“Reboot scenario” floated by Bill Simmons

[RPGenerate]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

I don't actually think a team could win a title with Kyrie as its best player and haven't from before the trade was made to Boston.  He just isn't good enough overall and that includes offensively.  What I mean is, Irving goes through a lot of shooting slumps and he doesn't do enough else even offensively to survive those shooting slumps.  that is why I consistently mention his assist and rebound numbers and get hammered for them.  He isn't a guy that can still lead an offense when his shot isn't falling and his shot isn't falling enough that it is a real problem in close tight playoff games.  And he certainly can't make up for it defensively as he is a terrible defender.  Boston quite simply isn't winning a title with Irving as its best player.  I was holding out hope that Hayward would regain his pre-injury form and be Boston's best player this year, but that obviously and unfortunately didn't happen.  Tatum isn't ready to take a real leap into that discussion yet, which leaves Boston with a nice deep team, but one that isn't going to do much in an improved Eastern Conference playoffs.  In other words, Boston is a pretty classic example of a solid regular season team (much like Toronto the last few years).  Given just how much better the East is at the top this year, and given Boston's current seeding just getting out of the 1st round won't be easy and I'd be pretty surprised if Boston beat Toronto or Milwaukee in the 2nd round (let alone both to reach the finals). 

As for Simmons idea, if that is what Boston was going to do, it should have traded Irving at the deadline.  Trading him to the NY for Porzingis and Hardaway should have been explored (as an example).  At this point, Boston has to offer Irving the full max.  If he doesn't take it and he leaves there is nothing you can do at that point, but I do feel maybe Ainge wasn't properly reading the tea leaves with not just Irving, but the team in general.  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

Kyrie's efficiency is ridiculously good, so you are factually wrong on him going through shooting slumps. Also he isn't a terrible defender, but an average one who can be decent when engaged. Not even gonna comment on that godawful trade (for both sides)you brought up. Thank god our front office isn't that stupid.

[LarBrd33]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

what recent evidence? 

I see a one star team doing exactly what I’d expect a 1 Star team to do.  Haven’t seen kyrie play with a second star. 

[PhoSita]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

what recent evidence? 

I see a one star team doing exactly what I’d expect a 1 Star team to do.  Haven’t seen kyrie play with a second star.

I mean, I guess we've seen him play with another star before, only that star was the best player in the league.


I read your post as saying, if we just had Tatum we'd be kicking ourselves for not having a second star like Kyrie ... yet here we are with Tatum and Kyrie already and the team is squarely not a contender.

I recognize you said "If Tatum makes a major leap."


You mean, like making a major leap to the point where his impact on winning is commensurate with, say, Al Horford?

[Moranis]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

I don't actually think a team could win a title with Kyrie as its best player and haven't from before the trade was made to Boston.  He just isn't good enough overall and that includes offensively.  What I mean is, Irving goes through a lot of shooting slumps and he doesn't do enough else even offensively to survive those shooting slumps.  that is why I consistently mention his assist and rebound numbers and get hammered for them.  He isn't a guy that can still lead an offense when his shot isn't falling and his shot isn't falling enough that it is a real problem in close tight playoff games.  And he certainly can't make up for it defensively as he is a terrible defender.  Boston quite simply isn't winning a title with Irving as its best player.  I was holding out hope that Hayward would regain his pre-injury form and be Boston's best player this year, but that obviously and unfortunately didn't happen.  Tatum isn't ready to take a real leap into that discussion yet, which leaves Boston with a nice deep team, but one that isn't going to do much in an improved Eastern Conference playoffs.  In other words, Boston is a pretty classic example of a solid regular season team (much like Toronto the last few years).  Given just how much better the East is at the top this year, and given Boston's current seeding just getting out of the 1st round won't be easy and I'd be pretty surprised if Boston beat Toronto or Milwaukee in the 2nd round (let alone both to reach the finals). 

As for Simmons idea, if that is what Boston was going to do, it should have traded Irving at the deadline.  Trading him to the NY for Porzingis and Hardaway should have been explored (as an example).  At this point, Boston has to offer Irving the full max.  If he doesn't take it and he leaves there is nothing you can do at that point, but I do feel maybe Ainge wasn't properly reading the tea leaves with not just Irving, but the team in general.  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

Kyrie's efficiency is ridiculously good, so you are factually wrong on him going through shooting slumps. Also he isn't a terrible defender, but an average one who can be decent when engaged. Not even gonna comment on that godawful trade (for both sides)you brought up. Thank god our front office isn't that stupid.

