He's had more experience and gotten farther than other players his age?So what is your takeaway from that?
IIRC, he's second to Kobe in playoff points scored through his age 23 season. It took other stars to get into their mid to late 20's to win titles. Maybe that pays dividends down the road, maybe it doesn't. I guess it depends on whether people think that players play better and win more once they get to their prime years.
It's probably not as cut and dried as comparing Tatum to other 23-year-old players, as roster construction plays a big role in who wins and who doesn't. Part of what is being left out of the analysis so far has been that other players in the league didn't advance as far as the Celtics the past few seasons. That begs the question, which players had better seasons? The younger ones that get bounced out of the playoffs in the first and second round year after year, or the ones that get to the conference finals or finals and then lost?
It's a similar argument that went on in the Shark Pool many times. Which was a better accomplishment? Going 4-0 in Super Bowls with multiple first round exits (Montana) . . . or going 7-3 in Super Bowls with not many first-round exits (Brady)? IMO, the right answer is getting to more SB's and losing, as Brady had to win more games to then lose in the title game. I don't think players should get more credit for losing earlier and not advancing.
Part of the reason many people picked GS in the finals was for their experience. Many of the Boston players haven't hit their primes yet, so with more maturity and more experience it seems reasonable to think they will avoid the dumb mistakes and turnovers that cost them this time around.