Author Topic: Bleacher Report: Why Tatum is overhyped  (Read 4036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Bleacher Report: Why Tatum is overhyped
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2018, 03:16:03 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 928
  • Tommy Points: 214
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.

You can't "pencil" him in, but the reality is Tatum's rookie performance was simply astonishing. To have a TS% of 58.6 as a rookie SF is unheard of. Durant didn't break that barrier until his 3rd season, when he hit 60% which is basically considered top 10 player level. LeBron didn't until his 6th season. Then to go on to perform as essentially the 1st option on an ECF team is simply insane.

I don't "overhype" him, but the reason all these educated observers are so angry at Danny is because they know how good Tatum is RIGHT NOW and how good he could be going forward. And they realize how good Brown has become and it means there's an open window in Boston for a very long time..
Durant and James were much bigger parts of the offense though (they both had USG above 28 with over 17 and just under 19 shots - Tatum's usage was under 20 with just 10.4 shots).  That is what makes it so hard to judge Tatum's rookie year from a historical standpoint given his role, usage, etc.  There just aren't many players like him because so few top five picks end up going to good teams.

This is true. Although I will note Tatum upped his usage to 23.3 in the playoffs with 57.8% TS%,  13.7 FGA. Durant didn't even make the playoffs until his third year and was abysmal, with a TS% of 49.9% on insane usage, and still only managed about the same Assist% as Tatum did last year. He rebounded the next year with 58.2TS% in the playoffs with 29% usage.

Either way you slice it, Tatum's rookie year was pretty incredible, even in a historical context. Tatum of course needs to improve his playmaking over time to be in the same league as these guys, but he certainly is not "overhyped"...

TP.

Also - Tatum slumped a little midyear - possibly due to a hand injury, possibly due to being a 20-year old who’d just become a father(!) I can’t say how high his ceiling is, but year 1 was awfully good. I actually think part of what was so promising about it was his ability to change his game as the team’s needs changed. He showed an excellent understanding of situations and rose to the occasion many times when we neede big shots.

Re: Bleacher Report: Why Tatum is overhyped
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2018, 06:04:59 PM »

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2841
  • Tommy Points: 202
it's one thing when a fan base is building the hype(which Celtics fans are easily guilty of) but when his(tatum) peers and former players are the ones doing the hyping...

Offline jpotter33

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26967
  • Tommy Points: 93
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24167
  • Tommy Points: 1076
  • What a Pub Should Be
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

Some Cavs pom-pom PR.  Not much else. 

From the end of the piece:
Quote
Greg Swartz covers the Cleveland Cavaliers and NBA for Bleacher Report.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2422
  • Tommy Points: 439
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.

Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.

For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24167
  • Tommy Points: 1076
  • What a Pub Should Be
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.

Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.

For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.

He did, though.

Quote
But while dealing Thomas for Irving was the right move for the Celtics, it's the Cavaliers who have come away victorious one year later.

Quote
Trading Irving and getting three starters back was huge for Cleveland and has made them winners of this now-infamous deal.

Now, I'll admit he made some good points & if Kyrie walks & Sexton takes off as talent, then it certainly leaves the door open for those to argue that CLE won the deal.  However, as it stands right now, its really tough to say with a straight face that CLE has won the deal.

It took CLE realizing that acquiring IT4 was a horrible idea & pivoting to subsequently trade to put them in a better situation going forward.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2422
  • Tommy Points: 439
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.

Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.

For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.

He did, though.

Quote
But while dealing Thomas for Irving was the right move for the Celtics, it's the Cavaliers who have come away victorious one year later.

Quote
Trading Irving and getting three starters back was huge for Cleveland and has made them winners of this now-infamous deal.

Now, I'll admit he made some good points & if Kyrie walks & Sexton takes off as talent, then it certainly leaves the door open for those to argue that CLE won the deal.  However, as it stands right now, its really tough to say with a straight face that CLE has won the deal.

It took CLE realizing that acquiring IT4 was a horrible idea & pivoting to subsequently trade to put them in a better situation going forward.

I guess I felt like he hedged those comments. It was sloppy writing, but I thought he hedged by saying the Cs won the trade too.

Offline johnnygreen

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 618
  • Tommy Points: 60
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.

One little caveat on the Thomas trade to the Lakers. If it wasn’t for the chance to acquire LeBron, the Lakers would have never made that deal. Magic was trying to get rid of contracts that were for more than one year and was hoping to acquire a would be free agent. I’m sure LeBron was going to LA, one way or another, but the allure of being able to possibly play with another max guy may have tipped the scales in LA’s favor over Cleveland. I guess the question then becomes, did the Thomas trade make LeBron’s decision easier because of the additional cap space that the Lakers had to play with?

