If IT4 Was 100% Healthy, Would DA Have Kept Him For LONG Haul?

[mmmmm]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

We know your option about the trade. It's not the topic raised in this thread. It's debating whether the GM of the Cs would have kept and paid IT if he was healthy. I don't think so.

Sure it's the topic of this thread.

If IT was healthy, Danny wouldn't have traded a better player plus a starter, a prospect and a coveted pick for a celebrity point guard.

Oh boy. If a frog had wings. And you skipped the payment part.

It's a hypothetical that presumes IT was healthy.

And why wouldn't Danny pay a healthy IT? In two years he'll pay a (hopefully) healthy Kyrie even more, and he's an inferior player.

Because Brad is an advanced statistics guy and the most interesting statistic to come out of this whole IT trade is the stat that shows that only two players in the history of the NBA at IT's height have had multiple seasons averaging over 21 points a game. IT is one of them, and they have done it for only 2 seasons. That statistic I believe is probably the single biggest reason Ainge was never going to unload the Brinks Truck for IT.

That would be a pretty poor usage of statistics.  First off, IT has himself done it (averaged 20+ points) for 3 seasons (and per-minute rate-wise would have done it a 4th if not having gotten stuck on the bench because of Phoenix's idiocy.).   So he already blew by your "and they have only done it for only 2 seasons".


Further, to understand these sorts of numbers, you first have to say:  How many _total_ players in the NBA were near IT's height.   How many of them have been good enough to get starter's minutes on a team on a second contract?   That pool is incredibly tiny.   Just a couple dozen players.   So that there are only a tiny number of great players in that pool doesn't tell you anything.

A better question would be:  Is the _percentage_ of such players who have had multiple 20+ scoring seasons any less than the percentage of the same pool of bigger players?   I'm pretty confident that the answer is no.

I've done this analysis based on win-shares and once you reduce the pools to players who are good enough to have NBA careers that carry through their prime (i.e, guys who make it past their rookie deal) and guys who have shown they are capable of posting one borderline all-star level season in their prime, the rates at which they "age off" is no different for small vs big players.  If anything, the "little guys" aged off slightly better in that an ever-so-slightly higher percentage were likely to post multiple 5+ WS seasons after age 30.

[tarheelsxxiii]

IT's as offensively elite as the best scorers in the game, and as defensively poor as the best scorers in the game. 

His height has no bearing on anything.  Literally, nothing. 

[jambr380]

I highly doubt Ainge would have paid a highly coveted pick, decent prospect, and one of the best contracts in the league, for some sort of sideways move.

He would have kept that for an Anthony Davis trade or something like that.

This^

Yeah, we basically made a move at a position that was already a bright side going into next season (even if IT was going to be out the first 2-3 months).

Rebounding still looks like a big issue though signing a guy like Bogut or Robinson could really help there.

IT being considered a 'bright side' for this coming season is really a stretch. He could once again reach his status as an elite scoring guard (somewhat doubtful), but Irving allows for a much greater span of time to perform at a high level.

Also, as has been mentioned numerous times, Irving being signed to an extra season allows DA to sign Smart if he so chooses. Unless you think very little of Smart, being able to sign your young, defensive genius to a [hopefully] reasonable contract should not be overlooked.

[mmmmm]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

* Took until his 5th year in the league (at 26 YO) to convince a team he was worthy to start

First off, that's not true.  Thomas started 37 of 65 games as as rookie, 62 of 79 games as a second-year and 54 of 72 games in his 3rd year.   Second of all, he's had to flat-out earn his starts because he's had to fight the biases against his height (and draft pick).

* Has a career average assist rate of 29.7% / turnover rate of 12.5%
* Has shot > 45% from the field twice in his career
* Has shot > 38% form three once in his career
* Has averaged > 20 PPG three times

* Has averaged 20+ points per 36 minutes four straight times.  You are penalizing him for PHO's bad decision to move him to the bench.

