RealGM Top 25 Player Poll-#15 2018-19

[GeorgeMarcus]

As someone who is nor a fan of Kyrie Irving or the Celtics.... if Dame wins over Kyrie this list is officially a joke.
Just have a bunch of people selectively using stats to justify to themselves that Kyrie is not a top player.

P.S Should've added DMC and LMA by now.

There’s nothing selective about it. Kyrie’s only statistical advantage is scoring efficiency(.625 TS% versus Lillard’s .594). Everything else points to Dame. Comprehensive analysis will lead you to the same conclusion if you let it.

It’s one thing to reject evidence in favor of Lillard, but how can you believe it’s so one-sided that Dame over Kyrie would invalidate the list? You must really value scoring efficiency.

Listen man, Lillards stats are going to be a little higher bc he needs to do more for his team. Kyrie is on the Celtics, a team whose value is far greater than the sum of its parts. Just looking at both players, Kyrie turns it ON come playoffs (and don't take that away from him bc he was injured) Lillard meanwhile regresses.

I've watched a decent amount of both players, and I can definitively say Kyrie can get his shot off easier, has more moves to score, and is the BETTER scorer. While both of them are comparable on defence and playmaking. Numbers are distorting without context, actually watching both players you can clearly see that Kyrie is the better player. And that's why him sliding this much and now losing to Lillard makes this list a joke.

Your argument makes sense for raw stats, but not advanced stats like RPM, BPM, etc. Lillard and Kyrie aren’t comparable playmakers, and Lillard has at least a slight defensive advantage. Is Kyrie a better scorer? Sure. That’s the easiest thing to spot in the eye test. But when it comes to the intangibles Lillard is way better at being the floor general and leader of a winning team.

[bisme37]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. First of all, the numbers of people who vote for Kyrie poll by poll can vary by things as basic as "people have better **** to do than consistently vote in an online realgm poll on player ranking." People probably lose interest as we get out of the top 10. Second of all, the theories surrounding people voting against Kyrie are silly. For example,



You're certainly in bizzaro world, because you're assuming there's going to be a consistent group of people voting in these polls at all times. That's now how it works. People are explaining things to you like you're "an enormous idiot" because you seem to making really weird assumptions about voting.

Dude is there any way you could stop insulting me? It's not necessary or nice.

I assumed (in this one comment) that there is a consistent block of Kyrie voters in every poll because that's what was explained to me as the reason for the results by like 5 different people. Now I'm an idiot for accepting that argument and debating its merits?

I relented yesterday because I thought I must have been having a giant brain fart about the whole thing and who really cares anyway. But since folks are still mad at me for sharing an opinion, I do still think most of the answers I got make little sense.

If a large and consistent block of C's fans are voting for Kyrie in every poll, he would have been selected by now. Because if other fans are changing their votes to a variety of other assorted players in each poll, they would be outnumbered by the Kyrie voters who are voting for him each time. The non-Kyrie voters are not coordinating their votes, so their votes would spread across the filed while the Kyrie votes would be consistent. Now have a Snickers, bro.

I didn't insult you. I said what you're saying is silly, but that's not really an insult. If you feel it is, I'm sorry.

I don't understand what you're struggling to understand. The bolded and underlined makes no sense. Votes aren't being distributed randomly.

Beyond that, the voting numbers are not static - it's not the same distribution of people voting in every poll. Even if there is a consistently block of Kyrie voters, they won't constitute the same proportion of the voting public in each poll. Even if that block was the (essentially) same size, that doesn't mean that they'd always constitute the same % of voters (there might be new voters with each poll). Even if they were the same size and the same % of the voting public, it wouldn't mean they'd be able to vote Kyrie given their relative size to "everyone else". Like, the only explanation for any of this is that you just don't understand, or lack an intuition for, statistics.

There's nothing magical about Kyrie being a lot of people's 1st choice, and not a lot of people's 2nd choice. That's all this poll has shown so far. As I said to you in my reply days ago, there are plenty of "logical" explanations for this, ranging from your proposed anti-Kyrie conspiracy theory, to the fact that the majority of people don't have Kyrie in their top 15 despite there being a block who has him top 10.

Edit:

Let me give you an example. Let's say 30% of people think Kyrie is the 10th best player in the NBA. 70% think he's the 19th best player in the NBA. You're posing that 30% should outvote the 70%, because those 70% of votes will be distributed across a group of players. But that's an unjustified assumption, because a majority of those 70% of voters could all happen to prefer a different player at any one slot. And it doesn't always have to be the same group of people.

