Kyrie's usage rate was 31.5% in November and the Celts had a sub-.500 winning percentage.
But then in December his usage rate was 29.5% and the Celts won 64.3% of their games.
So far this month, the Celts have played 4 games and won all of them, but Kyrie has only played in one of those games.
I just don't think Kyrie is the problem, folks. Win or lose we kind of know what we're going to get from Kyrie, and that's a good thing.
The team's success or failure is going to be dependent on how the other guys perform, because Kyrie is a relative constant.
I suppose if you're willing to throw away all +/- stats and win streaks you won't be persuaded that Kyrie is a net positive. But at the very least it doesn't seem right to say that Kyrie's high usage is correlated with the Celts playing worse, or that they play better without him or when he takes fewer shots.