This is the third team with such evidence... y'all don't believe in fire till you get burned?
The Brooklyn Nets are better off without Kyrie Irving (12-5 record without him) UPDATE:HE RESPONDS
- Thread starter Darealtwo1
- Start date
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
What evidence?
Lay it out before record dropping. What did you see in the games prior? Are the Nets better with both Caris and Kyrie out?
It's been laid out by @THE MACHINE already. You're fixated on the Nets when this is about Kyrie.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
He didn't say shyt about Kyrie as a Net.
He hasn't watched a single Net game.
Kyrie had nothing to do with Spencer stinking up the joint early this season.
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/on-...klyn-nets-thread.740316/page-19#post-35452534
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/on-...klyn-nets-thread.740316/page-19#post-35452534
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/on-...klyn-nets-thread.740316/page-14#post-35426382
Stop posting about games you don't watch. BOTH Kyrie and CAris are out and here you clowns actually believing the Nets are better off.
@THE MACHINE ain't say shyt.
Once again, you're fixated on the Nets when this is about Kyrie.He didn't say shyt about Kyrie as a Net.
He hasn't watched a single Net game.
Kyrie had nothing to do with Spencer stinking up the joint early this season.
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/on-...klyn-nets-thread.740316/page-19#post-35452534
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/on-...klyn-nets-thread.740316/page-14#post-35426382
Stop posting about games you don't watch. BOTH Kyrie and CAris are out and here you clowns actually believing the Nets are better off.
@THE MACHINE ain't say shyt.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
Once again...he PLAYS FOR THE NETS. The thread title is about the NETS RECORD.
he has NOT HURT the Nets!
my GOD...the abject stupidity.
THE MACHINE
night owl
He didn't say shyt about Kyrie as a Net.
He hasn't watched a single Net game.
Kyrie had nothing to do with Spencer stinking up the joint early this season.
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/on-...klyn-nets-thread.740316/page-19#post-35452534
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/on-...klyn-nets-thread.740316/page-14#post-35426382
Stop posting about games you don't watch. BOTH Kyrie and CAris are out and here you clowns actually believing the Nets are better off.
@THE MACHINE ain't say shyt.
This is a flat out lie
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
You said you are a casual viewer. At NO POINT did Nets fans who watch the Nets more than you in the game thread blame Kyrie. Which game was Kyrie holding the Nets back?
you’re a fake as sports viewer. You ain’t watching nothing but nationally televised Nets games pretending to be in the know. Tell us how Kyrie hurt Spence. All you could do is bring up his award but not say shyt about the ebb and flow of his play all season when he was stinking up the joint being a turnover machine.
Fake ass sports talk. It’s fake as fukk
THE MACHINE
night owl
You switching up your argument already
?
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
You brought up Spencer. How did Kyrie affect him? How is it that those of us who watch all the nets games never mentioned how Kyrie was hurting him but you somehow saw it? Which game?You switching up your argument already
I didn't base that off only one game (they lost to Boston and Indiana); how the fukk are you saying this nonsense after you quoted this post of mine:
"The teams they've played without Kyrie:
Bulls
Pacers (L)
Hornets
Kings
Knicks
Cavs
Basically, while Kyrie has been out, they've been playing all the worst teams in the league, and the loss they had was against the only team in the playoff picture. If they were playing teams like the Lakers, Clippers, Nuggets, Raptors etc, needless to say, you wouldn't be making this dumbass thread."
Or did you forget that they also lost to the Celtics the game before you upped this thread, where they were 0-2 against good teams?
It was merely to illustrate that this thread was based on selective data.
That doesn't mean that they're completely incapable of beating teams like the Celtics without Kyrie (any team can be beaten on any given night), it's just that the sample size is primarily against teams who aren't good (wins against Cavs, Bulls, Kings, Hornets, and Knicks).
Furthermore, why take such exception to my comment of that game, when I'm not the one trying to push an agenda here? You ran in this thread getting behind the OP trying to start one of his many fires, and yet you have a problem with someone trying to put it out.
And what exactly is the degree of his impact that's being stated that isn't based on straw men? Give me some specific references of discourse around Kyrie's impact and how you perceive it doesn't measure up to reality.