That 35% block of voters would constantly outvote the 30%, but it wouldn't be the same block of voters and it wouldn't be for the same reason. There's nothing special about these results.

My current lack of understanding is with the answers I got more so than the original thing I asked/complained about. I advanced the theory that a consistent group of people here are just not going to vote for Kyrie and I was told that is ridiculous because the voters are all different people each time and the votes are random. But at the same time, these same answers told me the reason Kyrie keeps finishing as runner up each time is that there is a consistent block of the same voters who are voting FOR Kyrie every time. So my confusion relates to how that theory is any less ridiculous than the one I advanced, if we are all accepting that the voters are different each time and the votes are essentially random. I'm getting told my logic sucks but then people are using the same logic to say the opposite thing.

[Tai]

Dude is there any way you could stop insulting me? It's not necessary or nice.

I assumed (in this one comment) that there is a consistent block of Kyrie voters in every poll because that's what was explained to me as the reason for the results by like 5 different people. Now I'm an idiot for accepting that argument and debating its merits?

I relented yesterday because I thought I must have been having a giant brain fart about the whole thing and who really cares anyway. But since folks are still mad at me for sharing an opinion, I do still think most of the answers I got make little sense.

If a large and consistent block of C's fans are voting for Kyrie in every poll, he would have been selected by now. Because if other fans are changing their votes to a variety of other assorted players in each poll, they would be outnumbered by the Kyrie voters who are voting for him each time. The non-Kyrie voters are not coordinating their votes, so their votes would spread across the filed while the Kyrie votes would be consistent. Now have a Snickers, bro.

I didn't insult you. I said what you're saying is silly, but that's not really an insult. If you feel it is, I'm sorry.

I don't understand what you're struggling to understand. The bolded and underlined makes no sense. Votes aren't being distributed randomly.

Beyond that, the voting numbers are not static - it's not the same distribution of people voting in every poll. Even if there is a consistently block of Kyrie voters, they won't constitute the same proportion of the voting public in each poll. Even if that block was the (essentially) same size, that doesn't mean that they'd always constitute the same % of voters (there might be new voters with each poll). Even if they were the same size and the same % of the voting public, it wouldn't mean they'd be able to vote Kyrie given their relative size to "everyone else". Like, the only explanation for any of this is that you just don't understand, or lack an intuition for, statistics.

There's nothing magical about Kyrie being a lot of people's 1st choice, and not a lot of people's 2nd choice. That's all this poll has shown so far. As I said to you in my reply days ago, there are plenty of "logical" explanations for this, ranging from your proposed anti-Kyrie conspiracy theory, to the fact that the majority of people don't have Kyrie in their top 15 despite there being a block who has him top 10.

Edit:

Let me give you an example. Let's say 30% of people think Kyrie is the 10th best player in the NBA. 70% think he's the 19th best player in the NBA. You're posing that 30% should outvote the 70%, because those 70% of votes will be distributed across a group of players. But that's an unjustified assumption, because a majority of those 70% of voters could all happen to prefer a different player at any one slot. And it doesn't always have to be the same group of people.

That 35% block of voters would constantly outvote the 30%, but it wouldn't be the same block of voters and it wouldn't be for the same reason. There's nothing special about these results.

My current lack of understanding is with the answers I got more so than the original thing I asked/complained about. I advanced the theory that a consistent group of people here are just not going to vote for Kyrie and I was told that is ridiculous because the voters are all different people each time and the votes are random. But at the same time, these same answers told me the reason Kyrie keeps finishing as runner up each time is that there is a consistent block of the same voters who are voting FOR Kyrie every time. So my confusion relates to how that theory is any less ridiculous than the one I advanced, if we are all accepting that the voters are different each time and the votes are essentially random. I'm getting told my logic sucks but then people are using the same logic to say the opposite thing.

I also found this funny, too. Supposedly Kyrie's getting in by "a core of group people", as I quoted in someone's claim, voting for him consistently (again, probably referring to Celtics fans), an assertion that I'm not sure has been fully proven, but yet you have a couple of people who have personally went after Kyrie in these topics, and we're supposed to believe there isn't a core against Kyrie? It's at best conveinent logic, IMO.

[iggymcfrack]

Kyrie fans getting awfully salty now, LOL!

