The Brooklyn Nets are better off without Kyrie Irving (12-5 record without him) UPDATE:HE RESPONDS

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

bu-bu-but the Nets are better without Kyrie.

 

[THE MACHINE]

Just lost to the Heat. 1-3 against good teams.

Not such a "dumbass quote", after all, is it?



This game was a prime example of why they would've won with Kyrie, as Dinwiddie was horrific down the stretch and nobody else could close.

YOU'RE DONE.




​

You wouldn't have upped this'll thread had they won. And you've already given yourself a safety net by saying "they aren't expected to win anything with Kyrie". Weak. Now you're saying they would've beat Mia with Kyrie as if the game would have played out exactly the same way with him. Amateur hour.

 

[Raw Lyrics]

You wouldn't have upped this'll thread had they won. And you've already given yourself a safety net by saying "they aren't expected to win anything with Kyrie". Weak. Now you're saying they would've beat Mia with Kyrie as if the game would have played out exactly the same way with him. Amateur hour.

What's Brooklyn now? 6-3 without Kyrie, that's phukin great.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You wouldn't have upped this'll thread had they won.

You mean like how you didn't upp this thread when they lost, but only upped it when they won?



I upped this thread to highlight your ignorance, and your failed attempt at trying to get at me after they beat the Celtics, yet mysteriously, you were nowhere to be seen when they lost to the Celtics the game before. My comment regarding them playing good teams was spot on, and you were wrong trying to call me out on it.

And you've already given yourself a safety net by saying "they aren't expected to win anything with Kyrie". Weak.

You have a habit of not contextualizing shyt, don't you?

Now you're saying they would've beat Mia with Kyrie as if the game would have played out exactly the same way with him. Amateur hour.

Oh, so now you wanna take context into account. Where was this when you were referencing all those W/L earlier in the thread?

Yes, it is most definitely amateur hour when you're running up in this thread dribbling the ball off your foot.



In a general state, they would've won with Kyrie, or if you'd like me to rephrase that to appease some notional lining - he would've put them in a better position of winning, and this game only amplified why they need someone like him to close.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@THE MACHINE

You can't be sticking out your chest when you perceive shyt to go your way, and then resort to whatever the fukk you just posted when things don't, my brotha.

 

[No Homo]

What's Brooklyn now? 6-3 without Kyrie, that's phukin great.

All 3 losses to teams above them in the standings and 5 of the 6 wins to under 500 teams. Only good team theyve beat so far is Boston.

They're not doing anything special except beating who they should

 

[NYC Rebel]

You wouldn't have upped this'll thread had they won. And you've already given yourself a safety net by saying "they aren't expected to win anything with Kyrie". Weak. Now you're saying they would've beat Mia with Kyrie as if the game would have played out exactly the same way with him. Amateur hour.

Amateur hour is fake sports talk, unable to say which games you watched where Kyrie’s play hurt the Nets.

 

[THE MACHINE]

@THE MACHINE

You can't be sticking out your chest when you perceive shyt to go your way, and then resort to whatever the fukk you just posted when things don't, my brotha.

I gave you 100 games where he was the starting guard and couldn’t/didn’t play, the win percentage is better with him out (.590 vs .550 with him playing). Those are the facts. And that’s not replacing him with another all-star level guard, it’s with an average back-up guard. You poo-pood it by stating it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t a larger portion, as if there would be a scenario where he was out more than he wasn’t. 100 games of data is a large portion of 6 seasons.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I gave you 100 games where he was the starting guard and couldn’t/didn’t play, the win percentage is better with him out (.590 vs .550 with him playing). Those are the facts. And that’s not replacing him with another all-star level guard, it’s with an average back-up guard. You poo-pood it by stating it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t a larger portion, as if there would be a scenario where he was out more than he wasn’t. 100 games of data is a large portion of 6 seasons.

Need I reiterate:

"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."

/

It's why the Raptors were 17-5 without Kawhi last season, it wasn't because they were better without him, or that he wasn't important to their success, it was because they already had a strong squad that didn't center around him, where they could still hold the fort when it wasn't playing. And it's why they've been dominant to start this season when he's no longer on the team.

A lot of cats on this board can't seem to differentiate between a team that's built around one specific player, and a team that's not, and they draw a [false] conclusion out of their impact and play.

"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."

As I mentioned before when you referenced the stats around that 11-game sample size without him last season:

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

And then the 9-game sample without him this season:

5 out of their 6 wins came against the Bulls, Cavs, Knicks, Kings, and Hornets - some of the worst-performing teams
And their 3 losses came against the Pacers, Heat, and Celtics - some of the best-performing teams

This is why it's important to contextualize W/L and not just take them at face value.



Kyrie is one of the best shot-creators in the history of the game, whilst being ultra-efficient, and doesn't need to dominate the ball to find rhythm. Anybody that tries to downplay that cause he hasn't had a team built around him shouldn't be talking hoops.

 

[NYC Rebel]

I gave you 100 games where he was the starting guard and couldn’t/didn’t play, the win percentage is better with him out (.590 vs .550 with him playing). Those are the facts. And that’s not replacing him with another all-star level guard, it’s with an average back-up guard. You poo-pood it by stating it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t a larger portion, as if there would be a scenario where he was out more than he wasn’t. 100 games of data is a large portion of 6 seasons.

You gave 100 non Nets game that had zero to do with the now 6-3 record the Nets have without him.

what game did Kyrie prevent Spencer from being a ECPW?

what game did he hurt the Nets that you watched? Which 2019 Nets game did Kyrie hurt this team?

 

[Raw Lyrics]

All 3 losses to teams above them in the standings and 5 of the 6 wins to under 500 teams. Only good team theyve beat so far is Boston.

They're not doing anything special except beating who they should

There is no beating teams "they should" when their two starters are out with injury!!!

 

[Jordan>>LeFrozen]

All 3 losses to teams above them in the standings and 5 of the 6 wins to under 500 teams. Only good team theyve beat so far is Boston.

They're not doing anything special except beating who they should

To be fair, Nets should have won that Miami game. They basically gave that game away with poor execution and fouls. That said, I agree with your initial point although I think Nets should be 11-9 off that Miami game instead of 10-10

 

[NYC Rebel]

To be fair, Nets should have won that Miami game. They basically gave that game away with poor execution and fouls. That said, I agree with your initial point although I think Nets should be 11-9 off that Miami game instead of 10-10

Spencer is a chucker. It’s beautiful when it works but he has extreme tunnel vision at times

 

[Trapperman Dave]

To be fair, Nets should have won that Miami game. They basically gave that game away with poor execution and fouls. That said, I agree with your initial point although I think Nets should be 11-9 off that Miami game instead of 10-10

That was a good amount of the losses lol, they let teams back in the game in the second half and end up losing

 

[Darealtwo1]

Lets ignore it because it's the Hawks but when they lose to the pistons without Blake and Drummond we slide it under the rug