• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Kyrie Irving

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
K1rieIrving>AllOtherPG's said:
Yea I can understand it, I mean if you look at the regular season numbers last season Lowrly had the better numbers & Kyrie was also recoreving from the knee injury.

But still I never thought Lowrly was the better or more talented player if that makes sense
Click to expand...

I think this is the heart of the fundamental disagreement about Kyrie. Kyrie has magical flashes (Spurs came 2 years ago, etc) but he has been really inconsistent and at times even bordering on disappointing during the regular season. I don't believe he is capable of dealing with the grind of 82 reg season games, plus another 25 postseason games (nevermind Team USA responsibilities, etc) at peak play.

And that length of time is what strengthens the RPM data.

Kyrie had a really tough regular season last year. Mostly (in retrospect after winning a title) I give him a pass because of the knee; but mostly he was just warming up into his NBA Jam mode.

And he has shown himself to be a big game player. And at the end of the day his play in the Finals mattered a lot more to me than some random Tuesday night in March against the Kings. And RPM looks at the two the same.

So yeah, Kyrie doesn't show the consistently elite output that some superstars are able to muster. But in great leverage situations there aren't a lot of people I'd rather have the ball.
 
Last edited:
BigErieCavsFan said:
I don't post much anymore, but always lurking (most of it in this thread :banghead:). I am a cavs fan and watch all of the games, but I have the pass and have watched plenty basketball the last 10-15 years. The game has changed quite a bit recently, so positions aren't defined or as important as they used to be. This Lowry/Korver shit is kind of ridiculous. I have Kyrie as a top 5 guard. And I really hope he proves that this year with a healthy and MVP type season. Although I think it will be next season that the torch gets passed.

Bottom line... I would not want any other guard over Kyrie on my team at this time.
Click to expand...

You should post more Erie. Hell, you are one of the oldest posters on any Cav forum that I've been talking Cavs ball with for the longest. Great input, brother.
 
The argument should be wafer thin: that ruthless PG we watched tear a new hole in the Warriors behinds in June? That's Kyrie Irving, now and into the future - and not even at his maximum ceiling yet.

His comments during this off-season (particular during media day where he admitted his lackadaisical approach to the game and his reliance solely on talent) represent a kid who is becoming a man both on and off the court.

There is absolutely no other guard in the NBA I'd want on my team - especially after exhibit A of the NBA Finals.
 
Last edited:
Idk I think every poster on here has posted shit that I vehemently disagree with, @gourimoko included. All of the regulars have also posted things I totally agree with, @David. included.

I appreciate a developed, supported argument above all else. I rep shit that I disagree with all the time when it points out new ways to think about things.

Regarding Kyrie:

I remember being one of the people who thought the Cavs HAD to at least explore Kyrie's trade value after the Mike Brown season where Kyrie checked out mentally and we were reading from insiders that he was partying too much, his dad was causing issues, etc. At the time, I didn't think he had the heart to win, and I'm still not sure he would have matured so rapidly had LeBron not returned. He did take a liking to David Blatt from the outset though, so the signs of his maturation were probably there.

I'm happy to eat that crow for the rest of my life.

After being shown what he's capable of, on both sides of the floor, I find it hard to nitpick with him. Do I want him to make the game easier on his teammates by consciously getting them open shots in the regular season while also protecting his body? You bet. Do I want him to be better defensively on a consistent basis? Sure.

No matter what happens, however, I know that when the lights shine brightest, he will play his best basketball. To me, that means more than his negatives.
 
jking948 said:
I watched 1,056 minutes of the Hawks last year, including the games they played against the Cavs. I watch a fuck ton more basketball than you do. And nobody is saying that Korver has nothing to do with the Hawks being better on the floor than without him. That's an idiotic strawman you are making because you have a limited knowledge about the rest of the NBA. Hence why I don't engage with you on these issues. I get frustrated and you get angry, upset, and whiny. It's a great resolution.
Click to expand...

Congrats?

That's still not as much as a hardcore Hawk's fan - and you're missing something. Did you never grasp why I brought this up in the first place?

Someone who follows a team very closely can identify reasons why the lineup data has become misleading. Someone who plows over the lineup data directly enough can potentially do the same.

So, as a self-proclaimed expert on other NBA teams and with 1056 minutes of Hawks viewing under your belt ... can you or can't you offer a plausible reason based on lineups or other team dynamics why the data turned out so far in favor of Korver for the past 4 years? Or why Millsap's data by comparison turn out so ho-hum.

You and Gouri act like you're actually discussing something here, but in reality all your doing is protesting because the data conflicts with what you value and attacking me because I *gasp* brought up facts counter to something you guys believe.

