Kyrie Irving just posted a perfect half.... 21 points 8-8 FG, 3-3 3pointers

[MeachTheMonster]

Kyrie has had 6 years to show us who he plays well with....in 6 years, the closest we've got to an answer is "Lebron better be on the floor".

You could say this about pretty much anybody Lebron has played with.

Bron bron is just that good

 

[lutha]

yea, kyrie was and has been ballin...so has love....bron trying to get them to the point that he can trust them with most the load for most the reg season, but they not there quite yet...if they ever get to that point, it's gonna be scary...

i know some are gonna say he plays few mins now, true, but he still is the one that makes it go...you take him off the team, and they struggle cause no one else gets others involved like that...kyrie & love would get theirs, and that would be it...

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

If you weren't so focused on trying to catch me slipping, you'd realize that was an awful excuse when the post I was disputing was "It's Kyrie's team now."



So I guess you agree this sure as hell ain't Kyrie's team.
.

There's a reason why I specifically only quoted your statement on +/-. It most certainly isn't Kyrie's team, but +/- isn't the reason why. You posted all that other shyt and didn't contest what I was stating at all. Like it was briefly mentioned above, if the Cavs were built in similar vein to the Jazz the differences between Kyrie's and LeBron's negative on/off court games would be a lot closer than they read now, and it would be simply due to how the surrounding personnel match each player's skillset/style.

 

[GPBear]

Mmm nah

Breh, he said they would be the biggest losers in all of sports, any sport.

They just won a championship.
You think they're bigger losers than the Detroit Lions?
Than the Milwaukee Bucks?
Knicks?
The Buffalo Bills?

Like...13 teams in the NFL haven't even won a superbowl. Idk how many NBA teams, but how the fukk are you gonna call a team bigger losers than teams who a) lose to them b) teams that have never won.


"Yeah breh, but they just picked up Durant. Can you imagine the embarrassment of forming a superteam and not winning a championship?" Say the Lebron Stans who watched him lose to the fukking Dallas Mavericks after joining up with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Were you there for 2010? Or 2010?

And it's not like Durant/Curry came out and said they were gonna win "Not 1...not 2...not 3".

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Breh, he said they would be the biggest losers in all of sports, any sport.

They just won a championship.
You think they're bigger losers than the Detroit Lions?
Than the Milwaukee Bucks?
Knicks?
The Buffalo Bills?

Like...13 teams in the NFL haven't even won a superbowl. Idk how many NBA teams, but how the fukk are you gonna call a team bigger losers than teams who a) lose to them b) teams that have never won.


"Yeah breh, but they just picked up Durant. Can you imagine the embarrassment of forming a superteam and not winning a championship?" Say the Lebron Stans who watched him lose to the fukking Dallas Mavericks after joining up with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Were you there for 2010? Or 2010?

And it's not like Durant/Curry came out and said they were gonna win "Not 1...not 2...not 3".

You're never going to have a genuine, objective discussion on this board (as a whole) when it comes to this Warriors squad.

 

[GPBear]

You're never going to have a genuine, objective discussion on this board (as a whole) when it comes to this Warriors squad.

At least we can all agree that the Dallas Mavericks are just terrible.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

There's a reason why I specifically only quoted your statement on +/-. It most certainly isn't Kyrie's team, but +/- isn't the reason why. You posted all that other shyt and didn't contest what I was stating at all. Like it was briefly mentioned above, if the Cavs were built in similar vein to the Jazz the differences between Kyrie's and LeBron's negative on/off court games would be a lot closer than they read now, and it would be simply due to how the surrounding personnel match each player's skillset/style.

So if I understand you right, on a team built perfectly for Kyrie, the +/- would be "closer". That might be the kind of weak praise I can get behind.

The +/- did address your claim, and you're not being specific on what the problem is.

Shump/JR/Delly/Jefferson/Dunleavy/McRae are all quite different "guards" from each other or from Kyrie, but Lebron appears to be able to make it work with any combo. Or withTT or Frye or Mosgov at center. Or with Love or Jefferson at forward. Again, those are completely different skill sets.

With TT/Mosgov/Frye, Love/Jefferson/Dunleavy/Shump, JR/Delly/McRae, we've seen a LOT of possible combos to tailor a team for Kyrie. He hasn't turned any of them into winning without Lebron.

