2017-2018 Boston Celtics: No Irving! No Hayward! No Brooklyn Pick!

[TyGuy]

What evidence do we have that he is a future MVP candidate? The metrics that are now used to judge an MVP have changed and he doesn't measure up. This is a Renaissance for NBA efficiency that is reaching heights few have reached in years passed.

He hasn't made the step to superstar that his rookie year would have suggested. We can all agree on that yes? His efficiency hasn't seen the same uptick of other elite guards and scoring is the main thing he is lauded for. It certainly isn't his defense or elite playmaking ability.

I want .60 + TS from him, is that too much to ask for a future mvp candidate? I know, freethrows.. We like to discount freethrows here because he doesn't get enough of them and it's the refs fault. Unfortunately his efg hasn't seen much of an uptick either.

I'm like a broken record saying this but he needs to up his 3pAR to .40 or better. He isn't going to see this uptick in efficiency until he does that or gets to the line more frequently, but preferably both.

 

[wremy]

Jerry Engelmann is that you?... Kyrie is a superstar in most people's eyes .. His accolades are better than some of those you would consider a superstar I'm sure...not to mention being extremely clutch

 

[TyGuy]

Kyrie Irving is widely considered to be a top-5 PG by coaches, players, and hardcore NBA analysts. He consistently ranks as one of the top-3 hardest players to defend at the end of every season. But hey, people can cite regression stats that they have zero idea how to explain, so that means he is ass.

I seriously don't know why people engage anymore. It makes up literally some of the dumbest posts on this board.

P.S., this thread is still fucking cursed.

Nobody here is saying he is ass. He isn't performing like a top 5 PG #1 and he isn't playing like a future MVP candidate. It isn't black and white. Just because i'm disappointed in his progression doesn't mean I think he is ass.

Westbrook, Curry, Paul, Thomas, Lowry have all been better this season. That's 5 guys right there. An argument could be made for Wall, Lillard and Conley as well. So realistically he's been the 6th to 9th best point guard in the NBA this season. That's pretty dang good and far from ass like I apparently believe. Especially in the golden era of point guards. Kyrie's talent level on the other hand is top 4 and he's capable of exploding any night unlike some of the guys listed. Unfortunately on average he isn't that guy.

 

[TyGuy]

Jerry Engelmann is that you?... Kyrie is a superstar in most people's eyes .. His accolades are better than some of those you would consider a superstar I'm sure...not to mention being extremely clutch

This is exactly what i'm talking about. He isn't a superstar. You can't make this argument with a straight face.

 

[TyGuy]

I read your post, thought it showed a lack of understanding the game while being poorly reasoned with a pinch of bad jokes and hit disagree, because that's a function of the forum and I will continue to use it when I disagree with a post.

Don't lie, you know this would be funny if I was talking about another player on a different team, but because it's Kyrie and our team it stings a little.

 

[TyGuy]

We should take a poll here: How many people legitimately think Kyrie is a superstar. The biggest Kyrie supporter here is saying future MVP candidate and we have actual people that believe he is currently a superstar.

We don't see why there is push back and the need of a reality check?

 

[BimboColesHair]

This is exactly what i'm talking about. He isn't a superstar. You can't make this argument with a straight face.

 

[gourimoko]

What evidence do we have that he is a future MVP candidate?

His career performance to date suggests he'll very likely be in that conversation in years to come.

The metrics that are now used to judge an MVP have changed and he doesn't measure up.

According to who?

This is a Renaissance for NBA efficiency that is reaching heights few have reached in years passed.

There's only been 4 players in the past 8 years to carry the MVP, James, Durant, Curry and Rose. Again, I think your take suffers from a bit of recency bias. No one is likely to come along and out-shoot Curry, just as we'll go for generations without another player like LeBron. That leaves Rose and Durant, and Irving definitely is better than Derrick Rose.

He hasn't made the step to superstar that his rookie year would have suggested.

I don't know anyone that would suggest Irving isn't a superstar.

We can all agree on that yes?