Here are Irving's shooting percentages the last 10 games

45
73.7
28.6
57.1 (14 minute game)
33.3
58.3
30
58.3
40
63.6

That isn't abnormal or atypical for him.  He is always all over the map.  He is an excellent shooter overall but he has an about equal amount of stinker games vs. super elite games vs. mid tier games.  As an example he has 10 games at or above 60% but 13 games at or under 40% this year (for a comparison in 9 more games Durant has 14 games at or over 60% and 8 games at or under 40%).  In the 13 games Irving shoots poorly Boston is 6-7 with the only win against a team anywhere near .500 being the Sixers.  Boston is 8-2 in the 10 games where he is a super elite shooter (losing only to Houston and Denver with wins including the Raptors and Thunder).  In the playoffs it is magnified playing against better competition and increased minutes. 

And Irving is an absolutely atrocious defender.  Even when he plays next to Smart (or Brown) who allow him to hide a bit more, he is still an awful defender. 

As for the trade, I think Porzingis is exactly the type of player this team needs.  Obviously his health is a concern, but this team badly needs a big man like him and given his age he would fit in perfectly with Tatum/Brown and Hayward.  That is much more a trade about addition by subtraction. 

[nickagneta]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

I don't actually think a team could win a title with Kyrie as its best player and haven't from before the trade was made to Boston.  He just isn't good enough overall and that includes offensively.  What I mean is, Irving goes through a lot of shooting slumps and he doesn't do enough else even offensively to survive those shooting slumps.  that is why I consistently mention his assist and rebound numbers and get hammered for them.  He isn't a guy that can still lead an offense when his shot isn't falling and his shot isn't falling enough that it is a real problem in close tight playoff games.  And he certainly can't make up for it defensively as he is a terrible defender.  Boston quite simply isn't winning a title with Irving as its best player.  I was holding out hope that Hayward would regain his pre-injury form and be Boston's best player this year, but that obviously and unfortunately didn't happen.  Tatum isn't ready to take a real leap into that discussion yet, which leaves Boston with a nice deep team, but one that isn't going to do much in an improved Eastern Conference playoffs.  In other words, Boston is a pretty classic example of a solid regular season team (much like Toronto the last few years).  Given just how much better the East is at the top this year, and given Boston's current seeding just getting out of the 1st round won't be easy and I'd be pretty surprised if Boston beat Toronto or Milwaukee in the 2nd round (let alone both to reach the finals). 

As for Simmons idea, if that is what Boston was going to do, it should have traded Irving at the deadline.  Trading him to the NY for Porzingis and Hardaway should have been explored (as an example).  At this point, Boston has to offer Irving the full max.  If he doesn't take it and he leaves there is nothing you can do at that point, but I do feel maybe Ainge wasn't properly reading the tea leaves with not just Irving, but the team in general.  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

Kyrie's efficiency is ridiculously good, so you are factually wrong on him going through shooting slumps. Also he isn't a terrible defender, but an average one who can be decent when engaged. Not even gonna comment on that godawful trade (for both sides)you brought up. Thank god our front office isn't that stupid.

Here are Irving's shooting percentages the last 10 games

45
73.7
28.6
57.1 (14 minute game)
33.3
58.3
30
58.3
40
63.6

That isn't abnormal or atypical for him.  He is always all over the map.  He is an excellent shooter overall but he has an about equal amount of stinker games vs. super elite games vs. mid tier games.  As an example he has 10 games at or above 60% but 13 games at or under 40% this year (for a comparison in 9 more games Durant has 14 games at or over 60% and 8 games at or under 40%).  In the 13 games Irving shoots poorly Boston is 6-7 with the only win against a team anywhere near .500 being the Sixers.  Boston is 8-2 in the 10 games where he is a super elite shooter (losing only to Houston and Denver with wins including the Raptors and Thunder).  In the playoffs it is magnified playing against better competition and increased minutes. 

And Irving is an absolutely atrocious defender.  Even when he plays next to Smart (or Brown) who allow him to hide a bit more, he is still an awful defender. 

As for the trade, I think Porzingis is exactly the type of player this team needs.  Obviously his health is a concern, but this team badly needs a big man like him and given his age he would fit in perfectly with Tatum/Brown and Hayward.  That is much more a trade about addition by subtraction.

I am pretty sure that your ridiculous look at just his FG% could be done for most star players that shoot a lot of outside shots.

