Kyrie is dirty rotten no good and we have schadenfreude…?

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,257
Karl Malone is in the HoF and the All-Star MVP award is named after Kobe. What’s Kyrie gonna do to bad act his way out of the Hall?
Those guys were on a different level as players than Kyrie. I think Schilling is a decent parallel; if we were talking Cooperstown-level standards, Kyrie would be borderline and might get bumped over his anti-semitism. But he clears Springfield’s bar easily, so that stuff won’t come into play.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,829
around the way
Those guys were on a different level as players than Kyrie. I think Schilling is a decent parallel; if we were talking Cooperstown-level standards, Kyrie would be borderline and might get bumped over his anti-semitism. But he clears Springfield’s bar easily, so that stuff won’t come into play.
Schilling is a decent comp because gross, but I think that you're underselling Cooperstown's standards here. A crazy large percentage of the guys there have MVPs and Cys. Clearly the best player of their generation kinda guys. Kyrie is unique and iconic, but there's not a lot of guys in Cooperstown who never even got an MVP vote at all. Charles Barkley has 12 MVP Awards Shares. It's because Springfield is so easy to enter that Kyrie is a no-brainer, and he is.
 

Light-Tower-Power

ask me about My Pillow
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
16,325
Nashua, NH
I can’t stand Kyrie just as much as the next guy but his Hall creds are undeniable, even if you use Cooperstown standards. He is one of the most efficient scorers at his position of his generation and is quite possibly the best ball-handler of all time. Not to mention he hit one of the most iconic shots of the last, what, 20-30 years? The man is dirty rotten no good off the floor, no doubt about that, but he is an incredibly talented basketball player.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,893
The man is dirty rotten no good off the floor, no doubt about that, but he is an incredibly talented basketball player.
We know he’s a little nuts but saying he’s dirty rotten no good and that there isn’t any doubt about that is a little strong. No DRNG person donates $1.5m of their own money to WNBA players who otherwise wouldn’t have been paid a penny during the Covid year. No DRNG person donates over $300k or their own money to underprivileged families in NYC could eat during that same Covid year.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
37,183
where the darn libs live
We know he’s a little nuts but saying he’s dirty rotten no good and that there isn’t any doubt about that is a little strong. No DRNG person donates $1.5m of their own money to WNBA players who otherwise wouldn’t have been paid a penny during the Covid year. No DRNG person donates over $300k or their own money to underprivileged families in NYC could eat during that same Covid year.
I dunno. I'm willing to believe him that he's extremely giving, but also I'm willing to believe that he's anti-Semitic. Both things can be true.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
65,272
We should definitely design a DRNG metric to quantify how awful a person a player is.

I don’t know which would be more fun: coming up with the variables or assigning the weights.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,893
I dunno. I'm willing to believe him that he's extremely giving, but also I'm willing to believe that he's anti-Semitic. Both things can be true.
No doubt. Kyrie has to be in the top 1% of high variance individuals on this planet given his love to help some coupled with his propensity to hate others. We also know that so many of his NBA colleagues, including several of his Celtics ex-teammates, absolutely love the guy.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,895
No DRNG person donates $1.5m of their own money to WNBA players who otherwise wouldn’t have been paid a penny during the Covid year. No DRNG person donates over $300k or their own money to underprivileged families in NYC could eat during that same Covid year.
Mr. Schilling has raised millions for ALS.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
49,473
No doubt. Kyrie has to be in the top 1% of high variance individuals on this planet given his love to help some coupled with his propensity to hate others. We also know that so many of his NBA colleagues, including several of his Celtics ex-teammates, absolutely love the guy.
You have me convinced that he is a misunderstood mensch. I am sorry Kyrie, for doubting you, even though you want my people eradicated from the planet.
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,895
Yeah, that’s a good thing no? I despise Schilling but he gets credit for good deeds just as Kyrie and everyone should when they make them.
It is a good thing. But it does not make him not-a-POS. (Or DRNG). Which was the original point:
No DRNG person donates 1.5M .....
No DRNG person donates over $300k ....
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
49,473
Yeah, that’s a good thing no? I despise Schilling but he gets credit for good deeds just as Kyrie and everyone should when they make them.
I agree. History might have a kinder view of its monsters and jerks if we simply took the time to consider their charitable acts. We have had Kyrie wrong the whole time. Thanks for correcting us.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,400
Newton
He is one of the most efficient scorers at his position of his generation and is quite possibly the best ball-handler of all time. Not to mention he hit one of the most iconic shots of the last, what, 20-30 years?
Putting aside whether he’s a good person or a flake or a team killer, since that’s never actually mattered to any of the HoF’s, I think it's worth breaking this down, since these three points seem to be the basis of Kyrie's HoF case:

