Everything 2017 Off-Season

[Mess]

I get that we don't like Boston, but we also need to have some objectivity and basic understanding of the capabilities of our rival team's players.

Nah.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

2011-12 Heat:
Bosh without LeBron: +6.9 net rating
Miami without both Bosh and LeBron: -16.4 net rating
Wade without LeBron: -1.0 net rating
Miami without both Wade and LeBron: -3.0 net rating
Miami without all three: -15.0 net rating

Notice how the team is far better with Wade or Bosh out there, even without LeBron, than they are without any one of them, or both of them?

2016-17 Cavs:
Irving without LeBron: -8.0 net rating
Cavs without both Irving and LeBron: -9.0 net rating

Notice how the Cavs putting out lineups with neither of Irving/LBJ is pretty much exactly as effective as putting Irving out there without LeBron?

So would you argue that DeRozan contributes to losing not winning then? Btw what are you using on NBA.com to get stats with multiple players off the floor?

DeRozan's on-off numbers are even worse than Kyrie's. The Raptors are actually +5 with him OFF the floor relative to on. At least in Kyrie's case the team is about +6 in netRTG with him on the court as opposed to off.

Also there's a bit of fallacy in that example you used. Because in those minutes when Kyrie and LeBron are both off the floor Love could be on. So what are the numbers when all 3 of them are off like you used with Wade+Bosh.

[tDotted]

Kyrie could only dream of leading a team as the lone allstar to a 14-7 record

[DanH]

So would you argue that DeRozan contributes to losing not winning then? Btw what are you using on NBA.com to get stats with multiple players off the floor?

DeRozan's on-off numbers are even worse than Kyrie's. The Raptors are actually +5 with him OFF the floor relative to on. At least in Kyrie's case the team is about +6 in netRTG with him on the court as opposed to off.

Also there's a bit of fallacy in that example you used. Because in those minutes when Kyrie and LeBron are both off the floor Love could be on. So what are the numbers when all 3 of them are off like you used with Wade+Bosh.

I'm doing the math myself, because NBA.com only put in their impact tool this season, and NBAwowy only goes back to 2014.

DeMar's a guy who is very, very comparable to Irving. I'd never, ever want either of those guys to be the bets player on my team, though either could still improve to a point where I would, though it would have to be a dramatic improvement from either of them. They can serve a purpose, absorbing heavy offensive usage (a skill set that is necessary on most teams, but is not a direct driver for winning). But if you rely on either to be your primary driver of wins, you won't be a good team. And the correlation is actually a little unkind to DeRozan - he still manages to keep the team afloat (roughly break even net rating) without Lowry. The Cavs fall through the floor without LeBron.

Ah, so you consider Kevin Love to be an equivalent star to Irving? I showed both Wade and Bosh because I considered them equally impactful. In any case, that may be too generous a description for Irving...

2016-17 Cavs:
Irving without LeBron: -8.0 net rating
Cavs without both Irving and LeBron: -9.0 net rating
Love without LeBron: +1.1 net rating
Cavs without both Love and LeBron: -13.7 net rating
Cavs without all three: -8.0 net rating

Oh, would you look at that. Love by himself seems to be quite capable of lifting the team to success well above what the pure bench and Irving led lineups can manage. And removing all three stars yields literally identical results to when they leave Irving out there. Hmm, whatever could it all mean.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

I'm doing the math myself, because NBA.com only put in their impact tool this season, and NBAwowy only goes back to 2014.

DeMar's a guy who is very, very comparable to Irving. I'd never, ever want either of those guys to be the bets player on my team, though either could still improve to a point where I would, though it would have to be a dramatic improvement from either of them. They can serve a purpose, absorbing heavy offensive usage (a skill set that is necessary on most teams, but is not a direct driver for winning). But if you rely on either to be your primary driver of wins, you won't be a good team. And the correlation is actually a little unkind to DeRozan - he still manages to keep the team afloat (roughly break even net rating) without Lowry. The Cavs fall through the floor without LeBron.

Ah, so you consider Kevin Love to be an equivalent star to Irving? I showed both Wade and Bosh because I considered them equally impactful. In any case, that may be too generous a description for Irving...

2016-17 Cavs:
Irving without LeBron: -8.0 net rating
Cavs without both Irving and LeBron: -9.0 net rating
Love without LeBron: +1.1 net rating
Cavs without both Love and LeBron: -13.7 net rating
Cavs without all three: -8.0 net rating

Oh, would you look at that. Love by himself seems to be quite capable of lifting the team to success well above what the pure bench and Irving led lineups can manage. And removing all three stars yields literally identical results to when they leave Irving out there. Hmm, whatever could it all mean.