* Has shot > 85% from the foul line four times
* Is an excellent ball handler

* Has a career average scoring efficiency of .585 TS% and has never been below .562.
* Has a career total of 45.4 Win Shares.  Has 4 straight seasons with a WS/48 rate of .149 or higher (i.e, all at least border-line All-Star).   Has accumulated about 12.5% more Win Shares than Kyrie despite playing almost the exact same total minutes.

* Has played in 3 playoffs
* Has played in 0 NBA finals
* Has 0 NBA championships

These are team results.

Versus a guy who is 6'3":
* Is 6'3"
* Is 25 years old
* Was taken 1st overall in the draft, because everybody saw his star potential

None of these are measures of how he has actually _played_.

* Has started every single game he has played since the day he entered the league

Well, sure.  As the #1 pick, he was gifted the starting spot from day one.

* Has a career assist rate of 30.0% / turnover rate of 12.3%
* Has shot > 45% from the field four times
* Has shot > 38% from three four times
* Has shot > 85% every year in the league
* Has averaged > 20 PPG four times
* Is widely regarded to be the best ball handler in the NBA, possibly the best in NBA history

* Has a career scoring efficiency average of .561 TS%, which is below Thomas' career low. 
* His career high of .583 is below Thomas' career average.
* Has a career average WS/48 rate of .149 and only two of 6 seasons above that.
* Has a career total of 40.4 Win Shares, well behind Thomas, despite playing almost the exact same minute total.

* Has played in 3 playoffs
* Has played in 2 NBA finals
* Has 1 NBA Championship

These are team results.

And this is not even taking in to account the fact that IT is 3 years older.

This is pretty much the only argument that falls in Kyrie's favor.  It should be noted though, that they have played almost the exact same minutes in the NBA and if you add in college and playoff minutes, their total number of minutes of wear and tear are only about 1000 minutes apart.  And Kyrie has had his own share of serious injuries.

About the only argument I can find in ITs favour is that he had a higher scoring average this year (at 29 PPG vs 25 PPG).  But even that is easily countered/justified by the fact that Boston's offense went entirely through IT as Boston's lone All-Star and clear #1 option, while Kyrie always played behind Lebron (who was Cleveland's primary scorer, ball handler and playmaker) and shared the offense with two All-Stars (Lebron and Kevin Love).
conviction) is difficult for me to grasp.

Kyrie's USG% was still super-high at 30.8%, highest on the Cavaliers (Lebron was at 30.0) and only slightly behind Thomas' 34.0%.   Kyrie took more FGA per game at 19.7 FGA (most on CLE) than Thomas (19.4).   So no, Kyrie got plenty of usage and was definitely the main scorer for Cleveland's offense.

Thomas scored more points than Kyrie last year not because he took more shots, but because he was much more efficient.

And over the course of their careers, Thomas has pretty consistently been more efficient at scoring than Irving.  This is not really even close.

That may not be true in the future.  We will have to see.

It should also be noted that almost all of Synergy player-tracking defensive stats favor Thomas over Irving.

All of that, though, is in the past now.

The trade makes sense if we think that Irving will be much, much better than Thomas over the next few years.  If Thomas doesn't come back close to 100%, then that will be an easy threshold for Kyrie to cross.  If Thomas does come back close to 100%, then it will be very hard to see the trade as a 'win'.

[Darío SpanishFan]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

The bold part did happen in every single game I've seen last season. It is a fact. He was constantly isolated on defense while on court.

Height, age and injury are facts that no one can discuss. Well, almost no one...

[tarheelsxxiii]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

The bold part did happen in every single game I've seen last season. It is a fact. He was constantly isolated on defense while on court.

Yep, just like Kyrie and Curry.  IT's short, and they're weak/brittle.  He finished higher in MVP voting than both though, so I guess his detriment isn't quite as bad. Crazy stuff, Dario.

[jambr380]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

The bold part did happen in every single game I've seen last season. It is a fact. He was constantly isolated on defense while on court.