he hit one of the most iconic shots of the last, what, 20-30 years
This is one of those aesthetic reasons -- but I know those matter to Halls. That said, I watch a fair amount of basketball -- not @HomeRunBaker amounts, but a good amount. Admittedly I didn't watch all the Finals during the crazy Warriors run and ... I'm not sure I've ever actually seen this shot. I know it was huge and Kyrie was huge in this game. But this isn't even close to as iconic as MJ hitting the bucket over Bryon Russell. Also, while it's obviously big it's completely isolated -- he's never won another championship or gotten particularly close since.

quite possibly the best ball-handler of all time
I agree but this is another kind of superficial argument in his favor. In general, we don't induct people into Halls of Fame for raw athleticism or skills -- at least not if they don't directly translate into statistics (such as points, blocks or steals). Otherwise, why isn't Curley Neal in the Basketball Hall of Fame?

He is one of the most efficient scorers at his position of his generation
Ok, so this seems to be the best pure case here ... but I realize that I don't actually know what "efficient scoring" means exactly. I just looked this up online and didn’t actually find anything specific to "scoring efficiency." I did find “basketball efficiency" -- that is calculated using not just points/FG%/FT%/turnovers (all of which Kyrie is elite at) but also assists (where Kyrie averages a decent-but-not-elite 5.7/game) as well as defensive metrics like steals and blocks, which we know he sucks at. So if the case is that he's great overall, we know he's a turnstile on defense - but if it's that he's great at the point guard-y things where defense matters less, he's never been an elite facilitator. Plus, in general, it feels weird to make "efficiency" the central case for a guy who has played more than 60 games twice in his 11 year career.

Again, I'm not a savant here. I haven't watched even close to every minute of his career. But it seems to be the case for Kyrie in the Hall is: "He was a great scorer and the best dribbler of all time and he hit one big shot." Which, admittedly, in 2023 when a whole generation of fans and players alike has been raised to think Kobe is the greatest player of all time is more than enough to get him across the finish line to Springfield. But if we're being honest, it doesn't seem like a slam dunk case even if we take the personal shit out of the equation.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
65,272
You have me convinced that he is a misunderstood mensch. I am sorry Kyrie, for doubting you, even though you want my people eradicated from the planet.
Look, you guys had a good run. But now it’s time to make way for a new set of stories, and you’re blocking the path. If it makes you feel better, just remember that this is all in the name of progress—and a charitable gift will be made in your name!
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,544
Imaginationland
Putting aside whether he’s a good person or a flake or a team killer, since that’s never actually mattered to any of the HoF’s, I think it's worth breaking this down, since these three points seem to be the basis of Kyrie's HoF case:



This is one of those aesthetic reasons -- but I know those matter to Halls. That said, I watch a fair amount of basketball -- not @HomeRunBaker amounts, but a good amount. Admittedly I didn't watch all the Finals during the crazy Warriors run and ... I'm not sure I've ever actually seen this shot. I know it was huge and Kyrie was huge in this game. But this isn't even close to as iconic as MJ hitting the bucket over Bryon Russell. Also, while it's obviously big it's completely isolated -- he's never won another championship or gotten particularly close since.
It'd odd to comment on a shot you've never seen, and you don't need to watch HRB levels of NBA to have seen the closing minute of a tied game 7 in one of the best finals in recent history:

View: https://youtu.be/kIF8zcj_J4Y


If you didn't see that, you probably missed Lebron's block about a minute earlier, which was the biggest play of his career.

The Jordan shot is more iconic because it was Jordan, and the last shot of his Bulls' career. Separate the players involved, and it's a real discussion which is a bigger shot (3 pointer in the final minute of a tied game 7 vs a 2 pointer down 1 with under 10 seconds in a game 6 in a series in which you're leading 3-2). In terms of difficulty, it's not that close - a well contested 3 vs a wide open mid-range jumper (due in part because of an obvious push off). That shot alone isn't enough to get Kyrie into the HOF, but add that to his really spectacular regular season averages, and he's a stone cold lock at this point.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
65,272
It'd odd to comment on a shot you've never seen, and you don't need to watch HRB levels of NBA to have seen the closing minute of a tied game 7 in one of the best finals in recent history:

View: https://youtu.be/kIF8zcj_J4Y


If you didn't see that, you probably missed Lebron's block about a minute earlier, which was the biggest play of his career.

