What Kind of Player Would Kyrie Irving Be in the 90's?

[Roundball_Rock]

What kind of player would Kyrie Irving be in the 90's statistically (e.g., PPG), accolades wise, and perception wise? Here are some questions to consider:

Questions

*Would Kyrie be a MVP candidate in the 90's?
*Would Kyrie be a perennial all-NBA player in the 90's?
*Would Kyrie make all-NBA 1st teams in the 90's?
*Would Kyrie be a top 5 player or top 10, 15, or top 20 in his prime?
*Would he be perceived as a superstar or star?
*Would a team with Irving as its best player be a championship contender?

[LeCroix]

we got a taste of kyrie as #1 before lebron

3 years and 0 playoff seed appearances

but then he gets 2019 and plays the bucks, gets up 1-0 and then loses 4 straight. his last 4 games in that playoffs were awful

game 2
4 for 18, 9 pts (game score = 0.2)

game 3
8 for 22, 29 pts (game score = 19.7)

game 4
7 for 22, 23 pts (game score = 15.6)

game 5
6 for 21, 15 pts (game score = 0.9)

4 game stretch:
25 for 83, 19 ppg on 30% fg (game score =9.1) :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

:lol

What do you think Kyrie would be in the 90's? A similar player then or a lot better or worse then?

[LeCroix]

:lol

What do you think Kyrie would be in the 90's? A similar player then or a lot better or worse then?

http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/2175/102947.jpg or

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/70/7c/51/707c51577f31c65718a6c6ffd65ac96e.jpg

a tiny injury prone guard that has no impact but he can score!

[warriorfan]

90’s were a much tougher and talent filled league than today. For example people claim it is unfair when I mention Wade and Bosh being the 2nd and 4th ranked in PER then compare it to if Jordan joined with the 2 and 4 PER he would be with Karl Malone and Magic Johnson. They said Bosh is a lot worse than Magic. But what does that say about the leagues strength when a supposedly much worse player has the 4th best production in the league? MJ’s era was deeper with talent.

https://i.postimg.cc/rpbChMyy/8-D8-B7448-8-BBC-4763-975-A-E7-C185-F2-F07-D.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/k4XtJvrQ/3-E06-CEB8-3233-4192-96-F3-56-CD26-B17845.jpg

[Roundball_Rock]

Kevin Johnson made only 3 all-star teams. If that is what Kyrie would be that is a big step back.

Hardaway was a better player than KJ and Kyrie IMO. Hardaway was a MVP candidate at one point, something Kyrie and KJ could only dream about.

[RRR3]

Hassan Whiteside is a legend according to warriorspam

[CTbasketball92]

I think if he came into the league as the player he is now in 1992, he'd be an All-NBA second or third team type of guy and average 24/6/5. He'd be top 15 same as now.

I'm not sure whether defenses today or back then were harder, but Kyrie would be able to get his buckets at +3 or +4 TS% regardless because he's an elite shooter from literally everywhere on the court.

He's prob. one of the best midrange shooters ever at this point. He shoots like 48-49% on those shots on a pretty high volume (not near MJ or Dirk, but enough so it's not a fluke).

Then that's not even getting to Kyrie's three-point shot. It gets underrated a bit because he doesn't spam it like others, but I'd say year in and year out he's one of the 5 or so best three-point shooters in the league. Can hit shots from 30 feet out off the dribble or off the catch. He shoots 39% for his career on good volume. With his handle, no one has ever been able to blow by people like Kyrie (against a set defense) while also being that pure of a shooter.

His ability to use dribble combos people in the 1990s hadn't even conceived yet, as well as his ability to hit like 200 threes a year would make him a serious problem. No one would be able to stay in front of him regularly, just like now.

His godfather Rod Strickland is somebody people have always said Kyrie plays like. Both have sick handles and could finish really well for being under-the-rim guys.

Kyrie isn't as good a playmaker as Rod, but he's a way better shooter and it looks a little bigger and faster.

It's hard to say, but I could see Kyrie being either a more efficient, better-playmaking and better decision-making Steve Francis.

I used to love Franchise when I was a kid, and he had the craziest crossover. He just wasn't ever actually an elite scorer. Kyrie is much more skilled than Franchise and can blow by people just as easily.


