Kyrie Irving

[Sir John]

Agreed.


I appreciate the stats, Sir John -- but I disagree with how they're being used here. Age comparisons can be useful, but they can also be misleading. You're comparing a 3 year vet to a rookie, which is just as pointless today as it was when people were doing it with LeBron. Of course the 3 year vet should be better -- he had a 2 year head start! Even Durant and LeBron struggled as rookies.


Agreed.


Strongly disagree here. Curry's growth curve clearly demonstrates why he's the player he is today. He's improved little by little each season. Irving has shown very little growth curve, which is why I'm not nearly as hopeful as you are about him ever reaching Curry's level. Many players reach the level Irving's at; only a select few reach the level Curry's currently at.

Curry (WS/48)

2010 .077
2011 .128
2012 .144
2013 .180
2014 .225

Irving (WS/48)

2012 .125
2013 .125
2014 .128

Curry (RAPM)

2010 -2.22
2011 -0.33
2012 1.45
2013 2.52
2014 3.84

Irving (RAPM)

2012 -3.09
2013 -2.07
2014 -1.39

Also, Kyrie's TS% has gone down each season, while Curry's has gone up. Kyrie's PER/USG ratio has also gone down each season, while Curry's has gone up.

With partial exception to RAPM, none of these are positive trends for Kyrie.

It's you who are manipulating stats -- and in doing so have not only lost sight of your point but actually disproven it. I'd go so far as to say that's clear to everyone but...you. Assuming you're sincere and not merely trolling, I'll try one last time:


1. There is no way to make a strict apples to apples comparison in the sense you're requesting. It's literally impossible as they came into the league at different ages. What we can do -- the only objective, statistical tool we have available -- is normalize against not the start of their careers but their ages -- and what we know constitutes peak-NBA age years (historically 25-28 years old on average).

2. Everything you're claiming is based on your personal beliefs and interpretative claims. That's the key thing you have to see and understand. Your claims aren't factual, they're your personal theories. Yet you continue to pretend these beliefs are based on something objective. That's what I -- and others -- are trying to disabuse you of. You're perfectly welcome to believe what you want -- and considering we're talking about making future predictions, in a certain sense, it could even be said that there's a 50/50 coin toss' chance you'll be correct. But it won't be because the facts say a particular thing, it'll be because chance broke that way.

3. That's why different posters have shown you different facts, stats, and perspectives for your continuously moving claims. We're trying to help you understand the difference between facts and beliefs. You started and respond by claiming certain "facts" and others respond with equal (or better) counter-facts. The point is not to claim or prove that you are definitely wrong (who knows, maybe Kyrie won't become a great player, I have no idea), it's to show you that you're pretending to make factual, knowledge-based claims when they are really beliefs and opinions.

4. Another thing we're responding to is the shady and hazy way you move the goal posts. Kramer gives a set of stats that indicate the opposite of your claim so you brush them aside as "empty" and that what you really care about is "winning" (never mind that your initial made no such mention). I or others give you stats in Win Shares -- a system tied to trying to parcel out contributions to winning -- and you come up with twists and dodges about how they aren't good enough.

5. That might be a perfectly fine line of criticism IF there were better alternatives but that's just the point. Whenever you get tied down, you try to wiggle out of it by asking for things that literally cannot and do not exist. There's no way to give you what you now ask for. You can't supply it either.

That there exists no set of facts that could disprove your claim -- I don't mean because they haven't been generated but because by your definition they are impossible to produce even at a theoretical level -- is point-blank proof that you're mistaking your personal, metaphysical beliefs about Kyrie as something factual. If it can't be falsified then it's a metaphysical not factual/scientific claim.


Now, specific to what you wrote above:

6. Of course we all know about Kyrie's "trend line." (It's debatable whether you can call something that happened one time a trend but let's put that aside.) I myself referenced it 2, 3 times in my post. You are not adding new information in your response. What you're doing is making a metaphysical claim: that a 21/22 year old player who regresses for one season early in his career cannot recover, cannot by say, age 26 become a player at the level of, say, Steph Curry. It's a belief, an opinion, a projection.

