Kyrie Putting Up Career Defensive Numbers

Irving is our offensive go-to guy but he has always been seen as a mediocre, if not inferior, defender.  He is really getting on it more this season.

Per Game.........defensive rebounds.......steals.......blocks. ......defensive rating (points given up with him on the floor/100 possessions)

2018-2019------3.7-----------------------1.9--------.6------------103
Career-----------2.8-----------------------1.3--------.3------------108


bob


.

BOB,

These are negligible increases and is only 20? games. So where are the fire works.

112288

KI has definitely picked up his defensive intensity but we do not want to talk about that.

We are too damn busy trying to figure out what we do not like about him.

A very good sign from Kyrie. His words as a leader will be taken more seriously when he makes a sustained effort on D.

dBoss

Did not know you attempt to read minds..............I would stick to your day time job as you failed miserably at reading mine, in your thinly veiled post.

You also fail and miss the point of this whole conversation about KI.  My position is quiet clear.  

1) Do I agree that he is a great offensive player, YES, is he #1 point guard in the league, NO, is he a complete player and competent in the majority of vital statistics, NO.

2) If I had an opportunity to acquire a superstar that A) plays THE KEY position on the chess board of basketball; B) tops a player I want to use in a trade in 3 of 4 vital statistic areas; C) tops my current center in ALL statistical areas; D) can be a dominate force in both ends of the paint offensively and defensively, and neutralize another young and dominate center in my own division; E) is young and 2 years from his prime years....................YES I MAKE THAT TRADE IF I CAN GET HIM ON REASONABLE TERMS/PLAYER COMPENSATION THAT IS A WIN WIN FOR BOTH TEAMS.  People have to understand, both teams are not going to get 100% satisfaction in a trade of this magnitude.  There is a give and take and somewhere you meet in the middle......unless the other party is too greedy and unrealistic.

So my argument for trading KI for AD is a sound and valid in all aspects of my reasoning.  You may not like what I am saying, but you cannot bash my arguments because you think I hate the guy.  It is based on factual information and rational logic!

Red Archbach always said (and I do not care what this new fad in the NBA, regarding the lack of importance in the center position and more on shooting 3's....) the center is the key position in basketball and you build your team from the front court out to your back court!  The only reason why most NBA teams went to this new style of basketball currently, was the lack in numbers of available BIG MAN talent at center. That coupled with the combination of athleticism and growth in height of wing players made teams without dominate centers to play this new style of basketball and be more competitive.

But if you have a dominate center............he is like GOLD.........a rare commodity!

112288

112288 wrote:BOB,

These are negligible increases and is only 20? games.  So where are the fire works.

112288

112288,

3.7/2.8 = 32% increase in defensive rebounds. 32% is not a negligible increase.
1.9/1.3 = 46% increase in steals. NOT negligible.
.6/.3 = 50% increase in blocks.
103/108 = 5 fewer points we are giving up when he is on the floor. 5 points is a game-changing difference.

If you want to make a point that his numbers, by themselves, do not match up well vs other point guards that might be a legit position, but Kyrie then vs Kyrie now? It is not.

Only 20 games? Good point. This is a snapshot at the quarter-pole.


bob



.

Bob,

You make some valid statements!

Hope all is well.

112288

112288 wrote:Bob,

You make some valid statements!

Hope all is well.

112288

112288,

Finally past my jet lag, still suffering from culture shock.  I heard someone complain the low-fat milk used in their cappucino was insufficiently whipped.  I choked down the desire to whip them and their First World Problem.  Otherwise, not too bad.  Thanks for asking.  And you?


bob


.

The family is doing fine.   Thanks for ask.

Had brunch with my wife and MrKleen, his wife and son in Boston last month. He is also helping me in some business projects I am involved in.

Stay well and if you are heading east give me a heads up, we can meet with Cowen for lunch.

112288

112288 wrote:dBoss

Did not know you attempt to read minds..............I would stick to your day time job as you failed miserably at reading mine, in your thinly veiled post.

You also fail and miss the point of this whole conversation about KI.  My position is quiet clear.  

1) Do I agree that he is a great offensive player, YES, is he #1 point guard in the league, NO, is he a complete player and competent in the majority of vital statistics, NO.

2) If I had an opportunity to acquire a superstar that A) plays THE KEY position on the chess board of basketball; B) tops a player I want to use in a trade in 3 of 4 vital statistic areas; C) tops my current center in ALL statistical areas; D) can be a dominate force in both ends of the paint offensively and defensively, and neutralize another young and dominate center in my own division; E) is young and 2 years from his prime years....................YES I MAKE THAT TRADE IF I CAN GET HIM ON REASONABLE TERMS/PLAYER COMPENSATION THAT IS A WIN WIN FOR BOTH TEAMS.  People have to understand, both teams are not going to get 100% satisfaction in a trade of this magnitude.  There is a give and take and somewhere you meet in the middle......unless the other party is too greedy and unrealistic.

