Poll: Give The Kyrie Irving-To-Boston Trade A Letter Grade

[Vox_Populi]

I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.

[Roy H.]

I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.

Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.

[Vox_Populi]

I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.

Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.

What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.

[Rosco917]

When you look at where we actually were when this trade took place it looks better and better. We avoided a crippling bullet.

We rid ourselves of a seriously undersized, defensively challenged player (perhaps the least effective defender in the NBA) who was once a very effective scorer. IMO he conspired with the medical staff to hide the severity of his hip so he could first sign a max deal and then announce that he needed surgery. And he almost accomplished the task.

If Kyrie Irving did not want to be traded...THIS TRADE WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. There is no way that the Cavs would have traded KI for IT. 

We got in return a younger player who while he doesn't score at a 28 point clip, is capable of it. He is a much better defender, he is capable of playing at least fair to solid D. Is he perfect?... no, He's not a top five player in the league. Can you win a ring with him? absolutely.

And most importantly we can grow with him... 

[Roy H.]

I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.

Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.

What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.

The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact.  It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.

A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.

If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).

[Vox_Populi]

I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.

Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.

What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.

The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact.  It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.

A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.

If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).

But it is a measure of impact. It's not meant to be purely predictive, and I don't think anyone has said so. But it's accuracy in that regard means that it's also viable for descriptive purposes.

I don't really understand why you'd think utilizing priors is bad, particularly when the co-efficients are hardly substantial. Kyrie, a historically bad defender, is currently a positive in DRPM. He's hardly being punished too harshly for being terrible most of his career.

[Roy H.]

I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.

Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.

What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.

The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact.  It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.

A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.

If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).

But it is a measure of impact. It's not meant to be purely predictive, and I don't think anyone has said so. But it's accuracy in that regard means that it's also viable for descriptive purposes.

I don't really understand why you'd think utilizing priors is bad, particularly when the co-efficients are hardly substantial. Kyrie, a historically bad defender, is currently a positive in DRPM. He's hardly being punished too harshly for being terrible most of his career.

Kyrie’s age and height shouldn’t give him an advantage or disadvantage in determining his current impact. Should a 6’0” PG playing at the exact same level be penalized? Should a 6’7” player playing at Kyrie’s level rank higher than him? Does age matter in measuring current impact? Do last year’s stats matter? The year before?

If we’re measuring 2018 production, 2017 and 2016 production don’t matter.  If we’re predicting 2018 production, then keeping a running tally based upon 2018 stats  doesn’t make sense

[Moranis]

I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.

Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.

What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.

The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact.  It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.

A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.

If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).

But it is a measure of impact. It's not meant to be purely predictive, and I don't think anyone has said so. But it's accuracy in that regard means that it's also viable for descriptive purposes.

I don't really understand why you'd think utilizing priors is bad, particularly when the co-efficients are hardly substantial. Kyrie, a historically bad defender, is currently a positive in DRPM. He's hardly being punished too harshly for being terrible most of his career.

Kyrie’s age and height shouldn’t give him an advantage or disadvantage in determining his current impact. Should a 6’0” PG playing at the exact same level be penalized? Should a 6’7” player playing at Kyrie’s level rank higher than him? Does age matter in measuring current impact? Do last year’s stats matter? The year before?

If we’re measuring 2018 production, 2017 and 2016 production don’t matter.  If we’re predicting 2018 production, then keeping a running tally based upon 2018 stats  doesn’t make sense

I can absolutely see an argument that height is an advantage as even on the off nights you don't lose your size.  And while I want to say age shouldn't be a factor, I can even see an argument that a younger player will recover faster, last longer, and be able to go full bore for greater periods of time then an older player.  As for prior years, it depends on how they are used.  If they are used to create a larger sample size then I can see some merit in using them.  After all 20 games doesn't tell you nearly as much as 180 games.  Obviously the more recent games should be weighted more heavily, but there is certainly merit in creating a larger sample to pull from.

[gpap]

This thread is still going?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Paul trade to the Rockets
Lou Williams, Pat Beverly, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, 1st (became Omari Spellman)

Paul trade to the Clippers
Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 1st (became Austin Rivers)

Butler trade to the Wolves
Kris Dunn, Lauri Markannen, Zach Lavine

Butler trade to the Sixers
Dario Saric, Robert Covington, Bayless, 2nd rounder

George trade to the Thunder
Oladipo, Sabonis

Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova

Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)

Leonard trade to the Raptors
Derozan, Poetl

I look at those deals, and I think you could argue that Boston gave the least up for any of those deals. Isaiah Thomas still hasn't proven he remains an NBA player. Jae Crowder is a bench role player, and Collin Sexton could be anywhere from an Elfrid Payton lite to a Eric Bledsoe lite.