So your conclusion from this is that Kyrie contributes to losing not winning? Just checking, because that's what we're debating right now. Not whether we want Kyrie as the #1 player on our team.

[tDotted]

So your conclusion from this is that Kyrie contributes to losing not winning? Just checking, because that's what we're debating right now. Not whether we want Kyrie as the #1 player on our team.

It's the same debate. The comment was made because Kyrie hasn't been a capable, winning #1 for any stretch of games in his NBA career.

Not sure why you're getting so hung up on it.

[DanH]

So your conclusion from this is that Kyrie contributes to losing not winning? Just checking, because that's what we're debating right now. Not whether we want Kyrie as the #1 player on our team.

My conclusion is that there is very little evidence that Kyrie is a player that contributes to winning and not losing.

I mean, it all depends on your definitions. If you are taking a win share approach, then even the worst players in the league contribute to some winning to some degree. He obviously meets that criteria. But the obvious line to draw is whether he contributes to winning at an above average rate - below average meaning a team made up of that player would have a below-.500 record - or a "losing" record. I think it's questionable whether he manages an above average contribution. I do think he ends up above that line, but when a guy has the reputation of a superstar, then the fact that it's a question at all is condemnation enough. And it makes it perfectly fair for someone to make the accusation and the discussion to be had.

I think it's also worth noting that there have been discussions about whether you'd want him as the number one guy on your team (which is essentially what BOS is doing by trading a significant package for him) very recently, and that this discussion seems to make that one look ridiculous.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

Alright going to leave it there, this discussion isn't really progressing. What I took issue with was saying that Kyrie contributes to losing not winning when that's simply not true.

This discussion only makes the previous one look ridiculous because a ridiculous stance was taken, argued, and supported by the majority of the site because people don't like Boston or Irving here. That's fine though, there will be no convincing of the opposite so there's almost no point in me trying anymore. I'll allow people to continue to think that Kyrie is a negative player that hurts, not helps your team and that Boston is not going to be any remote threat to us next year and is a trash team.

[MixxAOR]

Thank you for allowing us to think.

[DanH]

Alright going to leave it there, this discussion isn't really progressing. What I took issue with was saying that Kyrie contributes to losing not winning when that's simply not true.

This discussion only makes the previous one look ridiculous because a ridiculous stance was taken, argued, and supported by the majority of the site because people don't like Boston or Irving here. That's fine though, there will be no convincing of the opposite so there's almost no point in me trying anymore. I'll allow people to continue to think that Kyrie is a negative player that hurts, not helps your team and that Boston is not going to be any remote threat to us next year and is a trash team.

There will be no convincing of the opposite because you've yet to provide a single remotely convincing argument.

Man alive. People disagree with you, so they must be biased. They are blind to the superior wisdom you provide for them. Never mind any actual arguments made on either side. People don't like Irving? Oh, Raptors homers who don't like Boston. Anyone disagrees with you on JV? Oh, JV fanboys. People think Powell should start, and will be fine at SF? Madness, silly Raptors homers who can see no flaws with their darling team.

It's the end of every discussion with you. It's annoying, but mostly because it's getting so predictable.

[rocwell]

[007]

Is Kyrie going to be the #1 guy, or is it going to be Hayward?

[Shaolin Fantastic]

Is Kyrie going to be the #1 guy, or is it going to be Hayward?

Kyrie will likely lead the team in scoring and usage, Hayward might be the higher impact player for the team though. Stevens runs a more holistic offense than we do though. There might be a "guy" but other people are still getting involved, getting touches and helping out the team offensively and defensively.

[KHD]

There will be no convincing of the opposite because you've yet to provide a single remotely convincing argument.

Man alive. People disagree with you, so they must be biased. They are blind to the superior wisdom you provide for them. Never mind any actual arguments made on either side. People don't like Irving? Oh, Raptors homers who don't like Boston. Anyone disagrees with you on JV? Oh, JV fanboys. People think Powell should start, and will be fine at SF? Madness, silly Raptors homers who can see no flaws with their darling team.

It's the end of every discussion with you. It's annoying, but mostly because it's getting so predictable.

starting to think Shaolin is Lewro

[Shaolin Fantastic]

starting to think Shaolin is Lewro

I was posting here while Lewro was here (and eventually got banned) and I also sent him a PM at one point, so no I'm not Lewro.