“Reboot scenario” floated by Bill Simmons

[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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

it is the advanced metrics.  Percentage wise Curry is better.  Curry also has always had an elite level +- and an elite on/off point differential.  Both far exceeding Irving.

[Celtics4ever]

Dumb idea.

[Roy H.]

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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

it is the advanced metrics.  Percentage wise Curry is better.  Curry also has always had an elite level +- and an elite on/off point differential.  Both far exceeding Irving.

The +/- doesn’t mean a ton to me. Curry has All-NBA teammates and is in a historically great team. His +/- should be amazing. Not surprisingly, his teammate Kevin Durant also ranks in the top three in the category. (Kyrie is 13th; five Bucks are in the top-12).

Similarly, on court / off court is largely a measurement of two things: How many minutes the starters played together, and the quality of a player’s back up.

 I don’t think that Curry is any more well rounded than Kyrie, or that he possesses a ton of intangibles. It’s just that he is better at shooting and better at scoring. But, on the rare nights when Curry’s shot is not falling, he really doesn’t do a lot to pick the team up in other ways.

[gouki88]

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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

it is the advanced metrics.  Percentage wise Curry is better.  Curry also has always had an elite level +- and an elite on/off point differential.  Both far exceeding Irving.

The +/- doesn’t mean a ton to me. Curry has All-NBA teammates and is in a historically great team. His +/- should be amazing. Not surprisingly, his teammate Kevin Durant also ranks in the top three in the category. (Kyrie is 13th; five Bucks are in the top-12).

Similarly, on court / off court is largely a measurement of two things: How many minutes the starters played together, and the quality of a player’s back up.

 I don’t think that Curry is any more well rounded than Kyrie, or that he possesses a ton of intangibles. It’s just that he is better at shooting and better at scoring. But, on the rare nights when Curry’s shot is not falling, he really doesn’t do a lot to pick the team up in other ways.

Bingo.

I also love the way Kyrie routinely outplays Curry in head-to-head matchups

[The Oracle]

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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

The only mistake Nick made in his post was not using I.T. as one of his examples.  To combat the false narratives being spun by the I.T. fan boy club/Kyrie hate club you must include I.T. statistics to show them just how ridiculous their spin is.  Including all regular and post season games I.T. had 75 out of 204 career games in a Boston uniform with a FG% below 40%.

um the same problems Irving has were even more compounded with IT as his size was a huge detriment defensively and elsewhere.

The Celtics with Kyrie on the floor are giving up 105.2 points per 100 possessions.  The best defense in the league is Milwaukee who are giving up 104.4 per 100.  The worst team in the league is Cleveland who are giving up 116 per 100.  To say that Kyrie is causing problems or is bad defensively is just nonsense.  I.T. was almost inarguably the single worst defender in the league and crushed the C's defensively, to compare the 2 of them is laughable. 

[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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

The only mistake Nick made in his post was not using I.T. as one of his examples.  To combat the false narratives being spun by the I.T. fan boy club/Kyrie hate club you must include I.T. statistics to show them just how ridiculous their spin is.  Including all regular and post season games I.T. had 75 out of 204 career games in a Boston uniform with a FG% below 40%.

um the same problems Irving has were even more compounded with IT as his size was a huge detriment defensively and elsewhere.

The Celtics with Kyrie on the floor are giving up 105.2 points per 100 possessions.  The best defense in the league is Milwaukee who are giving up 104.4 per 100.  The worst team in the league is Cleveland who are giving up 116 per 100.  To say that Kyrie is causing problems or is bad defensively is just nonsense.  I.T. was almost inarguably the single worst defender in the league and crushed the C's defensively, to compare the 2 of them is laughable.

Thomas in his half season was 98, then was 102 and then 109.  For DRTG.   The team overall was pretty similar to IT when he was on or off the floor just like they are with Irving. 

The narrative that Irving isn't a terrible defender that has been going around this thread is comical.  Irving is a terrible defender. 

[Androslav]

I listen to his pods regularly.
But this cranky, "flammable" pod of his sounds dumb just 2 days after broadcasting.
He probably regrets it now.

[Big333223]

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.

If you feel like this keeps happening, you might consider the idea that you're not communicating what you want as well as you think you are.

[Roy H.]

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.

If you feel like this keeps happening, you might consider the idea that you're not communicating what you want as well as you think you are.

In fairness to Moranis, people attributing arguments to others happens quite a bit, regardless of how clear you are. It’s almost the standard practice in our political discourse these days.

