Did Jayson Tatum deserve to win the Eastern Conference Finals MVP?

[falcolombardi]

Spoiler:

Butler: 26/7/3/2 | +1.6 rTS | 28.6 PER | 1.3 Win Shares | 22.0 Game Score
Tatum: 25/8/6/1 | +5.0 rTS | 19.8 PER | 0.9 Win Shares | 18.7 Game Score

Jimmy had the better series statistically. Tatum had better supporting cast.

Averages aren't really great for a 7 game series though.

Jimmy Butler had 3 games with a sub-10 Gamescore while Tatum had only 1 game sub-10.

Think of it this way. Would you prefer a guy with a 2 perfect games, 2 good games and 3 bad games or 5 good games, one average game and 1 bad game?

Jimmy's 2 perfect games average out his 3 bad games but the fact is his lows were much lower than Tatums and much more common in this series.

Something to think about when evaluating series where perhaps the "Median Outcome" is a better evaluation and indicator than the "Mean Outcome".

Statistically speaking, Tatum's sub-set of games is more valuable than Butler and a simple algorithm proves this.

it goes both ways tbh

if a player has 4 trascendent games and 3 awful ones it could be in many circunstance better than a player with 7 good but not particularly great games

both, the steady good and the inconsistent great have arguments here to be more impactful to win a series

[Colbinii]

Spoiler:

Butler: 26/7/3/2 | +1.6 rTS | 28.6 PER | 1.3 Win Shares | 22.0 Game Score
Tatum: 25/8/6/1 | +5.0 rTS | 19.8 PER | 0.9 Win Shares | 18.7 Game Score

Jimmy had the better series statistically. Tatum had better supporting cast.

Averages aren't really great for a 7 game series though.

Jimmy Butler had 3 games with a sub-10 Gamescore while Tatum had only 1 game sub-10.

Think of it this way. Would you prefer a guy with a 2 perfect games, 2 good games and 3 bad games or 5 good games, one average game and 1 bad game?

Jimmy's 2 perfect games average out his 3 bad games but the fact is his lows were much lower than Tatums and much more common in this series.

Something to think about when evaluating series where perhaps the "Median Outcome" is a better evaluation and indicator than the "Mean Outcome".

Statistically speaking, Tatum's sub-set of games is more valuable than Butler and a simple algorithm proves this.

it goes both ways tbh

if a player has 4 trascendent games and 3 awful ones it could be in many circunstance better than a player with 7 good but not particularly great games

both, the steady good and the inconsistent great have arguments here to be more impactful to win a series

Yeah but 4 transcendent games in a best-of-7 is not what anyone here is talking about--we are talking about 2 transcendent games.

It doesn't go both ways because the example you are providing is not similar to Jimmy Butlers play in the Eastern Conference Finals.

[falcolombardi]

Spoiler:

Averages aren't really great for a 7 game series though.

Jimmy Butler had 3 games with a sub-10 Gamescore while Tatum had only 1 game sub-10.

Think of it this way. Would you prefer a guy with a 2 perfect games, 2 good games and 3 bad games or 5 good games, one average game and 1 bad game?

Jimmy's 2 perfect games average out his 3 bad games but the fact is his lows were much lower than Tatums and much more common in this series.

Something to think about when evaluating series where perhaps the "Median Outcome" is a better evaluation and indicator than the "Mean Outcome".

Statistically speaking, Tatum's sub-set of games is more valuable than Butler and a simple algorithm proves this.

it goes both ways tbh

if a player has 4 trascendent games and 3 awful ones it could be in many circunstance better than a player with 7 good but not particularly great games

both, the steady good and the inconsistent great have arguments here to be more impactful to win a series

Yeah but 4 transcendent games in a best-of-7 is not what anyone here is talking about--we are talking about 2 transcendent games.

It doesn't go both ways because the example you are providing is not similar to Jimmy Butlers play in the Eastern Conference Finals.

i dont disagree, i just wanted to point out that being consistent is not automaticallt better than having higher highs and lower lows

is a case by case basis

[Colbinii]

it goes both ways tbh

if a player has 4 trascendent games and 3 awful ones it could be in many circunstance better than a player with 7 good but not particularly great games

both, the steady good and the inconsistent great have arguments here to be more impactful to win a series

Yeah but 4 transcendent games in a best-of-7 is not what anyone here is talking about--we are talking about 2 transcendent games.

It doesn't go both ways because the example you are providing is not similar to Jimmy Butlers play in the Eastern Conference Finals.

i dont disagree, i just wanted to point out that being consistent is not automaticallt better than having higher highs and lower lows

is a case by case basis

Correct--and it is why Median outcome is better than Mean outcome.

[LesGrossman]

In every definition i can think of, Butler should have won. Even FMVP went to the losing team in the past. Boston without Tatum is still a damn strong team, Heat without Jimmy plain sucks.

[Dooley]

Yeah but 4 transcendent games in a best-of-7 is not what anyone here is talking about--we are talking about 2 transcendent games.

It doesn't go both ways because the example you are providing is not similar to Jimmy Butlers play in the Eastern Conference Finals.

7 good-but-not-particularly-great games is also not what we're talking about with Tatum. Tatum had 5 good games, 1 OK game, and 1 bad game. Jimmy had 2 great games, 2 good games, and 3 bad games. So basically the question is, which matters more - the 2 games (games 1 and 6) where Jimmy was great and Tatum was merely good? Or the 2 games (games 4 and 5) where Jimmy was bad and Tatum was OK-to-good? I think it's close and I can see the argument either way.

I do think that if you flip the outcome, and you imagine the two players had put up the exact same numbers game-by-game but Miami had pulled out the win - I think the number of people who would be arguing that Tatum should have been the ECFMVP despite being on a losing team would have been pretty small if it had played out that way. Again, that's fine, being on the winning team is an important part of awards like this for a lot of people. But it's not the way that I feel personally - I don't like the idea that, for instance, if Lowry and Strus had made a couple more 3s in game 7, Butler's exact same individual performance would have been clearly better than Tatum's exact same individual performance, but because Lowry and Strus missed those 3s, Butler's individual performance is now worse than Tatum's.

[Colbinii]

Yeah but 4 transcendent games in a best-of-7 is not what anyone here is talking about--we are talking about 2 transcendent games.

It doesn't go both ways because the example you are providing is not similar to Jimmy Butlers play in the Eastern Conference Finals.

7 good-but-not-particularly-great games is also not what we're talking about with Tatum. Tatum had 5 good games, 1 OK game, and 1 bad game. Jimmy had 2 great games, 2 good games, and 3 bad games. So basically the question is, which matters more - the 2 games (games 1 and 6) where Jimmy was great and Tatum was merely good? Or the 2 games (games 4 and 5) where Jimmy was bad and Tatum was OK-to-good? I think it's close and I can see the argument either way.

Its close but Tatum adds more value ignoring supporting casts.

I do think that if you flip the outcome, and you imagine the two players had put up the exact same numbers game-by-game but Miami had pulled out the win - I think the number of people who would be arguing that Tatum should have been the ECFMVP despite being on a losing team would have been pretty small if it had played out that way. Again, that's fine, being on the winning team is an important part of awards like this for a lot of people. But it's not the way that I feel personally - I don't like the idea that, for instance, if Lowry and Strus had made a couple more 3s in game 7, Butler's exact same individual performance would have been clearly better than Tatum's exact same individual performance, but because Lowry and Strus missed those 3s, Butler's individual performance is now worse than Tatum's.

And if Brown makes 2 free throws or even 1 the series is over in 6. Not sure we want to go down the what-if road here.