Kyrie vs. Dame

[gouki88]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

This isn't true. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because he's making it up to try and make his pretty bad take seem right

[Androslav]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

This isn't true. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because he's making it up to try and make his pretty bad take seem right

When USA basketball picks a lead ballhandler for their national team, out of 327.148.347 people they pick Kyrie.

I relax my luggage.

[Moranis]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

This isn't true. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because he's making it up to try and make his pretty bad take seem right

during the year the Cavs won, Irving had 3 games shooting in the 30's. Those 3 games he had 9 turnovers and 8 assists so he wasnt exactly making up for it either as we all know he is a terrible defender.  Even game 7 he shot under 44%, wasn't passing the ball and turned it over a bunch. He finished with 26 points but in 23 shots. That wasn't a poor game but it certainly wasn't a great game. He was very good to great in games 3, 4, and 5 but there were more games than just 3 in that series.

How about his last year in Cleveland against the Warriors.  Surely I was just making up stuff then.  Well nope.  He was poor to awful in games 1, 2, and 5.  Even game 3 where he was statistically fabulous (if you disregard his 0 of 7 from 3) in his 44+ minutes he was -9. In the 3 and a half minutes he was in the bench the Cavs were +4.

Irving is capable of greatness but he is incredibly inconsistent because he isn't a franchise player.  He is just as likely to cost you a game as he is to win you one given thay inconsistency on offense and couple with his always terrible defense (a series here or there notwithstanding)

[johnnygreen]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

Looking back, I find it hard to blame Kyrie for not making the playoffs in Cleveland without LeBron. For one, when LeBron left the first time, Cleveland basically blew up their team. A year later in 2011, they drafted Kyrie #1 and later Tristan Thompson (good hustle player). They followed that up in 2012 by using first round picks on Dion Waiters and Jared Cunningham. In 2013, Cleveland drafted Anthony Bennett #1 overall and Sergey Karasev with their other first round pick. I’m sorry, but how was a 19-21 year old Kyrie during that time supposed to take Cleveland to the playoffs when the team drafted so poorly and quality free agents weren’t knocking on the door? During the summer of 2014, LeBron decides to come back and Cleveland also magically gets the #1 overall pick again and use it to trade for Kevin Love. BTW, Stephen Curry didn’t play a single playoff game until his fourth year too, when he was 24.

As for basically not giving Kyrie credit for not playing a single playoff game without LeBron, I think that is disingenuous. Kyrie helped the Celtics secure a playoff spot, and an injury prevented him from playing in the playoffs.

[Moranis]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

Looking back, I find it hard to blame Kyrie for not making the playoffs in Cleveland without LeBron. For one, when LeBron left the first time, Cleveland basically blew up their team. A year later in 2011, they drafted Kyrie #1 and later Tristan Thompson (good hustle player). They followed that up in 2012 by using first round picks on Dion Waiters and Jared Cunningham. In 2013, Cleveland drafted Anthony Bennett #1 overall and Sergey Karasev with their other first round pick. I’m sorry, but how was a 19-21 year old Kyrie during that time supposed to take Cleveland to the playoffs when the team drafted so poorly and quality free agents weren’t knocking on the door? During the summer of 2014, LeBron decides to come back and Cleveland also magically gets the #1 overall pick again and use it to trade for Kevin Love. BTW, Stephen Curry didn’t play a single playoff game until his fourth year too, when he was 24.

As for basically not giving Kyrie credit for not playing a single playoff game without LeBron, I think that is disingenuous. Kyrie helped the Celtics secure a playoff spot, and an injury prevented him from playing in the playoffs.

Kyrie is always hurt.  He missed all but the first game of the Finals in year one (as well as significant portions of the playoffs before then) and missed the entire playoffs last year.  He has missed large portions of almost every regular season and has missed at least 7 games in every single season.  There is no guarantee he is even healthy or won't have knee issues the rest of his career.

The Celtics as a team were on a 4 win less pace without Irving then when they had Irving and that includes the unsustainable 15-2 (with Irving) start to the season.  You take that crazy win streak out and Boston was actually better without Irving playing then with him playing. 