Remember when I criticized your article? You bit back like I slapped your child. Let's not pretend you guys are acting rationally. You're just not taking criticism well while Gouri seems to think he's participating in a political debate, constantly looking for ways to put words in his "opponent's" mouth so he can jump on them, turn them in to a "meme", and build his reputation with his base.
 
godfather said:
Someone probably should inform the T-Wolves (who've been trying to trade Rubio this off-season) and all the other 29 teams (there have been no takers) that Rubio is a top-6 point guard according to the podcast nerds.

After all, they know better, right?
Click to expand...

Rubio's back-up at PG is Zach Lavine, and Rubio is still not a closer (barely tries to score in the clutch). Zach's suckiness at PG makes Rubio look better.

But Rubio still needs other guys on the team to help bring games home and he plays with a bunch of kids and KG who was still amazingly effective for them, but barely played in "clutch time" (hit his minutes limit?).

Rubio (when healthy) has always run his team very well (so don't make the mistake of completely discounting his talent), but ability to close games or "rise to the moment" is not something that +/- or its derivatives track.
 
Jon said:
Congrats?

That's still not as much as a hardcore Hawk's fan - and you're missing something. Did you never grasp why I brought this up in the first place?

Someone who follows a team very closely can identify reasons why the lineup data has become misleading. Someone who plows over the lineup data directly enough can potentially do the same.

So, as a self-proclaimed expert on other NBA teams and with 1056 minutes of Hawks viewing under your belt ... can you or can't you offer a plausible reason based on lineups or other team dynamics why the data turned out so far in favor of Korver for the past 4 years? Or why Millsap's data by comparison turn out so ho-hum.

You and Gouri act like you're actually discussing something here, but in reality all your doing is protesting because the data conflicts with what you value and attacking me because I *gasp* brought up facts counter to something you guys believe.

Remember when I criticized your article? You bit back like I slapped your child. Let's not pretend you guys are acting rationally. You're just not taking criticism well while Gouri seems to think he's participating in a political debate, constantly looking for ways to put words in his "opponent's" mouth so he can jump on them, turn them in to a "meme", and build his reputation with his base.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that Coach Nick, Kevin O'Connor at The Ringer, and Neil Greenberg at the Washington Post have all criticized my articles, we've gotten into substantive debates, and the first and last have talked about me writing articles/working with them freelance when the season starts.

The reason you thought I "lashed out like a child" is because you threw ad hominem attacks at me, told me I was worthless, and said nobody who follows the NBA would appreciate my article. After that debate I realized your knowledge of statistics is comparative to a high schooler's and your knowledge of teams other than the Cavs is limited. Put simply, you're a hardcore Cavs fan, and you care less about other facets of the NBA. This is totally fine, and frankly, could make for a very good poster when you acknowledge the limits of your knowledge. You don't do that though. This is why I've stopped arguing with you on non-solely-cavs subjects, and frankly, I think the rest of this board should follow my lead.

Think about it like this: would a doctor provide their argument without knowing all the facts about someone's disease without a disclaimer?; are there academic articles that are good and don't provide the limits of their dataset?; do sports analysts make arguments about teams after not having watched them critically? The answer to all these questions is no. And you try and make serious arguments without having any serious reference point to the functioning of the NBA.

But, there are more determined posters than I - including but not limited to @gourimoko, @godfather, and @Rob - who will continue to try and argue with you, and I can't blame them. They make great points that serve to argue against the contentions you posit. And sometimes, but very rarely, you guys get into awesome discussions.

@David.'s critique of Kyrie is on-point, mainly because he watches a ton of NBA and has a good, working knowledge of statistics. I've had the Kyrie debate with him and both of us have reached a level of "agreeing to disagree" while respecting each other's argument.

Frankly, you have no ability to provide such a critique because of the limits you've given before.

To answer your question, I never said that Kyle Korver wasn't valuable, you just keep saying I did... He was the Hawks second most valuable player. But literally every serious regression-based lineup stat suggests that Paul Millsap is a better player. It's asinine, in my opinion, to compare Korver to Kyrie because they serve two entirely different roles. Nonetheless, David and Gour have had a really substantive debate on the issue, and I have learned something I didn't know previously.
 
jking948 said:
Except for the fact that Coach Nick, Kevin O'Connor at The Ringer, and Neil Greenberg at the Washington Post have all criticized my articles, we've gotten into substantive debates, and the first and last have talked about me writing articles/working with them freelance when the season starts.

