Kyrie Irving traded to Celtics for IT, Crowder, Zizic, BKN 1st, 2020 2nd

Status
Not open for further replies.

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
The problem is not just defense, but rather the fact that Kyrie wants to hold onto the ball for long periods without running the offense. He is a shot creator, but he only wants to create shots for himself rather than the team. That is the issue that needs to change.

Most of the scoring gurus in the NBA are shitty defenders. When a guy is expending so many calories per night on offense he will not have much energy left for defense. There's only so much adenosine triphosphate available in the body at any given time.

If Kyrie sets up other players in Boston and averages 10+ assists per game I can live with him being a poor defender. And if he is willing to give up the ball and contribute through scoring off ball and playing defense that works too. His problem thus far has been wanting to contribute very little to his team except individual scoring.
You can sort this list as you please: http://stats.nba.com/players/touches/#!?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1

Kyrie Irving is basically behind Isaiah Thomas in any measure on this page in terms of ball stopping. I forget who it was, someone did post some good data that showed Irving being more ball dominant in some way, but on the whole the per touch metrics show that he's behind lots of other notable players in per touch, time of poss, number of dribbles kind of metrics. He's high for sure, but there are many worse offenders.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,104
The problem is not just defense, but rather the fact that Kyrie wants to hold onto the ball for long periods without running the offense. He is a shot creator, but he only wants to create shots for himself rather than the team. That is the issue that needs to change.
I defer to those that know more about this stuff, but worth noting that Zach Lowe attributes some of the "Kyrie just holds on to the ball" phenomenon to the lack of a system in Cleveland, where, for example, it would take some time before someone would come over and set a pick for Kyrie when he had the ball (with the obvious hope that under Stevens, there will be less of that).
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
So the fact that he has played that way thus far in his career is "no basis to conclude that he only functions offensively as a ball-stopping iso play"? I mean, I suppose the word "only" saves you a bit, but if a player's past performance is "no basis" to make conclusions about their future performance I don't know what is.


So past performance is "no basis" for predicting future performance but "everyone knows" how he will perform in a totally new situation in the future? Umm..really? Jeez....
It's extremely important to think of scheme/system in this situation. Much like football, players can be much more valuable when placed in the right environment for their skills. We've never seen KI in a structured system and with good players around him. Yes, he had LeBron and Love, but as someone noted, it was basically playground ball.

The past performance that people are choosing to look at it is the coaching performance of Brad Stevens (much like they would if we were talking about BB), that his system is built to maximize player's strengths and minimize weaknesses. He's done it with many, many players. Meanwhile, KI has had an actual NBA level coach for...how long?

I think the easiest two things to see when looking at this trade, that for some reason people don't want to accept, is that 1) IT, as lovable and heroic as he was last year, was a flawed player that caused trouble to the defensive plan and B) KI is a far better long term option that DA and BS feel fits their scheme better and offers higher ceiling. This is able to be reached even ignoring the injury.

Is it a gamble? Sure, but that's what trades are and the biggest gamble involved is really the Nets pick. It's not IT. KI has it all over IT in physical skills and Stevens made him into what he was. I think it's a very good gamble to make, frankly.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
You can sort this list as you please: http://stats.nba.com/players/touches/#!?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1

Kyrie Irving is basically behind Isaiah Thomas in any measure on this page in terms of ball stopping. I forget who it was, someone did post some good data that showed Irving being more ball dominant in some way, but on the whole the per touch metrics show that he's behind lots of other notable players in per touch, time of poss, number of dribbles kind of metrics. He's high for sure, but there are many worse offenders.
Again, the issue is not touches but what a player does with those touches. Kyrie has (across four coaches) taken a quarter of his shots in isolation plays and post ups. Thomas collected much more scoring off the ball. (off the ball + spot-up)

http://www.celticshub.com/2017/09/03/fitting-new-look-celtics-together/

Hopefully Stevens will change Kyrie and he will thrive in a more structured offensive system. But thus far Kyrie has not been a top 25 player in the NBA.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,407
around the way
When they struggle to put the offense and defense together in the first two months with 11/15 new guys, the RPM talk will be waist deep in the Port Cellar. Not looking forward to that.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
Again, the issue is not touches but what a player does with those touches. Kyrie has (across four coaches) taken a quarter of his shots in isolation plays and post ups. Thomas collected much more scoring off the ball. (off the ball + spot-up)

