Can Brad Stevens help Kyrie Irving become a top 5-10 NBA player? Still improving

[Celtics4ever]

Irving's 2017 Finals: 29/4/4 on 56% TS with -7.7 NetRTG
Curry's 2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 62% TS with +7.8 NetRTG

I'm sorry that facts don't fit in line with your narrative.

Well the downside of this is that Durant is who won that finals and GS had a lot of options whereas Cavs only had 2 or three.   You literally only had to defend Love, LeBron and Kyring.   When one team has more talent than the other one would expect worse numbers.   Also, Klay Thompson is a great defender so Kyrie literally put up those numbers on a guy who is an elite defender.   Curry had Kyrie on him, whom we all concede is a poor to mediocre defender.

[max215]

Irving's 2017 Finals: 29/4/4 on 56% TS with -7.7 NetRTG
Curry's 2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 62% TS with +7.8 NetRTG

I'm sorry that facts don't fit in line with your narrative.

Well the downside of this is that Durant is who won that finals and GS had a lot of options whereas Cavs only had 2 or three.   You literally only had to defend Love, LeBron and Kyring.   When one team has more talent than the other one would expect worse numbers.   Also, Klay Thompson is a great defender so Kyrie literally put up those numbers on a guy who is an elite defender.   Curry had Kyrie on him, whom we all concede is a poor to mediocre defender.

This is moving the goal posts to such a ridiculous extent. First it was "Kyrie was better," but now that that's been proven to be false, it's "Obviously, Steph was better, but that's because of the situation." Kyrie is a very good player. I'm not sure why people feel the need to bend over backward to build him up into something he's not: a Steph-caliber superstar.

[Celtics4ever]

This is moving the goal posts to such a ridiculous extent. First it was "Kyrie was better," but now that that's been proven to be false, it's "Obviously, Steph was better, but that's because of the situation." Kyrie is a very good player. I'm not sure why people feel the need to bend over backward to build him up into something he's not: a Steph-caliber superstar.

When a team has less good players to guard they can double team a guy.   It is a basketball maxim.   At no point, did I say Kyrie was better.  I did not move the goalposts, I  simply pointed fundamentals of basketball defense. 

Irving's 2017 Finals: 29/4/4 on 56% TS with -7.7 NetRTG
Curry's 2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 62% TS with +7.8 NetRTG

I'm sorry that facts don't fit in line with your narrative

Moving the goalposts and you use NET RTG?   That is hilarious do you realize we had a better Netrtg than CLE last year.  Look, yet they tore up us in the playoffs.   Real funny, how useful is this stat given that?  We had 3.1 and was 7th in the league  to their 2.9 which was eighth.  How can this be?

http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/#!?sort=NET_RATING&dir=-1

As the above proves anyone google something and can post a stat and pretend to understand basketball.   I wager one can find stuff that supports Kyrie is better too.  But Advanced Stats are great until you find the fluke in them.

Here is a head to comparison:

http://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/stephen_curry_vs_kyrie_irving.htm

You will find that in many ways they are lot of closer than one would think.   I am not saying Kyrie is better, Steph clearly has him,  but give him a few years as he has been in the league for two less years and Steph is argubly the biggest star on his team.   Kyrie has not been that guy since LeBron came back to CLE. 

Give him a chance folks.  He wants to be here.   So did IT but IT was not going to playing for a while this season.  He is on our team, perhaps some of you think this is a bad dream and the Toothfairy is going to make him go away.

My question is how many of you are switching to the CAVs?

[Granath]

Irving's 2017 Finals: 29/4/4 on 56% TS with -7.7 NetRTG
Curry's 2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 62% TS with +7.8 NetRTG

I'm sorry that facts don't fit in line with your narrative.

Well the downside of this is that Durant is who won that finals and GS had a lot of options whereas Cavs only had 2 or three.   You literally only had to defend Love, LeBron and Kyring.   When one team has more talent than the other one would expect worse numbers.   Also, Klay Thompson is a great defender so Kyrie literally put up those numbers on a guy who is an elite defender.   Curry had Kyrie on him, whom we all concede is a poor to mediocre defender.

