Author Topic: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade  (Read 5502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #75 on: September 11, 2017, 04:38:52 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3017
  • Tommy Points: 453
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.   


NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #76 on: September 11, 2017, 05:36:27 PM »

Offline Dino Pitino

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Tommy Points: 205
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.
"Young man, you have the question backwards." - Bill Russell

"My guess is that an aggregator of expert opinions would be close in terms of results to that of Danny." - Roy H.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2017, 10:08:17 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3017
  • Tommy Points: 453
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #78 on: September 12, 2017, 10:35:23 AM »

Offline smokeablount

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1207
  • Tommy Points: 66
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

As someone that interviewed at McKinsey and Bain many years ago, I genuinely appreciate how you are using a marriage of the Socratic method and Ace Your Case follow up questions to peel back Dino Pitino's post, but I think the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats.  'IT had better stats than Kyrie last year' or 'If Kyrie was in IT's role last year he would have done x...' or 'Kyrie needs to put up x,y,z stats for the Celtics to not lose the trade', etc. 

I'm guilty of this as well.  I think last year Kyrie would've put up stats as good as IT if he was on the Celtics in every area except efficiency.  But I also think it's incredibly biased to cherry pick a guy's best year (by far) at the age of 28 on a team with no other scorers before he suffered a major injury, and then say a guy who's 3 years away from being 28 and who's made twice as many all star teams needs to put up the same numbers on a totally different team... or else.

I'm confident that 1) Kyrie has a bigger advantage over IT than those who are bearish on the trade think.  If you put a 25 year old IT or a 25 year old Kyrie on a team like Denver or Utah last year, I think Kyrie makes the team better and is clearly the individual player.  I also believe that 2) Kyrie hasn't reached his full potential, nor has he played for a coach or a team who gets as much out of their players as CBS and the Celtics.  It's still on Kyrie to work to improve, especially defensively, and this is speculation, but it's no less nutty than comparing IT's best season on last year's Celtics team to Kyrie last year on the Cavs, or 21 year old Kyrie. 

I think for now the Celtics won the trade because Kyrie is the best player, and because before the trade IT was the bridge between the gap of Horford as a 30 year old and Hayward as a 27 year old, which overlaps with the ages of Golden State's stars.  Now, Kyrie bridges the age gap between Hayward at 28 and Brown/Tatum at age 20 or so.  The team can improve in the next 2-3 years, after which time Golden State should be broken up or bankrupt due to repeater tax violations, and still have its best 2 players and 2-3 grade A prospects in or entering their prime.

If the Nets pick lands at #1 or #2 that could affect my decision.  Maybe even if it lands #3-4.  But for now, I'm very pleased with the trade other than feeling bad for a great Celtic in IT.
Give us this pick, Almighty Red
And forgive us our tanking
As we forgive those who tanked against us
And lead us not into the lottery
But deliver us from losing

-Sexyscottish

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #79 on: September 12, 2017, 11:51:41 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3017
  • Tommy Points: 453
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

As someone that interviewed at McKinsey and Bain many years ago, I genuinely appreciate how you are using a marriage of the Socratic method and Ace Your Case follow up questions to peel back Dino Pitino's post, but I think the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats.  'IT had better stats than Kyrie last year' or 'If Kyrie was in IT's role last year he would have done x...' or 'Kyrie needs to put up x,y,z stats for the Celtics to not lose the trade', etc. 

I'm guilty of this as well.  I think last year Kyrie would've put up stats as good as IT if he was on the Celtics in every area except efficiency.  But I also think it's incredibly biased to cherry pick a guy's best year (by far) at the age of 28 on a team with no other scorers before he suffered a major injury, and then say a guy who's 3 years away from being 28 and who's made twice as many all star teams needs to put up the same numbers on a totally different team... or else.

I'm confident that 1) Kyrie has a bigger advantage over IT than those who are bearish on the trade think.  If you put a 25 year old IT or a 25 year old Kyrie on a team like Denver or Utah last year, I think Kyrie makes the team better and is clearly the individual player.  I also believe that 2) Kyrie hasn't reached his full potential, nor has he played for a coach or a team who gets as much out of their players as CBS and the Celtics.  It's still on Kyrie to work to improve, especially defensively, and this is speculation, but it's no less nutty than comparing IT's best season on last year's Celtics team to Kyrie last year on the Cavs, or 21 year old Kyrie. 

I think for now the Celtics won the trade because Kyrie is the best player, and because before the trade IT was the bridge between the gap of Horford as a 30 year old and Hayward as a 27 year old, which overlaps with the ages of Golden State's stars.  Now, Kyrie bridges the age gap between Hayward at 28 and Brown/Tatum at age 20 or so.  The team can improve in the next 2-3 years, after which time Golden State should be broken up or bankrupt due to repeater tax violations, and still have its best 2 players and 2-3 grade A prospects in or entering their prime.

If the Nets pick lands at #1 or #2 that could affect my decision.  Maybe even if it lands #3-4.  But for now, I'm very pleased with the trade other than feeling bad for a great Celtic in IT.