[illuminati666]

There’s nothing selective about it. Kyrie’s only statistical advantage is scoring efficiency(.625 TS% versus Lillard’s .594). Everything else points to Dame. Comprehensive analysis will lead you to the same conclusion if you let it.

It’s one thing to reject evidence in favor of Lillard, but how can you believe it’s so one-sided that Dame over Kyrie would invalidate the list? You must really value scoring efficiency.

Listen man, Lillards stats are going to be a little higher bc he needs to do more for his team. Kyrie is on the Celtics, a team whose value is far greater than the sum of its parts. Just looking at both players, Kyrie turns it ON come playoffs (and don't take that away from him bc he was injured) Lillard meanwhile regresses.

I've watched a decent amount of both players, and I can definitively say Kyrie can get his shot off easier, has more moves to score, and is the BETTER scorer. While both of them are comparable on defence and playmaking. Numbers are distorting without context, actually watching both players you can clearly see that Kyrie is the better player. And that's why him sliding this much and now losing to Lillard makes this list a joke.

Your argument makes sense for raw stats, but not advanced stats like RPM, BPM, etc. Lillard and Kyrie aren’t comparable playmakers, and Lillard has at least a slight defensive advantage. Is Kyrie a better scorer? Sure. That’s the easiest thing to spot in the eye test. But when it comes to the intangibles Lillard is way better at being the floor general and leader of a winning team.

Also take into account this was Kyrie's first season with a new team, and he also did miss a big chunk bc of injury. But none of that takes away from the fact that he still flat out performs when it matters.

Scoring is probably the most important aspect of an individual player's game come playoffs, bc great scoring is the only aspect that can flat win you a game single handedly. At the end of the day, the better NBA player will get it done for his team when things really matter. Kyrie's playoff stats and performance trumps Lillard's.

And for some of your other advanced stats, ya Lillard has more asissts, but he also has more turnovers. Kyries defensive stats are also better than Lillards, albeit slightly. (Kyrie has higher Defensive WS and higher PER). Lillard makes more of an impact to his team bc in his situation he needs to do more. Kyrie is on a better team that performs well with and without him. But looking at them as individual players; noone significantly beats the other in their defense playmaking etc. But the aspect of their games that makes both of them great, scoring, one is clearly better than the other. Basing your argument that one is better bc of defense is like saying Ewing was better than Shaq bc he was better defender and slightly better shooter. The thing they're meant to do, score points and win games, Shaq was undeniably dominant, way more so than Ewing.

Plus, a great leader wouldn't have gotten his ass kicked like that in the first round against the Pelicans. Kyrie would've found ways to score on Holiday... now who would u rather have then?

[picc]

Would have voted Green but he's out of the running, so kyrie got the vote by default. Dont actually think either of kyrie or lillard deserve to be voted in the next couple spots but oh well. After #10 this list has gotten really wonky anyway.

[iggymcfrack]

I dont even like Kyrie and would never have him lower than Oladipo and Gobert.. heck even Embiid and Jokic are below him as well.

The stupid thing is Kyrie has been the runner up in 4 or 5 consecutive polls now, which makes zero logical sense. If he was the runner up at #11 it seems reasonable to say people thought he was the 12th best player in that poll, but he still hasn't been picked at #15. Only explanation I can think of is there's a group of people here who just aren't going to let him ever win until all 400 other NBA players have been chosen. Which, whatever floats people's boats, I guess lol.

Bingo. Realgm is a minority population kf fans. You ask random joes and fans if Kyrie is a top 10-12 player, they will tell you yes.

Problem is you have people here rationalizing their bias with advanced statistics without knowing how stats are properly used in a statistical analysis.

Posters who use advanced statistics to support a player I find hard to take seriously because of the likelyhood of bias.

Cause thats whats true. Kyrie is a top 10-15 player. You know it. I know it. The majority of sports fans know it. Let them have their "Kyrie is barely a top 25 player" fantasies

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[iggymcfrack]

Listen man, Lillards stats are going to be a little higher bc he needs to do more for his team. Kyrie is on the Celtics, a team whose value is far greater than the sum of its parts. Just looking at both players, Kyrie turns it ON come playoffs (and don't take that away from him bc he was injured) Lillard meanwhile regresses.

I've watched a decent amount of both players, and I can definitively say Kyrie can get his shot off easier, has more moves to score, and is the BETTER scorer. While both of them are comparable on defence and playmaking. Numbers are distorting without context, actually watching both players you can clearly see that Kyrie is the better player. And that's why him sliding this much and now losing to Lillard makes this list a joke.