So my argument for trading KI for AD is a sound and valid in all aspects of my reasoning.  You may not like what I am saying, but you cannot bash my arguments because you think I hate the guy.  It is based on factual information and rational logic!

Red Archbach always said (and I do not care what this new fad in the NBA, regarding the lack of importance in the center position and more on shooting 3's....) the center is the key position in basketball and you build your team from the front court out to your back court!  The only reason why most NBA teams went to this new style of basketball currently, was the lack in numbers of available BIG MAN talent at center. That coupled with the combination of athleticism and growth in height of wing players made teams without dominate centers to play this new style of basketball and be more competitive.

But if you have a dominate center............he is like GOLD.........a rare commodity!

112288

112288

I don't have a day time job. I retired last year.

I think your idea of trading Irving for AD is flawed.

Firstly if you really want to win you need highend talent. Kyrie is highend talent. AD is highend talent. Why trade one for the other if you can have both. They played together on USA basketball team and talked about playing together. Pairing them together would give Boston a dynamic duo and AD would be more likely to agree with a trade to Boston because Kyrie is a superstar.

Secondly Kyrie can opt out of his contract and I would bet that he is not looking to pitch his tent in NO, Teams that may be interested would not make a trade unless they have some assurance that Kyrie was going to resign with them. Nola has a PG already under contract so they are not in need of a PG. They needs wings.

If Boston does not have an opportunity to make a trade for AD life goes on. Boston still has a young developing team with draft assets and an extended timeline.

I could come up with things that I do not like about AD just like you did with Kyrie. That does not support a trade with them passing in the night.

bobheckler wrote:

112288 wrote:BOB,

These are negligible increases and is only 20? games.  So where are the fire works.

112288

112288,

3.7/2.8 = 32% increase in defensive rebounds.  32% is not a negligible increase.
1.9/1.3 = 46% increase in steals.  NOT negligible.
.6/.3 = 50% increase in blocks.
103/108 = 5 fewer points we are giving up when he is on the floor.  5 points is a game-changing difference.

If you want to make a point that his numbers, by themselves, do not match up well vs other point guards that might be a legit position, but Kyrie then vs Kyrie now?  It is not.

Only 20 games?  Good point.  This is a snapshot at the quarter-pole.


bob



.

Bob, when the absolute value of numbers is already very small, "percent" increases don't mean much. To understand this, think about going from 0 to anything greater than 0 for any metric - mathematically, that corresponds to an infinite percent increase, which is pretty meaningless. A more meaningful analysis might be how much the obsreved increases might affect the outcome of a game.

112288 wrote:dBoss

Did not know you attempt to read minds..............I would stick to your day time job as you failed miserably at reading mine, in your thinly veiled post.

You also fail and miss the point of this whole conversation about KI.  My position is quiet clear.  

1) Do I agree that he is a great offensive player, YES, is he #1 point guard in the league, NO, is he a complete player and competent in the majority of vital statistics, NO.

2) If I had an opportunity to acquire a superstar that A) plays THE KEY position on the chess board of basketball; B) tops a player I want to use in a trade in 3 of 4 vital statistic areas; C) tops my current center in ALL statistical areas; D) can be a dominate force in both ends of the paint offensively and defensively, and neutralize another young and dominate center in my own division; E) is young and 2 years from his prime




years....................YES I MAKE THAT TRADE IF I CAN GET HIM ON REASONABLE TERMS/PLAYER COMPENSATION THAT IS A WIN WIN FOR BOTH TEAMS.  People have to understand, both teams are not going to get 100% satisfaction in a trade of this magnitude.  There is a give and take and somewhere you meet in the middle......unless the other party is too greedy and unrealistic.

So my argument for trading KI for AD is a sound and valid in all aspects of my reasoning.  You may not like what I am saying, but you cannot bash my arguments because you think I hate the guy.  It is based on factual information and rational logic!

Red Archbach always said (and I do not care what this new fad in the NBA, regarding the lack of importance in the center position and more on shooting 3's....) the center is the key position in basketball and you build your team from the front court out to your back court!  The only reason why most NBA teams went to this new style of basketball currently, was the lack in numbers of available BIG MAN talent at center. That coupled with the combination of athleticism and growth in height of wing players made teams without dominate centers to play this new style of basketball and be more competitive.

But if you have a dominate center............he is like GOLD.........a rare commodity!

112288

Been decades since a team with the best/dominate big won....

Cow

That is true. A dominant center does not = a championship.

I will add one caveat.  You don't win with one small superstar either.  I consider Kyrie a superstar and I don't use that word loosely like a lot of folks.  If I could only have one I would rather have a big that a small.  If I can have both AD and Kyrie I would take both.  The main thing is we need more that one star on the team.  That is the main reason I push for the development of Tatum.  I think we all agree he can be that, but not if he falls into the group of players shooting 10 times a game.    If we get on a tear like I think we can we probably won't be talking so much about a trade but if we keep playing the games the same way get ready for the same results.

