Celtics are unpredictable without Irving

[nickagneta]

I was thinking the same thing last night. When KI is unavailable they play with much more freedom and flow. The ball moves around because they don't have the "bailout player" to save the possession. They understand they need to find the best option to score. Hence the reason the assists were so high last night. The defense gets stingy because everyone feels involved.

One player who benefits is surely Jaylen Brown. His confidence rises, he's not scared to make mistakes. He's not a complementary player with Kyrie on the floor just looking to make the perfect decision. Without KI and Sr. he's one of the main offensive options. 

On the flip side, the Mavericks are a terrible road team.

I feel the trick is to play this way with Kyrie and Company available.

Also, having Hayward looking better didn't hurt either, the guy really is a heady basketball player able to play any role the team needs.

There is literally dozens of games this year where Boston played with great ball movement, with other players playing with confidence and the team clicking. All happening with Kyrie playing.

Yeah, and the “Jaylen can’t play with Kyrie” thing ignores last year as well.  12 out of Jaylen’s 16 games where he scored 20+ points were with Kyrie playing.  JB was awesome in the playoffs, but that was largely due to increased touches rather than Kyrie holding him back.

Isn't that sort of the point though i.e. Brown is better when he has the ball more.  Rozier is clearly better when he plays more and has the ball more.  Hayward can facilitate more when he has the higher usage.  Tatum gets around the same amount of touches so his play doesn't change much.

This problem is way more pronounced with the 76ers than this team.

Kyrie and Hayward are both shooters, Jaylen has been becoming a better shooter, and Tatum is also a good shooter. Much like the Warriors, in theory there should be less diminishing returns with the Celts given many of our players are off-ball threats (though on a significantly lesser scale than the Warriors), not to mention they're also legitimate threats with the ball for drives to the hoop (unlike Klay and Draymond).

No the premise of the thread is that playing the Celtics without Irving is more difficult because you just don't know who to game plan for.  On any given night any one of like 6 people can realistically go off.  With Irving that is much more limited since Irving is so ball dominant.

I don't see it that way at all. Regardless of whether Irving plays or not the Celtics still have, even with Irving playing, the ability for 7-8 players to go off at any time and have a huge game.

Tatum led the CS in scoring 5 times this year...all with Kyrie.
Brown led the Celtics in scoring 6 times this year, 5 playing alongside Kyrie.
Morris, Hayward, Rozier and Baynes have all led the Celtics in scoring this year alongside Kyrie.

Even if you gameplan to stop Kyrie, which is dang difficult, it's obvious if you do limit Kyrie that there is a wealth of talent that can, will and has stepped up offensively to make the Celtics successful.

[Boris Badenov]

I was thinking the same thing last night. When KI is unavailable they play with much more freedom and flow. The ball moves around because they don't have the "bailout player" to save the possession. They understand they need to find the best option to score. Hence the reason the assists were so high last night. The defense gets stingy because everyone feels involved.

One player who benefits is surely Jaylen Brown. His confidence rises, he's not scared to make mistakes. He's not a complementary player with Kyrie on the floor just looking to make the perfect decision. Without KI and Sr. he's one of the main offensive options. 

On the flip side, the Mavericks are a terrible road team.

I feel the trick is to play this way with Kyrie and Company available.

Also, having Hayward looking better didn't hurt either, the guy really is a heady basketball player able to play any role the team needs.

There is literally dozens of games this year where Boston played with great ball movement, with other players playing with confidence and the team clicking. All happening with Kyrie playing.

Yeah, and the “Jaylen can’t play with Kyrie” thing ignores last year as well.  12 out of Jaylen’s 16 games where he scored 20+ points were with Kyrie playing.  JB was awesome in the playoffs, but that was largely due to increased touches rather than Kyrie holding him back.

Isn't that sort of the point though i.e. Brown is better when he has the ball more.  Rozier is clearly better when he plays more and has the ball more.  Hayward can facilitate more when he has the higher usage.  Tatum gets around the same amount of touches so his play doesn't change much.

This problem is way more pronounced with the 76ers than this team.

Kyrie and Hayward are both shooters, Jaylen has been becoming a better shooter, and Tatum is also a good shooter. Much like the Warriors, in theory there should be less diminishing returns with the Celts given many of our players are off-ball threats (though on a significantly lesser scale than the Warriors), not to mention they're also legitimate threats with the ball for drives to the hoop (unlike Klay and Draymond).