Your argument makes sense for raw stats, but not advanced stats like RPM, BPM, etc. Lillard and Kyrie aren’t comparable playmakers, and Lillard has at least a slight defensive advantage. Is Kyrie a better scorer? Sure. That’s the easiest thing to spot in the eye test. But when it comes to the intangibles Lillard is way better at being the floor general and leader of a winning team.

Also take into account this was Kyrie's first season with a new team, and he also did miss a big chunk bc of injury. But none of that takes away from the fact that he still flat out performs when it matters.

Scoring is probably the most important aspect of an individual player's game come playoffs, bc great scoring is the only aspect that can flat win you a game single handedly. At the end of the day, the better NBA player will get it done for his team when things really matter. Kyrie's playoff stats and performance trumps Lillard's.

And for some of your other advanced stats, ya Lillard has more asissts, but he also has more turnovers. Kyries defensive stats are also better than Lillards, albeit slightly. (Kyrie has higher Defensive WS and higher PER). Lillard makes more of an impact to his team bc in his situation he needs to do more. Kyrie is on a better team that performs well with and without him. But looking at them as individual players; noone significantly beats the other in their defense playmaking etc. But the aspect of their games that makes both of them great, scoring, one is clearly better than the other.

Plus, a great leader wouldn't have gotten his ass kicked like that in the first round against the Pelicans. Kyrie would've found ways to score on Holiday... now who would u rather have then?

5.1 APG vs. 6.6 APG? About the same.
3.2 RPG vs. 4.5 RPG? About the same.
-1.4 DRPM vs. -0.4 DRPM? About the same.
24.4 PPG on .610 TS% vs. 26.9 PPG on .594 TS%? Clearly better!

Seems legit.

[illuminati666]

Your argument makes sense for raw stats, but not advanced stats like RPM, BPM, etc. Lillard and Kyrie aren’t comparable playmakers, and Lillard has at least a slight defensive advantage. Is Kyrie a better scorer? Sure. That’s the easiest thing to spot in the eye test. But when it comes to the intangibles Lillard is way better at being the floor general and leader of a winning team.

Also take into account this was Kyrie's first season with a new team, and he also did miss a big chunk bc of injury. But none of that takes away from the fact that he still flat out performs when it matters.

Scoring is probably the most important aspect of an individual player's game come playoffs, bc great scoring is the only aspect that can flat win you a game single handedly. At the end of the day, the better NBA player will get it done for his team when things really matter. Kyrie's playoff stats and performance trumps Lillard's.

And for some of your other advanced stats, ya Lillard has more asissts, but he also has more turnovers. Kyries defensive stats are also better than Lillards, albeit slightly. (Kyrie has higher Defensive WS and higher PER). Lillard makes more of an impact to his team bc in his situation he needs to do more. Kyrie is on a better team that performs well with and without him. But looking at them as individual players; noone significantly beats the other in their defense playmaking etc. But the aspect of their games that makes both of them great, scoring, one is clearly better than the other.

Plus, a great leader wouldn't have gotten his ass kicked like that in the first round against the Pelicans. Kyrie would've found ways to score on Holiday... now who would u rather have then?

5.1 APG vs. 6.6 APG? About the same.
3.2 RPG vs. 4.5 RPG? About the same.
-1.4 DRPM vs. -0.4 DRPM? About the same.
24.4 PPG on .610 TS% vs. 26.9 PPG on .594 TS%? Clearly better!

Seems legit.

Wow great stats, why don't you also throw in how Lillard played more minutes than Kyrie and that's why those stats are inflated. SuperDario and I are actually having a decent discussion, and not making useless posts like that, so why don't you let the adults talk.

[iggymcfrack]

Also take into account this was Kyrie's first season with a new team, and he also did miss a big chunk bc of injury. But none of that takes away from the fact that he still flat out performs when it matters.

Scoring is probably the most important aspect of an individual player's game come playoffs, bc great scoring is the only aspect that can flat win you a game single handedly. At the end of the day, the better NBA player will get it done for his team when things really matter. Kyrie's playoff stats and performance trumps Lillard's.

And for some of your other advanced stats, ya Lillard has more asissts, but he also has more turnovers. Kyries defensive stats are also better than Lillards, albeit slightly. (Kyrie has higher Defensive WS and higher PER). Lillard makes more of an impact to his team bc in his situation he needs to do more. Kyrie is on a better team that performs well with and without him. But looking at them as individual players; noone significantly beats the other in their defense playmaking etc. But the aspect of their games that makes both of them great, scoring, one is clearly better than the other.

