Rank the 3: Lillard, Irving, Wall

[freewhitemoon]

Yeah, I know he can score. He can't run an offense and help others. That's the problem, consiering he's a terrible defender as well. It isn't a crazy idea he's the worst of these 3 guards at all.

how do we know he can't run an offense and help others? He was playing with dion waiters as his second best player and coached by a bellend before Lebron returned. Put a 20 year old Damian Lillard in that situation, you really think he's taking that group anywhere? Lillard isn't some point god anyway, he averages 6apg for his career despite playing with far superior offensive players the moment he was drafted

Again, I showed the WOWY numbers earlier, you remove the number one options from each and Lillard still holds the better net rating. He's shown more leadership than Irving has and without him that team is going nowhere. Maybe his teammates right now aren't that vastly better (they are better) but he elevates them more than Irving. You move him to the bench and Portland sports a pretty meh offense, Lillard also shows up ahead in RAPM and RPM, in multi year by a huge amount. The quality of teammates argument is fine but its not the gap between the two. Its an excuse.

And that's why solely relying on these on/off numbers is flawed. If they really told the whole story I'd be taking Rubio over both these guys every year

[bondom34]

how do we know he can't run an offense and help others? He was playing with dion waiters as his second best player and coached by a bellend before Lebron returned. Put a 20 year old Damian Lillard in that situation, you really think he's taking that group anywhere? Lillard isn't some point god anyway, he averages 6apg for his career despite playing with far superior offensive players the moment he was drafted

Again, I showed the WOWY numbers earlier, you remove the number one options from each and Lillard still holds the better net rating. He's shown more leadership than Irving has and without him that team is going nowhere. Maybe his teammates right now aren't that vastly better (they are better) but he elevates them more than Irving. You move him to the bench and Portland sports a pretty meh offense, Lillard also shows up ahead in RAPM and RPM, in multi year by a huge amount. The quality of teammates argument is fine but its not the gap between the two. Its an excuse.

And that's why solely relying on these on/off numbers is flawed. If they really told the whole story I'd be taking Rubio over both these guys every year

I wasn't using that as the sole criteria. It was a single thing I used. Never said anything else. Removing all other variables, I'd take Irving last of these 3 guys, its no shot at him, I just think the other 2 are better PGs right now.

[freewhitemoon]

Well, you argued Korver as better than Kyrie in a thread last year (2015 season), so I doubt you will be swayed. We're too far apart to get anywhere, so I'll stop trying.

Korver's definitely better man. Seriously I have proof - if you google espn RPM and rank the players in descending order of RPM, Korver is much higher up than Kyrie. Never mind that in the playoffs if you stick a hand in his face his 3 point accuracy gets slashed into two

[bondom34]

Wait, so because I argued (and changed my stance) on Korver, that invalidates every point I make? Oh, great, guess I should stop posting everywhere then.

Can I find something you were wrong on and use it to show your points have no merit? Maybe that's the way to go. Seriously, that's the most garbage way of trying to prove a point you can take. "Hey, you were wrong and admitted it a year and a half ago, so holding a stance on a totally different subject now is totally equivalent!".

Sorry, but that's both belittling to the debate and a horrible horrible argument.

[BasketballFan7]

Wait, so because I argued (and changed my stance) on Korver, that invalidates every point I make? Oh, great, guess I should stop posting everywhere then.

Can I find something you were wrong on and use it to show your points have no merit? Maybe that's the way to go.

No, your prior opinions do give insight on your thoughts though. You really like impact statistics. I do as well, but I take them less into account than you do. I listened to what you said and retorted, but we just don't agree. And that's fine.

[bondom34]

Wait, so because I argued (and changed my stance) on Korver, that invalidates every point I make? Oh, great, guess I should stop posting everywhere then.

Can I find something you were wrong on and use it to show your points have no merit? Maybe that's the way to go.

No, your prior opinions do give insight on your thoughts though. You really like impact statistics. I do as well, but I take them less into account than you do. I listened to what you said and retorted, but we just don't agree. And that's fine.

It is, but you're greatly misrepresenting me. I don't believe that much in them (as is shown by Korver as one example, who I changed opinion on). But when they match my other measures and opinions, I will use them in conjunction. If they're supporting my idea along with other information, there's no reason not to use them. This is that case. Irving is a great individual talent, problem is that individual play does not elevate others. Its both on court and off court in leadership, and he's not the leader or player to run an offense Lillard is. You misrepresenting me entirely doesn't change that.

