Quantifying how bad Kyrie's defense was last season

[Roy H.]

The point that has been repeatedly brought up (that I haven't seen a response from you or other anti-Kyrie guys) is that Kyrie has more potential to play good defense, relative to IT (last year's PG for the Celtics). You can talk about last year's stats all day, but the question remains: is Kyrie going to play better or worse D than IT in 2017-18. This analysis seems relevant for Kyrie's time with the Celtics, not when he was playing under a different system for CLE.

I don't really think he has much potential to play defense.  That's the point. There are plenty of big PGs who don't have defensive instincts, or who don't have the energy, or who don't put in the effort to play defense. I posted the numbers for the 2016 Finals. Kyrie was by far the worst defender for either team. I assume he tried to play D; he's just lacking the skills.

I tend to believe that players don't often radically change their abilities. I'm happy to be wrong, but the argument that Kyrie is currently a better defender than IT isn't really true. As the guys at 538 said, he's "historically bad".  I'm hopeful that he improves, but to date nothing really suggests that that's a realistic hope. I'm happy to be wrong.

[tarheelsxxiii]

I think people know that Kyrie is not a good defender, but neither was Thomas and theoretically, Kyrie can get better under Stevens. I think that's what Danny is hoping for.

Last season, Kyrie wasn't just "not a good defender". According to the folks over at 538, he was "historically bad".

I'm hopeful he'll get better, but last season he was worse than IT at defense. The thing that worries me is that the Cavs had to dumb things down for their guys, replacing switches with straight man to man because players - namely Kyrie and Love - struggled.

Would you say you're hopeful?

I've read a lot of your posts about Kyrie, and hopeful doesn't seem consistent with what I have read.

What does this add to the conversation, exactly?

You're upset about this trade, so you're cherry picking points to show that Kyrie does not make this team better. In other threads, you brought up his lack of leadership and competitive spirit. In this thread, you are discussing his lack of defense. I think that is fine to not like a certain player.

What I don't get is how you are portraying that you are hopeful when you clearly are not. I was honestly trying to see how you can admit that you are hopeful about Kyrie. What supporting evidence (specifically related to the subject of Kyrie's defense last year) gives you hope?

I'm not sure you know what "hopeful" means.

I am hopeful that my powerball numbers come up. I'm skeptical that they will.

As for "being sensitive", you're repeatedly taking threads off-topic with personally directed remarks. Stick to discussing basketball.

If you'd like to start a topic discussing Kyrie's strengths, please do so. If you don't want to discuss his defense, find a new thread. But seriously, start adding something to the conversation.

I understand that you just want to talk about Kyrie's time in CLE last year in this thread, but I would think that many readers would be interested in how he will do with the Celtics. Last year's performance might not be the only influencing factor for this year's performance.

Like IT, Kyrie's physical build is also a factor that influences his defensive ability.  He's been consistently injury-prone, and he seems to expend a lot of energy to score, as pretty as it may be.  In combination with his perceived "superstar" status, those factors are enough to question whether or not he will (or even can) improve as a defender.  I'd guess he will if a) he's capable, and b) there's a lot to lose if he does not (i.e., Finals).

[GreenWarrior]

IT's defense was bad because it was like he wasn't there. if irving can just be a guy opponents can't just shoot over then it's an improvement.

[jpotter33]

However, unlike IT, Kyrie has all of the tools necessary to be an average or even a slightly above average defender, and we've actually seen him play high-level defense in the playoffs in their championship year, which is much more than you can say about IT.

Have we?

Against the Dubs, for instance, Kyrie allowed his man to shoot 8%* better than their typical average. That was by far the worst percentage differential of any regular on either team.

For those saying Kyrie has the necessary tools, did he just not care enough to play defense?

*8% meaning add, rather than multiply, 8% to the opponents' regular FG%. Kyrie's man went from averaging 48.4% on average to 56.4% against Kyrie. I believe that's a raw FG% rather than eFG%.