A quick look at numbers—I wasn't old enough to see the games really—I don't think Hardaway was any more than a Derrick Rose type of MVP candidate, or really someone who would be any better than like, the fifth person in the running. Wasn't he like 30 when he did that? We can't say Kyrie has peaked yet. if he's healthy, who knows what he can do next year, the year after, the year after that. He's not overly dependent on physicality so I could see his game aging well. He's tall and strong.

[LeCroix]

90’s were a much tougher and talent filled league than today. For example people claim it is unfair when I mention Wade and Bosh being the 2nd and 4th ranked in PER then compare it to if Jordan joined with the 2 and 4 PER he would be with Karl Malone and Magic Johnson. They said Bosh is a lot worse than Magic. But what does that say about the leagues strength when a supposedly much worse player has the 4th best production in the league? MJ’s era was deeper with talent.

https://i.postimg.cc/rpbChMyy/8-D8-B7448-8-BBC-4763-975-A-E7-C185-F2-F07-D.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/k4XtJvrQ/3-E06-CEB8-3233-4192-96-F3-56-CD26-B17845.jpg

PER you say? What about #1 per teaming up with #2 per? :lol

2016

https://i.ibb.co/qBqKjTB/2016-per-idiot.png

https://i.ibb.co/XJ2yv72/OOPS-Chris.png

(idiot ethered himself)

[warriorfan]

PER you say? What about #1 per teaming up with #2 per? :lol

2016

https://i.ibb.co/qBqKjTB/2016-per-idiot.png


https://i.ibb.co/XJ2yv72/OOPS-Chris.png

(idiot ethered himself)

Wrong, LeBron did not only join the 2nd highest PER (Wade) he also joined the 4th highest PER (Bosh).


So that would be like if Steph Curry (1st PER) joined with KD (2nd PER) AND LeBron James (4th in PER).

That is what LeBron did in the off season of 2010 in The Decision.

So it seems you have actually ethered yourself my friend.

Sources:


https://i.ibb.co/qBqKjTB/2016-per-idiot.png

https://i.postimg.cc/k4XtJvrQ/3-E06-CEB8-3233-4192-96-F3-56-CD26-B17845.jpg

[LeCroix]

Wrong, LeBron did not only join the 2nd highest PER (Wade) he also joined the 4th highest PER (Bosh).


So that would be like if Steph Curry (1st PER) joined with KD (2nd PER) AND LeBron James (4th in PER).

That is what LeBron did in the off season of 2010 in The Decision.

So it seems you have actually ethered yourself my friend.

Sources:


https://i.ibb.co/qBqKjTB/2016-per-idiot.png

https://i.postimg.cc/k4XtJvrQ/3-E06-CEB8-3233-4192-96-F3-56-CD26-B17845.jpg

so is PER the measureing stick? fine by me

occurneces of 30.0 PER or higher thru NBA Finals = 8 occureences

lbj = 5
mj = 2
shaq = 1

:lol

5 to 2 sounds good to me baby boi

[warriorfan]

so is PER the measureing stick? fine by me

occurneces of 30.0 PER or higher thru NBA Finals = 8 occureences

lbj = 5
mj = 2
shaq = 1

:lol

5 to 2 sounds good to me baby boi

Only by teaming up with the Top PERs. Wade (2nd PER), Bosh (4th PER), Love (3rd PER), Anthony Davis (3rd PER) and still losing in the finals 6 times. No one has ever lost that much with that much help.

[Turbo Slayer]

Dude can you all stop? My god.

[RRR3]

Lol they both got banned :roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

Dude can you all stop? My god.

I figured it is a legit topic since a lot of people are saying Irving>>one of the top player's from the 90's.

[CTbasketball92]

I figured it is a legit topic since a lot of people are saying Irving>>one of the top player's from the 90's.

I don't think Kyrie is better, but I do think it's worth asking how good of a player Scottie was in a vacuum. Like, there's literally zero way Pippen is a top 5 player in today's NBA. His scoring skillset was pretty limited and he really was not capable of averaging more than 22 points a game on above league average efficiency. He did great the year MJ was gone, he was still excellent in 1994-1995, but c'mon. ESPN just ranked this guy No. 21 ever. That's insane.