http://www.celticshub.com/2017/09/03/fitting-new-look-celtics-together/

Hopefully Stevens will change Kyrie and he will thrive in a more structured offensive system. But thus far Kyrie has not been a top 25 player in the NBA.
so he's not dribbling the ball more often than other people nor is he holding onto it more than other people but it's a problem that when he does use the ball he does it in a highly effective way that suits his skill set? I'm not trying to be a jerk here I just do not understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, he's very good at isolation, but if he's isolating without holding onto the ball for long periods (which was your original complaint) then I don't understand what the problem is. Maybe I just don't understand your problem with isolation plays, I think if you have a player with Kyrie's skillset you work your entire offense to get him those kinds of looks and opportunities. If you can get him 1 v 1 in space with a defender you have an incredible chance at points in that possession. Isn't that the point of basketball? If you combined high ISO with an enormous usage rate or lots of dribbling or time on the ball you might convince me he's stopping the offense but when the time factors all show something normal why should we worry about how he gets it done?
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,620
so he's not dribbling the ball more often than other people nor is he holding onto it more than other people but it's a problem that when he does use the ball he does it in a highly effective way that suits his skill set? I'm not trying to be a jerk here I just do not understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, he's very good at isolation, but if he's isolating without holding onto the ball for long periods (which was your original complaint) then I don't understand what the problem is. Maybe I just don't understand your problem with isolation plays, I think if you have a player with Kyrie's skillset you work your entire offense to get him those kinds of looks and opportunities. If you can get him 1 v 1 in space with a defender you have an incredible chance at points in that possession. Isn't that the point of basketball? If you combined high ISO with an enormous usage rate or lots of dribbling or time on the ball you might convince me he's stopping the offense but when the time factors all show something normal why should we worry about how he gets it done?
Plus he's a PG.. it makes sense that he has the ball in his hand. In addition comparing him to IT makes little sense. Kyrie's game is better suited to ISO.

I think if anything his assists are going to go way up since he'll have even more of the ball without Lebron but he'll have more assist opportunities.. as Lebron took a lot of those both by going to the hoop himself or playing as the PG.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,379
north shore, MA
so he's not dribbling the ball more often than other people nor is he holding onto it more than other people but it's a problem that when he does use the ball he does it in a highly effective way that suits his skill set? I'm not trying to be a jerk here I just do not understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, he's very good at isolation, but if he's isolating without holding onto the ball for long periods (which was your original complaint) then I don't understand what the problem is. Maybe I just don't understand your problem with isolation plays, I think if you have a player with Kyrie's skillset you work your entire offense to get him those kinds of looks and opportunities. If you can get him 1 v 1 in space with a defender you have an incredible chance at points in that possession. Isn't that the point of basketball? If you combined high ISO with an enormous usage rate or lots of dribbling or time on the ball you might convince me he's stopping the offense but when the time factors all show something normal why should we worry about how he gets it done?
I agree, and moreover, I think you've hit on one of the key reasons many believe that Kyrie can evolve into a top-15 player, if he hasn't been one already. It's not just the Brad Stevens magic pixie dust, it's that:

(1) Kyrie has been, overall, a very efficient offensive player while taking most of his shots in situations that are typically not efficient ways to score; but

(2) He's extremely effective when he does find himself with high-efficiency scoring opportunities - i.e. catch-and-shoot threes, free throw attempts, running through off-ball screens, and cutting to the rim.

The Celtics' offense is designed to get him those high-efficiency opportunities. He'll shoot more threes, he'll play off the ball more, he'll run around screens. It's exactly what they did for Isaiah, and all the things Isaiah does, Kyrie can do equally as well or better. The projection for Kyrie is that he actually gets more efficient while increasing his volume. If he can do that, he's in the Westbrook/Harden category offensively.

We know Kyrie can make tough shots and score efficiently in Iso settings. That has tremendous value. We also know he doesn't need those type of possessions to be effective; he's not DeMar DeRozan, for example.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,506
Plus he's a PG.. it makes sense that he has the ball in his hand. In addition comparing him to IT makes little sense. Kyrie's game is better suited to ISO.