Absolutely. I'm specifically referring to their title run in 2016. I distinctly remember being impressed by Kyrie's D and how well he played Curry. Last year that entire Cavs team was hot garbage defensively, which I think is largely attributable to both the "championship hangover" and them just not focusing on their D due to over-reliance on their offense.

EDIT: Granted, I literally just went through the entire 2015-2016 Finals thread and couldn't find where I posted about Kyrie's D impressing me, but I definitely remember it.

Those numbers are specifically from that Finals series.

I remember Shaun Livingston killing the Cavs, and I believe Kyrie was covering him.

Hat tip for the research, though. Wading through old game threads is dangerous business, especially those involving Lebron.

Yeah, in retrospect it was surprising how invested we all were in that series.

And to think, if GS hadn't blown that 3-1 lead Durant very well could be in green right now. 

[green_bballers13]

Ok, so is it fair to say that many of the pro Kyrie ppl think that he hasn't hit his potential, while many of the less than keen Kyrie people think that "what we see on D is what we're going to get"?

I think both sides make sense, maybe just different expectations?

[Boris Badenov]

The point that has been repeatedly brought up (that I haven't seen a response from you or other anti-Kyrie guys) is that Kyrie has more potential to play good defense, relative to IT (last year's PG for the Celtics). You can talk about last year's stats all day, but the question remains: is Kyrie going to play better or worse D than IT in 2017-18. This analysis seems relevant for Kyrie's time with the Celtics, not when he was playing under a different system for CLE.

I don't really think he has much potential to play defense.  That's the point. There are plenty of big PGs who don't have defensive instincts, or who don't have the energy, or who don't put in the effort to play defense. I posted the numbers for the 2016 Finals. Kyrie was by far the worst defender for either team. I assume he tried to play D; he's just lacking the skills.

I tend to believe that players don't often radically change their abilities. I'm happy to be wrong, but the argument that Kyrie is currently a better defender than IT isn't really true. As the guys at 538 said, he's "historically bad".  I'm hopeful that he improves, but to date nothing really suggests that that's a realistic hope. I'm happy to be wrong.

I'm sure this question has been on other people's minds but why are you so fatalistic about Irving's defensive shortcomings and other issues, when you've been telling everyone for two years about how Demarcus Cousins is a victim of a bad situation, and with a change of scenery could blossom into the franchise player we've all wanted?

Why would you imply that Kyrie's too old to develop leadership skills at 25, when Cousins is 26?

Are you willing to admit that while you're entitled to your own opinion about player values, yours about these two players are completely divorced from the reality of the market?

Because you were willing to give up Jaylen Brown, BKN 17 and BKN 18 for Cousins and he went for peanuts compared to that.

And you think Kyrie is worse than IT, but Danny Ainge, who's probably got the single best trade history in the league over the last several years, thought that Kyrie was worth IT PLUS the BKN 18 pick, which on its own could have fetched someone like Jimmy Butler.

I know I'm raising a lot of different issues here, but to me they paint an overall picture, which is of someone who applies double standards and stubbornly holds to beliefs that are at odds with the collective wisdom of all the smart people in the league.

Which is of course your right. But you've acted confused when other people over the last week or so have expressed the same view, in one way or another. So I'll just add myself to the list of people who's baffled, given that you've been a long-time solid presence on this board.

[Roy H.]

The point that has been repeatedly brought up (that I haven't seen a response from you or other anti-Kyrie guys) is that Kyrie has more potential to play good defense, relative to IT (last year's PG for the Celtics). You can talk about last year's stats all day, but the question remains: is Kyrie going to play better or worse D than IT in 2017-18. This analysis seems relevant for Kyrie's time with the Celtics, not when he was playing under a different system for CLE.

I don't really think he has much potential to play defense.  That's the point. There are plenty of big PGs who don't have defensive instincts, or who don't have the energy, or who don't put in the effort to play defense. I posted the numbers for the 2016 Finals. Kyrie was by far the worst defender for either team. I assume he tried to play D; he's just lacking the skills.