The Jordan shot is more iconic because it was Jordan, and the last shot of his Bulls' career. Separate the players involved, and it's a real discussion which is a bigger shot (3 pointer in the final minute of a tied game 7 vs a 2 pointer down 1 with under 10 seconds in a game 6 in a series in which you're leading 3-2). In terms of difficulty, it's not that close - a well contested 3 vs a wide open mid-range jumper (due in part because of an obvious push off). That shot alone isn't enough to get Kyrie into the HOF, but add that to his really spectacular regular season averages, and he's a stone cold lock at this point.
Huh. I never noticed how subtly he palms the ball there to throw Curry off a half beat.

I mean, I get that that’s standard now, and to the extent that it’s allowed, it’s a great example of what makes Kyrie the best ball handler of all time, as that’s really slick—like, a tiny hesitation can sometime throw a defender of rhythm better than a large one. I just never noticed it before.

And Jordan pushed off, so it’s not like there’s not precedent here. :p
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,759
Somewhere
One of the things about morality is that good deeds don’t undo the damage of bad ones. Plenty of terrible people have redeeming qualities.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,203
It'd odd to comment on a shot you've never seen, and you don't need to watch HRB levels of NBA to have seen the closing minute of a tied game 7 in one of the best finals in recent history:

View: https://youtu.be/kIF8zcj_J4Y


If you didn't see that, you probably missed Lebron's block about a minute earlier, which was the biggest play of his career.

The Jordan shot is more iconic because it was Jordan, and the last shot of his Bulls' career. Separate the players involved, and it's a real discussion which is a bigger shot (3 pointer in the final minute of a tied game 7 vs a 2 pointer down 1 with under 10 seconds in a game 6 in a series in which you're leading 3-2). In terms of difficulty, it's not that close - a well contested 3 vs a wide open mid-range jumper (due in part because of an obvious push off). That shot alone isn't enough to get Kyrie into the HOF, but add that to his really spectacular regular season averages, and he's a stone cold lock at this point.
You know, I am embarrassed to say that I have never seen this film either. When people talked about this shot, I always assumed that it was one of those “Kyrie slithering into the paint with his awesome ball handling to rise up amongst the trees and flip the ball into the basket through the flailing arms of the defenders” shot. Instead I get “JR Smith tackles Klay forcing Curry to guard Kyrie who gets off a three over him” shot. The only thing making this shot great is the circumstances.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,544
Imaginationland
You know, I am embarrassed to say that I have never seen this film either. When people talked about this shot, I always assumed that it was one of those “Kyrie slithering into the paint with his awesome ball handling to rise up amongst the trees and flip the ball into the basket through the flailing arms of the defenders” shot. Instead I get “JR Smith tackles Klay forcing Curry to guard Kyrie who gets off a three over him” shot. The only thing making this shot great is the circumstances.
I mean, yeah. It'd be hard to imagine a higher leverage shot than this one. It's basketball, a typical game will have 80+ made baskets. The ones that mean the most aren't the ones that are the hardest, or look the best. The most important shots are the ones that happen at the most important moments. Other than maybe Ray Allen's tying shot in game 6 against the Spurs, Kyrie's 3 over Curry was probably the biggest shot of the last 25 years (I'm open to any alternatives). Regardless of the difficulty involved, hitting a contested 3 in the final minute of a tied game 7 of the NBA finals (against the defending champs who just won 73 regular season games) is a shot that gets remembered forever as one of the best.

Every now and then you get crazy looking shots that also happen to happen at major moments (Jordan's jumper over Ehlo against the Cavs, or Kawhi's series ending shot over the Sixers), but absolutely nothing that happens in a 1st or 2nd round series can top a game winning shot in the last minute of the season.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,074
I dunno. I'm willing to believe him that he's extremely giving, but also I'm willing to believe that he's anti-Semitic. Both things can be true.
SOSH often declares people to be either “amazing” or “terrible”, sometimes with very little nuance. We are all a mix of good and bad. People with elevated platforms/power just see their good and bad magnified. (And I’m not saying each person has the same good/bad mix. Of course it varies, but nobody is all good and nobody is all bad. Even Stalin probably had genuine affection for and cared about…..someone besides himself. And even Mother Theresa had her bouts with sin and selfishness.