This is moving the goal posts to such a ridiculous extent. First it was "Kyrie was better," but now that that's been proven to be false, it's "Obviously, Steph was better, but that's because of the situation." Kyrie is a very good player. I'm not sure why people feel the need to bend over backward to build him up into something he's not: a Steph-caliber superstar.

True dat.

They're acting like GS could put 8 defenders on the floor. Irving as defended solo most of the series as the Warriors (rightfully so) concentrated on Lebron. He lost the head-to-head match up.

It's also amazing that some people think that a couple of shots in a game or even a series somehow outweighs a season's worth of production (or lack thereof). 

[chambers]

Irving's 2017 Finals: 29/4/4 on 56% TS with -7.7 NetRTG
Curry's 2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 62% TS with +7.8 NetRTG

I'm sorry that facts don't fit in line with your narrative.

Well the downside of this is that Durant is who won that finals and GS had a lot of options whereas Cavs only had 2 or three.   You literally only had to defend Love, LeBron and Kyring.   When one team has more talent than the other one would expect worse numbers.   Also, Klay Thompson is a great defender so Kyrie literally put up those numbers on a guy who is an elite defender.   Curry had Kyrie on him, whom we all concede is a poor to mediocre defender.

This is moving the goal posts to such a ridiculous extent. First it was "Kyrie was better," but now that that's been proven to be false, it's "Obviously, Steph was better, but that's because of the situation." Kyrie is a very good player. I'm not sure why people feel the need to bend over backward to build him up into something he's not: a Steph-caliber superstar.

True dat.

They're acting like GS could put 8 defenders on the floor. Irving as defended solo most of the series as the Warriors (rightfully so) concentrated on Lebron. He lost the head-to-head match up.

It's also amazing that some people think that a couple of shots in a game or even a series somehow outweighs a season's worth of production (or lack thereof).

No one seems to be answering the topic's main question here.

Do you think Kyrie can get better under Stevens and become a legit top 5-10 player?
How much better can he get at age 25?

What can Brad do to make him better?
eg: Cavs only ran dribble hand offs for 3% of all plays in the playoffs, Kyrie shoots 48% on catch and shoots yet only gets 10% of his offense from catch and shoots?
Having Horford on the perimeter instead of Thompson in the paint etc..

These are questions which Ainge and Zarren have asked, so we should be asking them too right?

I don't think it's ridiculous to see some serious potential there.

[Granath]

Irving's 2017 Finals: 29/4/4 on 56% TS with -7.7 NetRTG
Curry's 2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 62% TS with +7.8 NetRTG

I'm sorry that facts don't fit in line with your narrative.

Well the downside of this is that Durant is who won that finals and GS had a lot of options whereas Cavs only had 2 or three.   You literally only had to defend Love, LeBron and Kyring.   When one team has more talent than the other one would expect worse numbers.   Also, Klay Thompson is a great defender so Kyrie literally put up those numbers on a guy who is an elite defender.   Curry had Kyrie on him, whom we all concede is a poor to mediocre defender.

This is moving the goal posts to such a ridiculous extent. First it was "Kyrie was better," but now that that's been proven to be false, it's "Obviously, Steph was better, but that's because of the situation." Kyrie is a very good player. I'm not sure why people feel the need to bend over backward to build him up into something he's not: a Steph-caliber superstar.

True dat.

They're acting like GS could put 8 defenders on the floor. Irving as defended solo most of the series as the Warriors (rightfully so) concentrated on Lebron. He lost the head-to-head match up.

It's also amazing that some people think that a couple of shots in a game or even a series somehow outweighs a season's worth of production (or lack thereof).

No one seems to be answering the topic's main question here.

Do you think Kyrie can get better under Stevens and become a legit top 5-10 player?
How much better can he get at age 25?

What can Brad do to make him better?
eg: Cavs only ran dribble hand offs for 3% of all plays in the playoffs, Kyrie shoots 48% on catch and shoots yet only gets 10% of his offense from catch and shoots?
Having Horford on the perimeter instead of Thompson in the paint etc..