Plus, a great leader wouldn't have gotten his ass kicked like that in the first round against the Pelicans. Kyrie would've found ways to score on Holiday... now who would u rather have then?

5.1 APG vs. 6.6 APG? About the same.
3.2 RPG vs. 4.5 RPG? About the same.
-1.4 DRPM vs. -0.4 DRPM? About the same.
24.4 PPG on .610 TS% vs. 26.9 PPG on .594 TS%? Clearly better!

Seems legit.

Wow great stats, why don't you also throw in how Lillard played more minutes than Kyrie and that's why those stats are inflated. SuperDario and I are actually having a decent discussion, and not making useless posts like that, so why don't you let the adults talk.

Yes, you’re right. It is another big advantage for Lillard that he’s averaged 2845 minutes a season during his career while Kyrie’s played between 1500 and 2800 every season. Excellent point! FWIW, here they are per 36:

Lillard: 27/4/7
Kyrie: 27/4/6

So just near-identical stats per minute while Lillard plays 1.5 times as many minutes. Seems pretty clear to me.

[illuminati666]

5.1 APG vs. 6.6 APG? About the same.
3.2 RPG vs. 4.5 RPG? About the same.
-1.4 DRPM vs. -0.4 DRPM? About the same.
24.4 PPG on .610 TS% vs. 26.9 PPG on .594 TS%? Clearly better!

Seems legit.

Wow great stats, why don't you also throw in how Lillard played more minutes than Kyrie and that's why those stats are inflated. SuperDario and I are actually having a decent discussion, and not making useless posts like that, so why don't you let the adults talk.

Yes, you’re right. It is another big advantage for Lillard that he’s averaged 2845 minutes a season during his career while Kyrie’s played between 1500 and 2800 every season. Excellent point! FWIW, here they are per 36:

Lillard: 27/4/7
Kyrie: 27/4/6

So just near-identical stats per minute while Lillard plays 1.5 times as many minutes. Seems pretty clear to me.

Yup those are their per 36, near identical, similar players on defense and playmaking. And now pull up the playoff stats please.

IMO its clear that Irving it the far more elite scorer, a player that can get his shot whenever and absolutely go on tears to win games for teams when they matter. That clutch gene and ability to excel in the playoff makes him one of the best today. Again, regular season stats pale in comparison to performance in the playoffs. You think Irving would've had such a hard time with Jrue Holiday that Lillard did. Irving would've scored no matter who guarded him and the Blazers wouldn't have gotten whopped that bad.

[iggymcfrack]

Wow great stats, why don't you also throw in how Lillard played more minutes than Kyrie and that's why those stats are inflated. SuperDario and I are actually having a decent discussion, and not making useless posts like that, so why don't you let the adults talk.

Yes, you’re right. It is another big advantage for Lillard that he’s averaged 2845 minutes a season during his career while Kyrie’s played between 1500 and 2800 every season. Excellent point! FWIW, here they are per 36:

Lillard: 27/4/7
Kyrie: 27/4/6

So just near-identical stats per minute while Lillard plays 1.5 times as many minutes. Seems pretty clear to me.

Yup those are their per 36, near identical, similar players on defense and playmaking. And now pull up the playoff stats please.

IMO its clear that Irving it the far more elite scorer, a player that can get his shot whenever and absolutely go on tears to win games for teams when they matter. That clutch gene and ability to excel in the playoff makes him one of the best today. Again, regular season stats pale in comparison to performance in the playoffs. You think Irving would've had such a hard time with Jrue Holiday that Lillard did. Irving would've scored no matter who guarded him and the Blazers wouldn't have gotten whopped that bad.

Playoff performance is a reasonable argument for Kyrie over Lillard, but if you’re going to make it all about the playoffs, then it’s pretty clear that Draymond >>>>>>>>>>> both of them. So either way, Kyrie’s not getting voted in.

[deneem4]

Isaiah thomas led the celtics to the first seed and ecf...

If kyrie is a top 15 player can we please add an asterisk for brad stevens...and if you mention pre celtic kyrie please remember he was playing with the greatest player of this generation
And if you mention pre lebron kyrie he led his team to 2 straight first round picks

15. Kyrie * (brad stevens)

[pingpongrac]

I posted this on the Raptors board in response to a "Lowry vs Irving" thread. Based on a four-year sample (from 2014/15 so that Kyrie wasn't alone and had help with LeBron/Love), Irving and Lowry's numbers aren't all that different.