Irving is an incredible ball handler and good shooter, but he does nothing else.  He isn't a good passer (for his position), he is a terrible rebounder (even for his position), and an atrocious defender.  He is also a wildly inconsistent shooter.  When he is on he is unguardable, but he isn't on nearly enough to make up for his other deficiencies to elevate him to the levels that the vast majority of this board has elevated him to.  I'd be very surprised if Hayward wasn't Boston's best player this year and frankly wouldn't be shocked if both Tatum and Horford are more valuable (though maybe not as good). 

Irving is a top 20 player in this league because his peak is so high, but you can't just disregard the valleys either (or defense).  I had many of these exact same arguments on this board about Rondo.  He got elevated to these crazy levels on this board because he had some remarkable post season games, but he had a lot poor games and boneheaded plays that this board just disregarded. 

[Big333223]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

This isn't true. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because he's making it up to try and make his pretty bad take seem right

during the year the Cavs won, Irving had 3 games shooting in the 30's. Those 3 games he had 9 turnovers and 8 assists so he wasnt exactly making up for it either as we all know he is a terrible defender.  Even game 7 he shot under 44%, wasn't passing the ball and turned it over a bunch. He finished with 26 points but in 23 shots. That wasn't a poor game but it certainly wasn't a great game. He was very good to great in games 3, 4, and 5 but there were more games than just 3 in that series.

How about his last year in Cleveland against the Warriors.  Surely I was just making up stuff then.  Well nope.  He was poor to awful in games 1, 2, and 5.  Even game 3 where he was statistically fabulous (if you disregard his 0 of 7 from 3) in his 44+ minutes he was -9. In the 3 and a half minutes he was in the bench the Cavs were +4.

Irving is capable of greatness but he is incredibly inconsistent because he isn't a franchise player.  He is just as likely to cost you a game as he is to win you one given thay inconsistency on offense and couple with his always terrible defense (a series here or there notwithstanding)

In the '15 Finals, Lebron had 3 games where he was shooting in the 30's. Were those awful games? When Dallas won and Dirk was the FMVP he also had 3 games where he shot in the 30's. Was he awful that series? That stat alone is meaningless without context. For the '16 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/40/94 and scored 23 or more points in all but one game. In game 2 he was bad, in every other game of that series he was good-to-great.

You say "we all know he's a terrible defender" but the truth is his reputation is as a terrible defender but this last season with the Celtics I thought he was a decent defender and his defense during the '16 Finals was quite good. He was often the one called upon to defender Curry and did as good a job as anyone else on Cleveland, no question.

You talk about his turnovers like they were a problem which just isn't true. 3 turnovers for a player of his usage is completely reasonable. He averaged 2.6 TO that series and never had more than 4. That same series Lebron averaged 4.4 TO and had more than 4 four times.

Kyrie was the second best player on Cleveland in that '16 Finals and the gap between him and whoever was #3 is wider by orders of magnitude than the gap between him and Lebron.

As for the '17 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/42/90 for the series and his scoring totals were 24, 19, 38, 40, and 26 against what might go down as one of the 5 best teams in NBA history.

[Moranis]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

This isn't true. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because he's making it up to try and make his pretty bad take seem right

during the year the Cavs won, Irving had 3 games shooting in the 30's. Those 3 games he had 9 turnovers and 8 assists so he wasnt exactly making up for it either as we all know he is a terrible defender.  Even game 7 he shot under 44%, wasn't passing the ball and turned it over a bunch. He finished with 26 points but in 23 shots. That wasn't a poor game but it certainly wasn't a great game. He was very good to great in games 3, 4, and 5 but there were more games than just 3 in that series.

How about his last year in Cleveland against the Warriors.  Surely I was just making up stuff then.  Well nope.  He was poor to awful in games 1, 2, and 5.  Even game 3 where he was statistically fabulous (if you disregard his 0 of 7 from 3) in his 44+ minutes he was -9. In the 3 and a half minutes he was in the bench the Cavs were +4.

Irving is capable of greatness but he is incredibly inconsistent because he isn't a franchise player.  He is just as likely to cost you a game as he is to win you one given thay inconsistency on offense and couple with his always terrible defense (a series here or there notwithstanding)

In the '15 Finals, Lebron had 3 games where he was shooting in the 30's. Were those awful games? When Dallas won and Dirk was the FMVP he also had 3 games where he shot in the 30's. Was he awful that series? That stat alone is meaningless without context. For the '16 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/40/94 and scored 23 or more points in all but one game. In game 2 he was bad, in every other game of that series he was good-to-great.