[LivingLegend]

I normally like larger statistical sample sizes, but Kyrie's career regular season stats do not tell the story. Although Kyrie has only played 34 playoff games (a medium sample size), his results in these games and other high profile events like the World Cup match the eye test. The eye test and the playoff statistics say that Kyrie is the best by far of these three players. Don't think it's close.

Thats what Im saying. An overall evaluation of a player is more than just RS analytics to see whose better. Circumstances have to be taken into account, teammates do and half of it is the eye test.

Kyrie played with Dion Waiters, Lillard played with LMA. Per36 they still both had nearly identical assist numbers. Kyries 'eye test' comes in the playoffs. Throw advances stats out the window, how do you watch those past playoffs and not go 'holy cow' with maaaany of the performances Kyrie made.

In Kyrie Irvings 34 playoff games he has played in, he vs. Damian Lillard are averaging:

Kyrie 33 points Lillard 30 points
6 assists 7 assists
5 rebounds 4 rebounds
2 steals 1 steal
1 blk 0 blk

and shooting

Kyrie FG% - 47% Lillard FG%- 40%
3pt%- 44% (!) 3pt%- 36%
FT%- 86% FT%- 88%

Offensive and Defensive Ratings

Kyrie ORTG - 118 Lillard ORTG- 111
DRTG- 106 DRTG- 114

Kyrie also has the game winning shot in game 7 of the NBA Finals to win a world championship. Now after looking at a breakdown of post season numbers and especially shooting percentages, whose better?

Whose better or whose butter?

In all seriousness, Kyrie has an advantage in the post-season, but he has played with LeBron James, arguable the best post-season player of all-time. Time will tell, and it would be nice to see current Kyrie Irving with a team around him like Lillard has right now. These comparison's aren't apples to apples so they are very hard.

Thats fantastic, Kyrie is one of the more ISO heavy players in the NBA, his shooting percentages and scoring numbers along with having better steal/block numbers are not at all impacted by LeBron. His shooting percentages dump on Lillards. They are pretty much equals in the regular season but when it comes to the postseason, the numbers say Kyrie is a better player

[BasketballFan7]

Wait, so because I argued (and changed my stance) on Korver, that invalidates every point I make? Oh, great, guess I should stop posting everywhere then.

Can I find something you were wrong on and use it to show your points have no merit? Maybe that's the way to go.

No, your prior opinions do give insight on your thoughts though. You really like impact statistics. I do as well, but I take them less into account than you do. I listened to what you said and retorted, but we just don't agree. And that's fine.

It is, but you're greatly misrepresenting me. I don't believe that much in them (as is shown by Korver as one example, who I changed opinion on). But when they match my other measures and opinions, I will use them in conjunction. If they're supporting my idea along with other information, there's no reason not to use them. This is that case. Irving is a great individual talent, problem is that individual play does not elevate others. Its both on court and off court in leadership, and he's not the leader or player to run an offense Lillard is. You misrepresenting me entirely doesn't change that.

I mentioned one of your previous arguments that involved Irving. I didn't greatly misrepresent you; I can't be expected to keep track of every time a poster changes his opinion. If you take insult for me mentioning something you said, that wasn't my intent. It was my way of saying, "hey, we have different ways of evaluating basketball players, and that is fine."

I don't feel like continuing this conversation because I think it is futile. If you believe Irving was simply "okay" prior to the finals, or that there isn't a gap between that level of PS play and the other aforementioned players (in spite of the mountain of evidence and opinions pointing to the contrary), you may do so. It is the same sentiment I felt when discussing Korver vs. Irving, which is why I mentioned it.

People have different opinions on basketball players, and different attributes they value more than others. That's okay.

[bondom34]

No, your prior opinions do give insight on your thoughts though. You really like impact statistics. I do as well, but I take them less into account than you do. I listened to what you said and retorted, but we just don't agree. And that's fine.

It is, but you're greatly misrepresenting me. I don't believe that much in them (as is shown by Korver as one example, who I changed opinion on). But when they match my other measures and opinions, I will use them in conjunction. If they're supporting my idea along with other information, there's no reason not to use them. This is that case. Irving is a great individual talent, problem is that individual play does not elevate others. Its both on court and off court in leadership, and he's not the leader or player to run an offense Lillard is. You misrepresenting me entirely doesn't change that.

I mentioned one of your previous arguments that involved Irving. I didn't greatly misrepresent you; I can't be expected to keep track of every time a poster changes his opinion. If you take insult for me mentioning something you said, that wasn't my intent. It was my way of saying, "hey, we have different ways of evaluating basketball players, and that is fine."