7. For that matter, it's actually a falsifiable belief/opinion. Kobe, for example, regressed between his second and third years (that is, he was better in his second year than his third), then, obviously, took off to the stratosphere. Tony Parker plateaued during his 3-4 years, then took off, then fell back between years 6-7, then took off again. DeMar DeRozan regressed for two straight season. He was better his rookie year than his second. His third year was even worse than his second. Then he turned it around and this past season, was an All-Star. Kevin Durant went backwards between seasons 3-4, now he's league MVP.

I could give you scores, perhaps hundreds of examples, but I can't do all you're learning for you but spend a little time doing some research at basketball reference.

The point of this little exercise: NBA player growth is not always linear. Theory (that was never a fact): debunked.


So that's what we're trying to explain to you using one example after another: you are repeatedly confusing your personal beliefs/theories with facts and then presenting them as such. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion -- it's got about a 50/50 shot of coming true -- but you have to recognize it for what it is and stop pretending it's something it's not. Otherwise, no one is going to listen to you, care what you say, or respect your point of view. Get it?

 

[CavsFTW]

Lol... So Andy is the Cavs best player and Stephen Curry is better than Kevin Love? Got it.

Can't argue with the blind. Good day.

When Andy steps on the floor he improves both the offense AND defense. Irving improves the offense, but at great expense to the defense -- which is I don't view him as the Cavs best player.

Curry's the best player on his team and led them to the playoffs in the stacked West. Love missed the playoffs, but that's not entirely his fault. They're both top 10 players. To suggest that Love is notably better than Curry is merely your opinion; an incorrect opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

 

[Cashius X]

Lol... So Andy is the Cavs best player and Stephen Curry is better than Kevin Love? Got it.

Can't argue with the blind. Good day.

Andy being better than Kyrie is ridiculous but I actually do think that Steph is better than Kevin Love.

 

[CavsFan87]

It's you who are manipulating stats -- and in doing so have not only lost sight of your point but actually disproven it. I'd go so far as to say that's clear to everyone but...you. Assuming you're sincere and not merely trolling, I'll try one last time:


1. There is no way to make a strict apples to apples comparison in the sense you're requesting. It's literally impossible as they came into the league at different ages. What we can do -- the only objective, statistical tool we have available -- is normalize against not the start of their careers but their ages -- and what we know constitutes peak-NBA age years (historically 25-28 years old on average).

2. Everything you're claiming is based on your personal beliefs and interpretative claims. That's the key thing you have to see and understand. Your claims aren't factual, they're your personal theories. Yet you continue to pretend these beliefs are based on something objective. That's what I -- and others -- are trying to disabuse you of. You're perfectly welcome to believe what you want -- and considering we're talking about making future predictions, in a certain sense, it could even be said that there's a 50/50 coin toss' chance you'll be correct. But it won't be because the facts say a particular thing, it'll be because chance broke that way.

3. That's why different posters have shown you different facts, stats, and perspectives for your continuously moving claims. We're trying to help you understand the difference between facts and beliefs. You started and respond by claiming certain "facts" and others respond with equal (or better) counter-facts. The point is not to claim or prove that you are definitely wrong (who knows, maybe Kyrie won't become a great player, I have no idea), it's to show you that you're pretending to make factual, knowledge-based claims when they are really beliefs and opinions.

4. Another thing we're responding to is the shady and hazy way you move the goal posts. Kramer gives a set of stats that indicate the opposite of your claim so you brush them aside as "empty" and that what you really care about is "winning" (never mind that your initial made no such mention). I or others give you stats in Win Shares -- a system tied to trying to parcel out contributions to winning -- and you come up with twists and dodges about how they aren't good enough.

5. That might be a perfectly fine line of criticism IF there were better alternatives but that's just the point. Whenever you get tied down, you try to wiggle out of it by asking for things that literally cannot and do not exist. There's no way to give you what you now ask for. You can't supply it either.

That there exists no set of facts that could disprove your claim -- I don't mean because they haven't been generated but because by your definition they are impossible to produce even at a theoretical level -- is point-blank proof that you're mistaking your personal, metaphysical beliefs about Kyrie as something factual. If it can't be falsified then it's a metaphysical not factual/scientific claim.