[celticsclay]

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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

The only mistake Nick made in his post was not using I.T. as one of his examples.  To combat the false narratives being spun by the I.T. fan boy club/Kyrie hate club you must include I.T. statistics to show them just how ridiculous their spin is.  Including all regular and post season games I.T. had 75 out of 204 career games in a Boston uniform with a FG% below 40%.

um the same problems Irving has were even more compounded with IT as his size was a huge detriment defensively and elsewhere.

The Celtics with Kyrie on the floor are giving up 105.2 points per 100 possessions.  The best defense in the league is Milwaukee who are giving up 104.4 per 100.  The worst team in the league is Cleveland who are giving up 116 per 100.  To say that Kyrie is causing problems or is bad defensively is just nonsense.  I.T. was almost inarguably the single worst defender in the league and crushed the C's defensively, to compare the 2 of them is laughable.

Thomas in his half season was 98, then was 102 and then 109.  For DRTG.   The team overall was pretty similar to IT when he was on or off the floor just like they are with Irving. 

The narrative that Irving isn't a terrible defender that has been going around this thread is comical.  Irving is a terrible defender.

So a bunch of people put in stats saying that Kyrie Irving has not been bad on defense. Your reply is basically "IT had some numbers that were not that bad on defense on the celtics also, irving is bad because i said so?"

At a larger level you have said Curry does more than Irving. A bunch of people have refuted this point with stats surrounding steals, passing and defense and it is unclear what your reply to that counterpoint is?

[Green-18]

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.

If you feel like this keeps happening, you might consider the idea that you're not communicating what you want as well as you think you are.

In fairness to Moranis, people attributing arguments to others happens quite a bit, regardless of how clear you are. It’s almost the standard practice in our political discourse these days.

It's also very difficult to clarify your position in written form.  A real conversation gives us instant feedback that we can't get through the internet.  Sometimes one point or aspect of an argument gets turned into a blanket statement by other posters.  I wont name names but someone recently PM'ed me about my position on the "toxic" comments by Jaylen Brown.  I was told that I was trying to twist his comments in order to fit my "awful" narrative.  It caught me off guard because I was simply implying that the word "toxic" can be related to more than just losing.  I was attempting to suggest that there could be an awkward vibe in the locker room, and that Kyrie's most recent media comments weren't helping the situation.  I never intended to place blame on a single player, or suggest that the locker room was beyond repair.

[footey]

I'm going to do us all a favor and return to this thread's topic of BS's reboot scenario.

I listen to Simmons a lot, mostly because he talks a lot about the Celtics, and regularly bashes Lebron and the Lakers. My kind of guy.

However, he can be such a front runner when it comes to anything NBA, including his recent podcast talking about rebooting. He basically said he felt it was too late for the Celtics to turn this around, that they were toast. I suppose that is the nature of today's media alacrity, and wouldn't be surprised if he shifts his prognosis to "Celtics the Most Dangerous Team in Playoffs" if we continue to win again. 

Such is life on the Internet.

[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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

The only mistake Nick made in his post was not using I.T. as one of his examples.  To combat the false narratives being spun by the I.T. fan boy club/Kyrie hate club you must include I.T. statistics to show them just how ridiculous their spin is.  Including all regular and post season games I.T. had 75 out of 204 career games in a Boston uniform with a FG% below 40%.

um the same problems Irving has were even more compounded with IT as his size was a huge detriment defensively and elsewhere.

The Celtics with Kyrie on the floor are giving up 105.2 points per 100 possessions.  The best defense in the league is Milwaukee who are giving up 104.4 per 100.  The worst team in the league is Cleveland who are giving up 116 per 100.  To say that Kyrie is causing problems or is bad defensively is just nonsense.  I.T. was almost inarguably the single worst defender in the league and crushed the C's defensively, to compare the 2 of them is laughable.

Thomas in his half season was 98, then was 102 and then 109.  For DRTG.   The team overall was pretty similar to IT when he was on or off the floor just like they are with Irving. 

The narrative that Irving isn't a terrible defender that has been going around this thread is comical.  Irving is a terrible defender.

So a bunch of people put in stats saying that Kyrie Irving has not been bad on defense. Your reply is basically "IT had some numbers that were not that bad on defense on the celtics also, irving is bad because i said so?"

At a larger level you have said Curry does more than Irving. A bunch of people have refuted this point with stats surrounding steals, passing and defense and it is unclear what your reply to that counterpoint is?

I already said all of the advanced metrics favor Curry (and it was in a direct quote to your prior question).  He has higher AST%, higher RB%, a smaller USG%, better +-, better on/off differential, etc. and quite simply his team is much worse when he doesn't play then when he does play.  Curry's impact on his team winning, even when he has an off shooting night, is elite, while Irving's is not. 

