Is Kyrie a superstar? (poll)

[celticsclay]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

Allen Iverson...

Dude was definitely under 6 feet, I don’t care what he listed himself as.

Nope. I am 6-feet even, and I've met him. He's about a half-inch taller than I am.

Are you guys seriously arguing about Iverson's height over a half an inch? Wow

There has obviously not been a lot of players that were short in the league period. Iverson was obviously solid at 30 whether he was 5'11.5 or 6'0.5. Isiah is a really unique player that has never been seen before. Probably just confusing to try to apply laws of average to him.

[GratefulCs]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

Allen Iverson...

Dude was definitely under 6 feet, I don’t care what he listed himself as.

Nope. I am 6-feet even, and I've met him. He's about a half-inch taller than I am.

Lol nope. Im 6 2 and about 3 inches taller than him. Stood right in front of him. And if he really was 6’0.5’’ like you say, he would be listed at least at 6’2’’. There have been many articles written about how Iverson rounded his height up to 6 foot even.

Well, I guess that clinches it, then. LOL.

Ainge sold high on Thomas. Period.

coach bo, i havent read through your posts, but do you like this trade?

i do

and idon't think we've agreed on much in the past


so i'm EXTRA pumped if we BOTH love the deal

[Roy H.]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

Allen Iverson...

Dude was definitely under 6 feet, I don’t care what he listed himself as.

Nope. I am 6-feet even, and I've met him. He's about a half-inch taller than I am.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=30&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=74&birth_country_is=Y&is_as=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&order_by=pts_per_g

I'm guessing a few of those guys are under 6'0" without shoes, particularly AI and Lowry.

[Phantom255x]

If Kyrie is a superstar, then so is Isaiah.

And don't give me this, "but Kyrie made that shot in the Finals, he burned us in the playoffs" reasoning.

Yeah, that's true, BUT come on, with Lebron on your team you will go FAR. To IT's credit, he did it without a Lebron and as an alpha.

[mmmmm]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

That's a rather dubious threshold.

For one thing, the total selection pool of players listed at 5' 11" or less' who have even been good enough to play in the NBA _at all_ past the age of 30 is incredibly tiny.  Just 37 such players are in the basketball-reference.com database!

Any larger pool of players is more likely to have more AS representation.

Even so, that tiny pool includes players like Calvin Murphy, Avery Johnson and a few others who posted seasons that were certainly all-star caliber past the age of 30.

And considering how prevalent it has been for shorter players to be generously listed at taller heights, if you just barely bump your threshold by one single inch to 6' 0" or less, the numbers jump dramatically.  The selection pool doubles to 79.   And 11 of those players combined for 25 All-Star appearances.

And that doesn't even include Nate (Tiny) Archibald or AI because they were both 'listed' as 6' 1".

Chris Paul is listed at 6' in the database and just played in the 2016 All-Star game at age 30.  And arguably had an All-Star caliber season just this year at age 31.   Kyle Lowry is listed at a very generous 6' 0" and played in this year's AS game.

[SHAQATTACK]

OH yeah !

[Ilikesports17]

If Kyrie is a superstar, then so is Isaiah.

And don't give me this, "but Kyrie made that shot in the Finals, he burned us in the playoffs" reasoning.

Yeah, that's true, BUT come on, with Lebron on your team you will go FAR. To IT's credit, he did it without a Lebron and as an alpha.

Don't give me this [incredibly reasonable argument]"

Why the hell cant I argue that Kyrie is a superstar because he has dominated in the NBA finals and in the playoffs on the biggest stages?

Last time a checked hitting a dagger championship clinching three against the GOAT regular season team was a valid resume builder

[Roy H.]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

That's a rather dubious threshold.

For one thing, the total selection pool of players listed at 5' 11" or less' who have even been good enough to play in the NBA _at all_ past the age of 30 is incredibly tiny.  Just 37 such players are in the basketball-reference.com database!

Any larger pool of players is more likely to have more AS representation.

Even so, that tiny pool includes players like Calvin Murphy, Avery Johnson and a few others who posted seasons that were certainly all-star caliber past the age of 30.