As debating techniques go, yours here falls under a couple of well known techniques as well:

Unsupported assertion / begged question:  "the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats."   Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't.  But you have not really shown that it has.

Red herring:  You proceed to make it a debate about KI vs last year's IT and over the trade and you bring in age as an additional factor for supporting the trade.   That's fine.  If I were debating the merits of the trade I would bring in age as a factor as well.  Of course, I would also bring in the value of Jae, Zizic and the two draft picks.  But I was not debating the merits of the trade.

My comments in response to "The One" were not about the trade.   My comments were purely about the question of whether KI could average 28 points per game and 8 assists per game in "Brad's system".

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #80 on: September 12, 2017, 12:31:59 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3580
  • Tommy Points: 276
I will chime in with some thoughts also not stat based.  I don't think Kyrie will increase both points and assists under Stevens or any other coach.  One or the other, sure, but not both.  Further, I don't think that would be good for the team.

Assists are a funny stat.  A team like San Antonio (a few years ago but still to some degree) would not have anyone over 5 or 6 assists but they would have a lot of total team assists.  Why?  Because they keep the ball moving, they don't worry about who makes the last pass.  The best ball movement is the result of 2 or 3 passes, not one pass.

So I don't care how many assists Kyrie gets.  I just want to the the ball moving when he is on the court.  Get the ball the the open man and don't worry who gets the assist (ahem, cough cough Rondo).

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #81 on: September 12, 2017, 12:43:06 PM »

Offline smokeablount

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1207
  • Tommy Points: 66
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

As someone that interviewed at McKinsey and Bain many years ago, I genuinely appreciate how you are using a marriage of the Socratic method and Ace Your Case follow up questions to peel back Dino Pitino's post, but I think the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats.  'IT had better stats than Kyrie last year' or 'If Kyrie was in IT's role last year he would have done x...' or 'Kyrie needs to put up x,y,z stats for the Celtics to not lose the trade', etc. 

I'm guilty of this as well.  I think last year Kyrie would've put up stats as good as IT if he was on the Celtics in every area except efficiency.  But I also think it's incredibly biased to cherry pick a guy's best year (by far) at the age of 28 on a team with no other scorers before he suffered a major injury, and then say a guy who's 3 years away from being 28 and who's made twice as many all star teams needs to put up the same numbers on a totally different team... or else.

I'm confident that 1) Kyrie has a bigger advantage over IT than those who are bearish on the trade think.  If you put a 25 year old IT or a 25 year old Kyrie on a team like Denver or Utah last year, I think Kyrie makes the team better and is clearly the individual player.  I also believe that 2) Kyrie hasn't reached his full potential, nor has he played for a coach or a team who gets as much out of their players as CBS and the Celtics.  It's still on Kyrie to work to improve, especially defensively, and this is speculation, but it's no less nutty than comparing IT's best season on last year's Celtics team to Kyrie last year on the Cavs, or 21 year old Kyrie. 

I think for now the Celtics won the trade because Kyrie is the best player, and because before the trade IT was the bridge between the gap of Horford as a 30 year old and Hayward as a 27 year old, which overlaps with the ages of Golden State's stars.  Now, Kyrie bridges the age gap between Hayward at 28 and Brown/Tatum at age 20 or so.  The team can improve in the next 2-3 years, after which time Golden State should be broken up or bankrupt due to repeater tax violations, and still have its best 2 players and 2-3 grade A prospects in or entering their prime.

If the Nets pick lands at #1 or #2 that could affect my decision.  Maybe even if it lands #3-4.  But for now, I'm very pleased with the trade other than feeling bad for a great Celtic in IT.

As debating techniques go, yours here falls under a couple of well known techniques as well:

Unsupported assertion / begged question:  "the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats."   Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't.  But you have not really shown that it has.

Red herring:  You proceed to make it a debate about KI vs last year's IT and over the trade and you bring in age as an additional factor for supporting the trade.   That's fine.  If I were debating the merits of the trade I would bring in age as a factor as well.  Of course, I would also bring in the value of Jae, Zizic and the two draft picks.  But I was not debating the merits of the trade.

My comments in response to "The One" were not about the trade.   My comments were purely about the question of whether KI could average 28 points per game and 8 assists per game in "Brad's system".

I mean, have you visited Celticsblog in the past few weeks and seen the arguments against the trade?  Rather than ask someone at work to find a bunch of sources for you, maybe you should strike out on your own and do some digging.  If you disagree with my assertion that's fine by me, but I don't write Celtics dissertations while on the job.  Do you? 

And if you weren't debating the merits of the trade, why were you posting in a thread called "Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade?"  You expect others to cite and prove what's been pretty apparent all across the board, but don't hold yourself accountable for even staying on topic.  That's weird. 
Give us this pick, Almighty Red
And forgive us our tanking
As we forgive those who tanked against us
And lead us not into the lottery
But deliver us from losing

-Sexyscottish

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #82 on: September 12, 2017, 01:09:13 PM »

Offline Dino Pitino

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Tommy Points: 205
Quote
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?

