Kyrie ranked 25; Hayward ranked 20

[Bucketgetter]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Is that why James Harden is one of the top guys? Kyrie improved dramatically from 15/16 to 16/17, yet he was dropped 10 spots. There is no real reasonable explanation for it. Conley and Lowry didn't have breakout seasons or anything, and I doubt many league-wide would argue the case for either of those two over Kyrie.

I'm not saying it's an anti-Celtic bias (Smart was nearly ranked as highly as Melo, for some reason), but it's definitely a stupid ranking system.

You’re proving his point for him, that the list puts an emphasis on defense...

Lonzo Ball being above Melo suggests otherwise.  From what I've seen Lonzo was a pretty woeful defender even at the college level.  Melo isn't a great defender because of lack of effort, but when he tries he's actually very good.  I don't think Melo will be a good defensive player no matter how hard he tries.

Lol you’re arguing Melo should be rated higher based on the merit of his defense?? I don’t think you know what player we’re talking about..

No, I'm arguing Melo should be higher because he is an infinitely superior player.

he defence comment was added because any mention of Melo is always going to bring responses about how bad his defence - so before anybody jumped on that argument I wanted to make it clear from the get go that the defence of Lonzo Ball is not going to be any better.

Lonzo Ball has nothing to do with that argument. We’re talking about how much the list values defense, and bringing up a guy who hasn’t played a single NBA game isn’t going to help your argument. We don’t know if he will be good at defense, or offense for that matter. Whoever wrote the list thinks he will and believes the hype with Ball.

The list clearly puts a heavy emphasis on defense. Ranking Melo and Smart back to back, having Kyrie below Lowry and Conley shows that. Those guys have actually shown what they can do and the writer chose to rank them where they are, instead of predicting how Lonzo will do.

Umm...

The list has Lonzo Ball ranked one position above Carmelo Anthony...

Even those who are hyped about Ball are not hyped about him for his defence.  So trying to argue the list is ranking guys based on defence makes no sense if they are ranking Ball above Melo. 

My assumption is that they are raking guys based on what they perceived to be a player's impact on winning.  I'm assuming that they are labelling guys like Melo and Kyrie as ball hogging chuckers who are detrimental to their team success, and for this reason are ranking them lower in the list. 

They most likely perceive guys like Conley, Lowry and Hayward as team oriented players and for that reason place them higher on the list. 

Likewise they likely look at Smart as a hustle guy and impact player who impacts on team wins, and hence place him fairly high on the list for that reason.

With Ball being most known for his passing and 'making his teams better' this is probably also why they have put him above Melo.

I don't believe they are making the list with defence as a main preference, and he's not nearly as good a scorer as Kyrie, nor is he known for his defensive prowess.  However he rebounds, he's a skilled passer, is unselfish with the ball, etc - likely why they put him only one spot below Kyrie despite the fact that Irving is clearly a far superior scorer. 

My assumption is that they are ranking players based on overall team impact rather than sheer talent.

Honestly, have you been reading what I’ve been writing? Or have you watched Melo try to play defense (because I sure haven’t)?

Melo has been in the NBA for 14 years and proved countless times he is an awful defender. He gives minimal effort, and can’t coast on instincts or sheer athleticism because he doesn’t have either. It’s partly why the Knicks still haven’t been able to trade him, despite him being a great iso scorer.

Lonzo Ball on the other hand is 6’6’’ point guard with a 6’9’’ wingspan, athletic, with good anticipation and intangibles. He could be a great defender, he could be a terrible defender, we don’t know yet because he hasn’t played in the NBA.

So if you want to argue Melo > Ball, that’s fine. If you go back to one of my earlier posts in this thread, I say Melo is too low and Ball is too high. But yet again, that’s not the argument we were having before you jumped in. It was that this list clearly takes defense into high consideration.

Pointing to a rookie who has no games played or NBA stats to look at on defense makes no sense. He could be good on the defensive end, and he can’t be much worse than Melo. But looking at the rankings and seeing Smart right next to Melo and Kyrie below Lowry and Conley makes it obvious the defense was a big factor in rankings. To lay out for you so you understand -

Smart Defense >>> Melo Defense
Lowry & Conley Defense >> Kyrie Defense

Hence the rankings, even though everyone knows Melo is a much better offensive player than Smart, and many people value offense way over defense. And again, using Ball as an example of why defense isn’t taken that seriously into account for this list is a terrible one. He is an unknown right now, and we don’t know whether he’ll be good or not on defense. Some people clearly do, like the guy who wrote this list. Others don’t, like you. But no one will be able to debate that Melo is a good defender, or that Smart is a bad one. Hope this clears your confusion up buddy.