I tend to believe that players don't often radically change their abilities. I'm happy to be wrong, but the argument that Kyrie is currently a better defender than IT isn't really true. As the guys at 538 said, he's "historically bad".  I'm hopeful that he improves, but to date nothing really suggests that that's a realistic hope. I'm happy to be wrong.

I'm sure this question has been on other people's minds but why are you so fatalistic about Irving's defensive shortcomings and other issues, when you've been telling everyone for two years about how Demarcus Cousins is a victim of a bad situation, and with a change of scenery could blossom into the franchise player we've all wanted?

Why would you imply that Kyrie's too old to develop leadership skills at 25, when Cousins is 26?

Are you willing to admit that while you're entitled to your own opinion about player values, yours about these two players are completely divorced from the reality of the market?

Because you were willing to give up Jaylen Brown, BKN 17 and BKN 18 for Cousins and he went for peanuts compared to that.

And you think Kyrie is worse than IT, but Danny Ainge, who's probably got the single best trade history in the league over the last several years, thought that Kyrie was worth IT PLUS the BKN 18 pick, which on its own could have fetched someone like Jimmy Butler.

I know I'm raising a lot of different issues here, but to me they paint an overall picture, which is of someone who applies double standards and stubbornly holds to beliefs that are at odds with the collective wisdom of all the smart people in the league.

Which is of course your right. But you've acted confused when other people over the last week or so have expressed the same view, in one way or another. So I'll just add myself to the list of people who's baffled, given that you've been a long-time solid presence on this board.

I'm not sure what's so baffling.

DMC and Kyrie are different players. Cousins has consistently improved his game, despite being in a bad situation. He's a complete player who is easily triggered by losing. He's shown a tremendous ability to adapt to new systems and learn new skills.

Kyrie has the same skills that he came into the league with, and while he's refined the things he's good at, he hasn't improved any of his weaknesses.

Also, as I said elsewhere, if the cost of DMC was an equal (or better) player, a starter, and a lottery pick, I'd pass on that deal.

Lastly, lol at "all the smart people in the league". Plenty of smart people have concerns about Kyrie. What I find baffling, personally, is the number of people who can't form -- or accept -- an opinion that differs from Danny's.

[max215]

Ok, so is it fair to say that many of the pro Kyrie ppl think that he hasn't hit his potential, while many of the less than keen Kyrie people think that "what we see on D is what we're going to get"?

I think both sides make sense, maybe just different expectations?

As someone who's not big on Kyrie, it's not about the defense. He's an offense-only player who's not good enough at offense.

[jdz101]

The point that has been repeatedly brought up (that I haven't seen a response from you or other anti-Kyrie guys) is that Kyrie has more potential to play good defense, relative to IT (last year's PG for the Celtics). You can talk about last year's stats all day, but the question remains: is Kyrie going to play better or worse D than IT in 2017-18. This analysis seems relevant for Kyrie's time with the Celtics, not when he was playing under a different system for CLE.

I don't really think he has much potential to play defense.  That's the point. There are plenty of big PGs who don't have defensive instincts, or who don't have the energy, or who don't put in the effort to play defense. I posted the numbers for the 2016 Finals. Kyrie was by far the worst defender for either team. I assume he tried to play D; he's just lacking the skills.

I tend to believe that players don't often radically change their abilities. I'm happy to be wrong, but the argument that Kyrie is currently a better defender than IT isn't really true. As the guys at 538 said, he's "historically bad".  I'm hopeful that he improves, but to date nothing really suggests that that's a realistic hope. I'm happy to be wrong.

I'm sure this question has been on other people's minds but why are you so fatalistic about Irving's defensive shortcomings and other issues, when you've been telling everyone for two years about how Demarcus Cousins is a victim of a bad situation, and with a change of scenery could blossom into the franchise player we've all wanted?

Why would you imply that Kyrie's too old to develop leadership skills at 25, when Cousins is 26?

Are you willing to admit that while you're entitled to your own opinion about player values, yours about these two players are completely divorced from the reality of the market?