Of course a person can be thoughtful and generous and kind in some ways, and unthoughtful and mean and prejudiced in other ways.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
65,272
SOSH often declares people to be either “amazing” or “terrible”, sometimes with very little nuance. We are all a mix of good and bad. People with elevated platforms/power just see their good and bad magnified. (And I’m not saying each person has the same good/bad mix. Of course it varies, but nobody is all good and nobody is all bad. Even Stalin probably had genuine affection for and cared about…..someone besides himself. And even Mother Theresa had her bouts with sin and selfishness.

Of course a person can be thoughtful and generous and kind in some ways, and unthoughtful and mean and prejudiced in other ways.
Stalin unequivocally thought he was doing good for the world.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
49,473
SOSH often declares people to be either “amazing” or “terrible”, sometimes with very little nuance. We are all a mix of good and bad. People with elevated platforms/power just see their good and bad magnified. (And I’m not saying each person has the same good/bad mix. Of course it varies, but nobody is all good and nobody is all bad. Even Stalin probably had genuine affection for and cared about…..someone besides himself. And even Mother Theresa had her bouts with sin and selfishness.

Of course a person can be thoughtful and generous and kind in some ways, and unthoughtful and mean and prejudiced in other ways.
That's fine for people who don't openly troll others with their thoughts about the validity of a group of people's right to exist. Its also easy for people to dismiss it as a nothing burger (or perhaps some of the people in this thread agree with Irving's view on Jews - I bet some actually do too) when they aren't in that group.

Its fine because I prefer to know how people actually feel but we are giving an unprecedented amount of leeway to those playing footsie with someone who is actively engaging in antisemitism. We really wouldn't tolerate it elsewhere on this site.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,074
That's fine for people who don't openly troll others with their thoughts about the validity of a group of people's right to exist. Its also easy for people to dismiss it as a nothing burger (or perhaps some of the people in this thread agree with Irving's view on Jews - I bet some actually do too) when they aren't in that group.

Its fine because I prefer to know how people actually feel but we are giving an unprecedented amount of leeway to those playing footsie with someone who is actively engaging in antisemitism. We really wouldn't tolerate it elsewhere on this site.
All I'm saying - nothing more - is that people are a mix of good and bad (in varying amounts of each), and SOSH's tendency to label people as either all good or completely terrible, while easy to do, is too simplistic. Kyrie can be a raging anti-Semite and also be generous to people at the same time.

Me saying this isn't in any way defending anything Kyrie has said on that subject. Just to be clear. (FYI - I'm not a Kyrie fan at all)
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
49,473
All I'm saying - nothing more - is that people are a mix of good and bad (in varying amounts of each), and SOSH's tendency to label people as either all good or completely terrible, while easy to do, is too simplistic. Kyrie can be a raging anti-Semite and also be generous to people at the same time.

Me saying this isn't in any way defending anything Kyrie has said on that subject. Just to be clear. (FYI - I'm not a Kyrie fan at all)
I agree with and appreciate your perspective. We very often are too quick to rush to judgement and we certainly miss on nuance.

That said, this isn't happening here. In Irving we have a person who is openly baiting Jews - and essentially expressing a view that they aren't legitimate as a people - and we have @HomeRunBaker telling us Kyrie isn't that bad because he does charitable acts. We are being asked to look at Irving's morality net-rating. And its not a one off - HRB has been telling us how giving Kyrie is for a while now. People can conclude whatever they want but I know what I see here.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,074
I agree with and appreciate your perspective. We very often are too quick to rush to judgement and we certainly miss on nuance.

That said, this isn't happening here. In Irving we have a person who is openly baiting Jews - and essentially expressing a view that they aren't legitimate as a people - and we have @HomeRunBaker telling us Kyrie isn't that bad because he does charitable acts. We are being asked to look at Irving's morality net-rating. And its not a one off - HRB has been telling us how giving Kyrie is for a while now. People can conclude whatever they want but I know what I see here.
Ok, I got it, thanks.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,893
I agree with and appreciate your perspective. We very often are too quick to rush to judgement and we certainly miss on nuance.