James Harden
57
50
39
39
44
45
33
34
50
45

Steph Curry
35
50
42
41
52
50
27
45
36
43
Klay Thompson
87
52
52
64
12
37
41
57
60
39

Just three more inconsistent guys that go through shooting slumps, huh?

Just wow!

[LarBrd33]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

what recent evidence? 

I see a one star team doing exactly what I’d expect a 1 Star team to do.  Haven’t seen kyrie play with a second star.

I mean, I guess we've seen him play with another star before, only that star was the best player in the league.


I read your post as saying, if we just had Tatum we'd be kicking ourselves for not having a second star like Kyrie ... yet here we are with Tatum and Kyrie already and the team is squarely not a contender.

I recognize you said "If Tatum makes a major leap."


You mean, like making a major leap to the point where his impact on winning is commensurate with, say, Al Horford?

The premise Simmons is going for has us getting rid of Horford and Kyrie and just giving the keys to Tatum.  That's fine, last season WITH Horford and WITH Terry Rozier playing like an all-star, that group played at a 47 win pace and almost lost in the first round. 

I agree it was impressive.  They had no pressure and the element of surprise working in their favor, but all of those guys managed to play well above their expected levels.

You pull Horford off that team and have that group together for a long grueling season without the excitement and extra effort from a young team looking to prove everyone wrong... you better hope Rozier can return to playing like an all-star, because that's quite possibly a 35 win team. 

My point was that even if Tatum ended up making that leap we hope he can make... and starts looking like Kevin Durant out there...  the team would still have a ceiling of like 50 wins without a second star.  We'd be sitting around thinking, "man, if only this team had someone like Kyrie Irving to pair with Tatum we could actually make some noise." 

I love Brad Stevens and I get he can MacGyver any team into 50+ wins and the conference finals, but I think it's dangerous to expect him to get teams to overachieve every single season forever.  We're seeing this season how hard it is to get a 1-star team to even win 50 games if everyone isn't fully committed to playing 150% every single night.

[gouki88]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

I don't actually think a team could win a title with Kyrie as its best player and haven't from before the trade was made to Boston.  He just isn't good enough overall and that includes offensively.  What I mean is, Irving goes through a lot of shooting slumps and he doesn't do enough else even offensively to survive those shooting slumps.  that is why I consistently mention his assist and rebound numbers and get hammered for them.  He isn't a guy that can still lead an offense when his shot isn't falling and his shot isn't falling enough that it is a real problem in close tight playoff games.  And he certainly can't make up for it defensively as he is a terrible defender.  Boston quite simply isn't winning a title with Irving as its best player.  I was holding out hope that Hayward would regain his pre-injury form and be Boston's best player this year, but that obviously and unfortunately didn't happen.  Tatum isn't ready to take a real leap into that discussion yet, which leaves Boston with a nice deep team, but one that isn't going to do much in an improved Eastern Conference playoffs.  In other words, Boston is a pretty classic example of a solid regular season team (much like Toronto the last few years).  Given just how much better the East is at the top this year, and given Boston's current seeding just getting out of the 1st round won't be easy and I'd be pretty surprised if Boston beat Toronto or Milwaukee in the 2nd round (let alone both to reach the finals). 

As for Simmons idea, if that is what Boston was going to do, it should have traded Irving at the deadline.  Trading him to the NY for Porzingis and Hardaway should have been explored (as an example).  At this point, Boston has to offer Irving the full max.  If he doesn't take it and he leaves there is nothing you can do at that point, but I do feel maybe Ainge wasn't properly reading the tea leaves with not just Irving, but the team in general.  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

Kyrie's efficiency is ridiculously good, so you are factually wrong on him going through shooting slumps. Also he isn't a terrible defender, but an average one who can be decent when engaged. Not even gonna comment on that godawful trade (for both sides)you brought up. Thank god our front office isn't that stupid.

Here are Irving's shooting percentages the last 10 games

45
73.7
28.6
57.1 (14 minute game)
33.3
58.3
30
58.3
40
63.6

That isn't abnormal or atypical for him.  He is always all over the map.  He is an excellent shooter overall but he has an about equal amount of stinker games vs. super elite games vs. mid tier games.  As an example he has 10 games at or above 60% but 13 games at or under 40% this year (for a comparison in 9 more games Durant has 14 games at or over 60% and 8 games at or under 40%).  In the 13 games Irving shoots poorly Boston is 6-7 with the only win against a team anywhere near .500 being the Sixers.  Boston is 8-2 in the 10 games where he is a super elite shooter (losing only to Houston and Denver with wins including the Raptors and Thunder).  In the playoffs it is magnified playing against better competition and increased minutes. 