This is the problem when you look at a win/loss record, in a vacuum, it's absent of:
game-sample size (isolated games scattered across a season)
personnel (does the team have adequate replacements for x-player being out)
team-makeup (is the structure and model based around x-player, à la Bron, Harden, Steph)
schedule/strength of opposition (advantageous spots; teams that have equal or worse talent; teams that are going through a rough period)
Ewing Theory
Offense/defense adoption (is the team changing how they operate to make up for a lack of talent/personnel)
You can't just base it on the win/loss record and not look at the appropriate context.
And who are these people? And what are they saying exactly about Kyrie and his team's needs? What is this magic elixir you speak of, and if Kyrie's not it, then who is?
That's not how it works.57-34 the last 5+ regular seasons without Kyrie (3 different organizations) (.590 win percentage)
218-120 the last 5+ seasons with Kyrie (.550 win percentage)
Let me guess, 91 games is too small of a sample size?
For starters, the volume differential of games without him (91) and the games with him (338) is too great to compare - it's over 3x the amount of games - or do you seem to think that win-percentage would automatically remain the same over 300+ games without him? Second of all, you can't group a scattering of games (either in small sample sizes, or isolated) from all different seasons, with all different coaches, personnel, opposition, team-makeup, offensive/defensive edifice, and trends of the league.
The truth of the matter is, no team that Kyrie's been on over the last five seasons has lived and died through him for the simple fact that none of those teams have been built around his efforts, actions, and skillset: the Cavs were built around LeBron, and the Celtics already had a main-core of players when he joined them.
If you built a squad around his skillset (with no suitable replacement), and then took him out of the lineup, then the team would drown. This is why it's important to look at the structure of a team and how it relates to wins/losses if a player is out.
Just look at how poor the Warriors were without Steph last season, and they still had KD and Klay.
Over the course of those three seasons this was the Warriors record without either player:
32-4 when Steph plays and Durant doesn't
28-18 when Durant plays and Steph doesn't
Absent of all context.
And this can easily be countered by rerouting the 2018 Cavs.
Would the 2018 Cavs have made it to the Finals playing against 2019 Eastern Conference?
Once again, absent of all context.
The variables and circumstances of the '17 Celtics, the '18 Celtics, and the '19 Celtics were all different to one another.
You constantly reiterate of how I've "cherry-picked", yet this is what you've been guilty of doing all throughout this discussion. I mean, bringing up Oladipo not playing as the one point of reference (to use against Kyrie), and failing to bring up other differences throughout those other seasons is further proof that you aren't willing to look at this in an objective manner.
Are you incapable of doing your own research, that you need to rely on the [manipulated] points of others to prop up your argument?
The data you referenced is based over a 11-game sample size (without him) v. the 50 games (with him) in the '18/'19 season:
Games without him:
v. Jazz (they lost this game without Kyrie)
v. Pelicans (who were on a downward spiral after all the injuries they suffered and couldn't build any continuity; they went on a five-game losing streak a game after their loss to the Celtics. Funnily enough, the Celtics beat the Pelicans earlier in the season with Kyrie).
v. Timberwolves (who were right out of the playoff picture, and without Rose, Teague, and Covington. Once again, funnily enough, the Celtics beat the T'Wolves earlier in the season with Kyrie, and when they beat them the T'Wolves had Rose, Teague, and Covington.)
v. Mavs (revenge game after losing to them earlier in the season; Celtics had the ideal spot back at home against a Mavs team that ended up freefalling, losing 20+ games of their next 30-odd games. Hayward also played in this game and was one of their main contributors).
v. Nets (they lost this game without Kyrie, funnily enough, they beat the Nets earlier in the season with Kyrie.)
v. Cavs (who had a 9-39 record at this point, and were 1-18 over this period. Once again, funnily enough, the Celtics beat the Cavs earlier in the season with Kyrie)
v. Nets (revenge game after losing to them a couple of weeks before without Kyrie, back at home. Again, they beat the Nets in the first meeting with Kyrie.)