There may be some perfect combo that would work "better" for him in only being somewhat worse than Lebron, but it seems that the vast majority are going to be much better with Lebron. With PG being the most inflexible position for the Cavs with the weakest reserves, I'm not buying the "built better to withstand Kyrie missing" argument.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

So if I understand you right, on a team built perfectly for Kyrie, the +/- would be "closer". That might be the kind of weak praise I can get behind.

It could go either way depending on what the surrounding support cast is, and if it were in favor of Kyrie (having less negative +/- games than LeBron), it still wouldn't mean he was more important to the team or a better player than LeBron is. Basically +/- is near meaningless in this conversation.

 

[HoopLife]

yea, kyrie was and has been ballin...so has love....bron trying to get them to the point that he can trust them with most the load for most the reg season, but they not there quite yet...if they ever get to that point, it's gonna be scary...

i know some are gonna say he plays few mins now, true, but he still is the one that makes it go...you take him off the team, and they struggle cause no one else gets others involved like that...kyrie & love would get theirs, and that would be it...

Lebron literally just beat the Hornets with Frye/RJ/McRae/Shump the entire 4Q. That's how's good Bron is, he could take 6 games off a 67 win team with Della/JR/Mosgov/TT

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i know some are gonna say he plays few mins now, true, but he still is the one that makes it go...you take him off the team, and they struggle cause no one else gets others involved like that...kyrie & love would get theirs, and that would be it...

Not to mention that the defence has scary holes when he's off the floor.

It could go either way depending on what the surrounding support cast is, and if it were in favor of Kyrie (having less negative +/- games than LeBron), it still wouldn't mean he was more important to the team or a better player than LeBron is. Basically +/- is near meaningless in this conversation.

You've stated your theory but given no facts. What shows that Kyrie can drive a team to wins himself rather than supporting a better star?

Remember, this isn't new. Duke was a #1 seed with NBA frontcourt talent while Kyrie was hurt...he comes back for the tourney, and they proceed to barely survive #8 seed Michigan then get throttled by #5 seed Arizona while Kyrie posted empty stats. Not to mention the three straight lottery years pre-Lebron.

+/- isn't meaningless because it shows how the Cavs actually got to their current record.

The Cavs beat Houston, Philly, and Charlotte because they were +10, +10, and +12 with Kyrie off the floor but -2, -9, and -5 with him on it. Even against Toronto (+2 with Kyrie, +2 without) and Boston (+1 with Kyrie, +5 without), they're not winning those games without the ability to outscore the other team when Kyrie was off the floor.

They lost to Atlanta because they were -4 with him on the floor (+1 without) and they lost to Indiana because they couldn't deal with being without Lebron whether Kyrie was on the floor or off.

That's 7 close games where the Cavs really needed to be strong without Kyrie..half their season so far.


There's only been 3 games all year (Orlando and both Toronto) with the Cavs have even been close to even with Lebron on the floor, and NONE where they've been negative. He was +7 in the Atlanta loss, +11, +12, +15, and +17 in the close wins against Philly, Charlotte, Houston, and Boston.

Those are STRIKING differences. Since Lebron and Kyrie play most of their minutes together, for them to have 12-25 point +/- differences in most of the close games is huge.

The Cavs succeed because of what happens when Lebron is on the floor, not Kyrie. There's no doubt about that, and +/- helps make it clear.


There are ways in which +/- can be deceptive. If a backup is particularly good, if a team is weak at a certain position, or if a player has to prop up the 2nd unit a lot, it can distort the numbers. But Shump is not a good PG, the Cavs have lots more options at forward, and it's actually Lebron who is usually propping up the second unit. So none of the exceptions apply.

You agree with me that Lebron is by far the MVP of this team. +/- helps to show that very clearly in a way that individual stats don't.

Lebron literally just beat the Hornets with Frye/RJ/McRae/Shump the entire 4Q. That's how's good Bron is, he could take 6 games off a 67 win team with Della/JR/Mosgov/TT

That was just because Delly/JR and Shump/McRae are incredible guard combos.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@The Dankster that's not how you use +/- breh.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I can't believe it's nearly 2017 and folk are still using +/- as the foundation for what an individual does on the court, not seeing that it's completely reliant upon the lineups used and how well players compliment each other on both ends of the floor.

SMH.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I can't believe it's nearly 2017 and folk are still using +/- as the foundation for what an individual does on the court, not seeing that it's completely reliant upon the lineups used and how well players compliment each other on both ends of the floor.