And Irving is an absolutely atrocious defender.  Even when he plays next to Smart (or Brown) who allow him to hide a bit more, he is still an awful defender. 

As for the trade, I think Porzingis is exactly the type of player this team needs.  Obviously his health is a concern, but this team badly needs a big man like him and given his age he would fit in perfectly with Tatum/Brown and Hayward.  That is much more a trade about addition by subtraction.

I am pretty sure that your ridiculous look at just his FG% could be done for most star players that shoot a lot of outside shots.

James Harden
57
50
39
39
44
45
33
34
50
45

Steph Curry
35
50
42
41
52
50
27
45
36
43
Klay Thompson
87
52
52
64
12
37
41
57
60
39

Just three more inconsistent guys that go through shooting slumps, huh?

Just wow!

Moranis’ misrepresentation of stats astounds me sometimes

[Vox_Populi]

I would trust 20% of the posters here with the future of the Celtics more than Bill Simmons.

[Moranis]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

I don't actually think a team could win a title with Kyrie as its best player and haven't from before the trade was made to Boston.  He just isn't good enough overall and that includes offensively.  What I mean is, Irving goes through a lot of shooting slumps and he doesn't do enough else even offensively to survive those shooting slumps.  that is why I consistently mention his assist and rebound numbers and get hammered for them.  He isn't a guy that can still lead an offense when his shot isn't falling and his shot isn't falling enough that it is a real problem in close tight playoff games.  And he certainly can't make up for it defensively as he is a terrible defender.  Boston quite simply isn't winning a title with Irving as its best player.  I was holding out hope that Hayward would regain his pre-injury form and be Boston's best player this year, but that obviously and unfortunately didn't happen.  Tatum isn't ready to take a real leap into that discussion yet, which leaves Boston with a nice deep team, but one that isn't going to do much in an improved Eastern Conference playoffs.  In other words, Boston is a pretty classic example of a solid regular season team (much like Toronto the last few years).  Given just how much better the East is at the top this year, and given Boston's current seeding just getting out of the 1st round won't be easy and I'd be pretty surprised if Boston beat Toronto or Milwaukee in the 2nd round (let alone both to reach the finals). 

As for Simmons idea, if that is what Boston was going to do, it should have traded Irving at the deadline.  Trading him to the NY for Porzingis and Hardaway should have been explored (as an example).  At this point, Boston has to offer Irving the full max.  If he doesn't take it and he leaves there is nothing you can do at that point, but I do feel maybe Ainge wasn't properly reading the tea leaves with not just Irving, but the team in general.  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

Kyrie's efficiency is ridiculously good, so you are factually wrong on him going through shooting slumps. Also he isn't a terrible defender, but an average one who can be decent when engaged. Not even gonna comment on that godawful trade (for both sides)you brought up. Thank god our front office isn't that stupid.

Here are Irving's shooting percentages the last 10 games

45
73.7
28.6
57.1 (14 minute game)
33.3
58.3
30
58.3
40
63.6

That isn't abnormal or atypical for him.  He is always all over the map.  He is an excellent shooter overall but he has an about equal amount of stinker games vs. super elite games vs. mid tier games.  As an example he has 10 games at or above 60% but 13 games at or under 40% this year (for a comparison in 9 more games Durant has 14 games at or over 60% and 8 games at or under 40%).  In the 13 games Irving shoots poorly Boston is 6-7 with the only win against a team anywhere near .500 being the Sixers.  Boston is 8-2 in the 10 games where he is a super elite shooter (losing only to Houston and Denver with wins including the Raptors and Thunder).  In the playoffs it is magnified playing against better competition and increased minutes. 

And Irving is an absolutely atrocious defender.  Even when he plays next to Smart (or Brown) who allow him to hide a bit more, he is still an awful defender. 

As for the trade, I think Porzingis is exactly the type of player this team needs.  Obviously his health is a concern, but this team badly needs a big man like him and given his age he would fit in perfectly with Tatum/Brown and Hayward.  That is much more a trade about addition by subtraction.

I am pretty sure that your ridiculous look at just his FG% could be done for most star players that shoot a lot of outside shots.