And considering how prevalent it has been for shorter players to be generously listed at taller heights, if you just barely bump your threshold by one single inch to 6' 0" or less, the numbers jump dramatically.  The selection pool doubles to 79.   And 11 of those players combined for 25 All-Star appearances.

And that doesn't even include Nate (Tiny) Archibald or AI because they were both 'listed' as 6' 1".

Chris Paul is listed at 6' in the database and just played in the 2016 All-Star game at age 30.  And arguably had an All-Star caliber season just this year at age 31.   Kyle Lowry is listed at a very generous 6' 0" and played in this year's AS game.

Yeah, CP3 is 5'11.75" without shoes.

And Calvin Murphy was, in fact, an all-star in his age 30-31 season I believe.

[jakeopp]

No, but he may get there.

[jakeopp]

Been surprised at the people mad at the trade even though we got rid of uncertain assets and players and we got a certain surefire top 15 player. Id consider kyrie a superstar from what he's achieved

Top 5 in the league

1. Lebron
1. Durant
1. Leonard
2. Curry
2. Irving

3. RW
3. Harden

What is this lol.

Curry is transcendent, Irving isn't close to his level right now.

Also, Westbrook/Harden >>> Irving 

[jakeopp]

He’s not a surefire top 15 player. I have (in no particular order)

Lebron
Kawhi
Durant
Giannis
PG13
Curry
Westbrook
Harden
CP3
Wall
Butler
Davis
Cousins
Towns

All above him. That’s 14 players. So for the 15th spot I think he’s fighting with Lillard, who I think are really similar players. But that’s not even mentioning Derozan, Hayward, Griffin, and Gobert who I could potentially see someone taking over Kyrie.

Lol at bigs being about guards. They don't have the same impact

Also lol at putting jimmy butler ahead of him

You should watch Kyrie play defense and then come back and tell me bigs like Anthony Davis, and 2 way stars like Jimmy Butler shouldn’t be ahead of him.

I like how you mention defense but you have harden, towns, curry, and cp3 on your list

CP3 is a great defender, do you even basketball bro?

[PhoSita]

No.  He's got the talent to become one, but so far in his career he's been a superlative individual scorer and that's all.

I put him on a similar level as guys like Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum.  He's a cut below John Wall and Kyle Lowry, not to mention Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Paul, etc.  I might even put Mike Conley above him.

I can't see him as a superstar until he demonstrates that he's capable of elevating his team, not simply putting on impressive individual scoring displays.

I think it's possible for a pure offensive player to be a superstar, but the production needs to be otherworldly.  Isaiah Thomas arguably hit that level last year.


Again, he's got the talent, but hasn't actually put it together in that way for more than a few games at a time in the playoffs.

That's ridiculous. I can see the Wall argument, but putting Lowry and Conley over him is laughable. He's also clearly better than McCollum.

God, how did Celticsblog underrate this kid so much?

Lowry and Conley have shown they can actually run an offense and get others involved.

They also play defense.

Irving is clearly better than McCollum, but they're a similar sort of player to this point in their careers.


Again, I want to make clear the distinction here -- there's no question Kyrie has a lot of talent.  It wouldn't shock me if he's much better than Lowry, Conley, even Wall as soon as this year.

But he hasn't shown that over any extended period of time so far in his career.


Look, he's an exceptional one on one scorer.  I just don't place that high a value on isolation scoring, period.  It's a nice skillset to have but to be a lead guy on a good team you need to do more than that.  We'll see if Kyrie can become a more well-rounded team oriented player.

This is a perfect example of the emotionalism I referred to in another thread. It was here against Kevin Garnett. It was here against Ray Allen.

I get the perspective it comes from. I just find it thoroughly bereft of logic.

Im curious what you mean by "emotionalism" in this context.

If you've got an argument supported by evidence in favor of Kyrie being exceptional at anything other than isolation scoring, finishing tough layups, and shooting, please share it.

[jakeopp]

No.  He's got the talent to become one, but so far in his career he's been a superlative individual scorer and that's all.