Irving (2014/15 - 2017/18)
34.1 MPG
22.9 PPG (.471 / .392 / .885)
3.3 REB
5.2 AST
1.2 STL
0.3 BLK
2.4 TO

22.4 PER
.581 TS%
.180 WS/48
11.7 VORP
1.81 RPM (averaged out)

Lowry (2014/15 - 2017-18)
35.2 MPG
19.3 PPG (.432 / .387 / .814)
5.0 REB
6.7 AST
1.5 STL
0.3 BLK
2.6 TO

21.0 PER
.580 TS%
.187 WS/48
19.6 VORP
5.43 RPM (averaged out)

Those numbers tell me basically everything I already knew. Irving is the superior offensive threat while Lowry is the more impactful player who does a little bit of everything. It's debatable who the better player has been the past few years. If you just look at last season, though, Kyrie widened the gap in scoring while also having his best analytical year.

Irving (2017/18)
32.2 MPG
24.4 PPG (.491 / .408 / .889)
3.8 REB
5.1 AST
1.1 STL
0.3 BLK
2.3 TO

25.0 PER
.610 TS%
.222 WS/48
4.0 VORP
2.39 RPM

Lowry (2017/18)
32.2 MPG
16.2 PPG (.427 / .399 / .854)
5.6 REB
6.9 AST
1.1 STL
0.2 BLK
2.3 TO

19.5 PER
.598 TS%
.192 WS/48
5.0 VORP
5.18 RPM

I think Kyrie's numbers will drop a bit this year with the addition of Hayward and Lowry's numbers will stay the same. The point is, though, it's not entirely clear whether Irving or Lowry is the better player. I would rather have Lowry in the regular season, but I'd rather have Irving in the playoffs or if I'm starting fresh because he's more clutch and much younger. I think a similar case can be made for this Irving/Lillard debate (aside from the younger aspect, and Lillard can also be pretty damn clutch), but I don't have the time or energy to look up numbers again.

[lakerz12]

How was Kyrie not been selected yet? Obviously not enough people on here have seen Uncle Drew!

[Impuniti]

Yes, you’re right. It is another big advantage for Lillard that he’s averaged 2845 minutes a season during his career while Kyrie’s played between 1500 and 2800 every season. Excellent point! FWIW, here they are per 36:

Lillard: 27/4/7
Kyrie: 27/4/6

So just near-identical stats per minute while Lillard plays 1.5 times as many minutes. Seems pretty clear to me.

Yup those are their per 36, near identical, similar players on defense and playmaking. And now pull up the playoff stats please.

IMO its clear that Irving it the far more elite scorer, a player that can get his shot whenever and absolutely go on tears to win games for teams when they matter. That clutch gene and ability to excel in the playoff makes him one of the best today. Again, regular season stats pale in comparison to performance in the playoffs. You think Irving would've had such a hard time with Jrue Holiday that Lillard did. Irving would've scored no matter who guarded him and the Blazers wouldn't have gotten whopped that bad.

Playoff performance is a reasonable argument for Kyrie over Lillard, but if you’re going to make it all about the playoffs, then it’s pretty clear that Draymond >>>>>>>>>>> both of them. So either way, Kyrie’s not getting voted in.

That's a nonsensical statement. Dray gets to play for a team where his horrendous shooting isn't a massive liability like it would be for 29 other teams. He's constantly being left wide open, and he still doesn't take the shot or shoots a below average clip.

[Johnny Tomala]

I dont even like Kyrie and would never have him lower than Oladipo and Gobert.. heck even Embiid and Jokic are below him as well.

The stupid thing is Kyrie has been the runner up in 4 or 5 consecutive polls now, which makes zero logical sense. If he was the runner up at #11 it seems reasonable to say people thought he was the 12th best player in that poll, but he still hasn't been picked at #15. Only explanation I can think of is there's a group of people here who just aren't going to let him ever win until all 400 other NBA players have been chosen. Which, whatever floats people's boats, I guess lol.

Bingo. Realgm is a minority population kf fans. You ask random joes and fans if Kyrie is a top 10-12 player, they will tell you yes.

Problem is you have people here rationalizing their bias with advanced statistics without knowing how stats are properly used in a statistical analysis.