These are questions which Ainge and Zarren have asked, so we should be asking them too right?

I don't think it's ridiculous to see some serious potential there.

Okay, I'll give it a go.

Kyrie can only be a top 15-20 player if he (a) plays acceptable defense and (b) does a better job of running the offense. He's already a top 15 scorer. He finished 11th last year in that area. The thing that really hurts him in that area is getting to the line. If he can get to the line a couple more times a game that will help his average considerably. But he's already elite in this area but he needs to work on the other two.

We've already hammered the defensive angle but his other fault is he tends to pound the ball and stalls the offense. This is why Cleveland suffers such a massive drop-off when Lebron sits - Irving stalls out the offense. Yet there were similar complaints about IT before he came to Boston and Brad put him in a system where that didn't happen. Let's hope the same thing happens to Irving.

I think top 5 is probably out of his reach - Irving's game just isn't complete enough. I can't see him reaching the heights that James Harden did  last year - and he just was named the 8th best player in the NBA. Irving is going to have to make a leap just to sniff the top 10 in the league. But I don't think we need him to do that. Top 15 would be just fine because that would reflect substantial improvement in the two areas mentioned above.

[chambers]

Irving's 2017 Finals: 29/4/4 on 56% TS with -7.7 NetRTG
Curry's 2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 62% TS with +7.8 NetRTG

I'm sorry that facts don't fit in line with your narrative.

Well the downside of this is that Durant is who won that finals and GS had a lot of options whereas Cavs only had 2 or three.   You literally only had to defend Love, LeBron and Kyring.   When one team has more talent than the other one would expect worse numbers.   Also, Klay Thompson is a great defender so Kyrie literally put up those numbers on a guy who is an elite defender.   Curry had Kyrie on him, whom we all concede is a poor to mediocre defender.

This is moving the goal posts to such a ridiculous extent. First it was "Kyrie was better," but now that that's been proven to be false, it's "Obviously, Steph was better, but that's because of the situation." Kyrie is a very good player. I'm not sure why people feel the need to bend over backward to build him up into something he's not: a Steph-caliber superstar.

True dat.

They're acting like GS could put 8 defenders on the floor. Irving as defended solo most of the series as the Warriors (rightfully so) concentrated on Lebron. He lost the head-to-head match up.

It's also amazing that some people think that a couple of shots in a game or even a series somehow outweighs a season's worth of production (or lack thereof).

No one seems to be answering the topic's main question here.

Do you think Kyrie can get better under Stevens and become a legit top 5-10 player?
How much better can he get at age 25?

What can Brad do to make him better?
eg: Cavs only ran dribble hand offs for 3% of all plays in the playoffs, Kyrie shoots 48% on catch and shoots yet only gets 10% of his offense from catch and shoots?
Having Horford on the perimeter instead of Thompson in the paint etc..

These are questions which Ainge and Zarren have asked, so we should be asking them too right?

I don't think it's ridiculous to see some serious potential there.

Okay, I'll give it a go.

Kyrie can only be a top 15-20 player if he (a) plays acceptable defense and (b) does a better job of running the offense. He's already a top 15 scorer. He finished 11th last year in that area. The thing that really hurts him in that area is getting to the line. If he can get to the line a couple more times a game that will help his average considerably. But he's already elite in this area but he needs to work on the other two.

We've already hammered the defensive angle but his other fault is he tends to pound the ball and stalls the offense. This is why Cleveland suffers such a massive drop-off when Lebron sits - Irving stalls out the offense. Yet there were similar complaints about IT before he came to Boston and Brad put him in a system where that didn't happen. Let's hope the same thing happens to Irving.

I think top 5 is probably out of his reach - Irving's game just isn't complete enough. I can't see him reaching the heights that James Harden did  last year - and he just was named the 8th best player in the NBA. Irving is going to have to make a leap just to sniff the top 10 in the league. But I don't think we need him to do that. Top 15 would be just fine because that would reflect substantial improvement in the two areas mentioned above.