[footey]

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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

The only mistake Nick made in his post was not using I.T. as one of his examples.  To combat the false narratives being spun by the I.T. fan boy club/Kyrie hate club you must include I.T. statistics to show them just how ridiculous their spin is.  Including all regular and post season games I.T. had 75 out of 204 career games in a Boston uniform with a FG% below 40%.

um the same problems Irving has were even more compounded with IT as his size was a huge detriment defensively and elsewhere.

The Celtics with Kyrie on the floor are giving up 105.2 points per 100 possessions.  The best defense in the league is Milwaukee who are giving up 104.4 per 100.  The worst team in the league is Cleveland who are giving up 116 per 100.  To say that Kyrie is causing problems or is bad defensively is just nonsense.  I.T. was almost inarguably the single worst defender in the league and crushed the C's defensively, to compare the 2 of them is laughable.

Thomas in his half season was 98, then was 102 and then 109.  For DRTG.   The team overall was pretty similar to IT when he was on or off the floor just like they are with Irving. 

The narrative that Irving isn't a terrible defender that has been going around this thread is comical.  Irving is a terrible defender.

So a bunch of people put in stats saying that Kyrie Irving has not been bad on defense. Your reply is basically "IT had some numbers that were not that bad on defense on the celtics also, irving is bad because i said so?"

At a larger level you have said Curry does more than Irving. A bunch of people have refuted this point with stats surrounding steals, passing and defense and it is unclear what your reply to that counterpoint is?

I already said all of the advanced metrics favor Curry (and it was in a direct quote to your prior question).  He has higher AST%, higher RB%, a smaller USG%, better +-, better on/off differential, etc. and quite simply his team is much worse when he doesn't play then when he does play.  Curry's impact on his team winning, even when he has an off shooting night, is elite, while Irving's is not.

Curry is more valuable than Kyrie because his greatest strengths are exhibited in the context of a ball movement offense.  Kyrie does not shine as well in that context.

[celticsclay]

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?

I thought Nick made a really good point with Curry and Irving here. It is especially eye opening that for all the flack that Irving gets for being a gunner, he averages more assists per game than curry. How come people don't talk about that? It is also not like we can say Irving has only done this on bad teams. He is an NBA champion.

The only mistake Nick made in his post was not using I.T. as one of his examples.  To combat the false narratives being spun by the I.T. fan boy club/Kyrie hate club you must include I.T. statistics to show them just how ridiculous their spin is.  Including all regular and post season games I.T. had 75 out of 204 career games in a Boston uniform with a FG% below 40%.

um the same problems Irving has were even more compounded with IT as his size was a huge detriment defensively and elsewhere.

The Celtics with Kyrie on the floor are giving up 105.2 points per 100 possessions.  The best defense in the league is Milwaukee who are giving up 104.4 per 100.  The worst team in the league is Cleveland who are giving up 116 per 100.  To say that Kyrie is causing problems or is bad defensively is just nonsense.  I.T. was almost inarguably the single worst defender in the league and crushed the C's defensively, to compare the 2 of them is laughable.

Thomas in his half season was 98, then was 102 and then 109.  For DRTG.   The team overall was pretty similar to IT when he was on or off the floor just like they are with Irving. 

The narrative that Irving isn't a terrible defender that has been going around this thread is comical.  Irving is a terrible defender.

So a bunch of people put in stats saying that Kyrie Irving has not been bad on defense. Your reply is basically "IT had some numbers that were not that bad on defense on the celtics also, irving is bad because i said so?"

At a larger level you have said Curry does more than Irving. A bunch of people have refuted this point with stats surrounding steals, passing and defense and it is unclear what your reply to that counterpoint is?

I already said all of the advanced metrics favor Curry (and it was in a direct quote to your prior question).  He has higher AST%, higher RB%, a smaller USG%, better +-, better on/off differential, etc. and quite simply his team is much worse when he doesn't play then when he does play.  Curry's impact on his team winning, even when he has an off shooting night, is elite, while Irving's is not.

Usually when people are trying to say something like "the advanced metrics favor curry" they provide the metrics. How much higher an ast% does he have, where are you getting your stats? If you noticed the person that share their counting stats actually listed them out so people knew where they were getting the information. This is especially critical when there have been times it has seemed you have manipulated statistics (I find it quite humorous personally you were using counting stats to argue Wiggins was an ok rotation player in the other thread while not discussing his other stats, but now that the counting threads favor Kyrie you want to use advanced stats to make the argument.