I put him on a similar level as guys like Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum.  He's a cut below John Wall and Kyle Lowry, not to mention Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Paul, etc.  I might even put Mike Conley above him.

I can't see him as a superstar until he demonstrates that he's capable of elevating his team, not simply putting on impressive individual scoring displays.

I think it's possible for a pure offensive player to be a superstar, but the production needs to be otherworldly.  Isaiah Thomas arguably hit that level last year.


Again, he's got the talent, but hasn't actually put it together in that way for more than a few games at a time in the playoffs.

That's ridiculous. I can see the Wall argument, but putting Lowry and Conley over him is laughable. He's also clearly better than McCollum.

God, how did Celticsblog underrate this kid so much?

Lowry and Conley have shown they can actually run an offense and get others involved.

They also play defense.

Irving is clearly better than McCollum, but they're a similar sort of player to this point in their careers.


Again, I want to make clear the distinction here -- there's no question Kyrie has a lot of talent.  It wouldn't shock me if he's much better than Lowry, Conley, even Wall as soon as this year.

But he hasn't shown that over any extended period of time so far in his career.


Look, he's an exceptional one on one scorer.  I just don't place that high a value on isolation scoring, period.  It's a nice skillset to have but to be a lead guy on a good team you need to do more than that.  We'll see if Kyrie can become a more well-rounded team oriented player.

This is a perfect example of the emotionalism I referred to in another thread. It was here against Kevin Garnett. It was here against Ray Allen.

I get the perspective it comes from. I just find it thoroughly bereft of logic.

Im curious what you mean by "emotionalism" in this context.

If you've got an argument supported by evidence in favor of Kyrie being exceptional at anything other than isolation scoring, finishing tough layups, and shooting, please share it.

Apparently people aren't allowed to prefer IT without being accused of being overly emotional and told to "get over it"

[Eja117]

Are there any other super stars in the league that have only been 3rd team all nba once?  He's an Olympian. Gotta give him that. I'm sure it had nothing to do with his Duke connection whatsoever

[tarheelsxxiii]

No.  He's got the talent to become one, but so far in his career he's been a superlative individual scorer and that's all.

I put him on a similar level as guys like Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum.  He's a cut below John Wall and Kyle Lowry, not to mention Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Paul, etc.  I might even put Mike Conley above him.

I can't see him as a superstar until he demonstrates that he's capable of elevating his team, not simply putting on impressive individual scoring displays.

I think it's possible for a pure offensive player to be a superstar, but the production needs to be otherworldly.  Isaiah Thomas arguably hit that level last year.


Again, he's got the talent, but hasn't actually put it together in that way for more than a few games at a time in the playoffs.

That's ridiculous. I can see the Wall argument, but putting Lowry and Conley over him is laughable. He's also clearly better than McCollum.

God, how did Celticsblog underrate this kid so much?

Lowry and Conley have shown they can actually run an offense and get others involved.

They also play defense.

Irving is clearly better than McCollum, but they're a similar sort of player to this point in their careers.


Again, I want to make clear the distinction here -- there's no question Kyrie has a lot of talent.  It wouldn't shock me if he's much better than Lowry, Conley, even Wall as soon as this year.

But he hasn't shown that over any extended period of time so far in his career.


Look, he's an exceptional one on one scorer.  I just don't place that high a value on isolation scoring, period.  It's a nice skillset to have but to be a lead guy on a good team you need to do more than that.  We'll see if Kyrie can become a more well-rounded team oriented player.

This is a perfect example of the emotionalism I referred to in another thread. It was here against Kevin Garnett. It was here against Ray Allen.

I get the perspective it comes from. I just find it thoroughly bereft of logic.

Im curious what you mean by "emotionalism" in this context.

If you've got an argument supported by evidence in favor of Kyrie being exceptional at anything other than isolation scoring, finishing tough layups, and shooting, please share it.

Apparently people aren't allowed to prefer IT without being accused of being overly emotional and told to "get over it"

I find thoroughly bereft of logic to be feathery but better-suited for a Nicolas Sparks blog.  To each his own, though.