Dukies in the NBA 2019-20

[DukieInBrasil]

Ingram is an All-Star; Tatum may be a superstar. He's already one of the best DEFENSIVE players in the league, and his scoring ability is top 25 right now.

I don't think Ingram can surpass Tatum at this point and I think Ingram has tons of potential left. But Tatum's ceiling is absurd and he's dropping 30-40 points on some of the best defenders in the league.

Ingram's defensive potential is no lower than Tatum's, although his discipline to playing defense is not as strong as Tatum's. Ingram's length gives him the potential to bother players in ways that Tatum doesn't, but he still needs to get stronger to be more of a defensive force. It would also be helpful if Tatum played on a team that valued defense.
I agree that right now Tatum is the more impressive NBA player, but i wouldn't say that Tatum is un-passable. If Tatum's game continues to grow the way it has then he seems like a sure-fire all-NBA type player. However, Ingram's game has grown just as much (if not more) than Tatum's, at least on offense. I think you're right though, that defense is what really separates them at the moment.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Ingram's defensive potential is no lower than Tatum's, although his discipline to playing defense is not as strong as Tatum's. Ingram's length gives him the potential to bother players in ways that Tatum doesn't, but he still needs to get stronger to be more of a defensive force. It would also be helpful if Tatum played on a team that valued defense.
I agree that right now Tatum is the more impressive NBA player, but i wouldn't say that Tatum is un-passable. If Tatum's game continues to grow the way it has then he seems like a sure-fire all-NBA type player. However, Ingram's game has grown just as much (if not more) than Tatum's, at least on offense. I think you're right though, that defense is what really separates them at the moment.

Tatum just got Eastern Conference Player of the Month. Only one other Dukie has ever gotten that honor (Grant Hill, Jan 1997).

It's not just the strength that separates Ingram and Tatum on defense; it's the anticipation and the versatility. Tatum can guard 1-4 and doesn't take a lot of unnecessary risks. He also has sunk his teeth into playing defense, something that everyone on the Pelicans sans Jrue Holiday cannot say.

To me, Ingram isn't even in the same conversation as Tatum. Yes, I am a Bostonian who loves the Celtics, but Tatum's incredible leap in the last month has separated himself from all other Dukies playing right now. Zion is a beast, but there are too many holes in his game right now (and rightly so. He's a rookie!). Ingram had much better improvement from last year to this year, and his passing is currently better than Tatum, but he's never had anywhere near month than Tatum just had.

Duke is so spoiled right now. Next year, Duke should have 3 shoo-in All-Stars, assuming health: Kyrie, Tatum, and Zion. I think Ingram is more likely than not an All-Star, but the Pelicans will have to have a winning record to have 2 All-Stars. And this doesn't take into account Bagley or RJ (and to a much, much lesser extent Carter, Cam, and Kennard) who can easily become All-Stars with more experience.

[bundabergdevil]

Tatum just got Eastern Conference Player of the Month. Only one other Dukie has ever gotten that honor (Grant Hill, Jan 1997).

It's not just the strength that separates Ingram and Tatum on defense; it's the anticipation and the versatility. Tatum can guard 1-4 and doesn't take a lot of unnecessary risks. He also has sunk his teeth into playing defense, something that everyone on the Pelicans sans Jrue Holiday cannot say.

To me, Ingram isn't even in the same conversation as Tatum. Yes, I am a Bostonian who loves the Celtics, but Tatum's incredible leap in the last month has separated himself from all other Dukies playing right now. Zion is a beast, but there are too many holes in his game right now (and rightly so. He's a rookie!). Ingram had much better improvement from last year to this year, and his passing is currently better than Tatum, but he's never had anywhere near month than Tatum just had.

Duke is so spoiled right now. Next year, Duke should have 3 shoo-in All-Stars, assuming health: Kyrie, Tatum, and Zion. I think Ingram is more likely than not an All-Star, but the Pelicans will have to have a winning record to have 2 All-Stars. And this doesn't take into account Bagley or RJ (and to a much, much lesser extent Carter, Cam, and Kennard) who can easily become All-Stars with more experience.

Hear an interesting debate on sports radio yesterday that for most years in the NBA, the best player is also the most marketable player but that sometimes those two diverge. They made the case that Zion was going to be the absolute most marketable player within the next 3-5 years (assuming LBJ has retired by then) but that he wouldn't be the best. Now, you can define 'best' any way you want but the definition that they ended up with was, "the guy most likely to get you the championship".

Interesting thought and I could argue that with Zion depending on how his skills progress. I'd put forth that for several years he was in the league, AI was its most marketable player (by far) but never its best. I'd also argue that while Duncan was in the league, he was frequently it's best but never it's most marketable.