I don't feel like continuing this conversation because I think it is futile. If you believe Irving was simply "okay" prior to the finals, or that there isn't a gap between that level of PS play and the other aforementioned players (in spite of the mountain of evidence and opinions pointing to the contrary), you may do so. It is the same sentiment I felt when discussing Korver vs. Irving, which is why I mentioned it.

People have different opinions on basketball players, and different attributes they value more than others. That's okay.

I can live with that, no problem. But bringing up a debate from 1 1/2 years ago which I totally changed opinions on because of evidence doesn't remotely invalidate a point I made in this debate at all. I don't take insult with that, I just find it very pointless. It isn't because I think Korver is better, I don't. I do think Dame and Wall are, because I'm still of the opinion that without a Lebron led team he's not even in the ballpark of these guys, and I still see him do the same stuff he's done since he was a rookie with no really substantial improvements. He can't run an offense well, doesn't make others around him better, and doesn't show a ton of BBIQ that makes up for deficiencies elsewhere.

I'm fine w/ letting it go there and was hesitant to get into this thread b/c I don't think terribly highly of Irving especially relative to others, but the Korver thing was about the most irrelevant thing that could have been brought up. To flip that around, I don't think terribly highly of Draymond (he's outside my top 5 at least, not sure where I put him exactly) despite his impact stats. So that should show that I'm not overvaluing those metrics at all, I just choose to not totally dismiss them when examining similar players. He's got a massive advantage compared to the other 2 PGs here, he's not the first option (and at times even not second if they want to go to Love). Lillard and Wall don't have anything close to that, and the second best guy on either of their teams would be at best worse than either Love or Lebron. And we've seen how Irving fares with that caliber of teammates.

[INKtastic]

Again, I showed the WOWY numbers earlier, you remove the number one options from each and Lillard still holds the better net rating. He's shown more leadership than Irving has and without him that team is going nowhere. Maybe his teammates right now aren't that vastly better (they are better) but he elevates them more than Irving. You move him to the bench and Portland sports a pretty meh offense, Lillard also shows up ahead in RAPM and RPM, in multi year by a huge amount. The quality of teammates argument is fine but its not the gap between the two. Its an excuse.

And that's why solely relying on these on/off numbers is flawed. If they really told the whole story I'd be taking Rubio over both these guys every year

I wasn't using that as the sole criteria. It was a single thing I used. Never said anything else. Removing all other variables, I'd take Irving last of these 3 guys, its no shot at him, I just think the other 2 are better PGs right now.

The question isn't who is a better PG, it's who is a better basketball player. Kyrie is a combo guard capable of carrying a team to victory.

[bondom34]

And that's why solely relying on these on/off numbers is flawed. If they really told the whole story I'd be taking Rubio over both these guys every year

I wasn't using that as the sole criteria. It was a single thing I used. Never said anything else. Removing all other variables, I'd take Irving last of these 3 guys, its no shot at him, I just think the other 2 are better PGs right now.

The question isn't who is a better PG, it's who is a better basketball player. Kyrie is a combo guard.

Word it however you like, but the answer's the same to me.

[BasketballFan7]

It is, but you're greatly misrepresenting me. I don't believe that much in them (as is shown by Korver as one example, who I changed opinion on). But when they match my other measures and opinions, I will use them in conjunction. If they're supporting my idea along with other information, there's no reason not to use them. This is that case. Irving is a great individual talent, problem is that individual play does not elevate others. Its both on court and off court in leadership, and he's not the leader or player to run an offense Lillard is. You misrepresenting me entirely doesn't change that.

I mentioned one of your previous arguments that involved Irving. I didn't greatly misrepresent you; I can't be expected to keep track of every time a poster changes his opinion. If you take insult for me mentioning something you said, that wasn't my intent. It was my way of saying, "hey, we have different ways of evaluating basketball players, and that is fine."

I don't feel like continuing this conversation because I think it is futile. If you believe Irving was simply "okay" prior to the finals, or that there isn't a gap between that level of PS play and the other aforementioned players (in spite of the mountain of evidence and opinions pointing to the contrary), you may do so. It is the same sentiment I felt when discussing Korver vs. Irving, which is why I mentioned it.

People have different opinions on basketball players, and different attributes they value more than others. That's okay.