People talk about other people's shortcomings, but when youre labeled an all-around player people ignore bad playoff performances even in crucial moments. Scottie was not an MVP candidate, he would in no way be an All-NBA First team player in 2020 and I have no idea how much better he'd be in a first option role than a lot of people. I'd take Luka, Jokic, LeBron (obviously), Paul George, Peak Westbrook, up to 2018 CP3, Harden, Anthony Davis, Stephen Curry, Dame, Jimmy Butler and more as No. 1 options before him, and that's not without a lot of thinking. That's all

[Roundball_Rock]

His scoring skillset was pretty limited and he really was not capable of averaging more than 22 points a game

What would Kyrie average in the 90's, a tougher defensive era?


Scottie was not an MVP candidate, he would in no way be an All-NBA First team player in 2020

That is speculation. So you are saying the current era>>>the 90's? The logical conclusion of your thinking is Jimmy Butler would be a top 5 player, all-NBA 1st team player, and MVP candidate in the 90's. He isn't close to any of these things in today's league.

[CTbasketball92]

What would Kyrie average in the 90's, a tougher defensive era?

Kevin Johnson and Tim Hardaway both had years averaging between 22-23 ppg on good efficiency.

Kyrie is bigger than both of them and isn't much slower if slower at all, and his handle is even better.

Gary Payton had a year where he averaged 24 ppg.

The biggest difference between him and them is that Kyrie is by far a better shooter than either of them whether it's the midrange or three point land.

Kyrie could definitely put up 25-27 ppg in the 1990s if they let him play an Allen Iverson-esque role (which maybe they would).

I'm a big fan and could be biased, but Kyrie is an all-time great talent in terms of scoring versatility.

He's got a steve nash jumper, CP3 handle with Kobe body contro and footwork and the most inventive scoring moves you'll ever see.

He's not an all-time great scorer because his volume isn't elite (just very good), but there's really no defense designed to prevent him from getting buckets.



That is speculation. So you are saying the current era>>>the 90's? The logical conclusion of your thinking is Jimmy Butler would be a top 5 player, all-NBA 1st team player, and MVP candidate in the 90's. He isn't close to any of these things in today's league.


I don't think Scottie was a top 5 player then either lol. MJ, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Shaq, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and then you have Clyde Drexler, when he was healthy, Grant Hill from 1995 on, Patrick Ewing and arguably John Stockton. Those are 10 guys, with at least 8 or them being better without question.

Today's top 5 is ridiculous. LeBron, Giannis, Kawhi, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Anthony Davis...Dame, Joel Embiid, Jimmy Butler, Paul George, etc. It's very hard to be a top 10 player these days man. Jimmy and Paul George are all better scorers than Pippen ever was while also being elite defenders (not as good as Pippen, but great).

[imdaman99]

https://i.ibb.co/qBqKjTB/2016-per-idiot.png


How come no one is clicking and doing any research for Chris Paul's stats? :(

[GimmeThat]

Mark Price who could beat the double

[HoopsNY]

It's hard to say. He reminds me of Kevin Johnson without the passing but maybe more like Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. So I can see a mix of the two. With the injuries, he probably doesn't go much further than that.

I think people tout him for what he was able to do alongside LeBron, particularly the 2016 finals where he dropped 27 a game and hit the game winner in game 7, and then the following season in averaging over 29 ppg against the Warriors.

His first season with Boston went well. They won 55 games and made it to the ECF. That series went 7 games without him playing a single game against his former team. If Kyrie is in that series, the Celtics are going to the finals. Even with 20 games with the Nets this season, he put up 27.4 ppg.

But his health is a major question.

[SATAN]

A more efficient version of Kenny Anderson on steroids

[Phoenix]

His first season with Boston went well. They won 55 games and made it to the ECF. That series went 7 games without him playing a single game against his former team. If Kyrie is in that series, the Celtics are going to the finals. Even with 20 games with the Nets this season, he put up 27.4 ppg.



It's arguable the team still gets to the finals with Kyrie. All the young guns like Tatum, Brown and Rozier were and are better off without him, and playing off each other with Tatum showing star potential throughout the playoffs netted a ECF result. They wouldn't have had the same cohesion with Kyrie running the show. So I'm not sure adding him to that playoff team is quite the 'addition' you think it may be.