You say "we all know he's a terrible defender" but the truth is his reputation is as a terrible defender but this last season with the Celtics I thought he was a decent defender and his defense during the '16 Finals was quite good. He was often the one called upon to defender Curry and did as good a job as anyone else on Cleveland, no question.

You talk about his turnovers like they were a problem which just isn't true. 3 turnovers for a player of his usage is completely reasonable. He averaged 2.6 TO that series and never had more than 4. That same series Lebron averaged 4.4 TO and had more than 4 four times.

Kyrie was the second best player on Cleveland in that '16 Finals and the gap between him and whoever was #3 is wider by orders of magnitude than the gap between him and Lebron.

As for the '17 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/42/90 for the series and his scoring totals were 24, 19, 38, 40, and 26 against what might go down as one of the 5 best teams in NBA history.

Lebron rebounded, passed, and defended.  So they were poor shooting games, but he made up for it elsewhere.  Notice I pointed out Irving's assists and turnovers in those games, as well as his poor defense.  As for the 16 Finals, if you eliminate game 5, these are Irving's shooting stats: 42/33/94.  He scored 149 points but on 130 shots for a very poor 1.146 points per shot.  That is over 6 games (even adding game 5 back in, he scored just 1.234 points per shot).  Game 5 he was unbelievable, the rest of the series he was very hit or miss.  2017 he was very good in games 3 and 4, the other 3 games he was not.  Those point totals look nice but not when your shot totals are 22, 23, 29, 27, 22.  For the series that equates to 1.195 points per shot, that is very poor for someone that is supposed to be such an incredible scorer.  For the record that year, Lebron scored 21 more points on 6 less shots (1.435 points per shot - that is a very strong pps).  Love, who was trashed horribly for that series, scored 1.194 points per shot.  Remember, Irving is supposed to be this scoring guru, yet he isn't, and he really doesn't do anything else well at all. 

[bellerephon]

If what you're trying to say is that Kyrie isn't on the level of Lebron or Durant, then I agree, as would pretty much everyone. If you are trying to say that Kyrie isn't a really good player, then I disagree, as would pretty much everyone. Kyrie can score efficiently at all three levels, break down defenses with his dribble penetration and is a decent, although not great, passer.

[unclebay]

Think of it this way: in that first round series against NO,  Kyrie probably would have scored 40 a game once they were down 0-2 and there's not much doubt for me that that's the case, whereas Dame didn't play well at all. Kyrie is a truly great player and there's no stopping truly great players regardless if Jrue Holiday is a really good defender. So while their numbers are very similar, and Lillard is quite good in his own right, when push comes to shove Kyrie is on another tier.

[rondofan1255]

this one is close...

[Big333223]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

This isn't true. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because he's making it up to try and make his pretty bad take seem right

during the year the Cavs won, Irving had 3 games shooting in the 30's. Those 3 games he had 9 turnovers and 8 assists so he wasnt exactly making up for it either as we all know he is a terrible defender.  Even game 7 he shot under 44%, wasn't passing the ball and turned it over a bunch. He finished with 26 points but in 23 shots. That wasn't a poor game but it certainly wasn't a great game. He was very good to great in games 3, 4, and 5 but there were more games than just 3 in that series.

How about his last year in Cleveland against the Warriors.  Surely I was just making up stuff then.  Well nope.  He was poor to awful in games 1, 2, and 5.  Even game 3 where he was statistically fabulous (if you disregard his 0 of 7 from 3) in his 44+ minutes he was -9. In the 3 and a half minutes he was in the bench the Cavs were +4.

Irving is capable of greatness but he is incredibly inconsistent because he isn't a franchise player.  He is just as likely to cost you a game as he is to win you one given thay inconsistency on offense and couple with his always terrible defense (a series here or there notwithstanding)

In the '15 Finals, Lebron had 3 games where he was shooting in the 30's. Were those awful games? When Dallas won and Dirk was the FMVP he also had 3 games where he shot in the 30's. Was he awful that series? That stat alone is meaningless without context. For the '16 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/40/94 and scored 23 or more points in all but one game. In game 2 he was bad, in every other game of that series he was good-to-great.

