Celtics are unpredictable without Irving

[Roy H.]

The Rockets are less predictable without Harden.

The Lakers are less predictable without Lebron.

The Bucks are less predictable without Giannis.

[Boris Badenov]

Good thing we don’t have five players exactly like Kyrie Irving. We’d be the easiest team in the NBA to defend.

[Androslav]

The Rockets are less predictable without Harden.

The Lakers are less predictable without Lebron.

The Bucks are less predictable without Giannis.

TP.

[KGBirdBias]

Some of you are too enamored with Kyrie and his one on one skills. If anyone even hints of criticism towards Kyrie its blasphemy. Smh

Look at the games, look at how other players perform. Look at the defense. No one has said trade Kyrie but it's very odd that when your best player goes out, the team doesn't miss a beat and practically looks more cohesive. You see how the Lakers look now? Sit Harden, Freak or AD down and look at what you get.

[Tr1boy]

The Rockets are less predictable without Harden.

The Lakers are less predictable without Lebron.

The Bucks are less predictable without Giannis.

Because they are not as lucky as Danny/built team around these one players

[Tr1boy]

Some of you are too enamored with Kyrie and his one on one skills. If anyone even hints of criticism towards Kyrie its blasphemy. Smh

Look at the games, look at how other players perform. Look at the defense. No one has said trade Kyrie but it's very odd that when your best player goes out, the team doesn't miss a beat and practically looks more cohesive.

Agree
 

[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.

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.

Nothing selective about it.  The 16-2 start (which includes 1-0 w/o Kyrie) clearly sticks out as an anomaly and doesn't reflect the current performance characteristics of the team anymore than does a hot .500 hitting streak the first 2 weeks of a season for a .280 career hitter.  If that player went on to hit .280 the rest of that season, entering the playoffs what kind of hitter would you say he was?   

There is a sound and logical reason why outliers are called outliers.   Further, when you are trying to ascertain the quality of a transient entity, recency IS more relevant than latency.  The last 122 games simply and fundamentally ARE a more relevant statistical representation of who this team currently is than the earlier 18 games for outlier, recency and sample size reasons.

[nickagneta]

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.

Nothing selective about it.  The 16-2 start (which includes 1-0 w/o Kyrie) clearly sticks out as an anomaly and doesn't reflect the current performance characteristics of the team anymore than does a hot .500 hitting streak the first 2 weeks of a season for a .280 career hitter.  If that player went on to hit .280 the rest of that season, entering the playoffs what kind of hitter would you say he was?   

There is a sound and logical reason why outliers are called outliers.   Further, when you are trying to ascertain the quality of a transient entity, recency IS more relevant than latency.  The last 122 games simply and fundamentally ARE a more relevant statistical representation of who this team currently is than the earlier 18 games for outlier, recency and sample size reasons.

When you have a data set if you have one or two data points that are out of character with the rest, that is an outlier and should be dismissed. When you have 10% or more of the data set seeming to be out of character with the rest of the data points, that's not an outlier and absolutely need to be considered for inspection with the rest of the data to see what caused that outcome to happen 10+% of the time. You can not ignore that data.

[Moranis]

The Rockets are less predictable without Harden.

The Lakers are less predictable without Lebron.

The Bucks are less predictable without Giannis.

The Lakers are definitely not less predictable without Lebron (Harden and Giannis haven't missed enough games to draw any real conclusions).  we've actually seen that the last couple of weeks or so, where no one has played well without Lebron dictating the pace of that team.  They are also much worse.  You can't just remove a great player from every team and make the same type of arguments.  It just doesn't work that way. 

[Roy H.]

The Rockets are less predictable without Harden.

The Lakers are less predictable without Lebron.

The Bucks are less predictable without Giannis.

The Lakers are definitely not less predictable without Lebron (Harden and Giannis haven't missed enough games to draw any real conclusions).  we've actually seen that the last couple of weeks or so, where no one has played well without Lebron dictating the pace of that team.  They are also much worse.  You can't just remove a great player from every team and make the same type of arguments.  It just doesn't work that way.