[Celtics4ever]

Lonzo Ball on the other hand is 6’6’’ point guard with a 6’9’’ wingspan, athletic, with good anticipation and intangibles. He could be a great defender, he could be a terrible defender, we don’t know yet because he hasn’t played in the NBA.

Who has an ugly shot that might be easy to block by NBA players.  Right now, he lacks the strength to be a great NBA defender.

[jambr380]

I agree with Roy that both should be inside the top 20, but not like way inside.

I realize the dissension is with Kyrie being at #25, but seeing Hayward at #20 while Butler and George come strolling in at #11 and #13, respectively, is a little annoying.

I guess the Cs have the all-underrated team (Horford is the definition of this)...so that is cool.

George and Butler are better than Hayward

This.

In fact that has got to be one of the only things this list actually got right.

I get the feeling people have either not really watched Hayward play and/or are buying into some kind-of hype. Hayward is very unassuming and played for a lethargic Utah team last year with little to no coverage. Needless to say, I think we are very lucky to have signed him.

And on a list like this, the difference between 11/13 and 20 is monumental.

Why do you get this feeling?

I find it amusing that just because somebody has a different view to you about a player, your immediate response is to draw the conclusion that they haven't watched said player play.   

If I say Kevin Durant is better than Jimmy Butler, does this instantly mean I've never watched Butler play?  No, I'm saying it because IMHO Durant is simply a better player.

I'm saying Butler and George are better players than Hayward because IMO...they are.  End of story.  I'm not saying that Hayward is not a good player.  However IMO Hayward is not better then Butler and is not better then George, and I do not consider him to be atop 20 player in this league - I do not believe he is even top 5 at his position, let alone top 20 in the entire league.

Top 10 at his position?  Definitely.  I'd probably put him somewhere around #7 - #9 after Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Giannis, Butler, George and possibly Klay Thompson (AFAIK he'd be a SF on most teams, so I consider him in that group).   It's also pretty tough for me to put him above Carmelo to be completely honest - I'd say the two are equal at best given that Hayward is a better defender, but Melo is better at pretty much everything else.

If you say Kevin Durant is better than Butler, then that is undoubtedly true - nobody would really argue that. I was just pointing out that some people might not be as familiar with Hayward's game since he has been playing in one of the NBA's smallest media markets and he is on the west coast. We saw Butler and George all the time these past few years.

It's fine if you think Butler and George are slightly better players, but you and Moranis offered no insight into why you thought they were superior - just that we should all agree with you, end of story. Even your explanation above states the same thing. All three players are at least very comparable, even if you prefer one over another.

[Granath]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Is that why James Harden is one of the top guys? Kyrie improved dramatically from 15/16 to 16/17, yet he was dropped 10 spots. There is no real reasonable explanation for it. Conley and Lowry didn't have breakout seasons or anything, and I doubt many league-wide would argue the case for either of those two over Kyrie.

I'm not saying it's an anti-Celtic bias (Smart was nearly ranked as highly as Melo, for some reason), but it's definitely a stupid ranking system.

I guess you don't watch the NBA much. Harden played semi-acceptable defense last year for perhaps the first time in his career. He also happened to have one of the best offensive years in NBA history by a guard.

[Granath]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Lowry also only plays in the regular season.  Just like his friend Mr Derozan, he has consistently proven that he folds like origami every time the playoffs come around or he's put under anything resembling pressure.

Versus Kyrie who has consistently proven that he has is immune to pressure and takes (and makes) big playoff shots like they're practice jumpers.

At least Lowry can get his team to the playoffs. The Cavs with Irving leading them wouldn't seem to come close if the W/L record sans Lebron is any kind of indication. And there isn't a better metric than that. So if the knock on Lowry is that he's not a great playoff performer, the knock on Irving is that he couldn't get the Cavs to the playoffs without riding on the coattails of Lebron.

If your best argument is that somehow Kyrie has hit a few playoff jumpers then that's not a very good one. It's a helluva lot easier to get those shots off when the best player in the world is attracting the double and triple teams. I don't have any doubt - and I don't think many others do either - that Lowry or DeRozan could hit similar shots when they're not the focus of a playoff defense. Furthermore, no one denies Irving has a great offensive game. That's his strength. But he hasn't demonstrated a complete game and that's why he's not ranked higher.