The discussion of Tatum, Luka, etc spurred the thought.

[Billy Dat]

Cam makes Zach Lowe's "10 Things" column, for good reasons, not bad.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...itle-favorites

[Steven43]

Hear an interesting debate on sports radio yesterday that for most years in the NBA, the best player is also the most marketable player but that sometimes those two diverge. They made the case that Zion was going to be the absolute most marketable player within the next 3-5 years (assuming LBJ has retired by then) but that he wouldn't be the best. Now, you can define 'best' any way you want but the definition that they ended up with was, "the guy most likely to get you the championship".

Interesting thought and I could argue that with Zion depending on how his skills progress. I'd put forth that for several years he was in the league, AI was its most marketable player (by far) but never its best. I'd also argue that while Duncan was in the league, he was frequently it's best but never it's most marketable.

The discussion of Tatum, Luka, etc spurred the thought.

Kawhi Leonard has quite possibly been the best overall player in the NBA for the past 3-4 seasons, yet he is not very marketable at all.

[Kdogg]

Same applies to Tim Duncan for part of his career but it’s harder for big man and he really didn’t want to to it.

[Owen Meany]

Cam with 28 on 5/7 3's and 11/17 the in 6 point loss to Wizards.

[Furniture]

Cam with 28 on 5/7 3's and 11/17 the in 6 point loss to Wizards.

in 29 minutes...

[bundabergdevil]

Over at The Ringer, they have a "How Jayson Tatum Became a Superstar" article up. I agree he's on his way but I don't think he's quite there yet. Let me rephrase: he's been playing like a superstar lately but he needs to keep it up on a sustained basis for a while before I'd label him a superstar. Simmons, The Ringer's owner and Bostonian, has been really pushing the narrative though.

[sagegrouse]

Over at The Ringer, they have a "How Jayson Tatum Became a Superstar" article up. I agree he's on his way but I don't think he's quite there yet. Let me rephrase: he's been playing like a superstar lately but he needs to keep it up on a sustained basis for a while before I'd label him a superstar. Simmons, The Ringer's owner and Bostonian, has been really pushing the narrative though.

Idle and probably idiotic comment from an old guy:

I remember when I first saw the term "superstar." It was an article in the late 1950's in the local rag, probably an AP feature, that introduced the new concept. It referred to sports stars who were way above everyone else and not only household names but widely admired. The article said there were two -- Stan the Man Musial and the Splendid Splinter, Ted Williams. There were others approaching superstar status but weren't there yet -- I remember Mantle and Mays being two of those. Hey, it was an era when baseball was king, the NFL was just emerging, and the NBA was a fledgling sports enterprise.

Jayson Tatum, superstar? You gotta be kidding! Better than the rest of sports stars, household name, widely admired -- that's zero for three. The word "star" is just fine.

By that very narrow but exalted definition who would be superstars today? LeBron, Brady for sure. Curry is close -- Giannis is on the path. Other NFL QB's maybe. Not sure if there are any baseball players who really are so prominent today, but I'll give it a thought.

Anyway, as I said, idle and probably idiotic comment.

[Billy Dat]

Kenny Atkinson shockingly out as Nets coach and Kyrie seems to be in the mix as a culprit

https://sports.yahoo.com/kenny-atkin...014215773.html

[bundabergdevil]

Idle and probably idiotic comment from an old guy:

I remember when I first saw the term "superstar." It was an article in the late 1950's in the local rag, probably an AP feature, that introduced the new concept. It referred to sports stars who were way above everyone else and not only household names but widely admired. The article said there were two -- Stan the Man Musial and the Splendid Splinter, Ted Williams. There were others approaching superstar status but weren't there yet -- I remember Mantle and Mays being two of those. Hey, it was an era when baseball was king, the NFL was just emerging, and the NBA was a fledgling sports enterprise.

Jayson Tatum, superstar? You gotta be kidding! Better than the rest of sports stars, household name, widely admired -- that's zero for three. The word "star" is just fine.

By that very narrow but exalted definition who would be superstars today? LeBron, Brady for sure. Curry is close -- Giannis is on the path. Other NFL QB's maybe. Not sure if there are any baseball players who really are so prominent today, but I'll give it a thought.

Anyway, as I said, idle and probably idiotic comment.

I could subscribe to your newsletter. Lots of terms have become overused so as to neuter them of their oomph.


I do think Tatum has made a leap though and is playing some of the best basketball in the league.