I can live with that, no problem. But bringing up a debate from 1 1/2 years ago which I totally changed opinions on because of evidence doesn't remotely invalidate a point I made in this debate at all. I don't take insult with that, I just find it very pointless. It isn't because I think Korver is better, I don't. I do think Dame and Wall are, because I'm still of the opinion that without a Lebron led team he's not even in the ballpark of these guys, and I still see him do the same stuff he's done since he was a rookie with no really substantial improvements. He can't run an offense well, doesn't make others around him better, and doesn't show a ton of BBIQ that makes up for deficiencies elsewhere.

I'm fine w/ letting it go there and was hesitant to get into this thread b/c I don't think terribly highly of Irving especially relative to others, but the Korver thing was about the most irrelevant thing that could have been brought up. To flip that around, I don't think terribly highly of Draymond (he's outside my top 5 at least, not sure where I put him exactly) despite his impact stats. So that should show that I'm not overvaluing those metrics at all, I just choose to not totally dismiss them when examining similar players. He's got a massive advantage compared to the other 2 PGs here, he's not the first option (and at times even not second if they want to go to Love). Lillard and Wall don't have anything close to that, and the second best guy on either of their teams would be at best worse than either Love or Lebron. And we've seen how Irving fares with that caliber of teammates.

All valid points, especially the bolded. If you judge him off of what the qualities of a PG are "supposed" to be, well he is lacking. I was probably his biggest critic in the LeBron thread throughout the season. He has terrible basketball IQ, misses elementary passes, plays bad defense, doesn't pace the offense.

I look at him to provide scoring first and playmaking second, ie what most would consider a traditional SG, because that is more his role with the Cavaliers. And he provided those things in robust quantities in the playoffs, along with low TO and average defense.

Positions are becoming antiquated in today's NBA though. It doesn't really matter what size the guy is who is providing the playmaking, as long as somebody does it. Those judging Kyrie looking for "pure" PG qualities are never going to be terribly impressed (admittedly, Lillard shares most of his flaws, but I already went in depth on that).

[bondom34]

I mentioned one of your previous arguments that involved Irving. I didn't greatly misrepresent you; I can't be expected to keep track of every time a poster changes his opinion. If you take insult for me mentioning something you said, that wasn't my intent. It was my way of saying, "hey, we have different ways of evaluating basketball players, and that is fine."

I don't feel like continuing this conversation because I think it is futile. If you believe Irving was simply "okay" prior to the finals, or that there isn't a gap between that level of PS play and the other aforementioned players (in spite of the mountain of evidence and opinions pointing to the contrary), you may do so. It is the same sentiment I felt when discussing Korver vs. Irving, which is why I mentioned it.

People have different opinions on basketball players, and different attributes they value more than others. That's okay.

I can live with that, no problem. But bringing up a debate from 1 1/2 years ago which I totally changed opinions on because of evidence doesn't remotely invalidate a point I made in this debate at all. I don't take insult with that, I just find it very pointless. It isn't because I think Korver is better, I don't. I do think Dame and Wall are, because I'm still of the opinion that without a Lebron led team he's not even in the ballpark of these guys, and I still see him do the same stuff he's done since he was a rookie with no really substantial improvements. He can't run an offense well, doesn't make others around him better, and doesn't show a ton of BBIQ that makes up for deficiencies elsewhere.

I'm fine w/ letting it go there and was hesitant to get into this thread b/c I don't think terribly highly of Irving especially relative to others, but the Korver thing was about the most irrelevant thing that could have been brought up. To flip that around, I don't think terribly highly of Draymond (he's outside my top 5 at least, not sure where I put him exactly) despite his impact stats. So that should show that I'm not overvaluing those metrics at all, I just choose to not totally dismiss them when examining similar players. He's got a massive advantage compared to the other 2 PGs here, he's not the first option (and at times even not second if they want to go to Love). Lillard and Wall don't have anything close to that, and the second best guy on either of their teams would be at best worse than either Love or Lebron. And we've seen how Irving fares with that caliber of teammates.

All valid points, especially the bolded. If you judge him off of what the qualities of a PG are "supposed" to be, well he is lacking. I was probably his biggest critic in the LeBron thread throughout the season. He has terrible basketball IQ, misses elementary passes, plays bad defense, doesn't pace the offense.

I look at him to provide scoring first and playmaking second, ie what most would consider a traditional SG, because that is more his role with the Cavaliers. And he provided those things in robust quantities in the playoffs, along with low TO and average defense.