No. I don't think most people here would agree with that assessment at all.

His efficiency hasn't seen the same uptick of other elite guards and scoring is the main thing he is lauded for.

Because they started out lower than he did; hence the smaller slope of the curve. You're expecting a linear growth curve compared to players who didn't come into the league and post one of the best rookie seasons of all time. I don't think this makes much sense.

It certainly isn't his defense or elite playmaking ability.

Right...

I want .60 + TS from him, is that too much to ask for a future mvp candidate?

I want a near 50/40/90 season with an eFG% of .580 or better; .600 TS% would be great....

But I'm not gonna lament a 24 year old champion for not putting up such stats..

I know, freethrows.. We like to discount freethrows here because he doesn't get enough of them and it's the refs fault. Unfortunately his efg hasn't seen much of an uptick either.

We don't discount free-throws; we're doing the exact opposite - i.e., taking them into account, and that includes how they're generated.

Are you not willing to do this? For instance, you don't think that Irving, James, and Love all have to share a finite number of available free throw attempts per game based on the refs qualitative assessment of the pace and competitiveness of the game? Or do you think the refs are accurately calling every foul on the Big 3 based on contact alone?

I'm like a broken record saying this but he needs to up his 3pAR to .40 or better.

I don't think that's necessary at all.

He isn't going to see this uptick in efficiency until he does that or gets to the line more frequently, but preferably both.

Right.

 

[gourimoko]

Nobody here is saying he is ass. He isn't performing like a top 5 PG #1 and he isn't playing like a future MVP candidate. It isn't black and white. Just because i'm disappointed in his progression doesn't mean I think he is ass.

Westbrook, Curry, Paul, Thomas, Lowry have all been better this season. That's 5 guys right there. An argument could be made for Wall, Lillard and Conley as well. So realistically he's been the 6th to 9th best point guard in the NBA this season. That's pretty dang good and far from ass like I apparently believe. Especially in the golden era of point guards. Kyrie's talent level on the other hand is top 4 and he's capable of exploding any night unlike some of the guys listed. Unfortunately on average he isn't that guy.

I would argue Westbrook, Curry and Lowry have been better than Irving over the course of the season. However, I expect Lowry's second half of the season to be much more around the mid-point between February and January than his hot-streak to start the season. But let's assume you have those three. Is Lowry actually better than Irving or is he just playing better within his role at present?

With respect to Paul, which I think he's great, he is injured and has missed a substantial number of games. No, there's no argument for those other guys and "realistically" they've not outplayed Kyrie.

 

[TyGuy]

If Kyrie is a superstar does that mean there are like 15 + superstars in the league?

 

[gourimoko]

We should take a poll here: How many people legitimately think Kyrie is a superstar. The biggest Kyrie supporter here is saying future MVP candidate and we have actual people that believe he is currently a superstar.

We don't see why there is push back and the need of a reality check?

I think Kyrie is a legit superstar, and yes, he has the talent and potential to be an MVP someday.

 

[gourimoko]

If Kyrie is a superstar does that mean there are like 15 + superstars in the league?

How many guys have won Finals games that led to championships? How many guys have as good of a "Career Arc" (which is not measured by TS% btw) as Irving at his age?

Not many, I think... damn sure not 15.

 

[Scholar]

I have a better question. Let's say you get to be the GM of each of the other 29 teams in the NBA. You get to have Kyrie Irving instead of your starting point guard, or you can choose who you have instead. Which teams do you not take Kyrie over their present starting PG? Factors such as salary, age, health, talent, and so on would of course be factors on which player would be better for their team.

 

[gourimoko]

Don't lie,

Ty, just a friendly reminder; this is how we begin to go off the rails -- telling people they're lying, and impugning their ability to form rational opinions.

Just argue on the merits.

 

[TyGuy]

How many guys have won Finals games that led to championships? How many guys have as good of a "Career Arc" (which is not measured by TS% btw) as Irving at his age?

Not many, I think... damn sure not 15.

So you think Kyrie is more like a top 5 player in the NBA then?