Fair enough. I guess if he ever reaches James Harden status last year then he's potentially a legit MVP candidate.
I mean again, at age 25, with a coach like Brad, he's going to evolve one way or the other. Either less scoring and more passing or hopefully more of both on greater efficiency.

Brad got Isaiah 8 three point shots a game. Let's hope he can get Kyrie 8 three point shots a game and he continues to hit at 40% like he currently does on his 6 attempts a game.

[Somebody]

I don't think Kyrie is a superstar; he needs to improve on his offense (yes I said it, he needs to be more efficient), his passing and his defense at least to make the trade worth. Dude needs to have a Harden level season with average defense to make me feel okay with the trade, much less happy.

Do you think IT is a superstar?

 I don't.

Kyrie Irving Career NBA Highlights

NBA champion (2016)
4× NBA All-Star (2013–2015, 2017)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (2014)
All-NBA Third Team (2015)
NBA Rookie of the Year (2012)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (2012)
NBA Rising Stars Challenge MVP (2012)
NBA Three-Point Shootout champion (2013)
USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year (2014)
FIBA World Cup MVP (2014)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrie_Irving

Isaiah Thomas Career NBA Highlights

2× NBA All-Star (2016, 2017)
All-NBA Second Team (2017)
NBA All-Rookie Second Team (2012)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Thomas_(basketball)

I would think most would concede that Kyrie is closer to being a superstar than IT.   But we know their stats are close.   Time will tell who is right....

I think that he may be more productive without LeBron dominating the ball so much but time will tell.   We have great ball movement but like IT he is going to be one of our main guys when the clock is winding down both IT and Kyrie can shoot with guys in their face and make shots.  Both are great one on one players.

I don't think Kyrie is a superstar; he needs to improve on his offense (yes I said it, he needs to be more efficient), his passing and his defense at least to make the trade worth. Dude needs to have a Harden level season with average defense to make me feel okay with the trade, much less happy.

Will still feel this way if IT is out for an extended time?   My guess is no, at least if you're being honest about how it affects our basketball performance.   Separate being a fan for a moment from your basketball logic.   

This was the logical move, given the Brinks truck comments and the injury affecting IT's career.  It was a cold heartless trade by Ainge, but it was a rational one.   No one wanted his horde of picks when he tried to trade them and folks that did asked too much.   We get a player who is almost the same statistically, who is a more ideally sized.   Hayward is a better player than Crowder but the media is already starting to love Jae more now he has left Boston.

Now the question will being better on paper translate on the court.   We all know that sometimes it does not ....

Of course it was a logical move, but is giving up the Nets pick with Crowder and Zizic worth the upgrade? I'm expecting big things from Kyrie and he needs to show it right off the bat. Btw IT was a superstar last year, maybe not his whole career but he was legendary last season while Irving was excellent but not quite there. I'll gladly change my stance if Irving explodes, here's hoping he makes the leap. Go Celtics!

[mctyson]

This trade is a can't lose move.

What if Kyrie is just the same player he's been for the first 6 years of his career? What if Kyrie gets seriously injured (something that's happened many times before)? What if Isaiah returns to the level he played at last year? What if the Cavs win the lottery? What if Kyrie leaves in 2 years? There are many, many ways for this to be a "lose" move.

I agree with most of these except the injury part - those are uncontrollable.

[vjcsmoke]

Well the interesting part about trading zizic is the celts obviously feel that yabusele is better/has better upside.   And they did it even knowing we have a chronic rebounding issue, zizic main Str was/will be his rebounding.

As to whether Kyrie is a superstar yet, offensively he has already made a jump to the 25ppg level in 2016.  That left him at 11th in ppg in the entire nba.  Now that he has become the #1 guy on the Celtics he just has to evolve his game to the next level.  At age 25 there still should be plenty of room for improvement and evolution to his game.  We also can't downplay how the Stevens factor can really cultivate and boost his overall improvement as a player and a leader on the parquet.