Positions are becoming antiquated in today's NBA though. It doesn't really matter what size the guy is who is providing the playmaking, as long as somebody does it. Those judging Kyrie looking for "pure" PG qualities are never going to be terribly impressed (admittedly, Lillard shares most of his flaws, but I already went in depth on that).

This to me is pretty fair, though I do think Lillard has a lot more true PG qualities than Irving. My ultimate question is what could each guy do on a team where he's relied on as primary option and playmaker. We've seen Lillard do it well, Wall do it reasonably well, but Irving has always had Lebron when he's had success. Granted, that's not totally his fault, but I'd need to see him actually do it before I buy he can. I don't think his early career teammates were that much worse than for example, Wall's were the last year or so (or really even Lillard's now, though Lillard's are a bit better I think he elevates them more). I think he lacks some intangible qualities.

[bmurph128]

I can live with that, no problem. But bringing up a debate from 1 1/2 years ago which I totally changed opinions on because of evidence doesn't remotely invalidate a point I made in this debate at all. I don't take insult with that, I just find it very pointless. It isn't because I think Korver is better, I don't. I do think Dame and Wall are, because I'm still of the opinion that without a Lebron led team he's not even in the ballpark of these guys, and I still see him do the same stuff he's done since he was a rookie with no really substantial improvements. He can't run an offense well, doesn't make others around him better, and doesn't show a ton of BBIQ that makes up for deficiencies elsewhere.

I'm fine w/ letting it go there and was hesitant to get into this thread b/c I don't think terribly highly of Irving especially relative to others, but the Korver thing was about the most irrelevant thing that could have been brought up. To flip that around, I don't think terribly highly of Draymond (he's outside my top 5 at least, not sure where I put him exactly) despite his impact stats. So that should show that I'm not overvaluing those metrics at all, I just choose to not totally dismiss them when examining similar players. He's got a massive advantage compared to the other 2 PGs here, he's not the first option (and at times even not second if they want to go to Love). Lillard and Wall don't have anything close to that, and the second best guy on either of their teams would be at best worse than either Love or Lebron. And we've seen how Irving fares with that caliber of teammates.

All valid points, especially the bolded. If you judge him off of what the qualities of a PG are "supposed" to be, well he is lacking. I was probably his biggest critic in the LeBron thread throughout the season. He has terrible basketball IQ, misses elementary passes, plays bad defense, doesn't pace the offense.

I look at him to provide scoring first and playmaking second, ie what most would consider a traditional SG, because that is more his role with the Cavaliers. And he provided those things in robust quantities in the playoffs, along with low TO and average defense.

Positions are becoming antiquated in today's NBA though. It doesn't really matter what size the guy is who is providing the playmaking, as long as somebody does it. Those judging Kyrie looking for "pure" PG qualities are never going to be terribly impressed (admittedly, Lillard shares most of his flaws, but I already went in depth on that).

This to me is pretty fair, though I do think Lillard has a lot more true PG qualities than Irving. My ultimate question is what could each guy do on a team where he's relied on as primary option and playmaker. We've seen Lillard do it well, Wall do it reasonably well, but Irving has always had Lebron when he's had success. Granted, that's not totally his fault, but I'd need to see him actually do it before I buy he can. I don't think his early career teammates were that much worse than for example, Wall's were the last year or so (or really even Lillard's now, though Lillard's are a bit better I think he elevates them more). I think he lacks some intangible qualities.

The feeling I get when I read your posts regarding Irving is that you almost have a bias against him - I could be wrong, but it comes off that way - why is that? Not trying to be accusatory, just wondering.

Anyway, I think it's Irving/Lillard/Wall. Irving and Lillard bring similar qualities but Irving does it better IMO.

I also don't buy how bad Lillard's team was - McCollum exploded last year and was one of the better second options in the NBA. Before LeBron Kyrie never had that. I think it's also worth mentioning that while playing with LeBron obviously has an effect, the Cavs often times isolate for Kyrie in crunch time. LeBron runs the offense, but when the game is on the line it's much more of a 1a/1b offensive relationship between them.

Kyrie also played much, much better defense (for him) in the playoffs and finals in general - better than Lillard's defense as well.

[bondom34]

The feeling I get when I read your posts regarding Irving is that you almost have a bias against him - I could be wrong, but it comes off that way - why is that? Not trying to be accusatory, just wondering.

Anyway, I think it's Irving/Lillard/Wall. Irving and Lillard bring similar qualities but Irving does it better IMO.