Posters who use advanced statistics to support a player I find hard to take seriously because of the likelyhood of bias.

Cause thats whats true. Kyrie is a top 10-15 player. You know it. I know it. The majority of sports fans know it. Let them have their "Kyrie is barely a top 25 player" fantasies

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Bingo. Hipsters on RealGM that picks Oladipo and Gobert ahead of Irving are probably the same kind of people as GM who picked Oden over Durant, Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan. Make one of this hipsters Team GM of Team USA and I'm pretty sure USA would add in the future another Olympic team that DOESN'T win Olympic gold (like 2004 team).

I voted Irving and Cousins should have been added way back but I get it that hipsters statistics will prove that Oladipo, Gobert, probably soon Lowry, Wall are better than Kyrie and Boogie. Live in that fantasy hipsters. It's really bad list so far, after first 10 (which is quite decent) the 11-15 picks are horrible. I wonder if KAT (one of the most underrated players on RealGM) will make Top 20 or if he is not that good for RealGM hipsters that prefer defense and statistics over eyetest, common sense when rating players. Offense > defense in modern game and Gobert is not better than Cousins and Towns, period.

I would pick Irving before Oladipo even if Kyrie force tomorrow trade to Lakers. Kyrie was very good in Cavs, great for Team USA at 2014 FIBA World Cup, very good at 2016 Olympics, but of course RealGM hipsters doesn't care about that and pick flavour of recent months Oladipo that lost in first round to bad Cavs team. Kyrie Irving would close out Cavs in this years ECF if he was playing as he shot over Curry to win 2016 NBA Finals. I get it, clutch factor is not in your analythics data, so great humble Oladipo is your pick.

[illuminati666]

Yes, you’re right. It is another big advantage for Lillard that he’s averaged 2845 minutes a season during his career while Kyrie’s played between 1500 and 2800 every season. Excellent point! FWIW, here they are per 36:

Lillard: 27/4/7
Kyrie: 27/4/6

So just near-identical stats per minute while Lillard plays 1.5 times as many minutes. Seems pretty clear to me.

Yup those are their per 36, near identical, similar players on defense and playmaking. And now pull up the playoff stats please.

IMO its clear that Irving it the far more elite scorer, a player that can get his shot whenever and absolutely go on tears to win games for teams when they matter. That clutch gene and ability to excel in the playoff makes him one of the best today. Again, regular season stats pale in comparison to performance in the playoffs. You think Irving would've had such a hard time with Jrue Holiday that Lillard did. Irving would've scored no matter who guarded him and the Blazers wouldn't have gotten whopped that bad.

Playoff performance is a reasonable argument for Kyrie over Lillard, but if you’re going to make it all about the playoffs, then it’s pretty clear that Draymond >>>>>>>>>>> both of them. So either way, Kyrie’s not getting voted in.

Thing is Draymond is a much more difficult comparison to both of these guys than they are to each other. Lillard and Kyrie excel at the same things, so its easy to look at that aspect of their game and see who does it better, Draymond and Kyrie on the other hand excel at completely different things, Draymond defense, Kyrie scoring.

If I was to make the difficult comparison between Kyrie and Draymond, my vote would still go to Kyrie. And remember I'm a Raptors fan, I have 0 reason to like Kyrie but I recognize game when I see it. Draymond is an excellent defender, but he's the 3rd/4th best player on his team. He's a very poor scorer and excels purely at defending and setting up his teammates (who don't make it that hard for him). Being able to completely relax on offense just setting screens passing the ball and specializing on defense does not constitute superstar to me, he couldn't lead a team by himself. Kyrie on the other hand could lead a team and carry a team to wins in the playoffs, Draymond can't.

I understand and respect Draymond's game, he's an amazing piece for the GSW, but at the end of the day I see him as an all star role player for the Warriors, whereas I see Kyrie as the star for the Celtics. Again tough comparison, I wouldn't be mad if someone argued for Draymond over Kyrie, but the Lillard over Kyrie makes no sense to me. I would still take Kyrie over both bc defense and all of that does not factor into ranking these stars for me as much as being able to lead and carry your team to wins.

[illuminati666]

The stupid thing is Kyrie has been the runner up in 4 or 5 consecutive polls now, which makes zero logical sense. If he was the runner up at #11 it seems reasonable to say people thought he was the 12th best player in that poll, but he still hasn't been picked at #15. Only explanation I can think of is there's a group of people here who just aren't going to let him ever win until all 400 other NBA players have been chosen. Which, whatever floats people's boats, I guess lol.