Now I'll repeat what I said prior to this. The good thing is that Irving probably can play at least semi-acceptable defense and can leap past guys like Lowry and Conley. As Danny said, "I think people that watch Kyrie play a lot can see his passing and his potential there as a passer....I think that defensively he's got to improve and I think he will in Brad's system". If that is the case then you'll see Irving's rank shoot up next year as he demonstrates a more complete game. If not...then we're all going to end up hating this trade.

[Moranis]

I agree with Roy that both should be inside the top 20, but not like way inside.

I realize the dissension is with Kyrie being at #25, but seeing Hayward at #20 while Butler and George come strolling in at #11 and #13, respectively, is a little annoying.

I guess the Cs have the all-underrated team (Horford is the definition of this)...so that is cool.

George and Butler are better than Hayward

This.

In fact that has got to be one of the only things this list actually got right.

I get the feeling people have either not really watched Hayward play and/or are buying into some kind-of hype. Hayward is very unassuming and played for a lethargic Utah team last year with little to no coverage. Needless to say, I think we are very lucky to have signed him.

And on a list like this, the difference between 11/13 and 20 is monumental.

Why do you get this feeling?

I find it amusing that just because somebody has a different view to you about a player, your immediate response is to draw the conclusion that they haven't watched said player play.   

If I say Kevin Durant is better than Jimmy Butler, does this instantly mean I've never watched Butler play?  No, I'm saying it because IMHO Durant is simply a better player.

I'm saying Butler and George are better players than Hayward because IMO...they are.  End of story.  I'm not saying that Hayward is not a good player.  However IMO Hayward is not better then Butler and is not better then George, and I do not consider him to be atop 20 player in this league - I do not believe he is even top 5 at his position, let alone top 20 in the entire league.

Top 10 at his position?  Definitely.  I'd probably put him somewhere around #7 - #9 after Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Giannis, Butler, George and possibly Klay Thompson (AFAIK he'd be a SF on most teams, so I consider him in that group).   It's also pretty tough for me to put him above Carmelo to be completely honest - I'd say the two are equal at best given that Hayward is a better defender, but Melo is better at pretty much everything else.

If you say Kevin Durant is better than Butler, then that is undoubtedly true - nobody would really argue that. I was just pointing out that some people might not be as familiar with Hayward's game since he has been playing in one of the NBA's smallest media markets and he is on the west coast. We saw Butler and George all the time these past few years.

It's fine if you think Butler and George are slightly better players, but you and Moranis offered no insight into why you thought they were superior - just that we should all agree with you, end of story. Even your explanation above states the same thing. All three players are at least very comparable, even if you prefer one over another.

George and Butler are far superior defenders.  They are both better all around offensive players as well (even shooting they are all pretty similar).  It really shouldn't need any explanation to say that they are better than Hayward.  Because quite simply they are. 

[Moranis]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Is that why James Harden is one of the top guys? Kyrie improved dramatically from 15/16 to 16/17, yet he was dropped 10 spots. There is no real reasonable explanation for it. Conley and Lowry didn't have breakout seasons or anything, and I doubt many league-wide would argue the case for either of those two over Kyrie.

I'm not saying it's an anti-Celtic bias (Smart was nearly ranked as highly as Melo, for some reason), but it's definitely a stupid ranking system.

I guess you don't watch the NBA much. Harden played semi-acceptable defense last year for perhaps the first time in his career. He also happened to have one of the best offensive years in NBA history by a guard.

Harden's defense was so bad last year, that when Harden was on the bench the Rockets basically performed at the same level as when he was in the game.  This is despite him having one of the best offensive seasons ever. 

[RLewis35]

I agree with Roy that both should be inside the top 20, but not like way inside.

I realize the dissension is with Kyrie being at #25, but seeing Hayward at #20 while Butler and George come strolling in at #11 and #13, respectively, is a little annoying.

I guess the Cs have the all-underrated team (Horford is the definition of this)...so that is cool.

George and Butler are better than Hayward

George is.  I think Hayward will be better than Butler this season; that said, I'm not high on Butler - Bradley won the head to head matchup against him in the playoffs let's not forget...

Bradley averaged 16/4/3/1.3/0.2.  Butler averaged 22.7/7.3/4.3/1.7/0.8.  Bradley shot better from 2 and 3.

Yeah I'm not suggesting his stats were better overall but in deciding games 5 and 6 Bradley decidedly won his matchup against butler on both ends of the floor.   Sure anything can happen in a few games but I don't think the 11th best player in the NBA should be losing important head to head matchups in the playoffs with someone not in the top 50.  Just don't see butler as a top 10-15 player.  Def think he's 15-25ish. 

