Trade Irving for the sake of the team

[Moranis]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team. 

[RJ87]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

In that case, we should throw out the 10-10 start to this season. Going on your logic, that .500 start wasn't indicative of the type of team this is.

[gouki88]

Moranis, please, please, for the sake of mathematics, please stop with the " unsustainable 15-2 start needs to be disregarded". These discussions don't work that way and I am sure you know that. If it was unsustainable it wouldn't have happened. It did happen so you have to count it.
 

You can't discount the Lakers record 33 game winning streak and argue that it wasn't sustainable so we should look at that Lakers juggernaut as a 36 win team. You can't discount the Philly 16 game win streak to end last season and say they were really a barely above .500 team in reality.

You just can't do that. If the games were played then they count and have to be taken into consideration.

So please, for the love of God, stop with the "you have to ignore this very large swarth of games" stuff simply to try to prove a point. It doesn't work that way.

Agreed. If you’re going to discount last year’s fast start, why not disregard this year’s slow start?

Because it doesn't suit him

[Moranis]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

In that case, we should throw out the 10-10 start to this season. Going on your logic, that .500 start wasn't indicative of the type of team this is.

Boston was 6-2 to start the season.  Then had 8 road games and 3 back to back in the next 12 when it went 4-8.  Then had 8 straight games against teams all below .500 and have gone 5-5 since with a more difficult schedule.  The simple reality is, this years team has generally performed like you would expect it to.  Winning at a very good clip in the weak parts of the schedule and playing around .500 ball in the more difficult stretches.  I honestly would expect that to continue.  I would expect a 7-3 or 8-2 type run in the next 10 as they play a lot of weak teams and have 6 of the game at home (though do have 2 more back to backs).  The 10 after that is much more difficult including games with the Warriors, Thunder, Lakers, Clippers, @ Sixers, and Pistons.  I would expect another 5-5 type stretch.  The 10 after that is perhaps the hardest schedule stretch of the season with 7 road games (including a 4 game west trip) and the 3 home games are the Blazers, Wizards, and Rockets.  I wouldn't be all that surprised to see Boston go 2-8 in that stretch.  performing like you would expect a team to is not a fluke.  Performing well above any reasonable expectation is a fluke. 

[KGs Knee]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

In that case, we should throw out the 10-10 start to this season. Going on your logic, that .500 start wasn't indicative of the type of team this is.

Boston was 6-2 to start the season.  Then had 8 road games and 3 back to back in the next 12 when it went 4-8.  Then had 8 straight games against teams all below .500 and have gone 5-5 since with a more difficult schedule.  The simple reality is, this years team has generally performed like you would expect it to.  Winning at a very good clip in the weak parts of the schedule and playing around .500 ball in the more difficult stretches.  I honestly would expect that to continue.  I would expect a 7-3 or 8-2 type run in the next 10 as they play a lot of weak teams and have 6 of the game at home (though do have 2 more back to backs).  The 10 after that is much more difficult including games with the Warriors, Thunder, Lakers, Clippers, @ Sixers, and Pistons.  I would expect another 5-5 type stretch.  The 10 after that is perhaps the hardest schedule stretch of the season with 7 road games (including a 4 game west trip) and the 3 home games are the Blazers, Wizards, and Rockets.  I wouldn't be all that surprised to see Boston go 2-8 in that stretch.  performing like you would expect a team to is not a fluke.  Performing well above any reasonable expectation is a fluke. 

Most teams go through stretches where they win or lose concentrated numbers of games.  This is why you need to look at the bigger picture, which includes both the good and bad stretches.  On the whole, the Celtics were what they were last year, a team that played markedly better with Kyrie in the lineup, as evidenced by their point differential and winning percentages with and without Kyrie.

[celticsclay]

Moranis, please, please, for the sake of mathematics, please stop with the " unsustainable 15-2 start needs to be disregarded". These discussions don't work that way and I am sure you know that. If it was unsustainable it wouldn't have happened. It did happen so you have to count it.
 