I think if anything his assists are going to go way up since he'll have even more of the ball without Lebron but he'll have more assist opportunities.. as Lebron took a lot of those both by going to the hoop himself or playing as the PG.
The other thing that people haven't mentioned is that when Kyrie had the ball, LBJ basically took the play off. I suspect that he didn't have a ton of options for a dish when he made his move to the basket for the reason that LBJ wasn't cutting for the most part and the rest of his team (other than Thompson) weren't really good finishers.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
Maybe I just don't understand your problem with isolation plays, I think if you have a player with Kyrie's skillset you work your entire offense to get him those kinds of looks and opportunities. If you can get him 1 v 1 in space with a defender you have an incredible chance at points in that possession. Isn't that the point of basketball? If you combined high ISO with an enormous usage rate or lots of dribbling or time on the ball you might convince me he's stopping the offense but when the time factors all show something normal why should we worry about how he gets it done?
I agree with you on a lot of this, but I also feel like the problem with looking at isolation plays percentage in a vacuum is that we don't know how many actual plays were run like that, how many of those plays were run because of broken plays / lack of screens, how the offensive scheme revolving around Lebron affects the number of isolation plays, etc, who was on the floor with him at the time...

People used to argue that Olynyk -doesn't- pass the eye test despite stats showing him as a good defender. On a similar basis, I have a hard time understanding why people keep harping on Irving's ISO's when he seems to do quite well on all those other plays that they keep bringing up IT4's statistics on. On the plays that IT4 succeded on, Irving does as well or better, so ultimately the argument would have to boil down to "Irving will do too many ISOs plays to succeed the way IT4 does" which it seems like.

Can't we just compare IT4's stats pre-Celtics to IT4 during Stevens' time? I mean, if we're going to compare Celtics IT4 to Cleveland Irving, I'd like to see pre-Celtics IT4 to Celtics IT4 too.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Sure, but your trust in Danny mantra is boring conversation, and Danny has fallen in love with plenty of ho hum players before. That doesn't mean Kyrie is shitty, it just means Danny is hardly flawless (for the record, I can't think of a basketball GM that is)

Regardless, in context of the conversation, my point was that wishing for a third Celtics star is an insult to Horford, who is already as good as Irving and Hayward, though admittedly a bit past his prime while we hope they are entering theirs.

My own opinion on the trade has been given many times, I won't bore everyone again.
Who are all these ho hum players Danny Ainge has fallen in love with?

I think Ainge has proven he's never been in love with any player. He'll gladly trade anyone, anytime. All he does is try to turn 99 cents into a dollar over and over and over again.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
Who are all these ho hum players Danny Ainge has fallen in love with?
Justice Winslow comes to mind, but the problem with making that sort of analysis is similar to what Bill Belichick says - you can never really tell how a player does unless he's in -your- system, because your system might bring out the skills he's more suited for. Also, there's a lot of chances involved with the players themselves - for example, Jared Sullinger -might- have been a really good NBA player if he didn't eat himself out of the league.

You just never really know, and at least around here, they remember the failures more than they remember the successes. It's sort of like how there's this one guy on a Patriots forums that keeps insisting Bill Belichick is a horrible GM because he can't draft second rounders.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Maybe I just don't understand your problem with isolation plays, I think if you have a player with Kyrie's skillset you work your entire offense to get him those kinds of looks and opportunities.
The best thing a point guard can ever do on a basketball court is get his teammates open layups. Kyrie is a great isolation scorer, but many of those isolation shots come at the expense of open layups and 3's for his teammates.

Kevin Durant is an even better isolation scorer than Kyrie, yet the first choice of the Warriors is to move the ball around and look for the highest efficiency shots first. (The best shots are open layups, open threes and fouls.) They only iso their guys if they have a serious mismatch.

Anyway, this is my last post on Kyrie. I may be biased against him. Having played point guard in school without Kyrie's athleticism or shooting I was forced to do all of the basics to help my team win, and it is infuriating to watch a player with the talent of a hall of famer failing at basketball 101 stuff like shooting out of a double team instead of passing or taking an off balance shot when Kevin Love is open on the three point line.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Jesus, shit, again the system he was in didn't ask him to do that. The Warriors system is not something to be compared to what he Cavs have been playing and before LeBron got there, who was he going to distribute to?

Also, when you say 'school' what are talking here? Which level?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,853
We're all trying to put Kyrie into a box (PG) that, according to Stevens, doesn't really exist in his system.

He's an innovative coach, and say what you will about Kyrie, Stevens has never had a player like him and vice versa.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
FTR, I think Ainge is the best GM for this team.

But I don't think appeals of "Ainge did it so you can't argue against it" hold any fucking weight whatsoever.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
We're all trying to put Kyrie into a box (PG) that, according to Stevens, doesn't really exist in his system.