[smokeablount]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Lowry also only plays in the regular season.  Just like his friend Mr Derozan, he has consistently proven that he folds like origami every time the playoffs come around or he's put under anything resembling pressure.

Versus Kyrie who has consistently proven that he has is immune to pressure and takes (and makes) big playoff shots like they're practice jumpers.

To paraphrase the great Stephen Jackson- Kyrie makes love to pressure.

[JBcat]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Is that why James Harden is one of the top guys? Kyrie improved dramatically from 15/16 to 16/17, yet he was dropped 10 spots. There is no real reasonable explanation for it. Conley and Lowry didn't have breakout seasons or anything, and I doubt many league-wide would argue the case for either of those two over Kyrie.

I'm not saying it's an anti-Celtic bias (Smart was nearly ranked as highly as Melo, for some reason), but it's definitely a stupid ranking system.

You’re proving his point for him, that the list puts an emphasis on defense...

Lonzo Ball being above Melo suggests otherwise.  From what I've seen Lonzo was a pretty woeful defender even at the college level.  Melo isn't a great defender because of lack of effort, but when he tries he's actually very good.  I don't think Melo will be a good defensive player no matter how hard he tries.

Lol you’re arguing Melo should be rated higher based on the merit of his defense?? I don’t think you know what player we’re talking about..

No, I'm arguing Melo should be higher because he is an infinitely superior player.

he defence comment was added because any mention of Melo is always going to bring responses about how bad his defence - so before anybody jumped on that argument I wanted to make it clear from the get go that the defence of Lonzo Ball is not going to be any better.

Lonzo Ball has nothing to do with that argument. We’re talking about how much the list values defense, and bringing up a guy who hasn’t played a single NBA game isn’t going to help your argument. We don’t know if he will be good at defense, or offense for that matter. Whoever wrote the list thinks he will and believes the hype with Ball.

The list clearly puts a heavy emphasis on defense. Ranking Melo and Smart back to back, having Kyrie below Lowry and Conley shows that. Those guys have actually shown what they can do and the writer chose to rank them where they are, instead of predicting how Lonzo will do.

Umm...

The list has Lonzo Ball ranked one position above Carmelo Anthony...

Even those who are hyped about Ball are not hyped about him for his defence.  So trying to argue the list is ranking guys based on defence makes no sense if they are ranking Ball above Melo. 

My assumption is that they are raking guys based on what they perceived to be a player's impact on winning.  I'm assuming that they are labelling guys like Melo and Kyrie as ball hogging chuckers who are detrimental to their team success, and for this reason are ranking them lower in the list. 

They most likely perceive guys like Conley, Lowry and Hayward as team oriented players and for that reason place them higher on the list. 

Likewise they likely look at Smart as a hustle guy and impact player who impacts on team wins, and hence place him fairly high on the list for that reason.

With Ball being most known for his passing and 'making his teams better' this is probably also why they have put him above Melo.

I don't believe they are making the list with defence as a main preference, and he's not nearly as good a scorer as Kyrie, nor is he known for his defensive prowess.  However he rebounds, he's a skilled passer, is unselfish with the ball, etc - likely why they put him only one spot below Kyrie despite the fact that Irving is clearly a far superior scorer. 

My assumption is that they are ranking players based on overall team impact rather than sheer talent.

Honestly, have you been reading what I’ve been writing? Or have you watched Melo try to play defense (because I sure haven’t)?

Melo has been in the NBA for 14 years and proved countless times he is an awful defender. He gives minimal effort, and can’t coast on instincts or sheer athleticism because he doesn’t have either. It’s partly why the Knicks still haven’t been able to trade him, despite him being a great iso scorer.

Lonzo Ball on the other hand is 6’6’’ point guard with a 6’9’’ wingspan, athletic, with good anticipation and intangibles. He could be a great defender, he could be a terrible defender, we don’t know yet because he hasn’t played in the NBA.

So if you want to argue Melo > Ball, that’s fine. If you go back to one of my earlier posts in this thread, I say Melo is too low and Ball is too high. But yet again, that’s not the argument we were having before you jumped in. It was that this list clearly takes defense into high consideration.

Pointing to a rookie who has no games played or NBA stats to look at on defense makes no sense. He could be good on the defensive end, and he can’t be much worse than Melo. But looking at the rankings and seeing Smart right next to Melo and Kyrie below Lowry and Conley makes it obvious the defense was a big factor in rankings. To lay out for you so you understand -

Smart Defense >>> Melo Defense
Lowry & Conley Defense >> Kyrie Defense

Hence the rankings, even though everyone knows Melo is a much better offensive player than Smart, and many people value offense way over defense. And again, using Ball as an example of why defense isn’t taken that seriously into account for this list is a terrible one. He is an unknown right now, and we don’t know whether he’ll be good or not on defense. Some people clearly do, like the guy who wrote this list. Others don’t, like you. But no one will be able to debate that Melo is a good defender, or that Smart is a bad one. Hope this clears your confusion up buddy.