SMH.

And I can believe that the actual result of the game while an individual is on the court is being so causally dismissed.

Isn't the whole point of the game +/-? As in, "Did you outscore the other team or not?" And isn't it slightly relevant to point out whether you're outscoring the other team when you're on the court, as opposed to on the bench?

Yes, +/- can be subjected to other factors. That's why I broke down lineups. If the enormous advantage the Cavs have with Lebron on the court is due to the rest of the lineup, explain it. But he's been balling with scrubs and starters both, taking on the responsibilities of almost any position when needed, while Kyrie has hardly been able to keep a lead from any lineup at all, even against weak teams, without Lebron in it. You haven't been able to make a single counter, just smug condescension.

"I can't believe this naive idiot actually takes outscoring an opponent as a meaningful fact."


And to that neg you gave me. Nearly every reply you've made on this thread has reeked of condescending superiority.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Isn't the whole point of the game +/-? As in, "Did you outscore the other team or not?" And isn't it slightly relevant to point out whether you're outscoring the other team when you're on the court, as opposed to on the bench.

You can't use +/- in a vacuum to state that x-player outperfomed y-player, because it simply doesn't work like that.

Yes, +/- can be subjected to other factors. That's why I broke down lineups. You haven't been able to make a single counter, just smug condescension.

I explained to you that the players in the lineups and their suitability with each other matter. You can go to the extreme here and put forth a squad which best fit Kyrie's style/skillset (long, defensive wings who can handle the ball + post up/long, defensive bigs who have predominantly paint games), players of which would make LeBron's skillset in general redundant. This then would be reflective in the +/-, for the simple fact that the team could survive without LeBron on the court: Kyrie would have defensive bigs/wings to anchor the defense and he'd have post-up bigs who he can dump the ball down to (he can then stretch the floor). Whereas they may struggle more often if Kyrie is off the court and LeBron is the one who needs to stretch the floor for the big(s) to go to work and/or provide perimeter scoring.

Yet it still wouldn't take away from LeBron being the better player.

"I can't believe this naive idiot actually takes outscoring an opponent as a meaningful fact."


And to that neg you gave me. Nearly every reply you've made on this thread has reeked of condescending superiority.

Your lack of proper context when using stats is getting kind of tiresome. Have a dap for your troubles.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The Cavs beat Houston, Philly, and Charlotte because they were +10, +10, and +12 with Kyrie off the floor but -2, -9, and -5 with him on it. Even against Toronto (+2 with Kyrie, +2 without) and Boston (+1 with Kyrie, +5 without), they're not winning those games without the ability to outscore the other team when Kyrie was off the floor.

They lost to Atlanta because they were -4 with him on the floor (+1 without) and they lost to Indiana because they couldn't deal with being without Lebron whether Kyrie was on the floor or off.

That's 7 close games where the Cavs really needed to be strong without Kyrie..half their season so far.

This is why you can't use +/- like this, as if somehow Kyrie was a detriment to the team''s success during these games, when you're completely disregarding all activity when he's on court and how the rest of the nine players affect each other's play. Then disregarding all activity when he's not on court and how the 10 players affect each other's play. It's not as simple as "they're not winning those games without the ability to outscore the other team when Kyrie was off the floor.", especially in two of those three negative +/- games against Houston - he finished with a team-high 32 points, and Charlotte - he finished with a starter-high 19 points, both on respectable shooting percentages. Simply because they wouldn't win those games if they didn't have Kyrie's production, play and presence..

Not only are you basically saying that his production/overall play could've easily been replaced, but they would've been better off with him not playing at all or having his minutes significantly reduced and playing the players who had a better +/- more minutes. When we know if Kyrie didn't play or had his minutes significantly reduced in those games, the team would've be worse off and those players who did have better +/-s initially would generally end up having worse on/off court box score ratings. The common theme in these games is that LeBron and the bench were making the runs against the opposition bench, whereas the starters (Love, Kyrie, JR/Dunleavy, Thompson) with LeBron against the starters were basically at a stand; where they most definitely needed Kyrie's production to help them stay afloat.

Those two games you mention Toronto/Cavs +2 without Kyrie and Boston/Cavs +5 without Kyrie you can't put in the same lane because i) the team is still in the positive with him on the court ii) Cavs were a +3 without LeBron against Toronto.

I wonder if all the folks dappin you actually understand how +/- works.