He's an innovative coach, and say what you will about Kyrie, Stevens has never had a player like him and vice versa.
It's almost like they never watched Lil' Zeke play before he got here. Irving certainly does what Stevens asks of his lead guards, so I don't see a problem. I'm going to enjoy watching this team score next year.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Anyway, this is my last post on Kyrie. I may be biased against him. Having played point guard in school without Kyrie's athleticism or shooting I was forced to do all of the basics to help my team win, and it is infuriating to watch a player with the talent of a hall of famer failing at basketball 101 stuff like shooting out of a double team instead of passing or taking an off balance shot when Kevin Love is open on the three point line.
Yeah I totally get the frustration, but I think that, as with Westbrook, it's very easy to focus on what Kyrie doesn't do well, and not on what he does really really well. One of Stevens' best traits is that he very clearly doesn't see basketball in that manner, and I think that's one of the strongest reasons to have confidence in his ability to bring out the best in Kyrie.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
You just never really know, and at least around here, they remember the failures more than they remember the successes. It's sort of like how there's this one guy on a Patriots forums that keeps insisting Bill Belichick is a horrible GM because he can't draft second rounders.
Not that it contradicts the point you're making, but offering such an opinion around here would be damn near ban-worthy. I mean, the guy drafted a likely hall of famer in the second round, plus a backup QB who's good enough we're about to franchise him, not to mention Branch, Vollmer, Light, Collins, plus ya know the surefire inner-circle HOFer in the 6th round... god what a facepalm-inducing statement.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The problem is not just defense, but rather the fact that Kyrie wants to hold onto the ball for long periods without running the offense. He is a shot creator, but he only wants to create shots for himself rather than the team. That is the issue that needs to change.

Most of the scoring gurus in the NBA are shitty defenders. When a guy is expending so many calories per night on offense he will not have much energy left for defense. There's only so much adenosine triphosphate available in the body at any given time.

If Kyrie sets up other players in Boston and averages 10+ assists per game I can live with him being a poor defender. And if he is willing to give up the ball and contribute through scoring off ball and playing defense that works too. His problem thus far has been wanting to contribute very little to his team except individual scoring.
If Kyrie REALLY only wanted to hold onto the ball for long periods of time and simply worry about creating shots for himself then how was he capable of accumulating 14 assists in less than 22 minutes in last years All-Star game? Sure, the response would be "it's an All-Star game"........which is exactly my point when you could have easily put up 50 if that was his choice, instead he dropped 14 assists to go along with his 22 points in less than half a game.

It wasn't the first time he's done that either. Kyrie had 14 assists in the 2014 game when he was named MVP also. We saw him defer in the Olympics as well. Those criticizing Kyrie about being selfish aren't looking outside of what he was required to do in the Cavaliers system of "your turn/my turn" offense with LeBron. His job was to score the basketball much of the time in designed iso's or in a lethal two-man game when he served as LeBron's screener as the defacto scoring guard in that set.

Why would any coach take arguably the best one-on-one offensive player in the league and turn him into John Stockton? He wasn't utilized as a traditional PG because that isn't the best way to utilize his massive offensive skills. If Kyrie averages 10+ assists a game like you wish he would than Brad is doing a pretty crappy job of utilizing his skillset. Every coach on the opposing bench would be ecstatic if Kyrie was used as a primary distributor rather than attacking and finishing.

The defensive criticism to me is silly since he's replacing a guy who forced Brad to base his entire scheme around protecting him......it also ignores the defense we saw Kyrie play in the post-season which is when we will be judged moving forward from here.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
......it also ignores the defense we saw Kyrie play in the post-season which is when we will be judged moving forward from here.
This is key. So much of defense is effort. Some players conserve their energy for offense, some don't have the chops on offense to do that and concentrate on defense. Think Tony Allen and early Bradley. But in the playoffs, some offensive-minded players put out the extra effort on defense, as exhausting as it is. I'm thinking that's Kyrie's way of playing.
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
I agree with the Brad vs Lue point, but he's also coming from a situation where he was playing with the best player in the world. LeBron makes lots of guys look much better, I think it's basically a wash.
To be fair (and I wasn't a fan of the deal) I think what you're saying makes sense but we don't know if it's really true.

Any half-wit coaching the Cavs would build the offense around LBJ. So while LBJ may draw more defensive pressure away from the rest of the players on the floor, is he really making them better? I think that is the reason that Kyrie alluded to about getting away from LBJ to maximize his skills (and it bodes well that with the exception of NYK his preferred trade list were all teams with highly regarded coaches). It's possible that Kyrie was not asked to do that which he might be good/great at (or have potential to be). I also think that with Kyrie being a clear #2 option on the Cavs, the double teams sent to LBJ came from someone defending someone other than Kyrie more often than not.