You say "we all know he's a terrible defender" but the truth is his reputation is as a terrible defender but this last season with the Celtics I thought he was a decent defender and his defense during the '16 Finals was quite good. He was often the one called upon to defender Curry and did as good a job as anyone else on Cleveland, no question.

You talk about his turnovers like they were a problem which just isn't true. 3 turnovers for a player of his usage is completely reasonable. He averaged 2.6 TO that series and never had more than 4. That same series Lebron averaged 4.4 TO and had more than 4 four times.

Kyrie was the second best player on Cleveland in that '16 Finals and the gap between him and whoever was #3 is wider by orders of magnitude than the gap between him and Lebron.

As for the '17 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/42/90 for the series and his scoring totals were 24, 19, 38, 40, and 26 against what might go down as one of the 5 best teams in NBA history.

Lebron rebounded, passed, and defended.  So they were poor shooting games, but he made up for it elsewhere.  Notice I pointed out Irving's assists and turnovers in those games, as well as his poor defense.  As for the 16 Finals, if you eliminate game 5, these are Irving's shooting stats: 42/33/94.  He scored 149 points but on 130 shots for a very poor 1.146 points per shot.  That is over 6 games (even adding game 5 back in, he scored just 1.234 points per shot).  Game 5 he was unbelievable, the rest of the series he was very hit or miss.  2017 he was very good in games 3 and 4, the other 3 games he was not.  Those point totals look nice but not when your shot totals are 22, 23, 29, 27, 22.  For the series that equates to 1.195 points per shot, that is very poor for someone that is supposed to be such an incredible scorer.  For the record that year, Lebron scored 21 more points on 6 less shots (1.435 points per shot - that is a very strong pps).  Love, who was trashed horribly for that series, scored 1.194 points per shot.  Remember, Irving is supposed to be this scoring guru, yet he isn't, and he really doesn't do anything else well at all.

lol

"If you ignore his good games, his stats aren't as good."

You don't say.

[Moranis]

Championship pedigree?  Irving has never played in a single playoff game where he wasn't on the floor with Lebron James.  The Cavs were awful before Lebron came back, were in the Finals again after he was gone, and the Celtics were basically the same level of team without Irving playing.  And sure, Irving hit the biggest shot in Cavs history, but he also had nearly as many awful games in the 3 series against the Warriors as he did great games.  Irving gets elevated to levels he shouldn't.

This isn't true. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because he's making it up to try and make his pretty bad take seem right

during the year the Cavs won, Irving had 3 games shooting in the 30's. Those 3 games he had 9 turnovers and 8 assists so he wasnt exactly making up for it either as we all know he is a terrible defender.  Even game 7 he shot under 44%, wasn't passing the ball and turned it over a bunch. He finished with 26 points but in 23 shots. That wasn't a poor game but it certainly wasn't a great game. He was very good to great in games 3, 4, and 5 but there were more games than just 3 in that series.

How about his last year in Cleveland against the Warriors.  Surely I was just making up stuff then.  Well nope.  He was poor to awful in games 1, 2, and 5.  Even game 3 where he was statistically fabulous (if you disregard his 0 of 7 from 3) in his 44+ minutes he was -9. In the 3 and a half minutes he was in the bench the Cavs were +4.

Irving is capable of greatness but he is incredibly inconsistent because he isn't a franchise player.  He is just as likely to cost you a game as he is to win you one given thay inconsistency on offense and couple with his always terrible defense (a series here or there notwithstanding)

In the '15 Finals, Lebron had 3 games where he was shooting in the 30's. Were those awful games? When Dallas won and Dirk was the FMVP he also had 3 games where he shot in the 30's. Was he awful that series? That stat alone is meaningless without context. For the '16 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/40/94 and scored 23 or more points in all but one game. In game 2 he was bad, in every other game of that series he was good-to-great.

You say "we all know he's a terrible defender" but the truth is his reputation is as a terrible defender but this last season with the Celtics I thought he was a decent defender and his defense during the '16 Finals was quite good. He was often the one called upon to defender Curry and did as good a job as anyone else on Cleveland, no question.

You talk about his turnovers like they were a problem which just isn't true. 3 turnovers for a player of his usage is completely reasonable. He averaged 2.6 TO that series and never had more than 4. That same series Lebron averaged 4.4 TO and had more than 4 four times.

