It's the playoffs that matter, if you put it down logistically. IT becomes irrelevant as a presence at the big stage, and as a C's fan it was really painful to watching him struggle as much as he did in the past 3 postseasons.
So it basically comes down to this:
Boston didn't want to pay 200mil to IT (rightfully so IMO). Cavs had to trade Kyrie because of the situation going on there.
IT vs Kyrie for both teams. Pros/Cons
Pros: Cleveland gets someone who can actually make plays and set people up instead of having situations where Kyrie pounds the ball and everyone else just watches (except for LeBron), which in turn gives Lebron potential for more rest in-game and on the bench.
Boston gets a dynamic scorer, but doesn't really play off-ball. However, I wonder how coachable Kyrie is with a smart coach like Brad Stevens. If he can change his game so that he can at least play average defense + pass the ball, then this is a major X-factor that could give Boston an insane advantage (still unlikely given Kyrie's ball habits).
.
Do you realize that IT did the same thing last season? He played a lot more off-ball (and still not that much) in his first two years in Boston than his last one when he elevated from 22 to 29 PPG going basically iso as much as Kyrie did, if not more.
Celtics were holding IT back. Expect an MVP and DPOY season from IT now that he's being weighed up by LeBron. 🤔🤔🤔
No, not really. It's the 82 game season that matters as more than the 16 game post season. The playoffs are a small sample size. If stands to reason that if someone is good in the regular season, they are going to be good in the playoffs. Eventually those odds will bear out. It's math.
Spurs will give you Aldridge straight upWould the Lakers take Irving for Ball, straight up?
Lowry, DeRozan, and IT all had career seasons and they bombed in playoffs, especially the first two. The math argument is irrelevant.
Lowry, DeRozan, and IT all had career seasons and they bombed in playoffs, especially the first two. The math argument is irrelevant because playoff environment is not a continuation of the reg.season.
He might fall off the edge of the planet if he goes into the ocean, so no.Would the Lakers take Irving for Ball, straight up?
Would the Lakers take Irving for Ball, straight up?
Not even for Lavar Ball.
LiAngelo?
Kyrie for Deng and the rights to the any future Ball children Lavar might have.
Legit no debate w/ you then. If you can't quantify why a 10 game SSS should be relevant to any kind of discussion about a player's current or FV then there's nothing left to say.
Math and stats matter, it's why we have stats with averages.
Nope. There are multiple paradigms of players (and teams), with career years completely disintegrating in playoffs. It's not about math, it's about different environment, defensive setups, officiating, and mentality in the playoffs. It's not about the number of games per se.
Spurs will give you Aldridge straight up
*Looks at avatar* you don't say...LeBron needs to take it easy so he is fresh and ready to join the Ball era next year.
Have you ever watched a basketball game?
Quantify how that impacts player performance beyond platitudes.
It does. In the case of a 5'9 guy, it's entirely different. Spacing is no longer regular season-wide, your first step isn't that effective against 6'3-6'4 guys anymore, you can't go in the paint and get those calls/makes as you did. Similar thing happened to DeRozan too, where his mid-range/slashing game became a weakness and he was forced to shot from beyond the arc, where he posted an all-time low of 7% from 3. Having a breakthrough regular season and career numbers does not guarantee playoff relevancy if you're not a transformational type of player. Kyrie is one of the few players with similar, if not better playoff stats comparing to their reg.seasons averages.
*Looks at avatar* you don't say...
Kyrie and IT are a wash? What on earth am I reading. Cavs are going to be worse this year. Can't hate on the pick tho.
Wat.
Go look at the finals stats, look at each players averages between playoffs and regular season.
They're basically the same. Because that's how stats work. SSS has almost no value on any sort of evaluation beyond intangibles. You're not quantifying anything, how are the gaps smaller? How is the defense "better"? What changes?
This is how the NBA postseason works since forever. If you're implying that there's absolutely no difference between regular/playoff defensive setups, spacing, and even officiating, then i'm out of this.
This is how the NBA postseason works since forever. If you're implying that there's absolutely no difference between regular/playoff defensive setups, spacing, and even officiating, then i'm out of this.
Look at the actual numbers my dude. IT was amazing last season. Cavs in addition get Crowder. It wouldn't be the most surprising thing in the world if the Cavs were better next season.
You are assuming that playoff games are identical to regular season games. They're not.No, not really. It's the 82 game season that matters as more than the 16 game post season. The playoffs are a small sample size. If stands to reason that if someone is good in the regular season, they are going to be good in the playoffs. Eventually those odds will bear out. It's math.
Look at the actual numbers my dude. IT was amazing last season. Cavs in addition get Crowder. It wouldn't be the most surprising thing in the world if the Cavs were better next season.
Look at the numbers?!?! Smh. You know that's not how basketball works. There are so many variables. You can't dumb it down to 3 numbers.
Look at the numbers?!?! Smh. You know that's not how basketball works. There are so many variables. You can't dumb it down to 3 numbers.
Danny Ainge is a madman, I both hate and love his giant balls.
You are assuming that playoff games are identical to regular season games. They're not.
I'm asking you to quantify these things. "It exists obviously because it just does" is not an answer. A variable isn't something intangible.