Kyrie's a great scoring playmaker but he has yet to display the leadership needed to take a team, especially one full of up and comers, anywhere. Kyrie works best as someone that you can give the ball to and let him ISO when the offense breaks down or carrying the offense when the best player is on the bench. I've seen nothing from him to suggest this guy is actually capable of being the best player on a team with championship aspirations.

[Roundball_Rock]

His first season with Boston went well. They won 55 games and made it to the ECF.

They made it the ECF because he was hurt and everyone played better without him. They also were in the ECF the year before he got there.


It's arguable the team still gets to the finals with Kyrie. All the young guns like Tatum, Brown and Rozier were and are better off without him, and playing off each other with Tatum showing star potential throughout the playoffs netted a ECF result. They wouldn't have had the same cohesion with Kyrie running the show.

Didn't we see this experiment run? Kyrie comes back and they go from Game 7 of the ECF to Game 5 of the second round. Kyrie has a terrible series. Then Kyrie leaves for Brooklyn and Boston replaces him with Kemba, a supposedly lesser player. Kemba matches Kyrie's production but the big difference is how much better Tatum, Brown and the rest of the team is with Kemba (or Rozier) in place of Kyrie.

If this only happened in Boston it would be one thing but the we saw the same thing with the Nets.


MJ, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Shaq, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and then you have Clyde Drexler, when he was healthy, Grant Hill from 1995 on, Patrick Ewing and arguably John Stockton. Those are 10 guys, with at least 8 or them being better without question.

Today's top 5 is ridiculous. LeBron, Giannis, Kawhi, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Anthony Davis...Dame, Joel Embiid, Jimmy Butler, Paul George, etc. It's very hard to be a top 10 player these days man

You, like many others, seem to think the top 5 is the same group of players every year for an entire era. It changes year to year. You hinted at that with one player who got hurt (same applies to others on that list like Barkley). Odd you list a rookie Grant Hill as better than a peak player BTW. Hill has been inflated decades later but all-NBA voters did not get that memo in 95' and 96'.

Was Paul George in 2019 the same as Paul George in 2017 or 2014? This stuff shifts.

Top 5 lists are speculative because the NBA does not issue top 5 or top 10 lists. What we do have is all-NBA 1st teams and Kyrie has never made that. He made all-NBA in total only twice and the second team once (the closest thing we have to a top 10 list).


Jimmy and Paul George are all better scorers than Pippen ever was while also being elite defenders (not as good as Pippen, but great).

Hill and Pippen scored (and rebounding and assisted) the same contrary to popular belief of Hill putting up LeBron numbers without the defense. George and Butler are better defenders than Hill. Ergo, George and Butler>Hill, right?

[HoopsNY]

It's arguable the team still gets to the finals with Kyrie. All the young guns like Tatum, Brown and Rozier were and are better off without him, and playing off each other with Tatum showing star potential throughout the playoffs netted a ECF result. They wouldn't have had the same cohesion with Kyrie running the show. So I'm not sure adding him to that playoff team is quite the 'addition' you think it may be.

Kyrie's a great scoring playmaker but he has yet to display the leadership needed to take a team, especially one full of up and comers, anywhere. Kyrie works best as someone that you can give the ball to and let him ISO when the offense breaks down or carrying the offense when the best player is on the bench. I've seen nothing from him to suggest this guy is actually capable of being the best player on a team with championship aspirations.

I definitely agree with much of what you said. My only contention would be that we haven't really been able to see Kyrie that much for a full playoffs. In 2019, they swept the Pacers and then lost to the Bucks 1-4 (no shame in that). I get that Kyrie is not good for a team, but I think a lot of the criticism should be more for him not being healthy rather than not running a successful team.

I mean, I find it ironic that we're on a thread where people are criticized for drawing comparisons with Scottie Pippen.

Pippen won 55 games without MJ in the Eastern Conference. Kyrie won 55 games with Boston after leaving LeBron with no other all-stars.

Pippen took the Bulls to the 2nd round without MJ and lost to a great defensive team. Ironically, Kyrie did the same last year.

The focus should really be on his injury woes more than his ability IMO.