No the premise of the thread is that playing the Celtics without Irving is more difficult because you just don't know who to game plan for.  On any given night any one of like 6 people can realistically go off.  With Irving that is much more limited since Irving is so ball dominant.

And...it's a nonsensical premise. When you take away a player, you take away a player "who to game plan for."

And the statement that we are more balanced, and therefore "unpredictable" offensively, is completely empty in terms of explaining Irving's value to the team. What should we do, trot out eight identically mediocre players, because it maximizes our "unpredictability"?

[tazzmaniac]

I was thinking the same thing last night. When KI is unavailable they play with much more freedom and flow. The ball moves around because they don't have the "bailout player" to save the possession. They understand they need to find the best option to score. Hence the reason the assists were so high last night. The defense gets stingy because everyone feels involved.

One player who benefits is surely Jaylen Brown. His confidence rises, he's not scared to make mistakes. He's not a complementary player with Kyrie on the floor just looking to make the perfect decision. Without KI and Sr. he's one of the main offensive options. 

On the flip side, the Mavericks are a terrible road team.

I feel the trick is to play this way with Kyrie and Company available.

Also, having Hayward looking better didn't hurt either, the guy really is a heady basketball player able to play any role the team needs.

There is literally dozens of games this year where Boston played with great ball movement, with other players playing with confidence and the team clicking. All happening with Kyrie playing.

Yeah, and the “Jaylen can’t play with Kyrie” thing ignores last year as well.  12 out of Jaylen’s 16 games where he scored 20+ points were with Kyrie playing.  JB was awesome in the playoffs, but that was largely due to increased touches rather than Kyrie holding him back.

Isn't that sort of the point though i.e. Brown is better when he has the ball more.  Rozier is clearly better when he plays more and has the ball more.  Hayward can facilitate more when he has the higher usage.  Tatum gets around the same amount of touches so his play doesn't change much.

This problem is way more pronounced with the 76ers than this team.

Kyrie and Hayward are both shooters, Jaylen has been becoming a better shooter, and Tatum is also a good shooter. Much like the Warriors, in theory there should be less diminishing returns with the Celts given many of our players are off-ball threats (though on a significantly lesser scale than the Warriors), not to mention they're also legitimate threats with the ball for drives to the hoop (unlike Klay and Draymond).

No the premise of the thread is that playing the Celtics without Irving is more difficult because you just don't know who to game plan for.  On any given night any one of like 6 people can realistically go off.  With Irving that is much more limited since Irving is so ball dominant.

And...it's a nonsensical premise. When you take away a player, you take away a player "who to game plan for."

And the statement that we are more balanced, and therefore "unpredictable" offensively, is completely empty in terms of explaining Irving's value to the team. What should we do, trot out eight identically mediocre players, because it maximizes our "unpredictability"?

8 players on the court would be a distinct advantage even if they were mediocre.   

[tazzmaniac]

Don't come at me,  it just needed to be said. 🤷🏾‍♂️ LOL

I like Kyrie and we need him to close games, but let's be honest the team is more unpredictable, more cohesive on the court without him. It just a fact that teams don't know who will go for 25, who will get the hot hand and its seems that everyone is on a string when Kyrie is out. Everyone tends to stand and watch him when he goes into his bag.

The answer isn't to trade him. The answer is for everyone to get off before it's Kyrie time in the 4th.

Another word to use would be inconsistent or unreliable.  Stars make things a lot more predictable but they win championships.  I'm just not sure whether Kyrie is good enough to be the #1 star on a championship team. 

[Celtics4ever]

Honestly, we are inconsistent with and without him.  We got through scoring droughts with him and without him.

[Surferdad]

Honestly, we are inconsistent with and without him.  We got through scoring droughts with him and without him.

Pretty much.  That said, they made the ECF without Irving (and Hayward), so there's that.

[Csfan1984]

Honestly, we are inconsistent with and without him.  We got through scoring droughts with him and without him.

Tp, this is my thoughts on it. Unpredictability and being darn right inconsistent is the problem with this year's team.

[mmmmm]

Honestly, we are inconsistent with and without him.  We got through scoring droughts with him and without him.

Very true.  And in a sense we are 'consistent', in terms of winning/losing with or without Kyrie.

Since the end of the 16 game winning streak that started this roster era off, we have played 122 regular-season and playoff games.  During that span we have been:

w/Kyrie:   46-32 (59%)
w/o Kyrie:  27-17 (61%)

Basically a wash.  Since the hot streak we have played roughly ~60% ball with or without Kyrie.