That said, this isn't happening here. In Irving we have a person who is openly baiting Jews - and essentially expressing a view that they aren't legitimate as a people - and we have @HomeRunBaker telling us Kyrie isn't that bad because he does charitable acts. We are being asked to look at Irving's morality net-rating. And its not a one off - HRB has been telling us how giving Kyrie is for a while now. People can conclude whatever they want but I know what I see here.
It’s fucking bullshit innuendos like this that really make this place suck a big dick sometimes. If only we were all as perfect as some of the people unable to recognize what @BaseballJones is saying in that bad people do good things and good people do bad things. It occurs with people in every aspect of our lives but when it’s brought up here you’re a racist fuckin antisemitic? I don’t give a flying fuck if someone else hates whites, blacks, Jews, gays, or any group of people…..when they have done countless good for others those good deeds should be part of his story. Why the need to make everything so black and white? Oh and the only thing you see here is a mirror…..that’s the only place a problem lies.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,236
Missoula, MT
It’s fucking bullshit innuendos like this that really make this place suck a big dick sometimes. If only we were all as perfect as some of the people unable to recognize what @BaseballJones is saying in that bad people do good things and good people do bad things. It occurs with people in every aspect of our lives but when it’s brought up here you’re a racist fuckin antisemitic? I don’t give a flying fuck if someone else hates whites, blacks, Jews, gays, or any group of people…..when they have done countless good for others those good deeds should be part of his story. Why the need to make everything so black and white? Oh and the only thing you see here is a mirror…..that’s the only place a problem lies.
You should. You should absolutely care when someone uses a voice to suppress, demean, and hate. Because it is not just that voice, it is what happens to people after that hate is expressed.

Charitable acts do not, in any way, shape or form, diminish the hate, anger, and the dangers to people. Moreover, attempting a morality play and admonishing people for not judging Irving for good deeds does not mean anyone should need to evaluate themselves in looking at the whole story. Irving is a piece of shit, racist, antisemitic. No amount of charitable giving changes that. That is black and white.

One more black and white thing: Find a different descriptor for what you used in your first sentence. Whether you like it or not. Be better and remove those phrases when posting here. It reflects very poorly on you. Irony and such.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,563
It’s fucking bullshit innuendos like this that really make this place suck a big dick sometimes. If only we were all as perfect as some of the people unable to recognize what @BaseballJones is saying in that bad people do good things and good people do bad things. It occurs with people in every aspect of our lives but when it’s brought up here you’re a racist fuckin antisemitic? I don’t give a flying fuck if someone else hates whites, blacks, Jews, gays, or any group of people…..when they have done countless good for others those good deeds should be part of his story. Why the need to make everything so black and white? Oh and the only thing you see here is a mirror…..that’s the only place a problem lies.
Ooooof, really?

IMO, and I'm thankful most people here agree, if someone else hates whites, blacks, Jews, gays or any group of people...when they have done countless good deeds for others those good deeds should be a footnote of his story at most. And I'm stretching to even get there.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,852
Honolulu HI
I mean, yeah. It'd be hard to imagine a higher leverage shot than this one.
I get your point but this is a bit too much. There were 53 seconds left after the shot was made and the Cavs were playing against one of the best 3-point shooting teams ever.
At the moment, I don't think anyone was certain the game was over as there was still a significant chance that the Warriors came back to tie it. More importantly, had he missed the shot there was still a good chance the Cavs win anyway - after all it was a tie game at the time of the shot.
Ray Allen's 2013 shot was far higher leverage. If he had missed it the Spurs would have won the 2013 Finals. Period. Not saying that Kyrie's shot wasn't big but to say we can't "imagine a higher leverage shot" is just silly.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,743
Santa Monica
Kyrie is radioactive in so many ways and now is the Port Cellar's 3rd rail.

He has brought his overrated play & toxic personality to Dallas with predictably pedestrian results. Someone (probably Dallas) is going to really regret writing that creep his next contract.

Personally, I was fine when he took his talents to Brooklyn. I just wish Danny traded him for some assets once the entire league knew he was partnering up with KD.

It's good to see people have come around to what a cancer he is, after hand-wringing about his exit.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,544
Imaginationland
I get your point but this is a bit too much. There were 53 seconds left after the shot was made and the Cavs were playing against one of the best 3-point shooting teams ever.
At the moment, I don't think anyone was certain the game was over as there was still a significant chance that the Warriors came back to tie it. More importantly, had he missed the shot there was still a good chance the Cavs win anyway - after all it was a tie game at the time of the shot.
Ray Allen's 2013 shot was far higher leverage. If he had missed it the Spurs would have won the 2013 Finals. Period. Not saying that Kyrie's shot wasn't big but to say we can't "imagine a higher leverage shot" is just silly.
Like I said, the Ray Allen shot might be bigger. The Heat were certainly in worse shape at that moment than the Cavs were when Kyrie hit his shot, but even after his shot Miami still needed to get to overtime (the Spurs had 5 seconds left), and they needed to win overtime, and they needed to win game 7. If Miami had lost that game (or if they had lost game 7), I don't think it would even be a discussion over which shot is bigger (fair or not). It would go in that large bag of great plays by losing teams, possibly at the very top of the heap, but relegated there nontheless.