On a different note someone mentioned the Celts not having any "alphas", but I wonder if the gamble Ainge is making is that a team rich with betas (Irving, Horford, and Gordon with the potential for Smart, Tatum, and Brown to develop into one) might be more difficult to game plan against and have more versatility.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,623
LeBron James assisted on 162 corner threes last year.

The second guy in the league assisted on only 96.

I think it's pretty safe to say LeBron James makes his teammates better.

That's an epic stat. I forgot what podcast I heard of on. Might have been Lowe/Beck
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
The whole "alpha/beta" thing is pretty silly, imho. Who's the Warriors' "alpha"? For years on GS fansites I had to listen to Monta Ellis fans extolling the virtues of Monta's alpha-ness, cool game face, and "get outta my way I got this" game — inefficiency be damned — while scoffing at the supposed softness of cute, green-eyed "Stephanie" Curry, who would never be a real leader. Durant took similar flak on OKC with the whole cupcake nonsense.

Draymond brings a more emotional, vocal presence than Steph or KD, but I don't think that makes him more "alpha," depending on one's definition of the term. Durant recently spoke of David West as the team's quiet emotional leader. That same distinction has been given at various times to Iguodala, Steve Kerr, Ron Adams, even Leandro Barbosa.

Similar dynamic on the Spurs. If anyone's been their "alpha" over the years, it's Popovich. Beyond him, the alpha-ness, such as it is, has been shared by the softspoken Timmy D and a quorum of super-smart, talented, hardworking players who share the rock, play great D, and lead by example, not ostentatious displays of alpha-ness.

I mean, assuming by alpha we just mean "elite #1 scoring option" (as opposed to code for high visible testosterone level or somesuch) I think both Hayward and Irving are pretty much alphas. And to the extent emotional fieriness is a requirement, I've seen that plenty of that in Hayward, Irving, Smart, Brad Stevens, to name a few. I guess I'm not seeing the supposed gamble Ainge is taking. I don't think this year's Cs are going into this season with any less obvious "alpha-tude" than the 2014-15 Warriors, who went 67-15 and rolled to a title.
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,853
It doesn't mean alpha in the way you're explaining it.

Alphas are simply the best 5 to 7 players in the league. It's not demeanor. Duncan was an alpha because he was easily a top 5 player. Him appearing laid back doesn't matter.

The argument goes that if you don't have a top 5 type guy you won't win, even if you have 2 or 3 top 25 guys.
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,446
Seattle
This article explains the alpha/beta/gamma concept in the context it's being discussed in this thread. Note that this was written before the Kyrie trade.

Do the Celtics Have Enough Star Power to Win a Title?

Let’s develop some terminology to describe degrees of the stardom in the NBA. I’ll introduce three types of players: Alphas, Betas and Gammas.

  • An Alpha is a player who’s as good as the best player on a typical championship-winning team. This is an MVP contender — one of the half-dozen best players in the league.
  • A Beta is as good as the second-best player on a typical NBA champion. As I mentioned, Hayward is a good example of a Beta. Betas are usually All-Stars, perhaps even All-Star starters, and they’re among the best players at their position. But they’re not among the very best players in the league.
  • And a Gamma is good as third-best player on a typical championship team. A Gamma might be an All-Star, but he usually won’t make one of the three All-NBA teams. He probably has one or two weaknesses (defense, shooting, etc.) along with his obvious strengths. But he’s still a very good player and might be the best player on a non-contending team. Thomas, although he’s somewhat difficult to evaluate because of his defense — various statistical systems rate it anywhere from mediocre to execrable — is a reasonably good example of a Gamma.
 
Last edited:

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
It doesn't mean alpha in the way you're explaining it. Alphas are simply the best 5 to 7 players in the league. It's not demeanor. Duncan was an alpha because he was easily a top 5 player. Him appearing laid back doesn't matter. The argument goes that if you don't have a top 5 type guy you won't win, even if you have 2 or 3 top 25 guys.
This article explains the alpha/beta/gamma concept in the context it's being discussed in this thread. Note that this was written before the Kyrie trade.Do the Celtics Have Enough Star Power to Win a Title?
Thanks for the clarifications. Makes sense, I guess, though I'm not sure why they used a Greek-letter system that's so rich with other connotations ('alpha male," e.g.). Typically when a fan says his team needs an "alpha," it means something beyond simply a great player. Just saying "Tier one, tier two" etc. would much clearer.