I also don't buy how bad Lillard's team was - McCollum exploded last year and was one of the better second options in the NBA. Before LeBron Kyrie never had that. I think it's also worth mentioning that while playing with LeBron obviously has an effect, the Cavs often times isolate for Kyrie in crunch time. LeBron runs the offense, but when the game is on the line it's much more of a 1a/1b offensive relationship between them.

Kyrie also played much, much better defense (for him) in the playoffs and finals in general - better than Lillard's defense as well.

I have no bias against him. I just think theres more to it than simply looking at the playoffs and there's a pretty massive advantage to being the 2nd/3rd best player on the team instead of being the primary focus every game.

I've been over this 100000000000 times, and its why I didn't even want to get this far into it, but I've pretty well stated my case and its backed by a good amount of real evidence.

[bmurph128]

The feeling I get when I read your posts regarding Irving is that you almost have a bias against him - I could be wrong, but it comes off that way - why is that? Not trying to be accusatory, just wondering.

Anyway, I think it's Irving/Lillard/Wall. Irving and Lillard bring similar qualities but Irving does it better IMO.

I also don't buy how bad Lillard's team was - McCollum exploded last year and was one of the better second options in the NBA. Before LeBron Kyrie never had that. I think it's also worth mentioning that while playing with LeBron obviously has an effect, the Cavs often times isolate for Kyrie in crunch time. LeBron runs the offense, but when the game is on the line it's much more of a 1a/1b offensive relationship between them.

Kyrie also played much, much better defense (for him) in the playoffs and finals in general - better than Lillard's defense as well.

I have no bias against him. I just think theres more to it than simply looking at the playoffs and there's a pretty massive advantage to being the 2nd/3rd best player on the team instead of being the primary focus every game.

I've been over this 100000000000 times, and its why I didn't even want to get this far into it, but I've pretty well stated my case and its backed by a good amount of real evidence.

It's also refuted by some real evidence.

At the end of the day it's your opinion, which is fine, but from my perspective you're way off base and it's disappointing because you seem to be very knowledgeable when you post about other topics.

Saying Irving is below Lillard is a fine opinion to have - saying he's below Wall starts speaking to some kind of a bias or dislike. Especially when you try to discredit his playoff success which by all accounts, is FAR more important than the regular season.

Numbers probably shouldn't be used for the Cavs this past regular season - we only finished one game better than the Raptors despite playing the same teams, and even lost the season series to them 2-1. Therefore all the Cavs numbers in the regular season, both from a team and individual stand point, are going to reflect that of a 57 win team. That is very misleading however - whether you want to use the logic that we destroyed the rest of the Eastern Conference, or even that we went toe to toe with the Warriors - and actually beat them - the Cavs were clearly better than their regular season play and record from last year and we showed that in the playoffs.

I know you're also discussing KI from prior years, which is fine, but should also be noted how much younger he is than Lillard when the two are compared.

[bondom34]

The feeling I get when I read your posts regarding Irving is that you almost have a bias against him - I could be wrong, but it comes off that way - why is that? Not trying to be accusatory, just wondering.

Anyway, I think it's Irving/Lillard/Wall. Irving and Lillard bring similar qualities but Irving does it better IMO.

I also don't buy how bad Lillard's team was - McCollum exploded last year and was one of the better second options in the NBA. Before LeBron Kyrie never had that. I think it's also worth mentioning that while playing with LeBron obviously has an effect, the Cavs often times isolate for Kyrie in crunch time. LeBron runs the offense, but when the game is on the line it's much more of a 1a/1b offensive relationship between them.

Kyrie also played much, much better defense (for him) in the playoffs and finals in general - better than Lillard's defense as well.

I have no bias against him. I just think theres more to it than simply looking at the playoffs and there's a pretty massive advantage to being the 2nd/3rd best player on the team instead of being the primary focus every game.

I've been over this 100000000000 times, and its why I didn't even want to get this far into it, but I've pretty well stated my case and its backed by a good amount of real evidence.

It's also refuted by some real evidence.

At the end of the day it's your opinion, which is fine, but from my perspective you're way off base and it's disappointing because you seem to be very knowledgeable when you post about other topics.

Saying Irving is below Lillard is a fine opinion to have - saying he's below Wall starts speaking to some kind of a bias or dislike. Especially when you try to discredit his playoff success which by all accounts, is FAR more important than the regular season.