Now, specific to what you wrote above:

6. Of course we all know about Kyrie's "trend line." (It's debatable whether you can call something that happened one time a trend but let's put that aside.) I myself referenced it 2, 3 times in my post. You are not adding new information in your response. What you're doing is making a metaphysical claim: that a 21/22 year old player who regresses for one season early in his career cannot recover, cannot by say, age 26 become a player at the level of, say, Steph Curry. It's a belief, an opinion, a projection.

7. For that matter, it's actually a falsifiable belief/opinion. Kobe, for example, regressed between his second and third years (that is, he was better in his second year than his third), then, obviously, took off to the stratosphere. Tony Parker plateaued during his 3-4 years, then took off, then fell back between years 6-7, then took off again. DeMar DeRozan regressed for two straight season. He was better his rookie year than his second. His third year was even worse than his second. Then he turned it around and this past season, was an All-Star. Kevin Durant went backwards between seasons 3-4, now he's league MVP.

I could give you scores, perhaps hundreds of examples, but I can't do all you're learning for you but spend a little time doing some research at basketball reference.

The point of this little exercise: NBA player growth is not always linear. Theory (that was never a fact): debunked.


So that's what we're trying to explain to you using one example after another: you are repeatedly confusing your personal beliefs/theories with facts and then presenting them as such. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion -- it's got about a 50/50 shot of coming true -- but you have to recognize it for what it is and stop pretending it's something it's not. Otherwise, no one is going to listen to you, care what you say, or respect your point of view. Get it?

Seriously though, CavsFTW you've gone from saying Kyrie isn't even in the same boat as Steph Curry, to saying that Andy is our best player. And then in your last post saying "your opinion; an incorrect opinion, but an opinion nonetheless" just shows how biased you are. Why don't you change your nick to "WarriorsFTW", change our avatar to Curry, and stop the act.

 

[CavsFan87]

[video]http://www.nba.com/video/channels/aiming_for_gold/2014/07/31/usab-kyrie-irving-instructional.nba//[/video]

Mastering the art of the layup

 

[CavsFTW]

It's you who are manipulating stats -- and in doing so have not only lost sight of your point but actually disproven it. I'd go so far as to say that's clear to everyone but...you. Assuming you're sincere and not merely trolling, I'll try one last time:


1. There is no way to make a strict apples to apples comparison in the sense you're requesting. It's literally impossible as they came into the league at different ages. What we can do -- the only objective, statistical tool we have available -- is normalize against not the start of their careers but their ages -- and what we know constitutes peak-NBA age years (historically 25-28 years old on average).

2. Everything you're claiming is based on your personal beliefs and interpretative claims. That's the key thing you have to see and understand. Your claims aren't factual, they're your personal theories. Yet you continue to pretend these beliefs are based on something objective. That's what I -- and others -- are trying to disabuse you of. You're perfectly welcome to believe what you want -- and considering we're talking about making future predictions, in a certain sense, it could even be said that there's a 50/50 coin toss' chance you'll be correct. But it won't be because the facts say a particular thing, it'll be because chance broke that way.

3. That's why different posters have shown you different facts, stats, and perspectives for your continuously moving claims. We're trying to help you understand the difference between facts and beliefs. You started and respond by claiming certain "facts" and others respond with equal (or better) counter-facts. The point is not to claim or prove that you are definitely wrong (who knows, maybe Kyrie won't become a great player, I have no idea), it's to show you that you're pretending to make factual, knowledge-based claims when they are really beliefs and opinions.

4. Another thing we're responding to is the shady and hazy way you move the goal posts. Kramer gives a set of stats that indicate the opposite of your claim so you brush them aside as "empty" and that what you really care about is "winning" (never mind that your initial made no such mention). I or others give you stats in Win Shares -- a system tied to trying to parcel out contributions to winning -- and you come up with twists and dodges about how they aren't good enough.

5. That might be a perfectly fine line of criticism IF there were better alternatives but that's just the point. Whenever you get tied down, you try to wiggle out of it by asking for things that literally cannot and do not exist. There's no way to give you what you now ask for. You can't supply it either.

That there exists no set of facts that could disprove your claim -- I don't mean because they haven't been generated but because by your definition they are impossible to produce even at a theoretical level -- is point-blank proof that you're mistaking your personal, metaphysical beliefs about Kyrie as something factual. If it can't be falsified then it's a metaphysical not factual/scientific claim.