The basic point stands with respect to Spurs 2013-14 and Warriors 2014-16. Age 38 Tim Duncan was no longer "easily a top five player" by most measures (he was #9 by RPM that season, slightly behind #8 Manu); and no one thought of age 22 Kawhi as anywhere near that category till he took home the Finals MVP. As for the Ws, going into 2014-15, I'm pretty sure no one would have said they had any clear alphas. Their highest-ranked player by RPM the previous season was actually Iguodala, who precisely no one except the nerdiest of RAPM nerds considered a top 10 player. Come Finals time, both the 2015 Ws and the 2014 Spurs used superior coaching, teamwork, and defense to dismantle teams led by LeBron, the ultimate alpha. None of Curry, Draymond or Kawhi was considered an alpha (using the top 5-7 players definition) till they won championships.

On the Cs: I'm not really convinced that Gordon Hayward is a worse player than, say, 2014 Duncan or Manu, or 2015 Green, Iguodala, or Thompson; and I think age 25 Kyrie has a fair number of similarities with age 25-26 Curry. It remains to be seen if Kyrie or Hayward can blossom in a new system the way Steph did, or any of the Marcus/Jaylen/Jayson trio can step up the way Kawhi, Draymond and Klay did. Chances don't favor it, but if the 2017-18 Cs kill the regular season and make it past the Cavs (or even, gasp, the Warriors), you can be sure people will rush to retroactively bestow the "alpha" label on some of their players.
 
Last edited:

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,695
As someone who pops in and out of this forum (and site), I just wanted to say after a few weeks gone I caught up this morning with a few pages of this thread. Really found it a fascinating debate with a lot of great points being made, insights developed, and not too much extraneous heat. Well done.

I have nothing to add, admittedly, other than to say it's made me hyped to see how it plays out next season and beyond. Thanks.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,303
The whole "alpha/beta" thing is so pretty silly, imho. Who's the Warriors' "alpha"? For years on GS fansites I had to listen to Monta Ellis fans extolling the virtues of Monta's alpha-ness, cool game face, and "get outta my way I got this" game — inefficiency be damned — while scoffing at the supposed softness of cute, green-eyed "Stephanie" Curry, who would never be a real leader. Durant took similar flak on OKC with the whole cupcake nonsense.

Draymond brings a more emotional, vocal presence than Steph or KD, but I don't think that makes him more "alpha," depending on one's definition of the term. Durant recently spoke of David West as the team's quiet emotional leader. That same distinction has been given at various times to Iguodala, Steve Kerr, Ron Adams, even Leandro Barbosa.

Similar dynamic on the Spurs. If anyone's been their "alpha" over the years, it's Popovich. Beyond him, the alpha-ness, such as it is, has been shared by the softspoken Timmy D and a quorum of super-smart, talented, hardworking players who share the rock, play great D, and lead by example, not ostentatious displays of alpha-ness.

I mean, assuming by alpha we just mean "elite #1 scoring option" (as opposed to code for high visible testosterone level or somesuch) I think both Hayward and Irving are pretty much alphas. And to the extent emotional fieriness is a requirement, I've seen that plenty of that in Hayward, Irving, Smart, Brad Stevens, to name a few. I guess I'm not seeing the supposed gamble Ainge is taking. I don't think this year's Cs are going into this season with any less obvious "alpha-tude" than the 2014-15 Warriors, who went 67-15 and rolled to a title.
I think, within this thread at least, the term alpha just means an elite level player.

In regards to KD, I know there is so much information out there that you can certainly find a few people who criticized him for not being take charge while in OKC but these opinions were few and far between. The "cupcake" criticism after he left was more about how you defined "alpha" in your post above. Durant was "soft" for leaving a team he was Batman or Robin on to go play with the Justice League. I think it's pretty ridiculous to question the fortitude of these athletes or call anyone soft but I do believe Durant himself said that he was tired of being THE GUY and all of the responsibilities that came with it on and off the court. Doesn't make him soft but it is a departure from the norm that basketball fans are used to.

(As an aside, the latest release of his finals shoes which has messages for the "haters" on the sole, continues the hilarious, petty campaign that Durant has constructed and perpetuated. The main criticism of Durant was that he went to a great team and it would be a cakewalk for them to win....which it was. So I'm not sure who exactly he thinks he proved wrong or whose face he is trying to rub it into)
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Yeah, KD's long been considered the second-best player in the world, so if we stick just to the "top 5 player" definition of alpha he obviously qualifies. I think the point still holds with respect to Steph, Draymond and Kawhi. Going into their first championship seasons, they wouldn't not have been considered alpha guys by the definition in this thread. (Edit: And I suspect they would not even have been considered "a sure bet to become alpha" in the same way that, say, Giannis and KAT are right now).
 