Kyrie was the second best player on Cleveland in that '16 Finals and the gap between him and whoever was #3 is wider by orders of magnitude than the gap between him and Lebron.

As for the '17 Finals, Kyrie shot 47/42/90 for the series and his scoring totals were 24, 19, 38, 40, and 26 against what might go down as one of the 5 best teams in NBA history.

Lebron rebounded, passed, and defended.  So they were poor shooting games, but he made up for it elsewhere.  Notice I pointed out Irving's assists and turnovers in those games, as well as his poor defense.  As for the 16 Finals, if you eliminate game 5, these are Irving's shooting stats: 42/33/94.  He scored 149 points but on 130 shots for a very poor 1.146 points per shot.  That is over 6 games (even adding game 5 back in, he scored just 1.234 points per shot).  Game 5 he was unbelievable, the rest of the series he was very hit or miss.  2017 he was very good in games 3 and 4, the other 3 games he was not.  Those point totals look nice but not when your shot totals are 22, 23, 29, 27, 22.  For the series that equates to 1.195 points per shot, that is very poor for someone that is supposed to be such an incredible scorer.  For the record that year, Lebron scored 21 more points on 6 less shots (1.435 points per shot - that is a very strong pps).  Love, who was trashed horribly for that series, scored 1.194 points per shot.  Remember, Irving is supposed to be this scoring guru, yet he isn't, and he really doesn't do anything else well at all.

lol

"If you ignore his good games, his stats aren't as good."

You don't say.

This is just a nonsense post.  My point all along was that he had has many poor games as great games.  You then posted his overall stats.  I was merely showing that he had 1 great game and was mediocre to poor the rest of the series (which again was my point to begin with). 

Irving isn't a franchise level player (A+ if you are grading).  He also isn't an A level player and might not even be an A- level player given his inconsistency.  And sure all players have bad shooting games, but when you don't pass well, don't rebound well, don't get to the line, turn the ball over, and are at best a bad defender, you aren't what this board claims.

I've been very consistent on my feelings about Irving.  While he was winning a title in Cleveland, when he was rumored to be on the block, and post-trade.    Irving has the potential to be unguardable, but he doesn't live up to that potential enough to make up for the clear deficiencies in his game.  He is always banged up, misses a lot of games, and can potentially cause problems in a lockerroom (you know given he didn't even talk to his teammates in the middle of a playoff run and is otherwise just a very strange dude). 

Boston will have to offer him a max given the current state of the league, but I have real concerns of that contract being regretted almost immediately.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Irving isn't a franchise level player (A+ if you are grading).  He also isn't an A level player and might not even be an A- level player given his inconsistency.  And sure all players have bad shooting games, but when you don't pass well, don't rebound well, don't get to the line, turn the ball over, and are at best a bad defender, you aren't what this board claims.

It's this paragraph, combined with your other thoughts, that people disagree with.
He does pass well. As I pointed out earlier, only a few players average as many points and assists as Irving per 36.

He doesn't need to rebound well.

He gets to the line a reasonable amount. If he was a worse shooter, that would be a bigger issue, but his scoring efficiency is still pretty high level. For his career, he has a similar free throw rate as Curry.

He doesn't turn the ball over that much. In fact, his turnover rate is one of the best in the league for a player of his usage and assist numbers.

He is not "at best" a bad defender. That's a false narrative. At best he is an above average defender that has the ability to make timely defensive plays. At worst, he is a bad defender.

He is an A- player that has played like an superstar in key moments in the finals. Inconsistency is a slight concern, but not as much as you are making it. These next couple of years should be the years when he comes into his own as the primary ball-handler. If he is the same player at the end of those years, I would be slightly disappointed, but he'd still be worth the max and could still lead a team to the finals.

If you don't like his personality, that's fine. If you are concerned about injuries, that's understandable. But the way you slice up his game and color the hue to make it as negative as possible is what is questionable.

[Moranis]

Irving isn't a franchise level player (A+ if you are grading).  He also isn't an A level player and might not even be an A- level player given his inconsistency.  And sure all players have bad shooting games, but when you don't pass well, don't rebound well, don't get to the line, turn the ball over, and are at best a bad defender, you aren't what this board claims.