Yep, just like Kyrie and Curry.  IT's short, and they're weak/brittle.  He finished higher in MVP voting than both though, so I guess his detriment isn't quite as bad. Crazy stuff, Dario.

The MVP voting argument is extremely weak. If IT played for the Cavs last year, do you really think he would have been top 5 in MVP voting? I understand that IT did a lot for the Cs - especially this past season, but I bet that if Kyrie had played for the Cs in a system built completely around him that he would have at least been in the top 10 for voting.

I can't make the same claim this year since Hayward has now joined the Cs, but if Kyrie is the team leader in PPG and APG and we are again the #1 seed, I am going to go out on a ledge and say that Kyrie will finish in the top 10. And I can guarantee that Kyrie will finish higher than IT.

[mmmmm]

1.  Completely ignore the Isaiah Thomas was the primary scorer, primary playmaker, primary ball handler and lone All-Star in Boston...while Kyrie was the secondary scorer, secondary playmaker, secondary ball handler, and one of three All-Stars in Cleveland.  I'm not sure how you can possibly be obviously to (and completely ignore) this fact, and how it impacts individual statistics for a player. 

Kyrie Irving was the primary scorer for Cleveland last year.  He had the highest USG% (percentage of offensive plays he was used on) and took the highest number of shots.

Every single star player who has ever joined up with Lebron James (Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kevin Love) has seen their scoring and assist numbers drop significantly as a result.  In addition to that, multiple players (Chris Bosh and Kevin Love, at the very least) have publically made statements about how much they had to sacrifice their own games in order to cater to Lebron. 

Bosh, Wade and Love all saw decreases in USG after joining James.   That was not the case with Irving.  Irving's USG rates and shot rates have stayed high even after James joined.  In fact, his FGA per 36 rate has increased in the last couple of years with James.

2.  Base all of your comparisons on a single season, rather then looking at the entire body of work over these two player's careers.  If you look at their career stats so far (6 seasons in both cases) it goes like this:

* PPG: Kyrie
* APG: Kyrie
* RPG: Kyrie
* SPG: Kyrie
* BLK: Kyrie

Not surprisingly, counting stats that depend on minutes per game go in Kyrie's favor here.  Irving has averaged 34.2 mpg versus just 30.0 for Thomas.  That's a pretty significant difference and it is due primarily because Irving was granted the starting keys from day one and didn't have to suffer the season-in-limbo/Phoenix that Thomas had to.  Rebounds and blocks, of course, obviously also get a boost from KY's height advantage.

* FG%: Kyrie
* 3PT%: Kyrie
* FT%: Tie
* TOV: IT
* PF: Tie
* PER: Tie
* TS% IT
* FTR: IT
* REB%: Kyrie
* AST%: Tie
* TOV%: Tie
* WS/48: IT
* OBPM: IT
* DBPM: Kyrie
* BPM: Kyrie
* VORP: Kyrie

VORP is just re-packaged BPM.  The defensive rebounding difference kills Thomas on the DBPM so you are kind of counting that 3 times here.

Are we really valuing either of these players based on their defense and rebounding?  (Never mind that player tracking data gives Thomas a huge edge on defense).

That's a total of 21 categories with the results as follows:
* IT Wins: 5
* Kyrie Wins: 11
* Ties: 5

That would be meaningful if the relevance of each and every one of the 21 categories was equal and orthogonal.  But neither is true.  So this is pretty much meaningless.

Both Thomas and Irving are first and foremost, point-creators.  That's their role.  To score and to create scoring plays for others.  And those are best measured by scoring efficiency rates and points-off-assist rates.   And Thomas has had a pretty clear edge in these categories, which are by far the most important categories for these two players.

But you choose to ignore this and instead focus on a single season - I assume you do this because it, conveniently, supports your emotional bias.

I'm not sure who is being emotional here.  It's very difficult to read emotion through the internet.   Are you in the same room with Roy when he types?