Yes, it does work that way. Yes, each team would be worse. They’d be less predictable, though, because the offense would be more spread around.

In other words, less predictable isn’t necessarily a good thing. Most great teams with great players are fairly predictable. The thing is, though, predictable isn’t the same thing as easy to stop.

[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.

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.

Nothing selective about it.  The 16-2 start (which includes 1-0 w/o Kyrie) clearly sticks out as an anomaly and doesn't reflect the current performance characteristics of the team anymore than does a hot .500 hitting streak the first 2 weeks of a season for a .280 career hitter.  If that player went on to hit .280 the rest of that season, entering the playoffs what kind of hitter would you say he was?   

There is a sound and logical reason why outliers are called outliers.   Further, when you are trying to ascertain the quality of a transient entity, recency IS more relevant than latency.  The last 122 games simply and fundamentally ARE a more relevant statistical representation of who this team currently is than the earlier 18 games for outlier, recency and sample size reasons.

When you have a data set if you have one or two data points that are out of character with the rest, that is an outlier and should be dismissed. When you have 10% or more of the data set seeming to be out of character with the rest of the data points, that's not an outlier and absolutely need to be considered for inspection with the rest of the data to see what caused that outcome to happen 10+% of the time. You can not ignore that data.

Not ignoring it.  Whether you include it in an average depends on whether it is relevant to the question you are asking.  If I was asking the question, "What was the winning percentage for all of last season?", then it would be included.

But if I am asking the question, "What has the winning percentage been since the end of the anomalous hot-start?", then of course I don't include it.

And the reason I am asking that question is for the three reasons I gave above.  a) A 16-game win-streak is anomalous, b) it is the most latent (old) of all the data and c) the remaining, contiguous-to-the-present data set is reasonably large (season-and-a-half of games).   If only one of those factors were true, then I would probably include it.   But all three factors taken together reduce it to a misleading chunk of data that serves only to skew the result.

If you really and truly insist on including it, though, it doesn't change the core point all that much.   If we include the 18 games then the numbers become:

w/Kyrie:  61-34 (64.2%)
w/o Kyrie:  28-17 (63.6%)

There, do folks feel better now?   The core point remains that the team's W-L percentage has been pretty much the same with or without Kyrie.

[mgent]

I think the offense is more unpredictable with Irving.

Without Irving it's just Brad's system, and our players are space-and-shoot/drive puppets.  The ball is just going to move back and forth to wherever the open guy is.  Eventually one of those guys are going to shoot it.

With Irving, there's much more deviation.  More pull up jumpers, more pick and roll, more penetration, more defensive rotation, more defensive confusion, more unpredictability.

What makes you think Irving scores in predictable ways?  He's got one of the most complete skill-sets in league, and can even do things that nobody else does.  He will literally find himself taking a wide open layup on frequent occasion because HE confuses the defense to the point that guys are letting him by.

The only thing you can really predict about Irving is that, because he gets a lot of FGA, he's going to score a lot of points.   You're going to have to explain again to me why that's a bad thing.

[KGBirdBias]

I seriously get sick of all these analytic geeks who spit out all these numbers. I'm old school...I watch the games over periods of time and can spot weaknesses, strengths and tendencies. Nowadays analytics gives all these people a niche in the game. Sure some stats are good but stats can be misleading. Analytics makes you coach and play like a robot.

Watching the games and having a feel for the game is more important. Analytics would have Smart and Rondo playing in a rec league. Watching the games tells me Lonzo Ball isn't very good. Watching the games tells me Kuzma is better than Ingram.🤷🏾‍♂️

[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.

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.

Okay understand what you mean but I thought he was doing a BS type thing by pushing that out, not doing something disingenuous

[Ogaju]

the question is are they predictable with him, and if so what can be done to change that.