It's this paragraph, combined with your other thoughts, that people disagree with.
He does pass well. As I pointed out earlier, only a few players average as many points and assists as Irving per 36.

He doesn't need to rebound well.

He gets to the line a reasonable amount. If he was a worse shooter, that would be a bigger issue, but his scoring efficiency is still pretty high level. For his career, he has a similar free throw rate as Curry.

He doesn't turn the ball over that much. In fact, his turnover rate is one of the best in the league for a player of his usage and assist numbers.

He is not "at best" a bad defender. That's a false narrative. At best he is an above average defender that has the ability to make timely defensive plays. At worst, he is a bad defender.

He is an A- player that has played like an superstar in key moments in the finals. Inconsistency is a slight concern, but not as much as you are making it. These next couple of years should be the years when he comes into his own as the primary ball-handler. If he is the same player at the end of those years, I would be slightly disappointed, but he'd still be worth the max and could still lead a team to the finals.

If you don't like his personality, that's fine. If you are concerned about injuries, that's understandable. But the way you slice up his game and color the hue to make it as negative as possible is what is questionable.

His career AST% is 30.1, as PG's go that isn't good.  It isn't terrible (which I never claimed), but it certainly isn't good. 

Irving for his career averages 1.263 points per shot.  Since you compared him to Curry, Curry scores 1.373 points per shot (Lebron is 1.387, Durant is 1.445).  He isn't nearly as an efficient scorer as this board makes it seems.

Irving is a terrible defender, even when he tries here or there, he is still bad on the whole.  The defensive metric shows this to be the case.  Whether it is his negative DBPM every year in his career or his career DRTG of 109, he is just a bad defender. 

At the end of the day, there is a reason the Celtics were basically the same level of team when Irving was hurt or the prior year when he wasn't even on the team.  There is a reason the Cavs made it back to the Finals without him.  He just isn't as good as this board wants to believe and he doesn't contribute to winning like we all hope he would. 

[gouki88]

Irving isn't a franchise level player (A+ if you are grading).  He also isn't an A level player and might not even be an A- level player given his inconsistency.  And sure all players have bad shooting games, but when you don't pass well, don't rebound well, don't get to the line, turn the ball over, and are at best a bad defender, you aren't what this board claims.

It's this paragraph, combined with your other thoughts, that people disagree with.
He does pass well. As I pointed out earlier, only a few players average as many points and assists as Irving per 36.

He doesn't need to rebound well.

He gets to the line a reasonable amount. If he was a worse shooter, that would be a bigger issue, but his scoring efficiency is still pretty high level. For his career, he has a similar free throw rate as Curry.

He doesn't turn the ball over that much. In fact, his turnover rate is one of the best in the league for a player of his usage and assist numbers.

He is not "at best" a bad defender. That's a false narrative. At best he is an above average defender that has the ability to make timely defensive plays. At worst, he is a bad defender.

He is an A- player that has played like an superstar in key moments in the finals. Inconsistency is a slight concern, but not as much as you are making it. These next couple of years should be the years when he comes into his own as the primary ball-handler. If he is the same player at the end of those years, I would be slightly disappointed, but he'd still be worth the max and could still lead a team to the finals.

If you don't like his personality, that's fine. If you are concerned about injuries, that's understandable. But the way you slice up his game and color the hue to make it as negative as possible is what is questionable.

His career AST% is 30.1, as PG's go that isn't good.  It isn't terrible (which I never claimed), but it certainly isn't good. 

Irving for his career averages 1.263 points per shot.  Since you compared him to Curry, Curry scores 1.373 points per shot (Lebron is 1.387, Durant is 1.445).  He isn't nearly as an efficient scorer as this board makes it seems.

Irving is a terrible defender, even when he tries here or there, he is still bad on the whole.  The defensive metric shows this to be the case.  Whether it is his negative DBPM every year in his career or his career DRTG of 109, he is just a bad defender. 

At the end of the day, there is a reason the Celtics were basically the same level of team when Irving was hurt or the prior year when he wasn't even on the team.  There is a reason the Cavs made it back to the Finals without him.  He just isn't as good as this board wants to believe and he doesn't contribute to winning like we all hope he would.

Bahaha, this is laughable reasoning at the end. Pure nonsense