Still an A, but is adding a + every time Kyrie Irving continues to add another dimension to his game.

[Roy H.]

Paul trade to the Rockets
Lou Williams, Pat Beverly, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, 1st (Omari Spellman)

Paul trade to the Clippers
Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 1st (became Austin Rivers)

Butler trade to the Wolves
Kris Dunn, Lauri Markannen, Zach Lavine

Butler trade to the Sixers
Dario Saric, Robert Covington, Bayless, 2nd rounder

George trade to the Thunder
Oladipo, Sabonis

Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova

Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)

Leonard trade to the Raptors
Derozan, Poetl

I look at those deals, and I think you could argue that Boston gave the least up for any of those deals. Isaiah Thomas still hasn't proven he remains an NBA player. Jae Crowder is a bench role player, and Collin Sexton could be anywhere from an Elfrid Payton lite to a Eric Bledsoe lite.

Still an A, but is adding a + every time Kyrie Irving continues to add another dimension to his game.

Yes, hindsight has not treated the deal well at all from Cleveland's perspective.  Basically, they got the worst case scenario:  the Brooklyn pick fell to mid-lottery, Crowder was very poor in Cleveland, and IT never recovered to a starter-level (or even rotation-level, at this point.)

In an alternative universe, there's a scenario where Crowder was an ideal fit next to Lebron, IT's labrum healed up fine, and the Brooklyn pick ended up top-3 and the Cavs got Doncic.  The Cavs won the title, Thomas got his Brinks truck, and Lebron stayed in Cleveland.

But, in our universe, Danny came off looking really good.  Between the Kyrie and Tatum deals, Danny took risks, and both deals look like absolute no-brainers in hindsight.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Paul trade to the Rockets
Lou Williams, Pat Beverly, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, 1st (Omari Spellman)

Paul trade to the Clippers
Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 1st (became Austin Rivers)

Butler trade to the Wolves
Kris Dunn, Lauri Markannen, Zach Lavine

Butler trade to the Sixers
Dario Saric, Robert Covington, Bayless, 2nd rounder

George trade to the Thunder
Oladipo, Sabonis

Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova

Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)

Leonard trade to the Raptors
Derozan, Poetl

I look at those deals, and I think you could argue that Boston gave the least up for any of those deals. Isaiah Thomas still hasn't proven he remains an NBA player. Jae Crowder is a bench role player, and Collin Sexton could be anywhere from an Elfrid Payton lite to a Eric Bledsoe lite.

Still an A, but is adding a + every time Kyrie Irving continues to add another dimension to his game.

Yes, hindsight has not treated the deal well at all from Cleveland's perspective.  Basically, they got the worst case scenario:  the Brooklyn pick fell to mid-lottery, Crowder was very poor in Cleveland, and IT never recovered to a starter-level (or even rotation-level, at this point.)

In an alternative universe, there's a scenario where Crowder was an ideal fit next to Lebron, IT's labrum healed up fine, and the Brooklyn pick ended up top-3 and the Cavs got Doncic.  The Cavs won the title, Thomas got his Brinks truck, and Lebron stayed in Cleveland.

But, in our universe, Danny came off looking really good.  Between the Kyrie and Tatum deals, Danny took risks, and both deals look like absolute no-brainers in hindsight.

I get where you are coming from, but even in the moment, everyone knew that Thomas was a 5'7'' guard that relied on quickness approaching 30. Everyone knew that Crowder fit in a motion offense and was, at best, a role player. Most knew that the Nets play hard and did have a little bit of talent to work with.

[RodyTur10]

Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova

Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)

Combine that with the Harris trade (for Ilyasova and Jennings) and Orlando practically traded:

Victor Oladipo, Domantas Sabonis, Tobias Harris for Terrence Ross + 2020 76ers protected draft picks. Talk about doing bad business.

[SHAQATTACK]

I like him alot.

I hear the pilgrims and indians are not happy about his Thanksgiving message.

[Big333223]

Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today.  This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics.  You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie,  not to mention the other players given up.  Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's

Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.

Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?

LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him.  Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.

The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.

And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.

And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance.  Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league.  His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.

Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger."  He has not won before or after LeBron.  But you suggest that is coming? 

For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.

What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).

Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.

Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster).  Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season).  Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him.  Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play.  There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.

Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.

It's even a bigger difference than that as Moranis's analysis includes games that shouldn't factor in.  The C's were beating Indy by 10 at halftime when Kyrie ended his season and without him the C's ended up losing the game.  The games without Kyrie also include beating the Nets without most of the C's main rotation playing in the last game of the year.  The C's only outscored opponents by 8 points in those final 15 games last year and that's with being +13 in that final game against Brooklyn.

The C's shot very well down the stretch and probably won a few games they wouldn't in an average sample without Kyrie, that's the problem with using extremely small sample sizes in the manner that Moranis is here.  The C's were +257 in 1931 minutes with Kyrie last year and +37 in 2030 minutes without him.  This year the C's are +106 in 707 minutes with Kyrie and -5 in 407 minutes without him.

The offensive rating was 8.8 points worse without Kyrie last year and 14.6 points worse so far this year.  The net rating was 5.4 points worse last year and 7.4 points worse so far this year without Kyrie.  No single statistic can tell the whole story and when you look at them all with context Kyrie's positive impact is crystal clear.

Irving's on/off differential was 3.1 last year, so obviously the team was better with him on the floor, but that also isn't a very good on/off differential for a supposed superstar.  That 3.1 was also well behind Brown, Tatum, Horford, Baynes, and Smart.  This year the on/off differential for Irving is only 2.3 again behind Tatum, Baynes, and Smart.   And it isn't just Boston where his numbers are so low (as in maybe the team is so deep there isn't much of a drop off).  He has only had 2 seasons in his career above 7 (his first and last year with Lebron).  He even had a negative differential while playing on a team and a lot of his minutes with Lebron his second year with him.  The year before Lebron got there, the Cavs were 4.3 points per 100 possession worse with Irving on the floor then when he was off the floor. 

Irving is a good player.  At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively.  He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others. 

He is absolutely better than Thomas and if he re-signs Boston will have won the trade, though also might regret giving him that 5 year max contract at some point down the line, given his injury history and all of those deficiencies in his game.  Boston will not win a title with Irving as the team's best player, which right now he is.  Hopefully Hayward returns to form and takes that mantel while keeping it warm a couple of seasons for Tatum, or whomever Tatum gets traded for.  For Boston to really create the type of team we want, Boston needs a gold medal superstar and it doesn't currently have one (though hopefully Tatum gets there).

It gets incredibly confusing when people quote numbers off of BBREF rather than just using the official numbers from NBA.com.  BBREF estimates some of their info (like possessions) and many of their numbers are therefor vastly different than NBA.com. 

In regard to the on/off differential numbers you simply are putting way to much stock in them.  The C's have an extremely strong bench and when Kyrie is out of the game they don't drop a lot numbers wise against opposing benches.  The offense drops off a lot but the defense takes a large step forward against weaker benches.  When Kyrie was in Cleveland he could not carry the team as well as Lebron could when they were not in the game together, there is no shame in that   as nobody can.  When Lebron is not in the game his replacement is always a massive drop off. Having a strong bench kills great players/starters on/off differential in some instances.  Having another great player that you are often on the floor without/is on the floor without you, can also kill your numbers. 

Kyrie primarily plays starter minutes and comparing success against other starting lineups, to the benches success against other benches, tells you next to nothing by itself without context.  Some players like Tatum get pulled early and come back with the bench a lot, on a team with a great bench this will bolster his on/off diff., if the bench was terrible it would crush his numbers just the same.  Hayward now playing with the bench is going to likely amplify the benches numbers and make the starters on/off numbers look worse.  There are a million variables that affect a given players on/off numbers and using them as an indictment against said player without a ton of context is way off base.

TP

Using these type of statistics can really show whatever you want if you pick out the ones that look good from side of the argument. This is why statistics are a good piece of an arguement but not necessarily an entire argument. There are always a few crazy stats you see in the off/def rating and net ratings stats, like I remember when it used to say but Avery Bradley and Klay Thompson are bad defenders but the eye test says differently.

You watch Kyrie with this Celtics team and they are a different team offensively when he is on the court, he attracts attention like no one else on our team can. He can creat his own shot better than anyone else on our team as well, I am not shocked that we wouldn't have huge on/off differentials however because Terry and Marcus are quality backups that bring the intensity and can change games.

Moranis is the Vizzini of the Kyrie argument.

"The +/- numbers you keep citing... I don't think they mean, what you think they mean."