I'm very excited to see kyrie take that next step with the Celtics.  We've been saying for years that we need better talent to compete,  that talent wins championships.  Well we just got more talented.  And I'm adding Hayward to that talent improvement as well.  While a lot of posters here seem pessimistic and only look to the possible downsides of the move.  I choose to let it play out and hope for the best.  Like it or not the new Big 3 is here, let's hope they can bring us a few new banners in the upcoming year!

[Tr1boy]

this is the player we have on the team now....  can't wait

Kyrie Irving 57 pts vs Spurs.  Clutch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxt8hJbelo

[Granath]

this is the player we have on the team now....  can't wait

Kyrie Irving 57 pts vs Spurs.  Clutch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxt8hJbelo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBceVp61jzA

Clutch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4K7nKW6sDg

Clutch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isGDLUu1i2M

Clutch.

Would you like me to keep going? For every highlight reel you want to post, there's another one already out there from the player we gave away. And before you want to misconstrue this as a "I miss IT post" (which I haven't ever said), it was the total price of the deal. Because we also gave up a top 5 pick in a strong draft. Plus a big man with potential. Plus perhaps the best non-rookie contract in the NBA.

It's the body of work that counts. Irving is going to have to significantly improve that body of work for this deal to be worth it. Danny believes he can. Brad is great at putting players in the best position to succeed so we all hope Irving takes the next step forward. But right now he's not even a top 5 PG in the league based on that body of work and a couple of YouTube videos aren't going to change that.

[GratefulCs]

this is the player we have on the team now....  can't wait

Kyrie Irving 57 pts vs Spurs.  Clutch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxt8hJbelo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBceVp61jzA

Clutch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4K7nKW6sDg

Clutch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isGDLUu1i2M

Clutch.

Would you like me to keep going? For every highlight reel you want to post, there's another one already out there from the player we gave away. And before you want to misconstrue this as a "I miss IT post" (which I haven't ever said), it was the total price of the deal. Because we also gave up a top 5 pick in a strong draft. Plus a big man with potential. Plus perhaps the best non-rookie contract in the NBA.

It's the body of work that counts. Irving is going to have to significantly improve that body of work for this deal to be worth it. Danny believes he can. Brad is great at putting players in the best position to succeed so we all hope Irving takes the next step forward. But right now he's not even a top 5 PG in the league based on that body of work and a couple of YouTube videos aren't going to change that.

if you think IT is healthy, then ya, we gave up way too much

the highlights are all well and good, but one of those players is on the upswing, and one may never get back to his old self


i think there are too many people on this board ho don't understand how much worse off we'd have been if we kept a hobbled IT and then gave him a huge contract....or let him walk for nothing


i, for one, welcome our new insect overlords

[mmmmm]

This is moving the goal posts to such a ridiculous extent. First it was "Kyrie was better," but now that that's been proven to be false, it's "Obviously, Steph was better, but that's because of the situation." Kyrie is a very good player. I'm not sure why people feel the need to bend over backward to build him up into something he's not: a Steph-caliber superstar.

When a team has less good players to guard they can double team a guy.   It is a basketball maxim.   At no point, did I say Kyrie was better.  I did not move the goalposts, I  simply pointed fundamentals of basketball defense. 

Hold on there.  It's one thing to note that when a team has only one real elite offensive threat, defenses will double-team that guy (Example:  Thomas on the Celtics the last 2 1/2 seasons).

But when a team has multiple offensive threats like Lebron James, Kevin Love, Kyrie Irving and multiple proven elite complementary scorers like Korver, Smith, Thompson, et al, you are not getting double-teamed.   The ONLY guy in that group who is getting double-team attention is Lebron. 

The fact that the Cavs didn't have quite as many elite scoring threats as GSW didn't mean that the Warriors could double-team Kyrie.   There are still only 5 guys on the court for each team and when Lebron & Kevin Love are two of the other 4, there is no way you are double-teaming Kyrie Irving. 

[Big333223]

I'm super high on Kyrie. I think he has MVP-level talent and I think the Celtics can win multiple championships with him as their best player.

But I think the idea that he's been as good or better than Steph Curry to this point in their careers is... a stretch.