a prima dona, he butted heads with Jordan, he didn't have a killer instinct or hyper competitive edge, he was not a locker room leader and was scolded by his teammates, wasn't even "the leader" in Houston or Portland he was merely the best player for tangible reasons. If Scottie was never teammates with Michael Jordan you would never even bother to bring him up - why didn't you use someone ringless as your example?

But you're probably going to say Pippen is a HOFer with 6 rings, therefore, his success HAS to be from his amazing in tangibles and not the fact he's an all time great defender and army swiss knife. I'd love for you to educate me on Scottie Pippen because I don't think you actually know much about his reputation at all.

But yeah, you're right. Pippen > Westbrook because Pippen was a natural born leader even though he wasn't one.



But to make things simple - let's bring it back. Explain how Pippen has awesome intangibles and Westbrook has horrible ones. Keep in mind defense, shot selection and turnovers are all tangible. I have a feeling you won't partake in this exercise at all, and probably just post some one liner saying I don't know anything - because you probably didn't think deeply at all about your analogy.