Now, specific to what you wrote above:

6. Of course we all know about Kyrie's "trend line." (It's debatable whether you can call something that happened one time a trend but let's put that aside.) I myself referenced it 2, 3 times in my post. You are not adding new information in your response. What you're doing is making a metaphysical claim: that a 21/22 year old player who regresses for one season early in his career cannot recover, cannot by say, age 26 become a player at the level of, say, Steph Curry. It's a belief, an opinion, a projection.

7. For that matter, it's actually a falsifiable belief/opinion. Kobe, for example, regressed between his second and third years (that is, he was better in his second year than his third), then, obviously, took off to the stratosphere. Tony Parker plateaued during his 3-4 years, then took off, then fell back between years 6-7, then took off again. DeMar DeRozan regressed for two straight season. He was better his rookie year than his second. His third year was even worse than his second. Then he turned it around and this past season, was an All-Star. Kevin Durant went backwards between seasons 3-4, now he's league MVP.

I could give you scores, perhaps hundreds of examples, but I can't do all you're learning for you but spend a little time doing some research at basketball reference.

The point of this little exercise: NBA player growth is not always linear. Theory (that was never a fact): debunked.


So that's what we're trying to explain to you using one example after another: you are repeatedly confusing your personal beliefs/theories with facts and then presenting them as such. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion -- it's got about a 50/50 shot of coming true -- but you have to recognize it for what it is and stop pretending it's something it's not. Otherwise, no one is going to listen to you, care what you say, or respect your point of view. Get it?

You can compare a 3 year vet to a rookie, but that doesn't make valid. You did so while stressing the age factor, while completely ignoring the experience factor. Since when did rookies start being held to the standard of a 3 year vet? It made no sense which is why I disagreed.

Curry's growth curve isn't a personal belief; it's a fact. The same goes for Kyrie's plateau. It's hard for you to justify Kyrie's future improvement reaching the level of an elite player when his past has shown very little improvement.

Kramer was the one who posted the box score averages, correct? Irving's box score averages are always above average. In contrast, Shane Battier's box score averages have almost never been above average, yet he's virtually always been an above average player thanks to his defense. The impact Battier makes on his teams does not show up in box scores -- it shows up in the win column. The same could be said about Bruce Bowen, whose career PER is a single digit. How can anyone trust box score averages when they do very little to tell us how a player *impacted* his team? RAPM's the only stat I've seen that properly accounts for the impact of elite defensive wings, and according to that, Irving hasn't shown the rate of improvement one should expect from the next Stephen Curry.

 

[CavsFTW]

Andy being better than Kyrie is ridiculous but I actually do think that Steph is better than Kevin Love.

Why is it ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that Kyrie's offensive impact offsets the horrible team defense when he's on the floor? Also, if Kyrie is so valuable, care to explain why the team didn't miss a beat when he was out?

 

[CavsFan87]

Why is it ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that Kyrie's offensive impact offsets the horrible team defense when he's on the floor? Also, if Kyrie is so valuable, care to explain why the team didn't miss a beat when he was out?

When Kyrie went down for 8 games last year, Cavs went 4 and 4
When Andy went down for 12 games last year, Cavs went 6 and 6

So if going .500% means "not missing a beat" then this is just another failed attempt at an argument (Andy>Kyrie) that you put zero effort into..

 

[CosmoKramer]

RPM: Player's estimated on-court impact on team performance, measured in net point differential per 100 offensive and defensive possessions. RPM takes into account teammates, opponents and additional factors

Kyrie was 42nd ranked PG: http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/2/sort/RPM/position/1

AV was 4th ranked center: http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/9

We're comparing the talent level of two players, and you bring up RPM? Wow. Should have known something like this was coming from the ringleader of the trade Kyrie Irving camp.

RPM tries to measure a player's impact on the court, it's not a measurement of a player's talent or abilities. It should be emphasized that the stat tries to take into account teammates, opponents, and other things like time left in the game- but it's still impossible to create a single all-encompassing like they're trying to do. A player's role on a team just can't be calculated. Formulating their impact against league averages sounds great on paper, but it's never that black and white in the NBA.

ESPN can tell you they figured it out all they want, but it's still a highly imperfect stat. Unless you think Nick Collison is the 2nd most impactful power forward in the league, or that Channing Frye is the 5th most. Patrick Beverly as a top-5 point guard?