James Harden
57
50
39
39
44
45
33
34
50
45

Steph Curry
35
50
42
41
52
50
27
45
36
43
Klay Thompson
87
52
52
64
12
37
41
57
60
39

Just three more inconsistent guys that go through shooting slumps, huh?

Just wow!

First, Harden isn't a great shooter.  He only has 1 game all year shooting above 60%.  His strength is getting to the line.  that said, when Harden shoots 40% or below the Rockets are just 8-10 in large part because he is such a terrible defender that he has to shoot better to make up for his terrible defense.  That is the point I was making.  Irving doesn't do enough elsewhere to survive a poor shooting night.

Curry is an absolutely elite shooter, who obviously has poor games, but he does enough on both ends of the floor to make up for it.  The Warriors are 9-4 in Curry's 13 games at or below 40% or a win percentage of 69% which you know is exactly the Warriors overall win percentage.   

Thompson is the 3rd offensive option on the team.  His team doesn't rely on him like the other players so I don't really count him in that mode.  He is basically JJ Redick on the Sixers.

[PhoSita]

The premise Simmons is going for has us getting rid of Horford and Kyrie and just giving the keys to Tatum.  That's fine, last season WITH Horford and WITH Terry Rozier playing like an all-star, that group played at a 47 win pace and almost lost in the first round. 

Okay first, Terry Rozier has never in his life played like an All-Star over a significant stretch.

In the playoffs he played like a solid starter, albeit one with the confidence of a superstar.


Anyway, I don't agree with Simmons re: letting Horford go.


My feeling is, if Kyrie wants to re-sign long term, let's sign him.  We can always do what the Clips did with Blake and trade Kyrie for pieces in 6 months.

But if Kyrie wants to re-sign to a short term deal (e.g. a one-and-one, Durant style), I say no thanks.

If Kyrie is gone, I would try to get Horford to opt out and re-sign to a lower salary 3-4 year deal.

Then I would be looking at using the MLE on a guy like Darren Collison, maybe try to add a big man or two through the draft or making smaller trades.


Smart - Brown - Tatum - Horford - Baynes

w/ Hayward off the bench.


That team isn't making the Finals or winning any titles.

But it's not bad for a starting point.  What I would want to find out is -- how good can Tatum and Brown be?

I don't think we know the answer to that question.  I would want to spend the next couple of seasons trying to find out.

Once we have the answer as to how good Tatum and Brown can be, that will inform the next steps beyond that, whether it's trying to trade for a new franchise centerpiece, or simply angling to add the right complementary pieces beside them.

[RPGenerate]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

I don't actually think a team could win a title with Kyrie as its best player and haven't from before the trade was made to Boston.  He just isn't good enough overall and that includes offensively.  What I mean is, Irving goes through a lot of shooting slumps and he doesn't do enough else even offensively to survive those shooting slumps.  that is why I consistently mention his assist and rebound numbers and get hammered for them.  He isn't a guy that can still lead an offense when his shot isn't falling and his shot isn't falling enough that it is a real problem in close tight playoff games.  And he certainly can't make up for it defensively as he is a terrible defender.  Boston quite simply isn't winning a title with Irving as its best player.  I was holding out hope that Hayward would regain his pre-injury form and be Boston's best player this year, but that obviously and unfortunately didn't happen.  Tatum isn't ready to take a real leap into that discussion yet, which leaves Boston with a nice deep team, but one that isn't going to do much in an improved Eastern Conference playoffs.  In other words, Boston is a pretty classic example of a solid regular season team (much like Toronto the last few years).  Given just how much better the East is at the top this year, and given Boston's current seeding just getting out of the 1st round won't be easy and I'd be pretty surprised if Boston beat Toronto or Milwaukee in the 2nd round (let alone both to reach the finals). 

As for Simmons idea, if that is what Boston was going to do, it should have traded Irving at the deadline.  Trading him to the NY for Porzingis and Hardaway should have been explored (as an example).  At this point, Boston has to offer Irving the full max.  If he doesn't take it and he leaves there is nothing you can do at that point, but I do feel maybe Ainge wasn't properly reading the tea leaves with not just Irving, but the team in general.  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

Kyrie's efficiency is ridiculously good, so you are factually wrong on him going through shooting slumps. Also he isn't a terrible defender, but an average one who can be decent when engaged. Not even gonna comment on that godawful trade (for both sides)you brought up. Thank god our front office isn't that stupid.