Numbers probably shouldn't be used for the Cavs this past regular season - we only finished one game better than the Raptors despite playing the same teams, and even lost the season series to them 2-1. Therefore all the Cavs numbers in the regular season, both from a team and individual stand point, are going to reflect that of a 57 win team. That is very misleading however - whether you want to use the logic that we destroyed the rest of the Eastern Conference, or even that we went toe to toe with the Warriors - and actually beat them - the Cavs were clearly better than their regular season play and record from last year and we showed that in the playoffs.

I know you're also discussing KI from prior years, which is fine, but should also be noted how much younger he is than Lillard when the two are compared.

So your main argument hinges on dismissing the entire body of evidence against Irving, while claiming Wall is inferior despite having better team results when given a poor supporting cast. Essentially, throw out what doesn't help Kyrie and when they're in similar situations and Wall fares better, ignore that too.

[bmurph128]

I have no bias against him. I just think theres more to it than simply looking at the playoffs and there's a pretty massive advantage to being the 2nd/3rd best player on the team instead of being the primary focus every game.

I've been over this 100000000000 times, and its why I didn't even want to get this far into it, but I've pretty well stated my case and its backed by a good amount of real evidence.

It's also refuted by some real evidence.

At the end of the day it's your opinion, which is fine, but from my perspective you're way off base and it's disappointing because you seem to be very knowledgeable when you post about other topics.

Saying Irving is below Lillard is a fine opinion to have - saying he's below Wall starts speaking to some kind of a bias or dislike. Especially when you try to discredit his playoff success which by all accounts, is FAR more important than the regular season.

Numbers probably shouldn't be used for the Cavs this past regular season - we only finished one game better than the Raptors despite playing the same teams, and even lost the season series to them 2-1. Therefore all the Cavs numbers in the regular season, both from a team and individual stand point, are going to reflect that of a 57 win team. That is very misleading however - whether you want to use the logic that we destroyed the rest of the Eastern Conference, or even that we went toe to toe with the Warriors - and actually beat them - the Cavs were clearly better than their regular season play and record from last year and we showed that in the playoffs.

I know you're also discussing KI from prior years, which is fine, but should also be noted how much younger he is than Lillard when the two are compared.

So your main argument hinges on dismissing the entire body of evidence against Irving, while claiming Wall is inferior despite having better team results when given a poor supporting cast. Essentially, throw out what doesn't help Kyrie and when they're in similar situations and Wall fares better, ignore that too.

No I understand Irving's shortcomings. He's not a better PG than either of them, but he is a better basketball player than both.

First, the eye test tells me Irving is better.

Second, he's clutch - which for me is the most important trait I want in a scorer.

Third, if you want to say they are even that's fine - but you can't use stats to determine that when they never played for the same coach and with the same players. They are not the same age and both had very different teams that they came into the league with. Odds are if Kawhi Leonard got drafted by another team, he's not Kawhi Leonard - I bring him up as an extreme example, but Kyrie going to such an awful team without a LaMarcus Aldridge for years probably stunted his development - which in my experience watching sports, a winning culture is a big aspect of development. On the flip side now, obviously Lillard would be much better if he had LeBron, and as far as injury concerns go, he's much better off than Kyrie.

But when I ask this question and guys are closely rated, I ask who I would rather have the ball down by 2 in crunch time - IMO Kyrie has proved that of this trio, that should be him hands down.


Really the differences in our arguments are that mine is strictly based off an opinion, although I could probably dig up facts to back up my claim, others have done that. Yours is based on the Wizards and Blazers having more team success when those guys are on the court versus when they are off - at least that's how I interpret your comment about Wall having better team success - key word there being TEAM.

To me your argument is like saying Steph Curry is still the best player in the NBA because of the overwhelming regular season evidence. That evidence against Kyrie does exist, just as the evidence that Curry is the best player exists - but that doesn't make it true and we learned in the playoffs that Kyrie is a top 5 PG (or top 5 player that happens to play the PG position) and LeBron is the best player in the world.

[bondom34]

First, the eye test tells me Irving is better.

Second, he's clutch - which for me is the most important trait I want in a scorer.

Third, if you want to say they are even that's fine - but you can't use stats to determine that when they never played for the same coach and with the same players. They are not the same age and both had very different teams that they came into the league with. Odds are if Kawhi Leonard got drafted by another team, he's not Kawhi Leonard - I bring him up as an extreme example, but Kyrie going to such an awful team without a LaMarcus Aldridge for years probably stunted his development - which in my experience watching sports, a winning culture is a big aspect of development. On the flip side now, obviously Lillard would be much better if he had LeBron, and as far as injury concerns go, he's much better off than Kyrie.