[DukieInBrasil]

Saw a kid in a deep campo town in Peru called Caracucho in an Irving Celtics' jersey. Kyrie's influence is vast.
If you're ever just casually in the area, there is a lovely hike to a lovely waterfall and swimming hole (perol), with a second perol that is 6m (~20ft) deep with a 25ft vertical cliff above it from which one can dive in.

[budwom]

I think the terms "star" and "superstar" have obviously been grotesquely over used.

As a non sports example, if you watch any TV series, you will often see a list of "guest stars" in the opening credits, the vast majority of whom I bet you've never ever heard of. I guess I'd call them "guest actors" or something.

[jimsumner]

Idle and probably idiotic comment from an old guy:

I remember when I first saw the term "superstar." It was an article in the late 1950's in the local rag, probably an AP feature, that introduced the new concept. It referred to sports stars who were way above everyone else and not only household names but widely admired. The article said there were two -- Stan the Man Musial and the Splendid Splinter, Ted Williams. There were others approaching superstar status but weren't there yet -- I remember Mantle and Mays being two of those. Hey, it was an era when baseball was king, the NFL was just emerging, and the NBA was a fledgling sports enterprise.

Jayson Tatum, superstar? You gotta be kidding! Better than the rest of sports stars, household name, widely admired -- that's zero for three. The word "star" is just fine.

By that very narrow but exalted definition who would be superstars today? LeBron, Brady for sure. Curry is close -- Giannis is on the path. Other NFL QB's maybe. Not sure if there are any baseball players who really are so prominent today, but I'll give it a thought.

Anyway, as I said, idle and probably idiotic comment.

If Mike Trout is not a superstar then I'm not sure any baseball player outside the NYC media market will ever again be considered a superstar.

[sagegrouse]

If Mike Trout is not a superstar then I'm not sure any baseball player outside the NYC media market will ever again be considered a superstar.

Boy, for a great player, he is "under the radar." I suppose Bryce Harper is a candidate -- star power, but not the performance level of Trout. I should have mentioned Zion as a potential superstar, given the pub and the performance so far. -- but that is way too much pressure on a 19 YO. From the NBA there's Yao Ming and Kobe and Shaq -- all gone from the scene, but deserving ...

[jv001]

Boy, for a great player, he is "under the radar." I suppose Bryce Harper is a candidate -- star power, but not the performance level of Trout. I should have mentioned Zion as a potential superstar, given the pub and the performance so far. -- but that is way too much pressure on a 19 YO. From the NBA there's Yao Ming and Kobe and Shaq -- all gone from the scene, but deserving ...

If Mike Trout played on the East coast, he'd be the most right up there with Tom Brady as far as being famous. Playing on the west coast doesn't help Trout at all and he's the best baseball player in the majors right now and that's coming from this Cardinal fan.

GoDuke!

[COYS]

If Mike Trout played on the East coast, he'd be the most right up there with Tom Brady as far as being famous. Playing on the west coast doesn't help Trout at all and he's the best baseball player in the majors right now and that's coming from this Cardinal fan.

GoDuke!

He will go down as the best baseball player ever if he keeps up his current pace of production. He’s already accumulated enough WAR to be in the Hall of Fame, which is mind-boggling to me. I’m a Braves fan, but I record any nationally televised Angels game just so I can tell my kid that I watched Trout every chance I got.

With Shohei Ohtani as his teammate on the Angels and lot of international eyes on that team, I think Trout is probably closer to the traditional definition of superstar than we think, just not quite as much in USA pop culture.

I do think the term superstar is thrown around a little too much, but it’s certainly within reach of a guy like Tatum because the NBA brings a lot of visibility to individuals and the Celtics are good enough that winning a championship and perhaps an MVP aren’t out of the realm of possibility, even if he still needs to improve a bit more to reach those lofty heights.

[dukelifer]

If Mike Trout is not a superstar then I'm not sure any baseball player outside the NYC media market will ever again be considered a superstar.

But I wonder how many people could pick him out of a lineup. He is one of best players ever and could walk down the street of almost any city and probably not be recognized.

[sagegrouse]

But I wonder how many people could pick him out of a lineup. He is one of best players ever and could walk down the street of almost any city and probably not be recognized.

Best player ever and "superstar" are different criteria -- "star" implies well-known and widely admired. "Superstar" a lot more of the same. I expect later in his career Mike Trout will get the attention he deserves.

BTW, way back up this thread I failed to mention one obvious candidate to be a future superstar, along w/ LeBron, Shaq, Kobe -- it's Zion. He seems to be the most watched player in the league, even though he is not necessarily playing at an All-NBA level. That will come, I predict.