How about Draymond Green (5), DeMarre Caroll (6), and Mike Dunleavy (7) all ranking ahead of Carmelo (9) and Kawhi (10) at small forward according to RPM? Would you take Kosta Koufos (22) or Jeff Withey (23) at center over DeMarcus Cousins (24)? Do you think Manu, Vince Carter, and Danny Green are the three best shooting guards in the league? RPM ranks them that way!

So in conclusion, Kyrie (42) might not be as highly ranked as Curry (2) in RPM, but that hardly puts them in two different categories talent-wise.

Win Shares per 48
Kyrie .128
AV .144
Steph Curry .225

I've already touched on this, but listing players by their Win Shares is just a lazy way to try and prove a point. Another stat that isn't an all-encompassing number to prove one player is better than another.

Let's add some more names to your list.

Kyrie .128
AV .144

Tyler Hansbrough .149
D.J. Augustin .154
Drew Gooden .173

Steph Curry .225

To further stop anyone from throwing out more Win Share numbers to prove Kyrie isn't talented, it should be noted Jeff Foster has a higher career WS48 than Grant Hill, Rasheed Wallace, Glen Rice, Deron Williams, Jason Kidd, Chris Webber.... does anyone want to me to continue?

Right NOW Kyrie is NOT in Steph's league as a shooter.

TS%
Steph 61%
Kyrie 53.5%

eFG%
Steph 56.6%
Kyrie 48%

Seeing as Steph Curry could go down as one of the greatest 3-point shooters in NBA history I actually agree with you here. I fully expect Kyrie's shooting percentages to go up playing with an offensive force like LeBron, let's revisit the subject in a couple years when Kyrie is 26 and in his prime like Steph Curry currently is.

And yes, Kyrie is younger. But the main issue is his rookie year was better than his 2nd year and that was better than last year. And it is safe to say the talent around him was better last year than his rookie year, correct?

Steph has improved each year in the league--and with his improvement came more wins for his team.

Here's the thing- Curry might have improved every year he's been in the league, but Golden State did not improve as a team every year with him. They were terrible for Curry's first three years in the league with a record of 85-145 (.369 winning percentage)- with his third season being a complete wash from injuries.

Kyrie has led the Cavs to a 78-152 record (.339 winning percentage) in his three seasons, while they've actually seen their wins increase every year he's been on the team. His rookie season might be Kyrie's best statistical season, but he's a better player than he was then.

All that said, I am sure playing with Lebron will help or so I hope it will. Time will tell. But a few fancy dribbling moves here and there does not scream "superstar talent" to me. I am going to be happy to be proven wrong.

I think we've seen a lot more from Kyrie Irving than a few fancy dribbling moves. His finishing ability is outstanding for a guard and he's already got one of the most dangerous pull-up jumpers in the league. I can't deny he's been painful to watch on defense at times, a lack of effort and intensity from your star player at the point of attack just isn't going to cut it anymore. Completely agree that time will tell whether or not he's the superstar he's made out to be, but I've seen enough from him so far that I'm willing to make that bet.

 

[CavsFan87]

We're comparing the talent level of two players, and you bring up RPM? Wow. Should have known something like this was coming from the ringleader of the trade Kyrie Irving camp.

RPM tries to measure a player's impact on the court, it's not a measurement of a player's talent or abilities. It should be emphasized that the stat tries to take into account teammates, opponents, and other things like time left in the game- but it's still impossible to create a single all-encompassing like they're trying to do. A player's role on a team just can't be calculated. Formulating their impact against league averages sounds great on paper, but it's never that black and white in the NBA.

ESPN can tell you they figured it out all they want, but it's still a highly imperfect stat. Unless you think Nick Collison is the 2nd most impactful power forward in the league, or that Channing Frye is the 5th most. Patrick Beverly as a top-5 point guard?

How about Draymond Green (5), DeMarre Caroll (6), and Mike Dunleavy (7) all ranking ahead of Carmelo (9) and Kawhi (10) at small forward according to RPM? Would you take Kosta Koufos (22) or Jeff Withey (23) at center over DeMarcus Cousins (24)? Do you think Manu, Vince Carter, and Danny Green are the three best shooting guards in the league? RPM ranks them that way!