But when I ask this question and guys are closely rated, I ask who I would rather have the ball down by 2 in crunch time - IMO Kyrie has proved that of this trio, that should be him hands down.


Really the differences in our arguments are that mine is strictly based off an opinion, although I could probably dig up facts to back up my claim, others have done that. Yours is based on the Wizards and Blazers having more team success when those guys are on the court versus when they are off - at least that's how I interpret your comment about Wall having better team success - key word there being TEAM.

To me your argument is like saying Steph Curry is still the best player in the NBA because of the overwhelming regular season evidence. That evidence against Kyrie does exist, just as the evidence that Curry is the best player exists - but that doesn't make it true and we learned in the playoffs that Kyrie is a top 5 PG (or top 5 player that happens to play the PG position) and LeBron is the best player in the world.

If that's honestly your method of deciding best players, you entirely negate defense and team offense, in which case yes, Irving does have a case. However over an entire game defense and team offense are more important to success. To add, Wall has been in just as dysfunctional a setting with more success pre Lebron. He's got crummy teammates and leads them better. Lillard had an entire new team last year and outperformed Irving.

Yes, the others have better TEAM success, in a TEAM sport. If you give either of them Lebron and Love, yes, they'd be winning rings too.

[bmurph128]

First, the eye test tells me Irving is better.

Second, he's clutch - which for me is the most important trait I want in a scorer.

Third, if you want to say they are even that's fine - but you can't use stats to determine that when they never played for the same coach and with the same players. They are not the same age and both had very different teams that they came into the league with. Odds are if Kawhi Leonard got drafted by another team, he's not Kawhi Leonard - I bring him up as an extreme example, but Kyrie going to such an awful team without a LaMarcus Aldridge for years probably stunted his development - which in my experience watching sports, a winning culture is a big aspect of development. On the flip side now, obviously Lillard would be much better if he had LeBron, and as far as injury concerns go, he's much better off than Kyrie.

But when I ask this question and guys are closely rated, I ask who I would rather have the ball down by 2 in crunch time - IMO Kyrie has proved that of this trio, that should be him hands down.


Really the differences in our arguments are that mine is strictly based off an opinion, although I could probably dig up facts to back up my claim, others have done that. Yours is based on the Wizards and Blazers having more team success when those guys are on the court versus when they are off - at least that's how I interpret your comment about Wall having better team success - key word there being TEAM.

To me your argument is like saying Steph Curry is still the best player in the NBA because of the overwhelming regular season evidence. That evidence against Kyrie does exist, just as the evidence that Curry is the best player exists - but that doesn't make it true and we learned in the playoffs that Kyrie is a top 5 PG (or top 5 player that happens to play the PG position) and LeBron is the best player in the world.

If that's honestly your method of deciding best players, you entirely negate defense and team offense, in which case yes, Irving does have a case. However over an entire game defense and team offense are more important to success. To add, Wall has been in just as dysfunctional a setting with more success pre Lebron. He's got crummy teammates and leads them better. Lillard had an entire new team last year and outperformed Irving.

Yes, the others have better TEAM success, in a TEAM sport. If you give either of them Lebron and Love, yes, they'd be winning rings too.

There are mitigating factors though. Obviously Irving played poorly coming off injury - there were quite a few PGs that outplayed him last year but that doesn't mean they are better basketball players than him right now. I suppose this could be comparable to the argument in the other direction that the playoffs are a small sample size - but IMO the playoffs should carry more weight because teams are actually game planning to stop you - and of course you are playing better teams and not the 76ers and Lakers of the NBA world.

I ignored defense because Irving and Lillard are both generally poor defenders. I suppose because Wall is in the argument he should get credit for being a better defender - but again, Kyrie played pretty good defense in the finals too so he is at least capable of it.

Not to nitpick your last sentence, but here we go again with people propping Love up to make a point and then turning around and bashing him. It's pretty tiring to see a guy used so much to support arguments in one direction and then slammed for being a "bad" player the next day. And Wall would be a poor fit with LeBron...they might still win together of course but Kyrie's shooting/scoring ability makes him the ideal PG to be paired with LeBron. Lillard would have a better argument but I just think Kyrie is better than him and could have taken the Blazers to the same place that Lillard did (2nd round exit in the West). It all comes down to a matter of opinion I guess - honestly I would be fine if you say Kyrie is the 6th best PG (after the obvious 3 and then the two in this conversation) but you seem to think he's not even top 10, which is just mind boggling.