[HoopsNY]

Didn't we see this experiment run? Kyrie comes back and they go from Game 7 of the ECF to Game 5 of the second round. Kyrie has a terrible series. Then Kyrie leaves for Brooklyn and Boston replaces him with Kemba, a supposedly lesser player. Kemba matches Kyrie's production but the big difference is how much better Tatum, Brown and the rest of the team is with Kemba (or Rozier) in place of Kyrie.

Are the two situations the same, though? The 7 game series was against a depleted Cavs team that was gutted midway through the season. The 5 game set was against the top ranked Bucks team that also had one of the best defensive schemes we've seen in the Eastern Conference since the Celtics in 2008.

Cleveland's Defensive Rtg in 2017-18: 29th
Milwaukee's Defensive Rtg in 2018-19: 1st

[Roundball_Rock]

Are the two situations the same, though? The 7 game series was against a depleted Cavs team that was gutted midway through the season. The 5 game set was against the top ranked Bucks team that also had one of the best defensive schemes we've seen in the Eastern Conference since the Celtics in 2008.

That is one way to look at it. The other is the Celtics without Kyrie lost to the EC champion in 7 games; the Celtics with him lost to the EC runners ups in 5 games.


Kyrie won 55 games with Boston after leaving LeBron with no other all-stars.

Horford was an all-star. You can't win 55 when you miss 1/4 the season. Fuzzy math there.

The difference between the two is obvious: the Bulls went from a 58 win pace to a 33 win pace without Pippen. The Celtics actually do better without Irving. Even with MJ there the Bulls went from #1 in offense to #18 without Pippen in 98'. It is laughable the two are compared. One guy has large positive impact, the other a negative impact.


My only contention would be that we haven't really been able to see Kyrie that much for a full playoffs

Yes, no playoffs before LeBron and after LeBron Kyrie hurt for the entirety of 2 of 3 playoffs with the irony being his teams benefit from those injuries. He missed the finals in 15' too, other than 4 quarters. What a great player: unavailable when it counts year after year.

[Roundball_Rock]

Do any of you play fantasy hoops? One secret for savvy players is Kyrie's teammates do much better whenever he is out. I drafted LeVert partly on the assumption I would get hidden value from him because Kyrie is always going to miss 20-30 games. Look at these numbers from 2019 with Kyrie in Boston and 2020 with Kemba replacing him:

Tatum with Kyrie: 16/6/2 on 45%
Tatum w/o Kyrie: 24/7/3 on 45%

Brown with Kyrie: 13/4/1 on 47%
Brown w/o Kyrie: 20/6/2 on 49%

Hayward with Kyrie: 12/5/4 on 47%
Hayward w/o Kyrie: 17/7/4 on 50%

Smart with Kyrie: 9/3/4 on 42%
Smart w/o Kyrie: 14/4/5 on 38%

These are damning numbers. You are getting massive production increases to all-star caliber levels in 3 cases and borderline star levels in Tatum's case simply by removing the cancer. They increase their volume substantially yet improve their efficiency in 2 cases, Tatum maintains. Only Smart regressed and he went back to his "efficiency" prior to 2019.

LeVert, Dinwiddie have similar splits with and without Kyrie.

[HoopsNY]

Yes, no playoffs before LeBron and after LeBron Kyrie hurt for the entirety of 2 of 3 playoffs with the irony being his teams benefit from those injuries. He missed the finals in 15' too, other than 4 quarters. What a great player: unavailable when it counts year after year.

Right, which is why I think the bulk of criticism should be directed at his lack of durability and not so much ability. We may never ultimately know.

[HoopsNY]

Do any of you play fantasy hoops? One secret for savvy players is Kyrie's teammates do much better whenever he is out. I drafted LeVert partly on the assumption I would get hidden value from him because Kyrie is always going to miss 20-30 games. Look at these numbers from 2019 with Kyrie in Boston and 2020 with Kemba replacing him:

Tatum with Kyrie: 16/6/2 on 45%
Tatum w/o Kyrie: 24/7/3 on 45%

Brown with Kyrie: 13/4/1 on 47%
Brown w/o Kyrie: 20/6/2 on 49%

Hayward with Kyrie: 12/5/4 on 47%
Hayward w/o Kyrie: 17/7/4 on 50%

Smart with Kyrie: 9/3/4 on 42%
Smart w/o Kyrie: 14/4/5 on 38%

These are damning numbers. You are getting massive production increases simply by removing the cancer. They increase their volume and improve their efficiency in 2 cases, Tatum maintains. Only Smart regressed and he went back to his career norm efficiency.