Because you were willing to give up Jaylen Brown, BKN 17 and BKN 18 for Cousins and he went for peanuts compared to that.

And you think Kyrie is worse than IT, but Danny Ainge, who's probably got the single best trade history in the league over the last several years, thought that Kyrie was worth IT PLUS the BKN 18 pick, which on its own could have fetched someone like Jimmy Butler.

I know I'm raising a lot of different issues here, but to me they paint an overall picture, which is of someone who applies double standards and stubbornly holds to beliefs that are at odds with the collective wisdom of all the smart people in the league.

Which is of course your right. But you've acted confused when other people over the last week or so have expressed the same view, in one way or another. So I'll just add myself to the list of people who's baffled, given that you've been a long-time solid presence on this board.

I'm not sure what's so baffling.

DMC and Kyrie are different players. Cousins has consistently improved his game, despite being in a bad situation. He's a complete player who is easily triggered by losing. He's shown a tremendous ability to adapt to new systems and learn new skills.

Cousins is not a complete player.

The fact that you're labelling Cousins as a complete player and criticising Kyrie's defensive effort in the same thread is a bit off the mark. Cousins has shown some of the worst defensive effort I've seen from a pro in the NBA.

Cousins, for a physically dominant center, somehow also shoots a worse percentage than point guard Irving. For our basketball team, I would far prefer to trade the farm for a center like Gobert, who is actually a severe difference maker on both ends, doesn't need the ball in his hands 30% of the time, and is not just an overrated stat padder like Cousins who contributes very little to his team winning, and in the locker room.

There is a reason the market was extremely soft for Cousins, and by the deadline this year it'll be even softer.

[jdz101]

delete

[dmopower]

Here's the difference.  In the playoffs, teams would target Isaiah and there was nothin we could do about it. He was not just a defensive liability on the floor but the target and gameplan of the other teams offense.   The same cannot be said for kyrie. He played decent D at times against curry in the finals.  He played at Duke, albeit for a few games, and coach K loves him so he has to be able to bring the D when it's part of the team concept and focus.  I have a feeling there was a lot of dysfunction with the cavs team and that contributed to kyrie lackadaisical D.

Joining the Celtics wth brad and a strong culture of defense, I expect his effort and D performance to go up.  And if we need to always hide him on the second worse guard like we did with Isaiah (or even a wing like oubre or porter), due to his size he won't get completely abused like Isaiah.

For the record I love Isaiah and he always gave effort - but he couldn't do anything else on d due to his size.

 This!

[jdz101]

Ok, so is it fair to say that many of the pro Kyrie ppl think that he hasn't hit his potential, while many of the less than keen Kyrie people think that "what we see on D is what we're going to get"?

I think both sides make sense, maybe just different expectations?

As someone who's not big on Kyrie, it's not about the defense. He's an offense-only player who's not good enough at offense.

Suggest an alternative superstar guard that was available for that sort of package. Obviously Danny didn't want to pay Thomas. Who else were we going to acquire? We could have drafted Fultz, but honestly, after a short preview, I'm not really that enthused by Markelle Fultz. He looks pretty slow by NBA standards. I'm far more enthused by getting that extra pick and drafting Tatum.

[green_bballers13]

The point that has been repeatedly brought up (that I haven't seen a response from you or other anti-Kyrie guys) is that Kyrie has more potential to play good defense, relative to IT (last year's PG for the Celtics). You can talk about last year's stats all day, but the question remains: is Kyrie going to play better or worse D than IT in 2017-18. This analysis seems relevant for Kyrie's time with the Celtics, not when he was playing under a different system for CLE.

I don't really think he has much potential to play defense.  That's the point. There are plenty of big PGs who don't have defensive instincts, or who don't have the energy, or who don't put in the effort to play defense. I posted the numbers for the 2016 Finals. Kyrie was by far the worst defender for either team. I assume he tried to play D; he's just lacking the skills.