You can't discount the Lakers record 33 game winning streak and argue that it wasn't sustainable so we should look at that Lakers juggernaut as a 36 win team. You can't discount the Philly 16 game win streak to end last season and say they were really a barely above .500 team in reality.

You just can't do that. If the games were played then they count and have to be taken into consideration.

So please, for the love of God, stop with the "you have to ignore this very large swarth of games" stuff simply to try to prove a point. It doesn't work that way.

+1 this has been bad an happening for over a year now. Just stop it

[gpap]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

There's nothing fluky about a 16-2 start.

[Roy H.]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

There's nothing fluky about a 16-2 start.

And even if there is, it's basically picking and choosing what's a fluke.

We had stretches where we lost 5 out of 6 games, and 4 out of 5.  Were we a sub-.200 squad?  No?  Then aren't these flukes in comparison to our overall record?  Do we throw them out?

It's just fuzzy math, manipulated to "prove" a point. 

[nickagneta]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

There's nothing fluky about a 16-2 start.

You know what is fluky? Teams winning over 70 games in a season or winning less than 14 games in a season. You know what? Those things happen and you still got to count then.

It's not like you can say: "Well losing 70 games is a fluke so we can't count that as an all time worse team. It was a fluke"

[Moranis]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

There's nothing fluky about a 16-2 start.

You know what is fluky? Teams winning over 70 games in a season or winning less than 14 games in a season. You know what? Those things happen and you still got to count then.

It's not like you can say: "Well losing 70 games is a fluke so we can't count that as an all time worse team. It was a fluke"

Those aren't flukes.  Those are all time great or all time terrible teams.  If this current team ran off 16 straight games, I would consider it a fluke as well, even if Kyrie was out, but the Warriors running off 16 straight I wouldn't consider a fluke (sure it is unlikely to happen, but that is a team that is more than capable of that sort of sustained brilliance).   Boston last year was not a team that had the talent level to realistically run off 16 straight games (neither did the Sixers and that to was clearly a fluke).  They just weren't on that level.  It was thus a fluke. 

[10610786d]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

There's nothing fluky about a 16-2 start.

You know what is fluky? Teams winning over 70 games in a season or winning less than 14 games in a season. You know what? Those things happen and you still got to count then.

It's not like you can say: "Well losing 70 games is a fluke so we can't count that as an all time worse team. It was a fluke"

Those aren't flukes.  Those are all time great or all time terrible teams.  If this current team ran off 16 straight games, I would consider it a fluke as well, even if Kyrie was out, but the Warriors running off 16 straight I wouldn't consider a fluke (sure it is unlikely to happen, but that is a team that is more than capable of that sort of sustained brilliance).   Boston last year was not a team that had the talent level to realistically run off 16 straight games (neither did the Sixers and that to was clearly a fluke).  They just weren't on that level.  It was thus a fluke.

But this is like saying Fultz's struggles so far has been a fluke, because he was a 1st overall pick and "shouldn't" struggle.

I'm sure other people have better examples.

[Moranis]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

There's nothing fluky about a 16-2 start.

You know what is fluky? Teams winning over 70 games in a season or winning less than 14 games in a season. You know what? Those things happen and you still got to count then.

It's not like you can say: "Well losing 70 games is a fluke so we can't count that as an all time worse team. It was a fluke"

Those aren't flukes.  Those are all time great or all time terrible teams.  If this current team ran off 16 straight games, I would consider it a fluke as well, even if Kyrie was out, but the Warriors running off 16 straight I wouldn't consider a fluke (sure it is unlikely to happen, but that is a team that is more than capable of that sort of sustained brilliance).   Boston last year was not a team that had the talent level to realistically run off 16 straight games (neither did the Sixers and that to was clearly a fluke).  They just weren't on that level.  It was thus a fluke.

But this is like saying Fultz's struggles so far has been a fluke, because he was a 1st overall pick and "shouldn't" struggle.

I'm sure other people have better examples.