Last edited:

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,446
Seattle
Thanks for the clarifications. Makes sense, I guess, though I'm not sure why they used a Greek-letter system that's so rich with other connotations ('alpha male," e.g.). Typically when a fan says his team needs an "alpha," it means something beyond simply a great player. Just saying "Tier one, tier two" etc. would much clearer.

The basic point stands with respect to Spurs 2013-14 and Warriors 2014-16. Age 38 Tim Duncan was no longer "easily a top five player" by most measures (he was #9 by RPM that season, slightly behind #8 Manu); and no one thought of age 22 Kawhi as anywhere near that category till he took home the Finals MVP. As for the Ws, going into 2014-15, I'm pretty sure no one would have said they had any clear alphas. Their highest-ranked player by RPM the previous season was actually Iguodala, who precisely no one except the nerdiest of RAPM nerds considered a top 10 player. Come Finals time, both the 2015 Ws and the 2014 Spurs used superior coaching, teamwork, and defense to dismantle teams led by LeBron, the ultimate alpha. None of Curry, Draymond or Kawhi was considered an alpha (using the top 5-7 players definition) till they won championships.

On the Cs: I'm not really convinced that Gordon Hayward is a worse player than, say, 2014 Duncan or Manu, or 2015 Green, Iguodala, or Thompson; and I think age 25 Kyrie has a fair number of similarities with age 25-26 Curry. It remains to be seen if Kyrie or Hayward can blossom in a new system the way Steph did, or any of the Marcus/Jaylen/Jayson trio can step up the way Kawhi, Draymond and Klay did. Chances don't favor it, but if the 2017-18 Cs kill the regular season and make it past the Cavs (or even, gasp, the Warriors), you can be sure people will rush to retroactively bestow the "alpha" label on some of their players.
The article I linked actually lists the top 3 players (by CPM) for each championship team since 1985. It confirms your premise that the 2014 Spurs had no alpha, although they did have two betas (Ginobili and Leonard). But Curry was definitely an alpha in 2015 with a CPM of 9.9, whether he was projected to be an alpha before the season or not.

People don't have to retroactively bestow the "alpha" label on any player. No one is an alpha until they actually perform at that level, anything else is just a projection.

To your point, there are plenty of teams (9 to be exact) that have won championships since 1985 without an alpha (according to CPM).
 
Last edited:

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Right, I find the labels have value to this discussion, because of what they're clearly correlated to over the last 30 seasons in showing what level of player(s) are generally required to win a championship. I don't think WAR in baseball is perfect, but it certainly makes some discussions easier (even if you can't use it as a slam-dunk debate-enter of a statistic), and I think there's an analogy here in tiering the league's stars based on how they'd compare historically to title-winners.

There are only a handful of cases (2004 pistons being the most extreme) where a team has failed to have one of the top 5 or 6 players in the league (MVP candidates) and still won the championship. Danny either needs to figure out how to obtain (or grow) one such player, or take every drop of lesson and luck that he can from the exceptions. He may not be thinking about it in these precise terms, but comments like how "we have good players but we need great players" is an acknowledgement of this dynamic.

And of course, at some level such a statement is obvious, but how you draw the line and how you figure out which players will complement, rather than interfere with, each other's value, is a piece of the puzzle that not even these statistics can adequately capture. That's why the scouting-derived comments the last few pages have been so fascinating for me to read. But my point here is, you can talk statistically about how much value these players are projected to add and where they'd fit into a standard championship roster, or you can talk about Irving specifically (or Thomas, or anyone) and why you think they'd beat or fall short of their projections in this or that system, but there's no need to simultaneously talk about both.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,506
Danny either needs to figure out how to obtain (or grow) one such player, or take every drop of lesson and luck that he can from the exceptions. He may not be thinking about it in these precise terms, but comments like how "we have good players but we need great players" is an acknowledgement of this dynamic.
I think the really interesting part of the article is the chart on how much start power you need (copied below). Clearly, a team that has several players in the top 40 of the league has a way better chance to win. I mean this seems clearly why Danny traded IT plus Nets pick for Kyrie - while Kyrie isn't an "alpha" or a Tier I, over the next two years, he's almost surely going to be an upgrade over IT (given IT's hip and his contract situation). Danny's MO is to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. And if he can figure out how to upgrade Kyrie, Hayward, or Horford, he'd do that too.