So in conclusion, Kyrie (42) might not be as highly ranked as Curry (2) in RPM, but that hardly puts them in two different categories talent-wise.



I've already touched on this, but listing players by their Win Shares is just a lazy way to try and prove a point. Another stat that isn't an all-encompassing number to prove one player is better than another.

Let's add some more names to your list.

Kyrie .128
AV .144

Tyler Hansbrough .149
D.J. Augustin .154
Drew Gooden .173

Steph Curry .225

To further stop anyone from throwing out more Win Share numbers to prove Kyrie isn't talented, it should be noted Jeff Foster has a higher career WS48 than Grant Hill, Rasheed Wallace, Glen Rice, Deron Williams, Jason Kidd, Chris Webber.... does anyone want to me to continue?



Seeing as Steph Curry could go down as one of the greatest 3-point shooters in NBA history I actually agree with you here. I fully expect Kyrie's shooting percentages to go up playing with an offensive force like LeBron, let's revisit the subject in a couple years when Kyrie is 26 and in his prime like Steph Curry currently is.



Here's the thing- Curry might have improved every year he's been in the league, but Golden State did not improve as a team every year with him. They were terrible for Curry's first three years in the league with a record of 85-145 (.369 winning percentage)- with his third season being a complete wash from injuries.

Kyrie has led the Cavs to a 78-152 record (.339 winning percentage) in his three seasons, while they've actually seen their wins increase every year he's been on the team. His rookie season might be Kyrie's best statistical season, but he's a better player than he was then.



I think we've seen a lot more from Kyrie Irving than a few fancy dribbling moves. His finishing ability is outstanding for a guard and he's already got one of the most dangerous pull-up jumpers in the league. I can't deny he's been painful to watch on defense at times, a lack of effort and intensity from your star player at the point of attack just isn't going to cut it anymore. Completely agree that time will tell whether or not he's the superstar he's made out to be, but I've seen enough from him so far that I'm willing to make that bet.

Great points. I wouldn't even continue to waste my time with CavsFTW. Its like arguing with a magic 8 ball. Predictable responses and no real thought being put into them..

 

[Cashius X]

Why is it ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that Kyrie's offensive impact offsets the horrible team defense when he's on the floor? Also, if Kyrie is so valuable, care to explain why the team didn't miss a beat when he was out?

Why is it ridiculous? Because you're literally the only person who thinks Andy is better/more valuable than Kyrie. All 30 NBA GMs would disagree with you. All "X" players in the NBA would disagree with you. And everyone in this thread is disagreeing with you.

 

[Chris]

Andy being better than Kyrie is ridiculous but I actually do think that Steph is better than Kevin Love.

Really now. I'd like to hear this argument.

 

[CavsHomer]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...k-rose-stephen-curry-damian-lillard/13391407/

As Colangelo detailed in an interview with USA TODAY Sports, the most likely plan would be to have two pure point guards and three shooting guards who also have the ability to play the other wing positions. If that tentative plan holds true, then – per Colangelo's descriptions of the roster that he'll form with coach Mike Krzyzewski and his staff – it appears that Wall or Irving are likely to be on the outside looking in.

Rose, who has played 10 games in the past two seasons because of ACL and meniscus tears in his knees, has looked like his former MVP self thus far and is looking very much like a lock.

"It's hard to create more than two pure points (on the roster)," Colangelo said. "Kyrie is a pure point. John Wall is a point. Derrick is a point. Curry can play point, but he's a two (shooting guard). Harden is a two-three (shooting guard-small forward). Damian is a tweener also – he goes both ways.

"It's hard to carry three pure points unless we felt we were very unsure. For example, if Rose had come in and hasn't looked the way he has, we would've said, 'Geesh, maybe we have to carry three points, but it appears that we don't have to.'"

What do you guys think?

Imo, Kyrie is a more versatile player. He has the better skill set, whereas Wall is more athletic and better on d...

 

[Cashius X]

Really now. I'd like to hear this argument.

...I think Curry is better than Love. Why would I have to explain that?

Unless Love is clearly better and I'm missing something; if that's the case enlighten me.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Comparing Curry and Love is comparing apples to oranges. They are both elite at what they do, playing very different roles and positions on a team. It is a debate with no correct answer.