Do you not recall how unsettled IT was when he was playing third fiddle PG in Phoenix?  From memory he got pretty close to requesting a trade himself (he may have even done so, I can't recall). 

As a UW alum, I've followed Thomas pretty closely and that's not really an accurate recollection.  NONE of the three guards were all that happy with the way they were being used that year in PHO, but Thomas was mostly quiet other than to confirm that, sure, he'd like to start.   Dragic was the one who was most overtly upset and wanted a trade.

He also expressed his discontent on multiple occasion when he first came to Boston and Brad had him playing in the 6th man role behind Marcus Smart.

All that Thomas ever did in this regard was answer questions confirming that, sure, he wanted to start (but that he was happy doing whatever the coach wanted of him).  How exactly is he supposed to answer this question?  What NBA player doesn't want to start?   Especially when it was painfully obvious that he was the best player at his position?

This is the trap that players fall into because reporters ask questions like:  Do you think you are worth a max contract?  What the heck is a player supposed to say?  "Nah, I'm good with being paid less than I'm worth!" ??  Yet if he answers affirmatively, some fans jump all over the guy.  Sigh ...

Reporters are only going to ask a player, "Do you think you should be starting?" or "Would you like to be starting?", if the reporter knows that it's a relevant question.  As far as I can tell, Thomas always simply answered it politely and honestly.

I love IT, but you can't exactly paint the picture of him being that ultimate guy who just happily accepts any situation he's thrown into.  Every player with strive to be put in a situation where they can excel and be the best they can be, and every player will push for that if they have the opportunity to.

Well, I for one do NOT see IT as someone who just 'happily accepts any situation he's thrown into'.  I've seen him consistently work his butt off to climb out of every situation he's been thrown into.   At every level he's played at, people have consistently tried to put him in a very limited box.  And he has never accepted those limits.

Of course, now, this hip injury could be a box he can't climb out of.  We'll have to see.

[tarheelsxxiii]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

The bold part did happen in every single game I've seen last season. It is a fact. He was constantly isolated on defense while on court.

Yep, just like Kyrie and Curry.  IT's short, and they're weak/brittle.  He finished higher in MVP voting than both though, so I guess his detriment isn't quite as bad. Crazy stuff, Dario.

The MVP voting argument is extremely weak. If IT played for the Cavs last year, do you really think he would have been top 5 in MVP voting? I understand that IT did a lot for the Cs - especially this past season, but I bet that if Kyrie had played for the Cs in a system built completely around him that he would have at least been in the top 10 for voting.

I can't make the same claim this year since Hayward has now joined the Cs, but if Kyrie is the team leader in PPG and APG and we are again the #1 seed, I am going to go out on a ledge and say that Kyrie will finish in the top 10. And I can guarantee that Kyrie will finish higher than IT.

I was being facetious. The expectation is that Kyrie will be at least top 10 in MVP votes -- he better be.  But that's tangential to the fact that all of them suck at defense due to physical limitations.  If IT's height is such a point of fixation, Kyrie's slight build and injury history should be picked apart just as much.   

[Vermont Green]

I think if the hip was fine, Danny still does this trade but we don't have to include the BKN pick.  CLeveland may not have wanted to do the trade without the pick though.

IT is great, he had a generationally good season but looking ahead for the next say 5 years, I feel that Kyrie is going to be a more productive player and I think based on Ainge's comments, that he feels the same way.

Ainge is betting a large portion of the Celtics future on Kyrie.  Let's hope he is right.

[johnnygreen]

I kind of see the OP's question a little differently. If Isaiah was 100% healthy, would Danny Ainge and ownership have felt obligated to have kept IT for the long haul due to the fans and what he had already done for the team? I know the question seems ridiculous because Danny does what's best for the team, which is why I also included ownership in the equation.

