Celtics are unpredictable without Irving

[mgent]

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

I would love to meet the defender who gets in front of Kyrie Irving dribbling the basketball and thinks to himself, "I know exactly what this guy is about to do next."

[tazzmaniac]

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

So is the rest of the NBA.  That's what happens when you go to a 3pt shooting happy league.  Live by the 3; die by the 3. 

[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.

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.

But Lebron actually spreads the ball around getting everyone involved.  Sure their offense runs through Lebron, but he is just so good at finding the open man and getting everyone involved they are in fact far more unpredictable in how they work (other than through Lebron).  the last couple of weeks have actually shown they are more selfish, play more iso ball, etc. without Lebron.

[Moranis]

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.

I've been arguing this point for months on here.  Glad some others are finally coming around to this way of thinking.

[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.

But Lebron actually spreads the ball around getting everyone involved.  Sure their offense runs through Lebron, but he is just so good at finding the open man and getting everyone involved they are in fact far more unpredictable in how they work (other than through Lebron).  the last couple of weeks have actually shown they are more selfish, play more iso ball, etc. without Lebron.

Kyrie spreads the ball around too.

The Celts average 90.4 FGA. Kyrie takes 18.0 of them. Other players take 70.4.

The Lakers also average 90.4 FGAs.  Lebron takes 19.3 FGAs. Other players average 71.1 FGAs.

In other words, the Celts actually spread around shots slightly more.

[mmmmm]

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

So is the rest of the NBA.  That's what happens when you go to a 3pt shooting happy league.  Live by the 3; die by the 3.

True point.

People freakout when big leads disappear, but man, a 10 point lead is literally just 3 possessions from disappearing.

[mgent]

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.

But Lebron actually spreads the ball around getting everyone involved.  Sure their offense runs through Lebron, but he is just so good at finding the open man and getting everyone involved they are in fact far more unpredictable in how they work (other than through Lebron).  the last couple of weeks have actually shown they are more selfish, play more iso ball, etc. without Lebron.

So does Kyrie....

He's not as elite of a playmaker as LeBron, but Kyrie always makes the right play to whoever is in the best position to score.

The predictable part is that Kyrie is going to touch the ball a lot on offense, but what you can predict after that ends right there.

You can predict that he's going to be the guy making decisions and shooting/passing the ball, but again, that doesn't help you guard the Celtic offense.

[The Oracle]

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.

I've been arguing this point for months on here.  Glad some others are finally coming around to this way of thinking.

Here are a few facts about your 45 game sample without Kyrie.

1.  There have been zero games played against these 11 opponents, G.S., Houston, Indiana, S.A., Denver, Miami, L.A.C., Detroit, Charlotte, L.A.L. and Memphis.

2.  21 out of the 45 games (46.7%) are against these 3 opponents Milwaukee, Philly and Cleveland.

3.  10 out of the 22 regular season games played last year (45.5%) were against the 9 worst teams in the league.  N.Y.K. 1 game, Brooklyn 1, Chicago 3, Sacramento 1, Orlando 1, Atlanta 2, Phoenix 1.

4.  There are 25 home games and only 20 road games.

5.  Boston is 7-13 in those 20 road games with wins over these 7 opponents, Chicago, Orlando, Sacramento, Phoenix, Utah, Portland and 1 game against Philly in the playoffs.  3 quality road wins in the entire 45 game sample. 

6.  Boston is 21-4 in the 25 home games. 


Which of these facts/outliers might be cause for concern and be reason enough for you to invalidate part of the sample as was done with the 16-2 start?  Is it intellectually dishonest to critically analyze one sample while choosing not to with another sample that you are directly comparing it to?

[Moranis]

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.

I've been arguing this point for months on here.  Glad some others are finally coming around to this way of thinking.

Here are a few facts about your 45 game sample without Kyrie.

1.  There have been zero games played against these 11 opponents, G.S., Houston, Indiana, S.A., Denver, Miami, L.A.C., Detroit, Charlotte, L.A.L. and Memphis.

2.  21 out of the 45 games (46.7%) are against these 3 opponents Milwaukee, Philly and Cleveland.

3.  10 out of the 22 regular season games played last year (45.5%) were against the 9 worst teams in the league.  N.Y.K. 1 game, Brooklyn 1, Chicago 3, Sacramento 1, Orlando 1, Atlanta 2, Phoenix 1.

4.  There are 25 home games and only 20 road games.

5.  Boston is 7-13 in those road 20 road games with wins over these 7 opponents, Chicago, Orlando, Sacramento, Phoenix, Utah, Portland and 1 game against Philly in the playoffs.  3 quality road wins in the entire 45 game sample. 

6.  Boston is 21-4 in the 25 home games. 


Which of these facts/outliers might be cause for concern and be reason enough for you to invalidate part of the sample as was done with the 16-2 start?  Is it intellectually dishonest to critically analyze one sample while choosing not to with another sample that you are directly comparing it to?

The Lakers, Grizzlies, Hornets, Pistons, and Clippers were not playoff teams last year.  I'm not sure that really helps what you are trying to say.  the 21 games against 3 specific playoff teams, 2 of which were 50 win teams, I'm also not sure actually helps what you are trying to say.   And it is those playoff series that greatly skewed the home and away numbers.  the 16 game win streak also included 9 games against awful competition, a win against Toronto without Irving, leaving just 6 other games (GS and SAS at home and @ Philly, Mil, Mia, OKC).  It would appear to be not all that much different than the rest of that season, aside from the 1 Golden State game. 