I tend to believe that players don't often radically change their abilities. I'm happy to be wrong, but the argument that Kyrie is currently a better defender than IT isn't really true. As the guys at 538 said, he's "historically bad".  I'm hopeful that he improves, but to date nothing really suggests that that's a realistic hope. I'm happy to be wrong.

I'm sure this question has been on other people's minds but why are you so fatalistic about Irving's defensive shortcomings and other issues, when you've been telling everyone for two years about how Demarcus Cousins is a victim of a bad situation, and with a change of scenery could blossom into the franchise player we've all wanted?

Why would you imply that Kyrie's too old to develop leadership skills at 25, when Cousins is 26?

Are you willing to admit that while you're entitled to your own opinion about player values, yours about these two players are completely divorced from the reality of the market?

Because you were willing to give up Jaylen Brown, BKN 17 and BKN 18 for Cousins and he went for peanuts compared to that.

And you think Kyrie is worse than IT, but Danny Ainge, who's probably got the single best trade history in the league over the last several years, thought that Kyrie was worth IT PLUS the BKN 18 pick, which on its own could have fetched someone like Jimmy Butler.

I know I'm raising a lot of different issues here, but to me they paint an overall picture, which is of someone who applies double standards and stubbornly holds to beliefs that are at odds with the collective wisdom of all the smart people in the league.

Which is of course your right. But you've acted confused when other people over the last week or so have expressed the same view, in one way or another. So I'll just add myself to the list of people who's baffled, given that you've been a long-time solid presence on this board.

I'm not sure what's so baffling.

DMC and Kyrie are different players. Cousins has consistently improved his game, despite being in a bad situation. He's a complete player who is easily triggered by losing. He's shown a tremendous ability to adapt to new systems and learn new skills.

Kyrie has the same skills that he came into the league with, and while he's refined the things he's good at, he hasn't improved any of his weaknesses.

Also, as I said elsewhere, if the cost of DMC was an equal (or better) player, a starter, and a lottery pick, I'd pass on that deal.

Lastly, lol at "all the smart people in the league". Plenty of smart people have concerns about Kyrie. What I find baffling, personally, is the number of people who can't form -- or accept -- an opinion that differs from Danny's.

This is very true. I'm a Celtics fan and usually support Danny's moves, b/c I have faith in his leadership. I feel the same way about the Patriots and Belichick. Many fortune 500 CEO's are paid crazy $ b/c their respective boards trust the process and where the company is going under that leadership.

I certainly would not state that I know anywhere near as much basketball as Danny or his team. To think otherwise would be silly.

I wasn't a huge Jeff Green fan, and hated the Olynyk pick. Other than that, I think that Danny has been a master tactician and deserves praise, esp. with regard to this offseason and specifically, the Kyrie Irving acquisition.

[Roy H.]

I certainly would not state that I know anywhere near as much basketball as Danny or his team. To think otherwise would be silly.

Do you know as much about basketball as Billy King or Elgin Baylor? I suspect not. That doesn't mean that their judgments should be deferred to. 

Danny is a very good GM, who has made many moves that haven't worked out. I'd guess more than a dozen, easy. Fans are justified in second guessing him, especially when they do so in a reasoned way.

[green_bballers13]

I certainly would not state that I know anywhere near as much basketball as Danny or his team. To think otherwise would be silly.

Do you know as much about basketball as Billy King or Elgin Baylor? I suspect not. That doesn't mean that their judgments should be deferred to. 

Danny is a very good GM, who has made many moves that haven't worked out. I'd guess more than a dozen, easy. Fans are justified in second guessing him, especially when they do so in a reasoned way.

That totally makes sense.

On the other hand, I feel that many are criticizing the move without providing a better path forward. Was the status quo (letting IT walk after this year and drafting with BKN's pick) better than this? Danny wasn't going to pay IT what he wanted- I think this is obvious at this point.

In my eyes, Danny consolidated and improved the roster, opening up more room to add valuable role players down the road. I think that Danny realized this team had gone as far as they could, and needed to shake it up to get to the next level.

I certainly think this is more important than trying to bring back a similar team next year.