Offline bellerephon

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 353
  • Tommy Points: 28
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
That's not really true. There were many who thought the Celts gave up too much. At the time the extent of IT's injury was not known and the Nets pick was unprotected. There were numerous articles arguing that IT was nearly as good as Kyrie and when you throw in a pick that could end up a top three it was argued that the Cavs got the better deal. In retrospect the Celts are the winners, IT has yet to prove he can be an impact player and the Nets pick wasn't that high. At the time, however, there were definitely plenty of people that thought the Cavs won the trade.

Offline droopdog7

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5162
  • Tommy Points: 345
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
That's not really true. There were many who thought the Celts gave up too much. At the time the extent of IT's injury was not known and the Nets pick was unprotected. There were numerous articles arguing that IT was nearly as good as Kyrie and when you throw in a pick that could end up a top three it was argued that the Cavs got the better deal. In retrospect the Celts are the winners, IT has yet to prove he can be an impact player and the Nets pick wasn't that high. At the time, however, there were definitely plenty of people that thought the Cavs won the trade.
Was just going to post thing.  In fact, I am fairly certain that the majority of celtic fans thought we lost the trade.  The big topic that week was that IT was just as good, if not better than Kyrie.

Offline jpotter33

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26967
  • Tommy Points: 93
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.

For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.

Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.

For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.

He did, though.

Quote
But while dealing Thomas for Irving was the right move for the Celtics, it's the Cavaliers who have come away victorious one year later.

Quote
Trading Irving and getting three starters back was huge for Cleveland and has made them winners of this now-infamous deal.

Now, I'll admit he made some good points & if Kyrie walks & Sexton takes off as talent, then it certainly leaves the door open for those to argue that CLE won the deal.  However, as it stands right now, its really tough to say with a straight face that CLE has won the deal.

It took CLE realizing that acquiring IT4 was a horrible idea & pivoting to subsequently trade to put them in a better situation going forward.

I guess I felt like he hedged those comments. It was sloppy writing, but I thought he hedged by saying the Cs won the trade too.

I should also note that the subtitle on the Home page and Celtics page literally says, “Why the Cavs, not the Celtics, Won the Kyrie Trade.” Lol So I think the guy’s biased perspective is pretty clear. He paints a really rosy picture of Cleveland’s perspective with an equally pessimistic picture of Boston’s perspective.
Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

Re: Bleacher Report: Why Tatum is overhyped
« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2018, 08:42:31 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Did the Kyrie trade anger LeBron causing him to ultimately decide to sign in LA? If that trade made up LeBron's mind that Cleveland management wasn't serious about winning more titles causing him to go to the Lakers, then Cleveland lost that trade big time.

Offline Yb2

  • Terry Rozier
  • Posts: 53
  • Tommy Points: 4
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.

One little caveat on the Thomas trade to the Lakers. If it wasn’t for the chance to acquire LeBron, the Lakers would have never made that deal. Magic was trying to get rid of contracts that were for more than one year and was hoping to acquire a would be free agent. I’m sure LeBron was going to LA, one way or another, but the allure of being able to possibly play with another max guy may have tipped the scales in LA’s favor over Cleveland. I guess the question then becomes, did the Thomas trade make LeBron’s decision easier because of the additional cap space that the Lakers had to play with?

Didn’t we acquire IT using CLE draft pick we got for facilitating lebron,s return to CLE?
We can slso go back and revisit old trades to grade the KI IT trade

Re: Bleacher Report: Why Tatum is overhyped
« Reply #58 on: August 31, 2018, 11:03:14 AM »

Offline cman88

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3290
  • Tommy Points: 232
A 19y/o rookie leading the team in scoring to the 7th game of the ECF going toe to toe with the best player in the world in Lebron james shouldnt be "overhyped"

in his first year, Tatum realized not only does he belong in the NBA, but that he can dominate and take over a game. He already has every offensive move. One would think the more he improves and gets stronger and realizes this he will be a monster offensively.

The player whom is overhyped however is Ben simmons...whom for whatever reason has been coddled by the media all season and then faded into oblivion in the second round when he came up against the celtics.

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7386
  • Tommy Points: 766
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success

This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
That's not really true. There were many who thought the Celts gave up too much. At the time the extent of IT's injury was not known and the Nets pick was unprotected. There were numerous articles arguing that IT was nearly as good as Kyrie and when you throw in a pick that could end up a top three it was argued that the Cavs got the better deal. In retrospect the Celts are the winners, IT has yet to prove he can be an impact player and the Nets pick wasn't that high. At the time, however, there were definitely plenty of people that thought the Cavs won the trade.

Yep. This wasn't just the board not liking this trade. The media said we lost it. Some said it wasn't bad for either side.
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)