LeVert, Dinwiddie have similar splits with and without Kyrie.

This is true. Hard to argue with that.

[Roundball_Rock]

Right, which is why I think the bulk of criticism should be directed at his lack of durability and not so much ability.

His ability is overrated too, though. People talk about him like a superstar but he has an all-NBA 2nd and an all-NBA 3rd team to his name. People talk about him like a perennial all-NBA player who often would be 1st team.

He is an exciting player with immense talent so he is a perfect player for the YouTube and social media era but what you see in highlights is his monster games. His 9/5/4 on 22% or 15/1/1 on 29% in an elimination game isn't going to go viral.

All-stars like Walker are more consistent but don't have the peak and wow moments Irving does. Even Rozier and Dinwiddie produce more for their teams because they simply don't bring their entire team down like Irving does.

[Phoenix]

I definitely agree with much of what you said. My only contention would be that we haven't really been able to see Kyrie that much for a full playoffs. In 2019, they swept the Pacers and then lost to the Bucks 1-4 (no shame in that). I get that Kyrie is not good for a team, but I think a lot of the criticism should be more for him not being healthy rather than not running a successful team.

I mean, I find it ironic that we're on a thread where people are criticized for drawing comparisons with Scottie Pippen.

Pippen won 55 games without MJ in the Eastern Conference. Kyrie won 55 games with Boston after leaving LeBron with no other all-stars.

Pippen took the Bulls to the 2nd round without MJ and lost to a great defensive team. Ironically, Kyrie did the same last year.

The focus should really be on his injury woes more than his ability IMO.

I mean, he really has to prove he can do it one way or another. Its either he's somewhat of a chemistry killer or he lacks consistent good health. In either case it makes him an unreliable franchise player. Most of his reputation as is was built off those two finals but he was in a secondary role. Based on what we've seen that best suites him. It's not so much a case of talent than one of maturity and those intangibles that define a great leader.

[CTbasketball92]

They made it the ECF because he was hurt and everyone played better without him. They also were in the ECF the year before he got there.



Didn't we see this experiment run? Kyrie comes back and they go from Game 7 of the ECF to Game 5 of the second round. Kyrie has a terrible series. Then Kyrie leaves for Brooklyn and Boston replaces him with Kemba, a supposedly lesser player. Kemba matches Kyrie's production but the big difference is how much better Tatum, Brown and the rest of the team is with Kemba (or Rozier) in place of Kyrie.


If this only happened in Boston it would be one thing but the we saw the same thing with the Nets.



You, like many others, seem to think the top 5 is the same group of players every year for an entire era. It changes year to year. You hinted at that with one player who got hurt (same applies to others on that list like Barkley). Odd you list a rookie Grant Hill as better than a peak player BTW. Hill has been inflated decades later but all-NBA voters did not get that memo in 95' and 96'.

Was Paul George in 2019 the same as Paul George in 2017 or 2014? This stuff shifts.

Top 5 lists are speculative because the NBA does not issue top 5 or top 10 lists. What we do have is all-NBA 1st teams and Kyrie has never made that. He made all-NBA in total only twice and the second team once (the closest thing we have to a top 10 list).



Hill and Pippen scored (and rebounding and assisted) the same contrary to popular belief of Hill putting up LeBron numbers without the defense. George and Butler are better defenders than Hill. Ergo, George and Butler>Hill, right?

Lol at Kemba matching Kyrie's production. He's literally been worse in every single individual stat. I can't convince people of this, but no credible journalist or any of the experts have written any pieces pointing to how Kemba's style has tangibly been better than Kyrie's or that he's been a better player. Kemba is a lesser player than Kyrie, so of course it gives Jayson Tatum more freedom to do what he wants. But last year wasn't Kyrie's fault (Re: Tatum), Tatum was just a significantly worse player. He probably needs volume. He shot horribly for the first two months of this season and was able to be valuable because of defense and because he was allowed to shoot himself into a rhythm, a rhythm that is probably unsustainable seeing as his scoring efficiency is still only at league average after a month averaging 30 a game. Tatum was even worse than Kyrie last year. He had his chances, but ultimately he's not a great athlete or a great shooter. As for the Nets, it's simply not a big enough sample size for us to say. 20 games isn't a lot. His first year in boston the offense wasn't so great with just him in, but the next year he was way more of a net positive and the numbers made more sense. Just takes an adjustment period at times. The nets have only won 30 games btw.