From an actual numbers perspective, Kyrie hitting that 3 was worth 27.8% WPA (Cleveland with the ball at that point was 58.1% expected to win, after the shot they were 85.9%). After Lebron missed his 3 and Bosh grabbed the rebound, the Heat were at 5.5% expected to win, and after Allen's 3, they were at 40.7% to win (35.1% WPA). Allen's shot was definitely [slightly] higher leverage just looking at the impact on that individual game, but considering Allen's shot was in game 6 and Kyrie's was in game 7, I'm still taking Kyrie's shot. A 40.7% chance to win game 6 (when down 3-2) I think comes out to around a 20% chance of winning the entire series, if a game 7 is a 50-50 proposition (might not be fair to the Heat considering the game was in Miami, but still). Compare that to Kyrie's 28% chance of winning the whole series, I'll take the latter.

*edit - since Jordan was mentioned earlier, his game-winner in 1998 was worth 34.1% WPA. That was a clinching game for them so it's higher leverage than Kyrie's, but I don't know how much to consider that if he misses that shot, the Bulls would get another chance in game 7.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,852
Honolulu HI
Like I said, the Ray Allen shot might be bigger. The Heat were certainly in worse shape at that moment than the Cavs were when Kyrie hit his shot, but even after his shot Miami still needed to get to overtime (the Spurs had 5 seconds left), and they needed to win overtime, and they needed to win game 7. If Miami had lost that game (or if they had lost game 7), I don't think it would even be a discussion over which shot is bigger (fair or not). It would go in that large bag of great plays by losing teams, possibly at the very top of the heap, but relegated there nontheless.

From an actual numbers perspective, Kyrie hitting that 3 was worth 27.8% WPA (Cleveland with the ball at that point was 58.1% expected to win, after the shot they were 85.9%). After Lebron missed his 3 and Bosh grabbed the rebound, the Heat were at 5.5% expected to win, and after Allen's 3, they were at 40.7% to win (35.1% WPA). Allen's shot was definitely [slightly] higher leverage just looking at the impact on that individual game, but considering Allen's shot was in game 6 and Kyrie's was in game 7, I'm still taking Kyrie's shot. A 40.7% chance to win game 6 (when down 3-2) I think comes out to around a 20% chance of winning the entire series, if a game 7 is a 50-50 proposition (might not be fair to the Heat considering the game was in Miami, but still). Compare that to Kyrie's 28% chance of winning the whole series, I'll take the latter.

*edit - since Jordan was mentioned earlier, his game-winner in 1998 was worth 34.1% WPA. That was a clinching game for them so it's higher leverage than Kyrie's, but I don't know how much to consider that if he misses that shot, the Bulls would get another chance in game 7.
I was simply trying to point out the hyperbole. I mean, it's simply not true that we can't imagine a higher leverage shot. The Cavs could have been down by 2, or there could have been less time on the clock - or both. Had it been a regular season game, it wouldn't have even been a particularly memorable shot. After all, in the context of a regular, NBA game we've all seen countless shots that were more memorable. Obviously it was a game 7 in the Finals and that's huge, but the fact that it ranks as a top 5 in Finals history simply speaks to the fact that, unfortunately, there really haven't been that many memorable, high-leverage shots in the history of that round of the playoffs.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,544
Imaginationland
I was simply trying to point out the hyperbole. I mean, it's simply not true that we can't imagine a higher leverage shot. The Cavs could have been down by 2, or there could have been less time on the clock - or both. Had it been a regular season game, it wouldn't have even been a particularly memorable shot. After all, in the context of a regular, NBA game we've all seen countless shots that were more memorable. Obviously it was a game 7 in the Finals and that's huge, but the fact that it ranks as a top 5 in Finals history simply speaks to the fact that, unfortunately, there really haven't been that many memorable, high-leverage shots in the history of that round of the playoffs.
Fair. I didn't literally mean "imagine any conceivable higher leverage moment," I meant it's hard to remember any moment in recent finals history that featured a higher leverage shot. The fact that there hasn't been many high leverage shots in finals history shouldn't be a knock against Kyrie. A regular season game tied in the final minute is absolutely no big deal (hell, the 2023 Celtics have had 11 regular season games tied with 0 seconds on the clock), but that doesn't really matter here. Ray Allen's shot, if it happened during a regular season game, wouldn't be remembered by anyone (other than Miami fans) once a week or two had passed. Hell, I bet Celtics fans barely remember this one from just 3 months ago:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_JvBA-FZEI


That play was worth 39.8% WPA, slightly higher leverage than Ray Allen's shot. No one cares now, because it was a regular season game and we lost anyway.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,893
Ooooof, really?