v. Hornets (beat the Hornets a few weeks prior with Kyrie)
v. Cavs (we don't need to expand on this more other than the Cavs were one of the worst teams in the league and the Celtics had already beaten them earlier in the season with Kyrie. This is a prime example of why you can't just look at W/L, in a vacuum; here we have two games in a 11-game sample size against arguably the worst team in the league - that's 20% of the sample size).
v. 76ers (beat them TWICE with Kyrie earlier in the season)
v. Pistons (beat them TWICE with Kyrie earlier in the season)
Let's recap these 11 games without Kyrie:
8 out of their 9 wins came against teams they had already beaten with Kyrie
6 out of their 9 wins came against non-playoff teams
8 out of their 9 wins came against teams that had a 42-win record or lower
1 out of their 9 wins came against a good team
This is why you can't just look at the W/L without Kyrie and not look at who they played and apply the appropriate context. Here they were beating up on some of the worst teams in the league, teams that they had already beaten with Kyrie earlier in the season. It's not like these wins were against the Warriors, Rockets, Bucks, Nuggets, T'Blazers, Jazz etc, they were against teams with equal or less talent.
Or are you going to tell me that teams beating opposition with equal or less talent is a slight against star players being out?
Last edited:
What a completely ridiculous thing to reference.
Delly did NOT make the '15/'16 Cavs better than Kyrie did.
All that relays is the performance of three-man combinations, on limited minutes, against second units.
For starters, three-player lineups only matter in this context if they're the main-starting players, weighed against similar minutes.
That James-Delly-Love lineup only played 253 minutes across 41 games which equal out to 5 minutes per game they played together, and almost the majority of those 5 minutes per game would've come against second-units.
That James-Delly-Shumpert lineup only played 335 minutes across 45 games which equal out to 7 minutes per game they played together, and I'd say almost the entirety (not just majority) would've come against second-units.
You put those same three-player lineups and play them 800+ minutes against starters, and the net-rating would look entirely different.
All those three-player lineups with Delly (on limited minutes) would've come against primarily second-units - not against starters. If Delly was playing with the starting unit against other starters for the most minutes, his name wouldn't be anywhere near the top in net-postive three-player lineups.
Look at who's in those lineups:
1. Shumpert
2. Delly
4. Delly/Shumpert
5. Delly
6. Delly
7. Delly
Six out of those seven three-player lineups have at least one bench player in them which means they were primarily against bench units, not playing against starters.
And furthermore, the '15/'16 Cavs were built around Bron's skillset/style of play where they had adequate guard depth, and not built around Kyrie's skillset/style of play where they did have an equal measure of wing depth.
Here's a question for you:
If Delly replaced Kyrie's role (as a starter), minutes, and workload, in the 2016 playoffs, what success do you think the Cavs would've had?
Here's a look at all the top postseason lineups (min. 20% of most played three-player lineups):
Now do you wanna tell me why the James-Love-Thompson three-player lineup is the only one that played any notable playoff minutes from the best Cavs lineups that you referenced from the regular season?
If all these regular-season Delly-lineups were at the center of it all, why weren't they not only a constant, but why don't they even show up anywhere on the main rotation postseason lineups? Do you think it could be perhaps the lineups Delly was in during the regular season were only against second units in limited minutes, and not the actual main lineups that were used for a playoff environment?
Let me reiterate:
2018/19 season:
Kyrie on court - 6.2 net rating
Kyrie off court - 1.6 net rating
The Celtics had a worse net rating when Kyrie was off the floor, more than any main rotational player, except for Tatum.
2017/18 season:
Kyrie on court - 5.6 net rating
Kyrie off court - 1.1 net rating
+
Source: The Celtics are not better without Kyrie Irving
They’ll cite the Celtics’ record (9-2) without the superstar guard, ignoring that seven of those wins came at home against New Orleans, Minnesota, Dallas, Cleveland, Brooklyn, Charlotte, Detroit, the other two on the road at Cleveland and Tuesday’s massive win in Philadelphia.
They’ll point to superior ball movement without the offensive dynamo, which, of course, cannot be supported statistically and relies upon the assumption that there’s actually intrinsic value in ball movement.