Note:   I would caution folks to be careful not to read too much into the on/off offensive & defensive rating numbers without examining them in detail.   If one thing has become crystal clear is that several of our players' performance changes dramatically based on how they are used in the rotation.   Thus when considering the 'Kyrie OFF' plus-minus numbers it is important to make a distinction between those for the bench in games Kyrie starts versus those for the team when Kyrie doesn't play in the game.

[Csfan1984]

Id argue 100% against this premise actually being a positive thing.

   If Irving was the offensive focus we could see roles more denied and an actual consistent flow with the offense. Truth is there is no focus and that may actually be the problem right now. You look at the best teams right now, when they are playing their best offense the offense goes through one or two guys consistently it's predictable yet everyone is so dialed in that if the defense slips a half step they score. It gets especially good if there is a 3rd quality scorer on the floor.

   Having smaller roles is why Smart and Morris helped when they were put into the lineups as they know what they are good at and stick to it. In contrast Brown and Hayward are still trying to find their game/role which is why both had to be pulled from the starters.

At the same time Tatum and Al slipped this season as well which also hurts. Tatum's problem has been too much play with the ball as he looked too much into expanding his game hurting his efficiency. Tatum needs to get back to "quick strikes/decisions" and less trying to make five moves to open up a long contested 2pt shot. The quick strike role is less of a lead role but he can still score a ton and be a second scoring option. He honestly needs to be more like Pippen and less like Kobe if he is to work well along side Irving (who is a Jordan level scorer). Al has to stop being below avg Al and bring a ton of energy the guy disappears too often. There is no reason he shouldnt crash the boards more or hustle on offense break more times a game. Too often he just stands next to his man and just rest there. The guy isn't fooling anyone. It's a shame that for the team to get anything out of him someone needs to be in his ear asking/directing him for effort. Show some initiative Al!

   After that Rozier, Brown and Hayward (with Theis) need to start being a full time "RUN and GUN" blitzing 2ND unit. BS needs them to take on that identify for better success and stop trying to slow things down. Just embrace the groups strengths and stop trying to run the 2nd unit like the starters. They look horrible when you slow them down. The 2ND unit's skill sets are diverse but are not elite at this time. The players become more effective when they move at a faster quick read pace before the opponents can setup a front. Just think of these player's best games this year. It's always when each of these guys attacked quickly and aggressively over and over again as to when the were great. Rozier, Brown, Hayward and Theis each played well at a quick pace.

When crunch time comes execution is important and usually that execution is perfected over time through consistency. Good execution will trump predictability. So give me Irving and more defined roles.

[KGs Knee]

Honestly, we are inconsistent with and without him.  We got through scoring droughts with him and without him.

Very true.  And in a sense we are 'consistent', in terms of winning/losing with or without Kyrie.

Since the end of the 16 game winning streak that started this roster era off, we have played 122 regular-season and playoff games.  During that span we have been:

w/Kyrie:   46-32 (59%)
w/o Kyrie:  27-17 (61%)

Basically a wash.  Since the hot streak we have played roughly ~60% ball with or without Kyrie.

Note:   I would caution folks to be careful not to read too much into the on/off offensive & defensive rating numbers without examining them in detail.   If one thing has become crystal clear is that several of our players' performance changes dramatically based on how they are used in the rotation.   Thus when considering the 'Kyrie OFF' plus-minus numbers it is important to make a distinction between those for the bench in games Kyrie starts versus those for the team when Kyrie doesn't play in the game.

LOL

Selectively omitting data points to try to construct an argument that appears to substantiate your opinion is intellectually dishonest. Omitting the hot stretches a team goes through, but not omitting the cold stretches paints a very distorted view of a team that does not accurately reflect 'who' they are.

The true measure of a team includes both hot and cold stretches, which just about every team in the NBA goes through at some point. Also, its commonly understood larger sample sizes are more telling than smaller sample sizes. Which is why you have to include all of the data to get a true picture of a team's ability.

[mqtcelticsfan]

Why doesn’t any of this show up when Kyrie is on the bench?

Not really enough time to develop roles.  Rozier, in particular, plays much better when he starts a game and plays 30 minutes.

That’s more of an issue with Rozier, no? He’s certainly not better than Kyrie when he plays 30 minutes, so maybe we need to find a backup PG who doesn’t need to be able to launch 3s out of the gate to find success this year.

[mqtcelticsfan]

The frustrating thing about the Kyrie debate is that it ultimately ignores a few realities:

1) We have an impressively deep team, and can win basketball games without our top players. That’s not a knock on Kyrie or the team with him playing games.