IMO, and I'm thankful most people here agree, if someone else hates whites, blacks, Jews, gays or any group of people...when they have done countless good deeds for others those good deeds should be a footnote of his story at most. And I'm stretching to even get there.
It is a footnote. I entered the footnote because every perfect Fuckin person here refused to. I was called an antisemite by a poster for adding this footnote. I’m just fortunate to be able to discuss basketball with so many perfect people with no skeletons in their closet. Blessed to do so actually.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,743
Kyrie is radioactive in so many ways and now is the Port Cellar's 3rd rail.

He has brought his overrated play & toxic personality to Dallas with predictably pedestrian results. Someone (probably Dallas) is going to really regret writing that creep his next contract.

Personally, I was fine when he took his talents to Brooklyn. I just wish Danny traded him for some assets once the entire league knew he was partnering up with KD.

It's good to see people have come around to what a cancer he is, after hand-wringing about his exit.
He will be the first Hall of Famer with an unblemished career of leaving franchises in smoldering ruins.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,895
It is a footnote. I entered the footnote because every perfect Fuckin person here refused to. I was called an antisemite by a poster for adding this footnote. I’m just fortunate to be able to discuss basketball with so many perfect people with no skeletons in their closet. Blessed to do so actually.
This is what dragged me into this nonsense.
We know he’s a little nuts but saying he’s dirty rotten no good and that there isn’t any doubt about that is a little strong. No DRNG person donates $1.5m of their own money to WNBA players who otherwise wouldn’t have been paid a penny during the Covid year. No DRNG person donates over $300k or their own money to underprivileged families in NYC could eat during that same Covid year.
It's not a footnote. It's the entire post. And the bolded is simply wrong. I dont know what your point is, but that's mine.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,893
This is what dragged me into this nonsense.

It's not a footnote. It's the entire post. And the bolded is simply wrong. I dont know what your point is, but that's mine.
Maybe I focused on the do NO good….when any reasonable person can see that he has done some good. Whatever I’m done with this foolishness of how the definition of do no good applies.
 

FanRoy

New Member
Aug 14, 2008
48
Orlando, FL
This is what dragged me into this nonsense.

It's not a footnote. It's the entire post. And the bolded is simply wrong. I dont know what your point is, but that's mine.
I really don't have any skin in the game here, but if there's one thing that bothers me about this place (I have lurked almost exclusively for the past 15-17 years or whatever), it's this. In a rush to vomit out their righteousness, people pile on without really trying to empathize or understand given viewpoint/poster. We get it, everyone needs to show off their moral superiority in an online forum where most of us will never meet each other in real life, let alone be able to recognize someone in a lineup. But, someone who is "dirty rotten no good" or whatever the original phrase was, simply doesn't perform the kind of charitable acts that Kyrie has done throughout his life. There are SOME redeeming qualities about him - this is both indisputable and incontrovertible. Except to a select few white knights here. Now, whether those redeeming qualities are enough to wipe out any of the bad, or maybe more poignantly, to even glean begrudging respect, is an entirely different argument. I don't think that's what HRB is doing. He's simply pointing out that he's also done some amazing things, even if you all think it is tactless (or worse yet, because some of you apparently think HRB is racist as a result of what he's said).

I'm both Jewish and a Celtics fan, so Kyrie has done nothing to endear himself to me. If anything, I legitimately have a reason to actively dislike the guy, unlike many of who only type words of violent disagreement on your keyboard. I don't know anything about any of you except what I read here, but some of you are simply insufferable with the gaslighting. If nothing else, Kyrie is a very interesting human who very much appears to have vile viewpoints toward communities that aren't his, but also many benevolent ones toward his own community.