[The Oracle]

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.

I've been arguing this point for months on here.  Glad some others are finally coming around to this way of thinking.

Here are a few facts about your 45 game sample without Kyrie.

1.  There have been zero games played against these 11 opponents, G.S., Houston, Indiana, S.A., Denver, Miami, L.A.C., Detroit, Charlotte, L.A.L. and Memphis.

2.  21 out of the 45 games (46.7%) are against these 3 opponents Milwaukee, Philly and Cleveland.

3.  10 out of the 22 regular season games played last year (45.5%) were against the 9 worst teams in the league.  N.Y.K. 1 game, Brooklyn 1, Chicago 3, Sacramento 1, Orlando 1, Atlanta 2, Phoenix 1.

4.  There are 25 home games and only 20 road games.

5.  Boston is 7-13 in those road 20 road games with wins over these 7 opponents, Chicago, Orlando, Sacramento, Phoenix, Utah, Portland and 1 game against Philly in the playoffs.  3 quality road wins in the entire 45 game sample. 

6.  Boston is 21-4 in the 25 home games. 


Which of these facts/outliers might be cause for concern and be reason enough for you to invalidate part of the sample as was done with the 16-2 start?  Is it intellectually dishonest to critically analyze one sample while choosing not to with another sample that you are directly comparing it to?

The Lakers, Grizzlies, Hornets, Pistons, and Clippers were not playoff teams last year.  I'm not sure that really helps what you are trying to say.  the 21 games against 3 specific playoff teams, 2 of which were 50 win teams, I'm also not sure actually helps what you are trying to say.   And it is those playoff series that greatly skewed the home and away numbers.  the 16 game win streak also included 9 games against awful competition, a win against Toronto without Irving, leaving just 6 other games (GS and SAS at home and @ Philly, Mil, Mia, OKC).  It would appear to be not all that much different than the rest of that season, aside from the 1 Golden State game. 

When 11 out of 29 possible opponents have not been sampled and were a combined +62 games over .500 the sample sucks.  When 21 out of 45 games in a sample were played against 3 specific opponents in a 30 team league the sample sucks, no matter their records.  It doesn't matter when the home games were they have been over sampled. 

[KGBirdBias]

So now we're going to sample the teams Kyrie has played and not played against...sheesh.

The Celtics are a very good playoff team with Kyrie.
The Celtics are a very good playoff team without Kyrie.

We don't know yet if the Celtics can win a title with Kyrie because the only time we got to the ECF was without Kyrie.

[The Oracle]

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.🤷🏾‍♂️

Here are your choices when someone starts with one of these ridiculous false narratives.  You can show them the error of their ways in an attempt to end the narrative, or you can let them continue on spamming thread after thread with it.  As you can see above this is not the 1st time the I.T. fan boy club/Kyrie hate club has made this argument, which would you prefer?

Edit (Somehow I quoted the wrong post of yours.  Meant to quote your last post.)

[PhoSita]

Unpredictable is not necessarily a good thing.  Unpredictable in terms of "they dont' know who is going to deliver the clutch basket in a tight game" is not really a positive.

Predictable is only bad if that makes you easy to stop, and Kyrie is never easy to stop at the end of games.



Throwing out a 16 game winning streak as an outlier only makes sense if you're looking at "winning versus losing" as the only measure of performance and you're treating it as a totally probabilistic thing, i.e. getting 16 "wins" in a row is completely unlikely and shouldn't be seen as having an effect on future probabilities of getting a "win."  The same way flipping a coin and having it land heads 5 times in a row doesn't change the probability of getting heads or tails.

The problem is that the variables that go into that winning streak, i.e. shooting efficiency, defense, rebounding, etc, are all part of the equation in every game, win or lose.  The team can play well enough one night to win against most opponents and still lose.  A team can play poorly and yet still win.

My recollection of that win streak is not that the team was blowing teams out night in and night out.  They were playing well, certainly, but it's not like the whole team was having an extended hot shooting streak or something.  Maybe they were playing above themselves a little bit in terms of clutch performance.  Or maybe they just had a run of good luck.

I think it is well established that good teams are more likely to go on extended win streaks than bad ones.  A team going on a win streak seems indicative of the ability of the team to play well for extended stretches.  Perhaps it suggests some variability in the level of play.  But on its own a W-L record doesn't provide you with a lot of useful information.

This is why over the course of a season, or a sample of multiple seasons, analysts tend to focus on broader indicators of team performance, e.g. point differential, +/-, ORTG and DRTG, because these tend to do a better job of capturing how the team is actually performing.

As others have said, what is actually most important is how well the team performs, particularly against the toughest opponents.

So if the team manages to win some games against mediocre or bad opponents without a player, it doesn't follow that the team is "just as good" or "better" than they are with that player.


Do the Celts play better against opponents with a .500 or better record when Kyrie is OUT as opposed to when he is suited up to play?

I suspect the answer is clearly no, but I don't have that data.

[KGBirdBias]

Here we go with more analytics again. LOL

Folks that 16 game win streak was a long time ago and the team isn't the same.

We don't need Kyrie to win the East.
We need Kyrie to win a championship.

We don't need Kyrie to win games.
We need Kyrie to close games against top NBA teams.

We are a very good team with Kyrie.
We CAN become a great team with Kyrie.

[droopdog7]

So does anyone have offensive stats with and without Irving?  Small sample size but that should say something.