Is Morant the new Kyrie?

[FultzNationRISE]

In other words, people think because he's exciting and has nifty ball handling skills and scores in bunches that he makes a difference in whether or not teams win basketball games, even tho the evidence is OVERWHELMING that at best they make no difference, at worst they're a net negative.

How much longer can fans of these guys continue to deflect with "STFU Troll" and other such ad hominem, when it becomes an increasingly, increasingly low IQ take to act like these guys are legitimate 'stars' in the sense of making any impact whatsoever?

[AirBonner]

Only LeBron could win with such a player. Speaks volumes

[D-Wait]

Except Kyrie would have been banned for life and absolutely killed by the media if that gun thing happened with him.

[FultzNationRISE]

Except Kyrie would have been banned for life and absolutely killed by the media if that gun thing happened with him.


Whats this got to do with the thread?

[FultzNationRISE]

Only LeBron could win with such a player. Speaks volumes


EXACTLY :pimp:

[ImKobe]

He's nowhere near as good as Kyrie and his off-court issues are significantly worse. Kyrie believes in weird conspiracy theories while Ja could legitimately get himself killed for pretending to be a gangster.

[Jasper]

ja is not Kyrie.

[FultzNationRISE]

He's nowhere near as good as Kyrie and his off-court issues are significantly worse. Kyrie believes in weird conspiracy theories while Ja could legitimately get himself killed for pretending to be a gangster.


Im not talking about personal similarities, Im talking about how theyre both branded as “stars” but they dont actually impact winning.

[ImKobe]

Im not talking about personal similarities, Im talking about how theyre both branded as “stars” but they dont actually impact winning.

They do but basketball is a team sport. Both have played on loaded teams where those teams can hold it down without them but would ultimately have no chance of winning in the POs with them out.

Kyrie's teams would still be good without him when you have prime Bran or a loaded Celtics or Nets squads but he's absolutely a star, he's somewhere between the star & superstar tier where he's quite not up there with the generational guys but he's right below them. You need a player like Ja or Kyrie in a Playoff series when everything slows down & the defenses aren't giving up as many open looks. There's nothing wrong with being the 2nd best player on a championship team and Kyrie's at least proven himself as someone who can rise up to the occasion. I have bigger questions about Ja and his work ethic.

[SouBeachTalents]

Kyrie & Ja are definitely "star" players, both are All-NBA caliber, neither are superstars though, a term that's always been applied to players way too liberally. Fans in general have always overrated high scoring flashy players since Jordan.

[FultzNationRISE]

Kyrie & Ja are definitely "star" players, both are All-NBA caliber, neither are superstars though, a term that's always been applied to players way too liberally. Fans in general have always overrated high scoring flashy players since Jordan.

Why?

None of what they do contributes to winning in professional team basketball at a level above what… George Nieng contributes. And the evidence is clear. Irving and Morant’s teams NEVER struggle when theyre gone. Yet theyre supposedly “the most important guy on the team.” There are significant sample sizes of these guys missing time, and their teams generally perform BETTER.

How can you justify calling non difference makers “stars” in the context of impact?

[FultzNationRISE]

People want to still see them as stars somehow because it maintains everything theyve always known and professed about basketball.

But it's just not true. And people dont wanna have to start from scratch and rethink everything. Which of course is why so many things in society are the way they are.

[AlternativeAcc.]

To be fair, grizzlies are below .500 without Ja this season, and Kyrie did have an epic title run as a 2nd option once upon a time that many just aren't capable of.

They're stars in terms of offensive talent, so was Cousins. But offensive talent doesn't always translate to wins.

[FultzNationRISE]

To be fair, grizzlies are below .500 without Ja this season, and Kyrie did have an epic title run as a 2nd option once upon a time that many just aren't capable of.

They're stars in terms of offensive talent, so was Cousins. But offensive talent doesn't always translate to wins.

Well he's missed 12 games, and I know theyve won a few of those, so factoring in the 20+ wins they ran up without him last year they must still be above .500 without him.

Also Kyrie put up big points in the finals, but the Cavs kept making the Finals with or without him. The difference he made was that one shot, which guys like Robert Horry and John Paxson have also made.

So in terms of making a difference above replacement value to the purpose of winning... the evidence just isnt there that these guys are on some elevated level above the dozens and dozens of average NBA starters in this league. Their games are just more exciting. Not actually more meaningful.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Well he's missed 12 games, and I know theyve won a few of those, so factoring in the 20+ wins they ran up without him last year they must still be above .500 without him.

Also Kyrie put up big points in the finals, but the Cavs kept making the Finals with or without him. The difference he made was that one shot, which guys like Robert Horry and John Paxson have also made.

So in terms of making a difference above replacement value to the purpose of winning... the evidence just isnt there that these guys are on some elevated level above the dozens and dozens of average NBA starters in this league. Their games are just more exciting. Not actually more meaningful.

I think Kyries difference in that finals was a lot more than one shot, but you make some points. He's not the only guy to have an outlier series. The data does suggest his impact on winning isn't there.

I think guys like Irving are the exception though. Typically being an elite shot creator is an important piece for a championship team and contributes to winning more than an average player. I think in Irving's case he's just not a great lockerroom guy, doesn't play defense, and isn't a great passer so him being a 6'1 guard just isn't gonna impact the game over the course of a season. Morant kinda in the same mold.

But at the same time if you replace Irving with an 'average' PG they have no shot to make any noise. With Irving there's still that potential he can average 30ppg and hit clutch shots. The chances are almost zero with an average PG, and about 5 percent with Irving.

[SouBeachTalents]

Why?

None of what they do contributes to winning in professional team basketball at a level above what… George Nieng contributes. And the evidence is clear. Irving and Morant’s teams NEVER struggle when theyre gone. Yet theyre supposedly “the most important guy on the team.” There are significant sample sizes of these guys missing time, and their teams generally perform BETTER.

How can you justify calling non difference makers “stars” in the context of impact?
So then what would you classify them as? Average starters? Role players?

[FultzNationRISE]

So then what would you classify them as? Average starters? Role players?

Yes.

In fact, I would even classify them as liabilities. Their style of play is not what wins championships (except in the extraordinary circumstance of playing with the undisputed LeGOAT).

And the results speak for themselves. Cavs returning to the finals without Rie. Celtics going farther the year he missed the playoffs. Nets always playing better when he sat. And Mavs now sucking with him on the team.

It's a consistent pattern spanning his entire career. Why do people keep ignoring this??