Bingo. Realgm is a minority population kf fans. You ask random joes and fans if Kyrie is a top 10-12 player, they will tell you yes.

Problem is you have people here rationalizing their bias with advanced statistics without knowing how stats are properly used in a statistical analysis.

Posters who use advanced statistics to support a player I find hard to take seriously because of the likelyhood of bias.

Cause thats whats true. Kyrie is a top 10-15 player. You know it. I know it. The majority of sports fans know it. Let them have their "Kyrie is barely a top 25 player" fantasies

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Bingo. Hipsters on RealGM that picks Oladipo and Gobert ahead of Irving are probably the same kind of people as GM who picked Oden over Durant, Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan. Make one of this hipsters Team GM of Team USA and I'm pretty sure USA would add in the future another Olympic team that DOESN'T win Olympic gold (like 2004 team).

I voted Irving and Cousins should have been added way back but I get it that hipsters statistics will prove that Oladipo, Gobert, probably soon Lowry, Wall are better than Kyrie and Boogie. Live in that fantasy hipsters. It's really bad list so far, after first 10 (which is quite decent) the 11-15 picks are horrible. I wonder if KAT (one of the most underrated players on RealGM) will make Top 20 or if he is not that good for RealGM hipsters that prefer defense and statistics over eyetest, common sense when rating players. Offense > defense in modern game and Gobert is not better than Cousins and Towns, period.

I would pick Irving before Oladipo even if Kyrie force tomorrow trade to Lakers. Kyrie was very good in Cavs, great for Team USA at 2014 FIBA World Cup, very good at 2016 Olympics, but of course RealGM hipsters doesn't care about that and pick flavour of recent months Oladipo that lost in first round to bad Cavs team. Kyrie Irving would close out Cavs in this years ECF if he was playing as he shot over Curry to win 2016 NBA Finals. I get it, clutch factor is not in your analythics data, so great humble Oladipo is your pick.

Completely agree with you except for your excessive use of the word hipsters

[pingpongrac]

The stupid thing is Kyrie has been the runner up in 4 or 5 consecutive polls now, which makes zero logical sense. If he was the runner up at #11 it seems reasonable to say people thought he was the 12th best player in that poll, but he still hasn't been picked at #15. Only explanation I can think of is there's a group of people here who just aren't going to let him ever win until all 400 other NBA players have been chosen. Which, whatever floats people's boats, I guess lol.

Bingo. Realgm is a minority population kf fans. You ask random joes and fans if Kyrie is a top 10-12 player, they will tell you yes.

Problem is you have people here rationalizing their bias with advanced statistics without knowing how stats are properly used in a statistical analysis.

Posters who use advanced statistics to support a player I find hard to take seriously because of the likelyhood of bias.

Cause thats whats true. Kyrie is a top 10-15 player. You know it. I know it. The majority of sports fans know it. Let them have their "Kyrie is barely a top 25 player" fantasies

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Bingo. Hipsters on RealGM that picks Oladipo and Gobert ahead of Irving are probably the same kind of people as GM who picked Oden over Durant, Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan. Make one of this hipsters Team GM of Team USA and I'm pretty sure USA would add in the future another Olympic team that DOESN'T win Olympic gold (like 2004 team).

I voted Irving and Cousins should have been added way back but I get it that hipsters statistics will prove that Oladipo, Gobert, probably soon Lowry, Wall are better than Kyrie and Boogie. Live in that fantasy hipsters. It's really bad list so far, after first 10 (which is quite decent) the 11-15 picks are horrible. I wonder if KAT (one of the most underrated players on RealGM) will make Top 20 or if he is not that good for RealGM hipsters that prefer defense and statistics over eyetest, common sense when rating players. Offense > defense in modern game and Gobert is not better than Cousins and Towns, period.

I would pick Irving before Oladipo even if Kyrie force tomorrow trade to Lakers. Kyrie was very good in Cavs, great for Team USA at 2014 FIBA World Cup, very good at 2016 Olympics, but of course RealGM hipsters doesn't care about that and pick flavour of recent months Oladipo that lost in first round to bad Cavs team. Kyrie Irving would close out Cavs in this years ECF if he was playing as he shot over Curry to win 2016 NBA Finals. I get it, clutch factor is not in your analythics data, so great humble Oladipo is your pick.

You sound angry. What did hipsters ever do to you?

Sent from my LG-H831 using RealGM mobile app