Fultz got hurt.  Once you get hurt all bets are always off.

[Vox_Populi]

If you take out the 16-2 start, then Boston was 26-17 (60.4%) with Irving and 13-8 (61.9%) without him.

Doing this makes no sense.

[nickagneta]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

Because it was a fluke.  Everyone knew that team wasn't anywhere near that good, which was borne out the rest of the season.  Sometimes teams go on incredible runs both good and bad that aren't indicative of the level of the team.  The other 64 games the team played gave a much better representation of the quality of that team.

There's nothing fluky about a 16-2 start.

You know what is fluky? Teams winning over 70 games in a season or winning less than 14 games in a season. You know what? Those things happen and you still got to count then.

It's not like you can say: "Well losing 70 games is a fluke so we can't count that as an all time worse team. It was a fluke"

Those aren't flukes.  Those are all time great or all time terrible teams.  If this current team ran off 16 straight games, I would consider it a fluke as well, even if Kyrie was out, but the Warriors running off 16 straight I wouldn't consider a fluke (sure it is unlikely to happen, but that is a team that is more than capable of that sort of sustained brilliance).   Boston last year was not a team that had the talent level to realistically run off 16 straight games (neither did the Sixers and that to was clearly a fluke).  They just weren't on that level.  It was thus a fluke.

Teams that aren't all time great teams have long winning streaks all the time. Philly in the same year as Boston, last year is a prime example. Houston did it last year too.  Miami did it in 2016-17 going 23-5 after starting 11-30. Atlanta in 2015. The Clippers in 2013. The Nuggets in 2013.

Long winning streaks happen more often then so called all-time winning or losing seasons. By the very definition of fluke, long winning streaks by teams are not flukes. They happen every year.

[tarheelsxxiii]

I posted this in another thread and think it's meaningful.

For the 2017-2018 season, Boston's most used lineup was excellent:
Brown-Tatum-Horford-Baynes-KYRIE (354 minutes played). 

The Celtics had only two better lineups all season, actually; at least with sample sizes reasonable enough to interpret:

Brown-Tatum-Horford-Baynes-ROZIER (115 mins)

Brown-Tatum-Horford-Baynes-SMART (43 mins)

That means the Celtics' best lineups consisted of their starting 5 after swapping out Kyrie for Rozier or Smart.  Pretty powerful data.



Were the Celtics very good with Kyrie? Yes. He's a net negative defender, but very good scorer that offsets his defense.  But that the Celtics are better with two younger, borderline-starting PGs speaks volumes about his value as a teammate.

Add the fact that Kyrie (injury-prone, very reliant on quickness) will be due somewhere ~$40 million in his mid 30s, and there is plenty of cause for concern. 

https://hardwoodhoudini.com/2018/11/12/boston-celtics-holiday-gift-guide/

It doesn't really contribute much since it's 2017-18 stats. For instance, this year, when 5 man combos have played at least 20 minutes together, Kyrie is in 12 of the top 16 best net rated 5 man combos this year.

That data is non-contributory to the conversation because it is from the 2017-2018 season?  I am not clear what you are citing, but it is necessarily half the sample size; moreover, assuming your correct, any interpretation of this year's data still needs to take into account last year's.

You're doing exactly what you're criticizing moranis of, yet rather than a stretch of games, you'd like to omit an entire season?

Moranis, please, please, for the sake of mathematics, please stop with the " unsustainable 15-2 start needs to be disregarded". These discussions don't work that way and I am sure you know that. If it was unsustainable it wouldn't have happened. It did happen so you have to count it.
 

You can't discount the Lakers record 33 game winning streak and argue that it wasn't sustainable so we should look at that Lakers juggernaut as a 36 win team. You can't discount the Philly 16 game win streak to end last season and say they were really a barely above .500 team in reality.

You just can't do that. If the games were played then they count and have to be taken into consideration.

So please, for the love of God, stop with the "you have to ignore this very large swarth of games" stuff simply to try to prove a point. It doesn't work that way.