I predict he will take two more shots a game and they'll be threes, and he'll finish 2nd in the league in FGA/G.

Quote
Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

Why would they need to? Look at your own stats:

Quote
Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.

If Isaiah averaged 6 assists with that many passes, on a team where the other most prolific passer averaged 51, how is Kyrie NOT going to up his own 6 assists a game if he's getting an extra 3.5 passes just by inheriting Isaiah's role, on a team where the other most prolific passer averages 8.5 fewer passes than the one he had to share passing duties with before?

Anyway, yes, I suspect Horford and Hayward will average fewer passes and assists this year.
"Young man, you have the question backwards." - Bill Russell

"My guess is that an aggregator of expert opinions would be close in terms of results to that of Danny." - Roy H.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #83 on: September 12, 2017, 01:16:51 PM »

Offline The One

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1956
  • Tommy Points: 199
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

I agree with Dino Pitino!

Plus, as a wise man once said..."speak it into existence".

28 & 8...can't fail...

 ;) ;) ;)

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #84 on: September 12, 2017, 02:30:01 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3017
  • Tommy Points: 453
Quote
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?

I predict he will take two more shots a game and they'll be threes, and he'll finish 2nd in the league in FGA/G.

Quote
Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

Why would they need to? Look at your own stats:

Quote
Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.

If Isaiah averaged 6 assists with that many passes, on a team where the other most prolific passer averaged 51, how is Kyrie NOT going to up his own 6 assists a game if he's getting an extra 3.5 passes just by inheriting Isaiah's role, on a team where the other most prolific passer averages 8.5 fewer passes than the one he had to share passing duties with before?

Anyway, yes, I suspect Horford and Hayward will average fewer passes and assists this year.

Two factors here:

1) A straight replacement of KI's passing totals with IT's is less than a 7% increase in passes.   

2) For that to result in over a 25% increase in assists, his teammates shooting off those passes would have to have a gigantic increase in efficiency over last year.   Do you think Horford, Hayward, Brown, et al, will shoot that much more efficiently than Lebron, Love, et al?

Look - all I'm trying to do here is to manage expectations.   What can we _realistically_ expect from Kyrie in this offense?
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #85 on: September 12, 2017, 02:53:42 PM »

Offline biggs

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 780
  • Tommy Points: 70
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)
Boooooooooooooooooooooooo

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #86 on: September 12, 2017, 03:05:16 PM »

Offline Dino Pitino

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Tommy Points: 205

Two factors here:

1) A straight replacement of KI's passing totals with IT's is less than a 7% increase in passes.   

But it's not just a straight replacement, he's also sharing the passes less, and the Celtics outpace the Cavs a little.

Quote
2) For that to result in over a 25% increase in assists, his teammates shooting off those passes would have to have a gigantic increase in efficiency over last year.   Do you think Horford, Hayward, Brown, et al, will shoot that much more efficiently than Lebron, Love, et al?

Not a whole lot, but they could shoot a little more efficiently.

Quote
Look - all I'm trying to do here is to manage expectations.   What can we _realistically_ expect from Kyrie in this offense?

What do you think is realistic, 7 assists?
"Young man, you have the question backwards." - Bill Russell

"My guess is that an aggregator of expert opinions would be close in terms of results to that of Danny." - Roy H.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #87 on: September 12, 2017, 04:20:31 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3017
  • Tommy Points: 453

Two factors here:

1) A straight replacement of KI's passing totals with IT's is less than a 7% increase in passes.   

But it's not just a straight replacement, he's also sharing the passes less, and the Celtics outpace the Cavs a little.

Quote
2) For that to result in over a 25% increase in assists, his teammates shooting off those passes would have to have a gigantic increase in efficiency over last year.   Do you think Horford, Hayward, Brown, et al, will shoot that much more efficiently than Lebron, Love, et al?

Not a whole lot, but they could shoot a little more efficiently.

Quote
Look - all I'm trying to do here is to manage expectations.   What can we _realistically_ expect from Kyrie in this offense?

What do you think is realistic, 7 assists?

I honestly don't expect his assists to go up.  I think they'll end up about the same.  On the other hand, I expect him to get a bump in efficiency based on shifting his shooting profile slightly more outside the arc and because he should shoot a larger percentage of assisted shots in this system, so I see him increasing his scoring just slightly.   I think a 26/6 line is realistic.

If he improves his scoring efficiency on a personal skill level (growth) on top of the change in system, then maybe that gets up to 27/6.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #88 on: September 12, 2017, 04:29:27 PM »

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3399
  • Tommy Points: 530
It really doesn't matter who "won" the trade. Success is measured individually and in comparison to expectations.

The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no
"In Danny we trust" is so 2016.

Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
« Reply #89 on: September 12, 2017, 04:56:55 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14797
  • Tommy Points: 939
Quote
The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

Are we closer

SPOILER:   Yes