The celtics were going to make it to the ECF stop it lol. It would not have even been close.

As for the top 5, etc. I'm just saying Scottie was more of a borderline superstar than an *actual* MVP candidate. You're not really a top 5 no matter what type of player until you're a top 2 or 3 MVP candidate regularly. Scottie was more like a top 10 player during his era. Aside from injuries, Kyrie is like a top 12-top 15 player when healthy, with potential to be top 10 like most of last year.

[Roundball_Rock]

Of course Kemba's surface stats will be lower. He plays team ball.


You're not really a top 5 no matter what type of player until you're a top 2 or 3 MVP candidate regularly

Using that logic no second option ever can be a top 5 player (but somehow can get to top 10?). That means Kobe too.

[iamgine]

You mean just transferring his current version to the 90s?

Like many stars of today, he would revolutionize the game back then with his ability to knock down 3s. Especially during the shortened 3 point line seasons, he'd take like 13 threes a game on 45% shooting. But I think he'd not have a long career back then because he seems to be constantly hurt and the 90s are more physical with less medical knowledge.

Regarding accolades, it depends on the team. I certainly think he'd be one of the top superstar, at least on the shortened 3pt seasons.

[CTbasketball92]

I mean, he really has to prove he can do it one way or another. Its either he's somewhat of a chemistry killer or he lacks consistent good health. In either case it makes him an unreliable franchise player. Most of his reputation as is was built off those two finals but he was in a secondary role. Based on what we've seen that best suites him. It's not so much a case of talent than one of maturity and those intangibles that define a great leader.

I agree. With him, you know it will either be an untimely injury or locker room problems depending on the season. It's been that way for a while. If he can stay out of stupid stuff and stay healthy for a few years I think people would look at him a lot differently, but personalities rarely change.

[Roundball_Rock]

These are big problems: being injured all the time and being a team cancer. He isn't a puppy either. 2020 was his 9th season...

[red1]

he'd be a legend. would still be a godly scorer and finisher but he'd need a good team to do any damage in the playoffs. might even need to get carried to the playoffs - kid is kinda frail he already gets worn down in the modern softer league.

[ArbitraryWater]

90’s were a much tougher and talent filled league than today. For example people claim it is unfair when I mention Wade and Bosh being the 2nd and 4th ranked in PER then compare it to if Jordan joined with the 2 and 4 PER he would be with Karl Malone and Magic Johnson. They said Bosh is a lot worse than Magic. But what does that say about the leagues strength when a supposedly much worse player has the 4th best production in the league? MJ’s era was deeper with talent.

https://i.postimg.cc/rpbChMyy/8-D8-B7448-8-BBC-4763-975-A-E7-C185-F2-F07-D.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/k4XtJvrQ/3-E06-CEB8-3233-4192-96-F3-56-CD26-B17845.jpg

Yeah, the NBA was better individually 1991-1993 than 2010, the year Kobe won...

good job exposing Kobe's ring.

[Bronbron23]

Man kyrie cant stay healthy now and hes in the softest era ever. How long you think hed last in a league where hes getting banged to the floor every night?

[Whoah10115]

Of all the criticisms thrown at Irving, the one that doesn't get thrown is about his ability. That's a joke.

A guy like him would either be toughened out by the era, or he'd wilt.

Some people assume that those who prop up the 90's are living in nostalgia. Some people also assume that saying that era is better has to do with just talent. But the fact is that players played.

It's overwhelming in soccer, too. We have to highlight who the best is or are, and then have to superficially inflate their rivals and say things like "Never before have we" over things that we never before have lacked.

I have no clue what Kyrie would do. When I say the era was tough, I don't mean hitting, playing physically, whatever. I mean getting it done. You didn't have all these guys who come in and take 3 or 4 years to arrive while padding heavy stats for 3 or 4 years. The competition would either incentivize him, or he'd disappoint.