The Cs may not have any "alphas," but if Jaylen grows (perhaps faster than some here expect) and Tatum can do his thing, the Cs could have six or several really good players playing substantial minutes so perhaps they could put together a Pistons-like team that will challenge for a title. In a scenario like that, they would have more than enough "star power".

upload_2017-9-15_14-19-56.jpeg
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
I think the really interesting part of the article is the chart on how much start power you need (copied below). Clearly, a team that has several players in the top 40 of the league has a way better chance to win. I mean this seems clearly why Danny traded IT plus Nets pick for Kyrie - while Kyrie isn't an "alpha" or a Tier I, over the next two years, he's almost surely going to be an upgrade over IT (given IT's hip and his contract situation). Danny's MO is to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. And if he can figure out how to upgrade Kyrie, Hayward, or Horford, he'd do that too.

The Cs may not have any "alphas," but if Jaylen grows (perhaps faster than some here expect) and Tatum can do his thing, the Cs could have six or several really good players playing substantial minutes so perhaps they could put together a Pistons-like team that will challenge for a title. In a scenario like that, they would have more than enough "star power".

View attachment 17376
If you actually use that system, and I'm not sure how valuable it really is, the Celtics project to have 3 star points next year. But, if you think that Irving can take a leap into the Beta category and Horford rebounds his production and is a Gamma, then the Celtics have 5 star points, and are at the level of teams that have a real, but not very good, shot at a title. That probably dramatically overstates the case, though, because they'd have two weak Betas and a weak Gamma. To consider this team even an outside contender next year, you pretty much need to think Smart has fixed his shot and is going to break out in a big way. If he can also be a Gamma level player, and the other pieces break right, we might have enough to challenge LeBron for the East. If Kyrie can break out and be Harden, then we are already there, but he's done nothing in his career so far to indicate he has the ability to be nearly as good an offensive player as Harden is.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I dunno. I'd say following that system the Celtics are either a 5 or 6 and I'd call 9.5-14.3% chance to a win a title as pretty good.

edit: Using 538's post.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,701
Saint Paul, MN
If Victor Oladipo is a gamma then IND most certainly didn't get screwed in that trade.

But more inmportantly, how the fuck is Victor Oladipo considered a gamma?
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
If Victor Oladipo is a gamma then IND most certainly didn't get screwed in that trade.

But more inmportantly, how the fuck is Victor Oladipo considered a gamma?
That's according to CPM. Does anyone -have- a site that can calculate CPM for you without having to look up all the components and doing the calculations? The article gives a brief outline of CPM, but it feels like such a simplification giving all the stats equal weight, and doesn't explain -how- they re-calculate them to the same scale. If it weights things based on the talent available at a position, it might be overweighting shooting guards as opposed to, say, 'wing'. I don't honestly know - without knowing that sort of adjustments they're making, I'm having a hard time reckoning whether that's really an assessment of star power, or just star power adjusted by traditional positions.
 

southshoresoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,249
Canton MA
This thread is fantastic. I've never seen a team trade an injured player, an overrated role player, and a pick for a superstar (yes people, Kyrie Irving is a superstar) and had such an outpouring of negativity. This was a steal for the Celtics perspective, and you simultaneously weakened you're biggest conference rival. No brainer.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,853
I'm pro-trade, but calling Jae Crowder overrated strikes me as the hottest of hot takes.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I'm pro-trade, but calling Jae Crowder overrated strikes me as the hottest of hot takes.
It depends which rating you feel he is over. I've heard it said he's a better NBA player than Paul George. In this instance I'd call him severely overrated. For those who call him a standard role player who is easily replaceable they "may" be underrating him. I fall closer to the latter as role players by definition are easily replaceable as their roles are designed to limit their exposure.

I don't feel we will ever be saying this year, "Man, if only we had Crowder out there."
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
This has been a terrific thread. Let's keep it that way.

SSSF is entitled to change his mind, GMB is entitled to call him on it (though he could've been less personal about it), and HRB smartly pointed out that "overrated" and "underrated" are meaningless labels when applied to a player like Crowder who is so differently assessed by intelligent people.

Let's move on.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
I don't really even see a conflict between those two posts, but thanks for keeping an eye on him for us, I guess.
I'm with you on that, Crowder's primary value came from the contract, he gives you above average performance for sub-MLE money. So he can be valuable even though he's replaceable. That's sort of the way things are when you're discussing roleplayers.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,407
around the way
I'm with you on that, Crowder's primary value came from the contract, he gives you above average performance for sub-MLE money. So he can be valuable even though he's replaceable. That's sort of the way things are when you're discussing roleplayers.
I agree with all of this. One complicating factor is how highly RPM rates him, and how there are folks here with strong opinions on RPM in both directions. That doesn't help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.