Given time to collect myself, remove my jaw from the floor, recover from my paralysis, this is how I’d respond:
Kyrie Irving is a special offensive engine. You get that from his traditional stat line of 23.6 points and 6.9 assists per game on 60.3 percent true shooting, season-long thresholds matched only by LeBron James, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, James Harden, Stephen Curry, and Michael Jordan.
Impact stats paint, perhaps, an even more favorable picture.
Boston’s offense is 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with Irving on-court than off, ranking in the 93rd percentile among all players. In Offensive Real Plus-Minus, Irving sits tied for sixth among all players this season. He finds himself sixth in Player Impact Plus-Minus as well.
What the numbers are picking up on is a borderline-perfect lead guard in the NBA in 2019.
Kyrie is a magical pick-and-roll operator. His all-time level handle and creativity give him license to get wherever he wants whenever he wants. And he leverages that positioning perfectly, bending the defense to his will, then capitalizing by diming up shooters.
Including scoring and passing out of the pick-and-roll, Irving’s producing 1.112 points per possession, which ranks in the 94th percentile among all players, per Synergy. Restrict that to high-volume pick-and-roll operators, and Irving’s singular brilliance becomes even clearer.
Thirty-two players this season have used 500+ possessions including passes in the pick-and-roll, per Synergy. Among those players, the difference between Irving’s league-best point per possession mark and the second-best (Paul George at 1.068) equals the difference between second- and seventh-best (Luka Doncic at 1.02).
I’m not sure there’s a better way to describe Kyrie’s late-game performance than obnoxious. In what the NBA defines as clutch settings (games within five points in the last five minutes), Irving’s per-36 averages are 45.6 points, 9.4 assists, 4 rebounds, 1.4 steals, and 1.1 blocks on 65.6 percent true shooting. He’s turned the ball over five times in 99 clutch minutes.
The Celtics absolutely stomp teams with Kyrie at the helm in clutch time, posting a +34.7 net rating.
Not normal. That’s what Irving is. He’s insanely, stupidly special. He’s genuinely a one-of-a-kind offensive player, an unprecedented and unrivaled shot-maker at his size. He’s grown into a brilliant and selfless decision-maker, a legitimate positive on defense, too.
Yet, some people need him to be something else. To many, he’s still the selfish, shoot-first-ask-questions-later psuedo-superstar who demanded out of playing with one of the greatest basketball players in history.
They need the Celtics to be better without Irving, because they insist he’s still the same talented, entrancing, yet problematic player he was last year and every year before in Cleveland. To them, I still don’t have much of a response. It’s all there. The stats, the film: they aren’t kept under lock and key.
There’s no response to the idea that the Celtics are better without Kyrie Irving, because it’s not real. It’s not controversial or edgy or even remotely founded in reality.
/
Now go sit down and don't EVER bring that type of weak shyt to the table again.
Last edited:
They aren't built to win games, in the context of, they're without Durant and the significant percentage cap he takes up. That doesn't mean I'm saying they're going to go 0-82. Kyrie shouldn't be given a hard time for them losing; he should only be given a hard time for not performing and not trying to put his team in the best position of winning.
Anyone with any cotdamn sense who's without an agenda would scale him the same way.
The only good team they've beaten over this stretch is the Celtics (they've also lost to the Celtics and Pacers - the only two good teams they've played), and like I said above, any team can be beaten on any given night. There's no reason why they can't beat teams like the Bulls, Hornets, Knicks, Cavs etc, who have comparable talent and/or structure and experience - all those teams aren't built to win games either.
NOW THIS SAME NETS TEAM
THAT CLEARLY ISNT BUILT TO WIN GAMES
ARE WINNING GAMES WITHOUT KYRIE.
Tell me, do you think this Nets squad (without Kyrie) could beat teams like the Rockets on the regular?
Last edited:
The moral of the story is:
Teams beat teams with comparable or worse talent (and/or structure and experience), every day, b.
Teams beat teams with comparable or worse talent (and/or structure and experience), every day, b.
THE MACHINE
night owl
@Gil Scott-Heroin with one of the greatest manipulations of data in coli history 
Appreciate the response though, and of course, stay tuned. No edits to your most recent posts please
Appreciate the response though, and of course, stay tuned. No edits to your most recent posts please