2) Kyrie is the best player we have right now, especially now that’s he bought in defensively.

3) We can win against the Mavs and Timberwolves all we want to with Rozier starting. Those aren’t the situations that we acquired Kyrie for. It’s going to be the times when we’re in the playoffs against an engaged defensively. The rest of the offense will find less room to work and his ability to create his own shot becomes vital.

[Csfan1984]

Honestly, we are inconsistent with and without him.  We got through scoring droughts with him and without him.

Very true.  And in a sense we are 'consistent', in terms of winning/losing with or without Kyrie.

Since the end of the 16 game winning streak that started this roster era off, we have played 122 regular-season and playoff games.  During that span we have been:

w/Kyrie:   46-32 (59%)
w/o Kyrie:  27-17 (61%)

Basically a wash.  Since the hot streak we have played roughly ~60% ball with or without Kyrie.

Note:   I would caution folks to be careful not to read too much into the on/off offensive & defensive rating numbers without examining them in detail.   If one thing has become crystal clear is that several of our players' performance changes dramatically based on how they are used in the rotation.   Thus when considering the 'Kyrie OFF' plus-minus numbers it is important to make a distinction between those for the bench in games Kyrie starts versus those for the team when Kyrie doesn't play in the game.

LOL

Selectively omitting data points to try to construct an argument that appears to substantiate your opinion is intellectually dishonest. Omitting the hot stretches a team goes through, but not omitting the cold stretches paints a very distorted view of a team that does not accurately reflect 'who' they are.

The true measure of a team includes both hot and cold stretches, which just about every team in the NBA goes through at some point. Also, its commonly understood larger sample sizes are more telling than smaller sample sizes. Which is why you have to include all of the data to get a true picture of a team's ability.

Did you miss quote the wrong post? I don't see any selective omissions. He only says look at things closely if you want to use certain stats. He uses the only thing that really matters winning. The team has been able to win with and without Irving at nearly the same clip.

[GreenFaith1819]

Well, I for one am GLAD that we are PREDICTABLE with Irving...

Jimmy Butler says it all, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r2EJYy4AW0

"That's what great players do - make tough shots."

"He's done that his ENTIRE career - TAKE and MAKE tough shots."

"He does so many things well."

I'll leave it to Coach Stevens to piece this all together eventually - and he will. But in the meantime if The Boston Celtics have ANY "DEEP" Post-Season aspirations we will need a healthy GH, Big Al and of course the PREDICTABILITY of Kyrie Andrew Little Mountain Irving.

[KGs Knee]

Honestly, we are inconsistent with and without him.  We got through scoring droughts with him and without him.

Very true.  And in a sense we are 'consistent', in terms of winning/losing with or without Kyrie.

Since the end of the 16 game winning streak that started this roster era off, we have played 122 regular-season and playoff games.  During that span we have been:

w/Kyrie:   46-32 (59%)
w/o Kyrie:  27-17 (61%)

Basically a wash.  Since the hot streak we have played roughly ~60% ball with or without Kyrie.

Note:   I would caution folks to be careful not to read too much into the on/off offensive & defensive rating numbers without examining them in detail.   If one thing has become crystal clear is that several of our players' performance changes dramatically based on how they are used in the rotation.   Thus when considering the 'Kyrie OFF' plus-minus numbers it is important to make a distinction between those for the bench in games Kyrie starts versus those for the team when Kyrie doesn't play in the game.

LOL

Selectively omitting data points to try to construct an argument that appears to substantiate your opinion is intellectually dishonest. Omitting the hot stretches a team goes through, but not omitting the cold stretches paints a very distorted view of a team that does not accurately reflect 'who' they are.

The true measure of a team includes both hot and cold stretches, which just about every team in the NBA goes through at some point. Also, its commonly understood larger sample sizes are more telling than smaller sample sizes. Which is why you have to include all of the data to get a true picture of a team's ability.

Did you miss quote the wrong post? I don't see any selective omissions. He only says look at things closely if you want to use certain stats. He uses the only thing that really matters winning. The team has been able to win with and without Irving at nearly the same clip.

The poster selectively omitted 16 games from the comparison of winning percentages with and without Kyrie, for seemingly no there reason than those games included a large winning streak. Yet when the Celtics lost 9 of 15 games later in the year those games were included.

You can't do that, it's selective manipulation of data, and it leads to inaccurate faulty analysis.