Cowens and I were talking the other day about how much better we thought Kyrie's defense was this year.

tardust wrote:I will add one caveat.  You don't win with one small superstar either.  I consider Kyrie a superstar and I don't use that word loosely like a lot of folks.  If I could only have one I would rather have a big that a small.  If I can have both AD and Kyrie I would take both.  The main thing is we need more that one star on the team.  That is the main reason I push for the development of Tatum.  I think we all agree he can be that, but not if he falls into the group of players shooting 10 times a game.    If we get on a tear like I think we can we probably won't be talking so much about a trade but if we keep playing the games the same way get ready for the same results.

Cowens and I were talking the other day about how much better we thought Kyrie's defense was this year.

Tatum has star quality talent. But he is only 20 years old. Sometimes it is easy to forget that. I think once Hayward is all the way back we will have a much better feel for what we have here. I still believe that if this team plays up to their abilities they have enough talent to win NOW

cowens/oldschool wrote:

112288 wrote:dBoss

Did not know you attempt to read minds..............I would stick to your day time job as you failed miserably at reading mine, in your thinly veiled post.

You also fail and miss the point of this whole conversation about KI.  My position is quiet clear.  

1) Do I agree that he is a great offensive player, YES, is he #1 point guard in the league, NO, is he a complete player and competent in the majority of vital statistics, NO.

2) If I had an opportunity to acquire a superstar that A) plays THE KEY position on the chess board of basketball; B) tops a player I want to use in a trade in 3 of 4 vital statistic areas; C) tops my current center in ALL statistical areas; D) can be a dominate force in both ends of the paint offensively and defensively, and neutralize another young and dominate center in my own division; E) is young and 2 years from his prime




years....................YES I MAKE THAT TRADE IF I CAN GET HIM ON REASONABLE TERMS/PLAYER COMPENSATION THAT IS A WIN WIN FOR BOTH TEAMS.  People have to understand, both teams are not going to get 100% satisfaction in a trade of this magnitude.  There is a give and take and somewhere you meet in the middle......unless the other party is too greedy and unrealistic.

So my argument for trading KI for AD is a sound and valid in all aspects of my reasoning.  You may not like what I am saying, but you cannot bash my arguments because you think I hate the guy.  It is based on factual information and rational logic!

Red Archbach always said (and I do not care what this new fad in the NBA, regarding the lack of importance in the center position and more on shooting 3's....) the center is the key position in basketball and you build your team from the front court out to your back court!  The only reason why most NBA teams went to this new style of basketball currently, was the lack in numbers of available BIG MAN talent at center. That coupled with the combination of athleticism and growth in height of wing players made teams without dominate centers to play this new style of basketball and be more competitive.

But if you have a dominate center............he is like GOLD.........a rare commodity!

112288

Been decades since a team with the best/dominate big won....

cow,

You don't consider Tim Duncan a dominant big man, just about always the best/most dominant big on the floor? He was a 5x Champion, with the most recent championship in 2014. Before that was 2007. Not decades.

KG wasn't the best big in 2008? Maybe not in the league, there's that Tim Duncan again, but in the playoffs? Absolutely.

My point is that things aren't quite as bleak for dominant bigs as the picture you are painting. The game, though, has clearly moved to the perimeter and that includes the bigs.


bob


.

Bob I agree KG and Duncan were the best big men in 07 and 08, no question and Duncan still winning that late in his career is a credit to the whole Spur organization and Popovich. However we just had a team with super bigs Davis and Cousins playing together, unfortunately Cousins got hurt before the playoffs, but right now, until that dominant big gets more talent around him, they have not controlled the Finals like the 60’s and 70’s....it’s small ball, pace and space, 3 ball that has been winning.

It is not hard to see that statistically Irving has made some nice strides forward on defense as he is clearly much more engaged on the defensive end this year over last, and last year he was much improved over his time in Cleveland.

bobc33 makes a great point in mentioning that Irving's leadership capabilities will increase with his added defensive effort.

I don't think Duncan was "dominant" in the way we describe AD's dominance.


KJ

I will say this once, AD is a pipe dream. I cannot see the Celtics trading for him unless they want to blow it up, and that is fools gold.
The kid is a wonderful talent, but I believe the bright lights of Hollywood will draw him there. I may be wrong, but I like what I saw last night, and that was just the tip of the iceberg for this team. Call me a fool, but I would stand pat and watch this team develop. It may be more rewarding

I will say this once, AD is a pipe dream. I cannot see the Celtics trading for him unless they want to blow it up, and that is fools gold.
The kid is a wonderful talent, but I believe the bright lights of Hollywood will draw him there. I may be wrong, but I like what I saw last night, and that was just the tip of the iceberg for this team. Call me a fool, but I would stand pat and watch this team develop. It may be more rewarding