The reason you thought I "lashed out like a child" is because you threw ad hominem attacks at me, told me I was worthless, and said nobody who follows the NBA would appreciate my article. After that debate I realized your knowledge of statistics is comparative to a high schooler's and your knowledge of teams other than the Cavs is limited. Put simply, you're a hardcore Cavs fan, and you care less about other facets of the NBA. This is totally fine, and frankly, could make for a very good poster when you acknowledge the limits of your knowledge. You don't do that though. This is why I've stopped arguing with you on non-solely-cavs subjects, and frankly, I think the rest of this board should follow my lead.

Think about it like this: would a doctor provide their argument without knowing all the facts about someone's disease without a disclaimer?; are there academic articles that are good and don't provide the limits of their dataset?; do sports analysts make arguments about teams after not having watched them critically? The answer to all these questions is no. And you try and make serious arguments without having any serious reference point to the functioning of the NBA.

But, there are more determined posters than I - including but not limited to @gourimoko, @godfather, and @Rob - who will continue to try and argue with you, and I can't blame them. They make great points that serve to argue against the contentions you posit. And sometimes, but very rarely, you guys get into awesome discussions.

@David.'s critique of Kyrie is on-point, mainly because he watches a ton of NBA and has a good, working knowledge of statistics. I've had the Kyrie debate with him and both of us have reached a level of "agreeing to disagree" while respecting each other's argument.

Frankly, you have no ability to provide such a critique because of the limits you've given before.

To answer your question, I never said that Kyle Korver wasn't valuable, you just keep saying I did... He was the Hawks second most valuable player. But literally every serious regression-based lineup stat suggests that Paul Millsap is a better player. It's asinine, in my opinion, to compare Korver to Kyrie because they serve two entirely different roles. Nonetheless, David and Gour have had a really substantive debate on the issue, and I have learned something I didn't know previously.
Click to expand...

What he said ^^^ ...
 
Jon said:
So, as a self-proclaimed expert on other NBA teams and with 1056 minutes of Hawks viewing under your belt ... can you or can't you offer a plausible reason based on lineups or other team dynamics why the data turned out so far in favor of Korver for the past 4 years? Or why Millsap's data by comparison turn out so ho-hum.
Click to expand...
He doesn't need to because it doesn't matter. +/- is what it is (terrible) and nobody is disputing the facts about Korver having a better +/- than Millsap.

Maybe, just maybe, you instead should attempt to explain why that is the only basis you use to determine how a good a player is or isn't (and if player X is better than player Y) when the stat itself has been demonstrated time and time again to be a poor measure of a player's talent.

Until you do that, (we know you won't) there's really just no reason for you to post here anymore. You are wasting everyone's time, especially your own. RealGM and Scout are a better fit for you, Jon.
 
jking948 said:
Except for the fact that Coach Nick, Kevin O'Connor at The Ringer, and Neil Greenberg at the Washington Post have all criticized my articles, we've gotten into substantive debates, and the first and last have talked about me writing articles/working with them freelance when the season starts.

The reason you thought I "lashed out like a child" is because you threw ad hominem attacks at me, told me I was worthless, and said nobody who follows the NBA would appreciate my article. After that debate I realized your knowledge of statistics is comparative to a high schooler's and your knowledge of teams other than the Cavs is limited. Put simply, you're a hardcore Cavs fan, and you care less about other facets of the NBA. This is totally fine, and frankly, could make for a very good poster when you acknowledge the limits of your knowledge. You don't do that though. This is why I've stopped arguing with you on non-solely-cavs subjects, and frankly, I think the rest of this board should follow my lead.

Think about it like this: would a doctor provide their argument without knowing all the facts about someone's disease without a disclaimer?; are there academic articles that are good and don't provide the limits of their dataset?; do sports analysts make arguments about teams after not having watched them critically? The answer to all these questions is no. And you try and make serious arguments without having any serious reference point to the functioning of the NBA.

But, there are more determined posters than I - including but not limited to @gourimoko, @godfather, and @Rob - who will continue to try and argue with you, and I can't blame them. They make great points that serve to argue against the contentions you posit. And sometimes, but very rarely, you guys get into awesome discussions.

@David.'s critique of Kyrie is on-point, mainly because he watches a ton of NBA and has a good, working knowledge of statistics. I've had the Kyrie debate with him and both of us have reached a level of "agreeing to disagree" while respecting each other's argument.

Frankly, you have no ability to provide such a critique because of the limits you've given before.

To answer your question, I never said that Kyle Korver wasn't valuable, you just keep saying I did... He was the Hawks second most valuable player. But literally every serious regression-based lineup stat suggests that Paul Millsap is a better player. It's asinine, in my opinion, to compare Korver to Kyrie because they serve two entirely different roles. Nonetheless, David and Gour have had a really substantive debate on the issue, and I have learned something I didn't know previously.
Click to expand...