I've been in the camp that Isaiah was not a max player, due to a combination of his age, height, and style of play. I feel like he had a career year last season, which he wouldn't be able to duplicate. To me, giving Isaiah a max contract would have been rewarding him for what he had already accomplished with a disregard for continued and sustained success. If Isaiah was 100% healthy, then I could have seen him averaging around 22 p/g in the first 2 years of an extension, and then falling off in years 3-4. Those last two years of the extension are what would have scared me off, due to possibly losing a step and his height becoming a disadvantage offensively (and not just defensively).

When Kyrie became available and the (fans) knowledge that IT was injured, I think Danny took it as a get-out-of-jail-free-card. Danny did not have to finally answer the question of whether IT was a max player, as he was able to trade for a no-doubt-about-it type of max player. The fans can debate on who is currently better, but I'm very happy that Danny saw the debate from a long term perspective.

[Timdawgg]

If IT wasn't the plan then DA took an even bigger gamble not taking Fultz. IT only stopped being the plan when someone a little more special came along. That is not to say that DA didn't have it in his mind to replace IT at some point but I believe, until Kyrie came along, Danny was happy to build towards a more distant future with IT holding the fort.

This for sure!

[Darío SpanishFan]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

The bold part did happen in every single game I've seen last season. It is a fact. He was constantly isolated on defense while on court.

Yep, just like Kyrie and Curry.  IT's short, and they're weak/brittle.  He finished higher in MVP voting than both though, so I guess his detriment isn't quite as bad. Crazy stuff, Dario.

LOL what an argument... I feel supported indeed if this is it.

Anyhow, if you think 6'3" players are as easy/frequent to be isolated defensively as a 5'7" player well, maybe you should see more games    Crazy stuff, yeah.

[GreenEnvy]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

The bold part did happen in every single game I've seen last season. It is a fact. He was constantly isolated on defense while on court.

Yep, just like Kyrie and Curry.  IT's short, and they're weak/brittle.  He finished higher in MVP voting than both though, so I guess his detriment isn't quite as bad. Crazy stuff, Dario.

LOL what an argument... I feel supported indeed if this is it.

Anyhow, if you think 6'3" players are as easy/frequent to be isolated defensively as a 5'7" player well, maybe you should see more games    Crazy stuff, yeah.

Why so hung up on isolation? There are more facets to defense than iso. And the metrics show that Kyrie was as bad defensively, if not worse, than IT. He's really bad, there's no way around it. And I know people believe he can become a good one under Brad, because hope is eternal. But I don't believe there is precedent of a player going from p---poor, arguably the worst in the league at defense... to a plus defender. Are you saying he's going to go from extremely terrible to simply awful?

[Roy H.]

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D

None of these are measures of how he has actually played.

The bold part did happen in every single game I've seen last season. It is a fact. He was constantly isolated on defense while on court.

Yep, just like Kyrie and Curry.  IT's short, and they're weak/brittle.  He finished higher in MVP voting than both though, so I guess his detriment isn't quite as bad. Crazy stuff, Dario.

LOL what an argument... I feel supported indeed if this is it.

Anyhow, if you think 6'3" players are as easy/frequent to be isolated defensively as a 5'7" player well, maybe you should see more games    Crazy stuff, yeah.

Why so hung up on isolation? There are more facets to defense than iso. And the metrics show that Kyrie was as bad defensively, if not worse, than IT. He's really bad, there's no way around it. And I know people believe he can become a good one under Brad, because hope is eternal. But I don't believe there is precedent of a player going from p---poor, arguably the worst in the league at defense... to a plus defender. Are you saying he's going to go from extremely terrible to simply awful?

Plus, Kyrie was worse in ISO defense than IT.

Kyrie was in the bottom 12.3% league-wide (among all players, including scrubs).  The only full-time PG who was worse? Rajon Rondo.

IT defended isolations at an average level, at about the 51st percentile.

Conversely, both guys were absolutely elite on offensive isolation, with IT holding the tiniest edge in effectiveness (95.3 percentile, vs. 94.9), but with Kyrie running ISO plays more often (tied with Lebron for fourth in isolation possessions, behind Harden, Westbrook and Carmelo).