What Does Boston’s 2024 Title Mean for Tatum’s Superstar Case?
Originally posted to X on June 9, 2024
Boston as a team deserves praise (Brad Stevens, Joe Mazzulla, etc.) thanks to roster construction, role specialization, egalitarian schematics, and buy-in from everyone. The Celtics without Tatum tonight in Game 5 would've had a closer impact on the Mavericks’ winning odds to without Jrue or Brown than we think. This holds true for no Porzingis in Game 1 of the finals. Why?
Tatum doesn't play a superstar role. It's a fact and an intentional one to best help the team win a title. Boston has largely needed him most to be a “spaced-out Aaron Gordon” who magnetizes opponents’ best point of attack defender off of Brown and others as they heat up. Now could he play a role more akin to what we see from verified superstars? It's up for debate and why the narrative I’m describing is brewing.
Tatum also hasn't “delivered” enough superstar play when given opportunities to do so these playoffs. If Brown doesn’t send Game 1 of the ECF to OT with his heroic corner three, many of us would still be talking about his poor clutch shooting to end the fourth quarter. He’s demonstrated stronger trust in Boston’s offensive model composed of relentless drives and kicks, limiting his isolation looks that disrupt said model’s flow, but when said flow inevitably stagnates late in close games, Tatum’s shotmaking has been wildly inconsistent. Granted the Celtics haven’t allowed many such opportunities thanks to its dominant roster and apparatus, but these are textbook superstar at-bats. Moreover, they are lower-risk ones considering the firepower he’s flanked with to nonetheless white out his misses with makes (like Game 1 of ECF).
So where does that render Tatum? A star player who finished sixth in MVP voting in the regular season, entered the playoffs with the most reduced role by far of any contending superstar, and then still underperformed offensively relative to adjusted superstar expectations. To be clear, I recognize his impact on both ends of the court transcends the simple box score (offensive gravity, defensive containment on switches, and so on), but that doesn’t mean box score shortcoming cannot be spotlighted.
My point is we’ve seen enough to justifiably question how well he could deliver as a superstar on a team sporting less domineering talent being utilized in an egalitarian (and still domineering) way. If folks agree with that argument, then I fear the inevitable limit of discussion becomes "I guess we’d have to see him in a different environment to truly know, huh” not dissimilar to public discourse surrounding Durant before the end of his Warriors tenure.
We owe it to verified superstars and fellow stars to be extra careful when positioning Tatum in the talent hierarchy of league. In the meantime, the basketball world should view Brad Stevens and the engineers behind this incredible Celtic system as primary culprits for its success.
