He's one of the worst PGs in the league.
This is what I've been trying to get you to see. It isn't about how many areas a player is better at (passing. defending, rebounding etc etc), it's about the role you play, your skillset and what impact you have on the game. This is the trouble you find yourself in every time because you're looking too much on a surface level.
This is true.
Again, you're insinuating that Kyrie doesn't contribute at a high level throughout the game to get the Cavs to that point of being able to close games. Have you conveniently forgotten all the work that Kyrie did throughout the middles stages of Games 3, 4 and 5 of the Finals? Can you safely say that Wall would be able to provide the same impact on that stage through his playmaking and defense?
You claim that Irving is your favorite player and yet you're reducing his game to simply being a closer. And not only that but you're greatly undervaluing the ability to actually close games too - you know when the game slows down to a halt and cherry-picking, transition buckets and defenses taking possessions off is kept at a minimum. It's not as simple as the guy "who can distribute the ball and play D" puts the team in a winning position more often than the closer would (especially given the fact that Wall isn't a great defender, and is wildly inconsistent on that end) when we've seen Wall struggle to actually score in a playoff environment and it's affected his team's offense and all the assists and passing doesn't add up to anything when his team can't buy a bucket.
Like I said in that other thread, YOUR REASONING is the same. It doesn't matter if Wall and Rondo are on two different levels, you're using the same logic. It's the same argument in principle, in the OP - better leader, better defender and better playmaker. This is what I'm trying to get you to see, it isn't about how many areas you're better at, it's how much impact you have. If you were to rank players by how well-rounded their games were you wouldn't get an accurate reflection of who has more impact on the game.
I already addressed why the premise of your question is nonsensical.
I'm going to quote myself on this one -
They were a lottery team because Kyrie was in his teens to early-20s, playing with a combination of ill-fitting, bottom-of-the-barrel, over-the-hill, injury-riddled and inexperienced talent, not because his style/game wasn't conducive to winning. It's because the team was trash. Give Kyrie right now at age 23/24, players to the equivalent of Ariza, Gortat, Nene in their primes with a legit backcourt partner in Beal and they'd make the playoffs.
WRONG AGAIN.
Exactly. Which proves my point that you have to have a good enough team around you in order for being a closer to often shine through.