For what's it worth I remember reading an article on Melo last year stating at the PF position he is adequate on defense.  Much better than at SF.  Whatever team he ends on if it's the Knicks or another team they should look to play him at that position more especially as he starts to slow down.

[Granath]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Is that why James Harden is one of the top guys? Kyrie improved dramatically from 15/16 to 16/17, yet he was dropped 10 spots. There is no real reasonable explanation for it. Conley and Lowry didn't have breakout seasons or anything, and I doubt many league-wide would argue the case for either of those two over Kyrie.

I'm not saying it's an anti-Celtic bias (Smart was nearly ranked as highly as Melo, for some reason), but it's definitely a stupid ranking system.

I guess you don't watch the NBA much. Harden played semi-acceptable defense last year for perhaps the first time in his career. He also happened to have one of the best offensive years in NBA history by a guard.

Harden's defense was so bad last year, that when Harden was on the bench the Rockets basically performed at the same level as when he was in the game.  This is despite him having one of the best offensive seasons ever.

*facepalm*

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardeja01/on-off/2017

The Rockets were 3 points better net with Harden than without. That's not "basically the same level" in any universe. Thanks for playing.

Finally, Harden only ranked 8th even after such a historical season. Why is that? That's simple. It's because despite his offensive gifts he gets downgraded because of his semi-mediocre / below average defense (which is still better than Kyrie's).

[Moranis]

It's not some sort of anti-Celtics bias. That's just stupid talk and is entirely refuted by Hawyard going up in the rankings.

It's simple folks. Your ranking tends to drop when you only play on one half of the court.

Lowry put up more rebounds, assists, steals, a better shooting percentage and was far better than Irving on defense. Conley put up similar offensive statistics except for points (5ppg fewer) but is so far ahead of Irving on defense that he gets the nod and rightfully so. When you factor in that defense is half the game it's really hard to justify putting Irving ahead of either guy.

That's the bad news. The good news is that it's far more likely that Irving can improve on defense than Lowry/Conley will improve on offense. So we all hope next years' rankings reflect Irving actually trying to contribute something on the defensive end of the court.

Is that why James Harden is one of the top guys? Kyrie improved dramatically from 15/16 to 16/17, yet he was dropped 10 spots. There is no real reasonable explanation for it. Conley and Lowry didn't have breakout seasons or anything, and I doubt many league-wide would argue the case for either of those two over Kyrie.

I'm not saying it's an anti-Celtic bias (Smart was nearly ranked as highly as Melo, for some reason), but it's definitely a stupid ranking system.

I guess you don't watch the NBA much. Harden played semi-acceptable defense last year for perhaps the first time in his career. He also happened to have one of the best offensive years in NBA history by a guard.

Harden's defense was so bad last year, that when Harden was on the bench the Rockets basically performed at the same level as when he was in the game.  This is despite him having one of the best offensive seasons ever.

*facepalm*

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardeja01/on-off/2017

The Rockets were 3 points better net with Harden than without. That's not "basically the same level" in any universe. Thanks for playing.

Finally, Harden only ranked 8th even after such a historical season. Why is that? That's simple. It's because despite his offensive gifts he gets downgraded because of his semi-mediocre / below average defense (which is still better than Kyrie's).

3 points better is basically nothing for a top tier player.  I mean Patrick Beverly was +3.5.  Ryan Anderson was 6.2. 

And what were those numbers for James, Leonard, Westbrook, Curry, etc.  What you mean they were all well over 10.  Hmmm.  Odd.  I thought +3 was supposed to be good.

[loco_91]

Those numbers sound OK to me. I agree with Lowry>Kyrie based on last year's production (though I'm hopeful that Kyrie will be better under Stevens).

[liam]

Those numbers sound OK to me. I agree with Lowry>Kyrie based on last year's production (though I'm hopeful that Kyrie will be better under Stevens).

Which one would you rather have in the playoffs?

[max215]

Kyrie's a tad low, but not egregiously so. I'd bump him ahead of Blake, Kristaps, and maybe Jokic (unbelievable player, but RPM values him way too highly). I'd move Hayward ahead of Dame and possibly Boogie, Klay, and Gobert. Honestly, I'm way more bothered by the Horford rank than those of the two stars.