Here are Irving's shooting percentages the last 10 games

45
73.7
28.6
57.1 (14 minute game)
33.3
58.3
30
58.3
40
63.6

That isn't abnormal or atypical for him.  He is always all over the map.  He is an excellent shooter overall but he has an about equal amount of stinker games vs. super elite games vs. mid tier games.  As an example he has 10 games at or above 60% but 13 games at or under 40% this year (for a comparison in 9 more games Durant has 14 games at or over 60% and 8 games at or under 40%).  In the 13 games Irving shoots poorly Boston is 6-7 with the only win against a team anywhere near .500 being the Sixers.  Boston is 8-2 in the 10 games where he is a super elite shooter (losing only to Houston and Denver with wins including the Raptors and Thunder).  In the playoffs it is magnified playing against better competition and increased minutes. 

And Irving is an absolutely atrocious defender.  Even when he plays next to Smart (or Brown) who allow him to hide a bit more, he is still an awful defender. 

As for the trade, I think Porzingis is exactly the type of player this team needs.  Obviously his health is a concern, but this team badly needs a big man like him and given his age he would fit in perfectly with Tatum/Brown and Hayward.  That is much more a trade about addition by subtraction.

I am pretty sure that your ridiculous look at just his FG% could be done for most star players that shoot a lot of outside shots.

James Harden
57
50
39
39
44
45
33
34
50
45

Steph Curry
35
50
42
41
52
50
27
45
36
43
Klay Thompson
87
52
52
64
12
37
41
57
60
39

Just three more inconsistent guys that go through shooting slumps, huh?

Just wow!

Moranis’ misrepresentation of stats astounds me sometimes

Think this bad, you have to see when he tries to discredit Kyrie's finals performances with his arbitrary standards and ridiculous logic.

[nickagneta]

So Steph Curry is like Kyrie Irving in that he can also have bad shooting nights but he does enough to make up for it. Interesting. Let's see if that is true.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Kyrie+Irving&player_id1_select=Kyrie+Irving&y1=2019&player_id1=irvinky01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Stephen+Curry&player_id2_select=Stephen+Curry&y2=2019&player_id2=curryst01&idx=players

So rebounds
Steph 5.3
Kyrie 4.9

Assists
Steph 5.5
Kyrie 6.9

Steals
Steph 1.3
Kyrie 1.5

Blocks
Steph 0.4
Kyrie 0.5

Def Rating- BBall Ref #
Steph 111
Kyrie 107

Def Rating - NBA.com
Steph 107.7
Kyrie 105.5

So it's not true.

And the point of showing three players all that had shooting ups and downs just like Kyrie is to show that Kyrie doesn't somehow slump while other players don't. All players have up and down nights over ridiculously small 10 game spans.

The notion that Kyrie is somehow different in having ups and downs over small sample size of games is just...real...wrong. My guess is I could find similar 10 game stretches for every player good bad or elite.

[Moranis]

I never said other players don't slump, I said Irving doesn't make up for it in other ways. This is pretty clearly reflected in Boston's record.  And frankly, I'm getting pretty f-in tired of people constantly misquoting me and pretending I'm saying things I'm not saying.  You'd think a fellow mod would be better about that, but alas you are offen the biggest culprit.

[RPGenerate]

I never said other players don't slump, I said Irving doesn't make up for it in other ways. This is pretty clearly reflected in Boston's record.  And frankly, I'm getting pretty f-in tired of people constantly misquoting me and pretending I'm saying things I'm not saying.  You'd think a fellow mod would be better about that, but alas you are offen the biggest culprit.

You didn't address his points about Steph Curry, and then played the victim, sooooooooo I'm guessing you concede the point?

[Moranis]

I never said other players don't slump, I said Irving doesn't make up for it in other ways. This is pretty clearly reflected in Boston's record.  And frankly, I'm getting pretty f-in tired of people constantly misquoting me and pretending I'm saying things I'm not saying.  You'd think a fellow mod would be better about that, but alas you are offen the biggest culprit.

You didn't address his points about Steph Curry, and then played the victim, sooooooooo I'm guessing you concede the point?

not at all, Curry is better and does more than Irving.  I find it ridiculous anyone would actually argue that point.  My rant was quite simply people claiming I said something I didn't and me posting his percentages was in direct contradiction to your factually incorrect statement that Irving's efficiency is ridiculously good and me being wrong about his slumps. If anything Nick in a round about way actually supported my position against you, he just did it by making up arguments I never made.