Ok, so your conclusion after all that was that Korver is maybe only the second most valuable player on the Hawks? Gee. If I was discussing this with you instead of Gouri, maybe this wouldn't have gone beyond a comment or two - like it deserved.

Beyond that, I've gotta say ... a lot of the conclusions you've drawn about me are frankly condescending and insulting, and maybe you should consider your need to attack me is because I'm not a name you recognize? Because my arguments are not statistical in nature, but more a refutation of using statistics the way you were doing in the first place? Name tossing, btw, is a sign of immaturity.

It doesn't take a PHD in mathematics to understand the concept of "garbage in - garbage out". Both you and Gouri think something useful can come from regressing box score stats. I don't because the box score misses too much and statistics are always best applied to populations, not individuals. So as far as I'm concerned unless you can actually demonstrate the accuracy of your observations (rather than the accuracy of your math), it's just opinions couched in mathematics.
 
Rob said:
He doesn't need to because it doesn't matter. +/- is what it is (terrible) and nobody is disputing the facts about Korver having a better +/- than Millsap.

Maybe, just maybe, you instead should attempt to explain why that is the only basis you use to determine how a good a player is or isn't (and if player X is better than player Y) when the stat itself has been demonstrated time and time again to be a poor measure of a player's talent.

Until you do that, (we know you won't) there's really just no reason for you to post here anymore. You are wasting everyone's time, especially your own. RealGM and Scout are a better fit for you, Jon.
Click to expand...

+/- isn't a measure of talent, it's a measure of how a unit performs. My observation was that when a single player has the best on court and the best off court figure on a team for multiple seasons ... it's a strong sign you're looking at a very special player on that team.

So, I'm sorry you can't follow along with what's actually being said Rich and you have to generalize it in to garbage so you can respond and call it garbage, but that's what you do.

Take PER for instance. Hollinger designed it to find the best players - and when it didn't he adjusted it some more until he got a list he liked. The stat was designed to meet his perception of greatness. So now we think if a player has a high PER he must be great. But PER doesn't understand the individual. It's not fed the data that could tell it that while a given player is getting his, his team keeps losing.

That's what Plus-Minus does. It's the only stat which looks at EVERYTHING and can help us spot the outliers ... the players who are less than the sum of what they put in the box score ... or more as the case may be.

If you don't like what Plus-Minus is telling you, the answer is in the lineup data. For the Cavs, I understand what impact Timofey's drop off had this past season, so when I look at a lineup involving him, I understand it's being dragged down by him. There's a reason he has a NET -8.8 +/- this past season, after all. otoh, I don't see anything out of the usual about the Hawks lineup data, but that doesn't mean I'm not missing something.

If so, what is it?

The only mystery to me is why you don't get this.

If it's just that you're not used to looking at this type of data, you should try.
 
Jon said:
+/- isn't a measure of talent, it's a measure of how a unit performs.
Click to expand...
Then why do you immediately go to that stat and that stat only when comparing individuals?

Jon said:
Take PER for instance. Hollinger designed it to find the best players - and when it didn't he adjusted it some more until he got a list he liked. The stat was designed to meet his perception of greatness. So now we think if a player has a high PER he must be great. But PER doesn't understand the individual. It's not fed the data that could tell it that while a given player is getting his, his team keeps losing.

That's what Plus-Minus does. It's the only stat which looks at EVERYTHING and can help us spot the outliers ... the players who are less than the sum of what they put in the box score ... or more as the case may be.
Click to expand...
If you think +/- gives a better understanding of the individual than PER than you misunderstand these stats more than I previously thought.

When it's the last 5 minutes of a 30 point blowout, and I'm chilling on the court while my teammate goes on a 10-0 run by himself, giving me a +10, is that really looking at everything? My teammate scores all the points, I stand around and do nothing, while the whole unit contributes on defense. +/- rates me the same as my teammate that scores the points. That is looking at everything to you? That is an accurate measure of me & my teammate - we are equals?

Jon said:
The only mystery to me is why you don't get this.
Click to expand...
I get it, and there is certainly a place for +/-, particularly in trying to find individuals and units on a given team that play well together.

Where it is terrible is when it's used to compare how good individual players are. Actually, terrible isn't the right word, inapplicable is. On one hand it seems now that you understand this, but on the other hand you continue to compare how good individual players are this way.

So, what gives?
 
Just Checkin said:
I, for one, can't wait for Kyrie to have that beast regular season so we can put all this nonsense to rest.
Click to expand...

And you know what's even better and more important than a beast regular season? A Beast Playoffs and NBA Finals,
which Kyrie is just coming off of.
 
Well given all that discussion I guess all that is just nice but the regular season is what matters obviously
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top