You all can pile on me now.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,310
South Boston
We know he’s a little nuts but saying he’s dirty rotten no good and that there isn’t any doubt about that is a little strong. No DRNG person donates $1.5m of their own money to WNBA players who otherwise wouldn’t have been paid a penny during the Covid year. No DRNG person donates over $300k or their own money to underprivileged families in NYC could eat during that same Covid year.
Yeah. We don’t have a historical record of robber barons and others donating massive amounts of money for the twin goals of their own self-aggrandizement and washing away of their sins or anything. That reality doesn’t exist.
 

Mr. Stinky Esq.

No more Ramon
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2006
2,421
IMO, and I'm thankful most people here agree, if someone else hates whites, blacks, Jews, gays or any group of people...when they have done countless good deeds for others those good deeds should be a footnote of his story at most. And I'm stretching to even get there.
I'm with you. Hate speech, otherizing, and amplifying hate speech provides a permission structure for hate crimes, which are on the rise.

Self-promoted charitable giving does nothing to weigh against this and, to some degree, is self-serving. It goes without saying that charitable giving primarily benefits the recipient, but we're kidding ourselves if we think that's the only reason why Kyrie does it. If it was, I suspect he wouldn't feel the need to tell us about it. He's not just giving money away, to some extent he's buying goodwill. You can see it paying off in this thread.

He's also made almost $200 million on the court in his career (and the internet suggests he's made tens of millions per year in endorsements) and he's given away maybe a few million dollars? Unless I'm missing something (always possible), I'm fairly confident many people here give a higher percentage of their disposable income to charitable causes than he does.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,289
Off the beaten track
Mr. Schilling has raised millions for ALS.
Having worked on fundraising extensively with Mass ALS, including auctions and softball bashes originating here on SoSH, I was pretty consistently underwhelmed, and often extraordinarily disappointed, by Mr Schilling’s commitment and contributions to the cause. Performative is the word that comes to mind.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,079
If you needed to win a championship, who would you rather have on your team, Kyrie or Jrue Holliday? Irving can score more, but Holliday is a much better defender, capable lead passer, infinitely more reliable and hasn't quit on three different franchises. I think most people would still pick Kyrie, which kind of speaks to perceived value of being able to score 8 extra points per game in dazzling fashion.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,895
Having worked on fundraising extensively with Mass ALS, including auctions and softball bashes originating here on SoSH, I was pretty consistently underwhelmed, and often extraordinarily disappointed, by Mr Schilling’s commitment and contributions to the cause. Performative is the word that comes to mind.
This doesn't entirely surprise me. At the risk of spattering others with my righteous vomit, I think the overall point remains -- "people who do 'good things,' can in fact be really shitty people" and that this
someone who is "dirty rotten no good" or whatever the original phrase was, simply doesn't perform the kind of charitable acts that Kyrie has done throughout his life
is provably false. If one wants to think that Kyrie is not a shitty person, go for it. (Maybe he's an idiot; or hungry for attention; or you think the good *outweighs* the bad.) But "he cant possibly be shitty because he gives to charity" is almost a non-sequitur.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
10,615
Having worked on fundraising extensively with Mass ALS, including auctions and softball bashes originating here on SoSH, I was pretty consistently underwhelmed, and often extraordinarily disappointed, by Mr Schilling’s commitment and contributions to the cause. Performative is the word that comes to mind.
This is pretty much the exact feeling I get from Kyrie. I’ve always got the impression that we know a little too much about his good deeds and hear about it too quickly, almost as if hes doing it to give himself good press.

Personally, I despise Kyrie and my opinion is that he’s decidedly not a good psrson. However, I do want to bring up that there have been multiple accounts (including one on this board by @benhogan I believe) of Kyrie being genuinely very pleasant in person, remembering people’s kids names and going out of his way to talk to them.

in regards to the anti-semitism, and to be completely transparent I am not Jewish, it does matter a little bit to me that Adam Silver met with him and didn’t think he was anti-Semitic. I’ve got the sense that Kyrie doesn’t hate any sect of people but that he’s just an egomaniacal idiot who never wants to admit he’s wrong and wants to feel special. But this is just one persons opinion and, given the fact that I am not Jewish, that opinion really doesn’t mean much or matter
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,895
If you needed to win a championship, who would you rather have on your team, Kyrie or Jrue Holliday? Irving can score more, but Holliday is a much better defender, capable lead passer, infinitely more reliable and hasn't quit on three different franchises. I think most people would still pick Kyrie, which kind of speaks to perceived value of being able to score 8 extra points per game in dazzling fashion.
"Needed" for a whole season or just a playoff series or 2?