Carlos Danger wrote:I looked up the Cavs record (regular and post season) in games one of the Big Three missed:
Love: 23 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 13-10 (.565)
Irving 14 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 5-9 (.357)
LeBron 13 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 3-10 (.231)
If Kyrie had stayed healthy, it's very possible that the Cavs win the title without Love IMO.
That could just as easily have to do with what players were replacing those three when they were out. Tristan Thompson > Matthew Dellavedova, and that's not even close.
Yep. But that was sort of the question at hand...did the Cavs need Love or could they have done as well without him? Tristan Thompson is a step down from Love. But he's still a decent player and perhaps a sufficient 3rd option. People are making the argument that the Cavs won the trade because they had a better record than the Wolves. I'm saying (and others are saying) that the Cavs might have won just as many games even if Love hadn't joined them. LeBron and Kyrie are really, really good. And Love seemed miscast as a 3rd option IMO. He went from being an All-Star with a 26.9 PER to a good player/18.8 PER. You know who else had an 18 PER? Justin Hamilton! :-)
Carlos Danger wrote:I looked up the Cavs record (regular and post season) in games one of the Big Three missed:
Love: 23 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 13-10 (.565)
Irving 14 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 5-9 (.357)
LeBron 13 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 3-10 (.231)
If Kyrie had stayed healthy, it's very possible that the Cavs win the title without Love IMO.
That could just as easily have to do with what players were replacing those three when they were out. Tristan Thompson > Matthew Dellavedova, and that's not even close.
Yep. But that was sort of the question at hand...did the Cavs need Love or could they have done as well without him? Tristan Thompson is a step down from Love. But he's still a decent player and perhaps a sufficient 3rd option. People are making the argument that the Cavs won the trade because they had a better record than the Wolves. I'm saying (and others are saying) that the Cavs might have won just as many games even if Love hadn't joined them. LeBron and Kyrie are really, really good. And Love seemed miscast as a 3rd option IMO. He went from being an All-Star with a 26.9 PER to a good player/18.8 PER. You know who else had an 18 PER? Justin Hamilton! :-)
They won 11% more of their games with Love in their lineup than without Love. To say they could have won just as many games without Love is factually incorrect because their record without him is 11% worse. 11% is a big number when it comes to winning percentages. They won 56.5% without him and 67.7% with him. That gap isn't as easy to make up as people on here are trying to argue by saying Love could have easily been replaced. Is the difference as big for him as Kyrie and Lebron, no, but it's still the difference between them being a good and an elite team.
And I bring up the Mozgov deal because Love plays a positive role defensively when he has a plus rim defender next to him because he is a good post defender and an elite rebounder. The only thing he can't do is block shots so having someone else who can do that to protect him means they can be a very good defense with both on the floor and an elite offense with Love as a stretch 4. TT got the same benefit in the finals which is why they were able to switch him on everything. He had an elite helper behind him so if he got beat or if Curry passed out of the double, they wouldn't pay the price at the rim (easiest and most efficient baskets) because they had a legitimate rim protector there. TT/Mozgov was elite defense with almost no offense. Love/Mozgov is great defense and elite offense. That's why they only lost 3 games with those two guys starting in the frontcourt.
They won 11% more of their games with Love in their lineup than without Love. To say they could have won just as many games without Love is factually incorrect because their record without him is 11% worse. 11% is a big number when it comes to winning percentages. They won 56.5% without him and 67.7% with him. That gap isn't as easy to make up as people on here are trying to argue by saying Love could have easily been replaced. Is the difference as big for him as Kyrie and Lebron, no, but it's still the difference between them being a good and an elite team. .
Right. But you are forgetting the fact that if they didn't get Love, they would have had Wiggins instead. We don't know what impact that might have had (better or worse). But I don't think it's unreasonable to think Wiggins would have helped more than hurt. Also, .565 winning percentage (without Love or Wiggins) would have been good enough to get into the playoffs. Once you get into the playoffs - it's all about LeBron/Kyrie. We saw they were able to blow past the Hawks and Bulls just fine without Love (or Wiggins).
At the end of the day, I really don't give a rip. Love is gone. Wiggins is here. And I'm totally fine with that. We need camp to start soon so we have more stuff to talk about!
Carlos Danger wrote:I looked up the Cavs record (regular and post season) in games one of the Big Three missed:
Love: 23 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 13-10 (.565)
Irving 14 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 5-9 (.357)
LeBron 13 games missed. Cavs record in those games was 3-10 (.231)
If Kyrie had stayed healthy, it's very possible that the Cavs win the title without Love IMO.
That could just as easily have to do with what players were replacing those three when they were out. Tristan Thompson > Matthew Dellavedova, and that's not even close.
Yeah, I don't think anyone would disagree with this. I think everyone would also agree that the drop off from Irving to Dellavedova was much greater than the drop off from Love to TT...hence, the Irving loss hurt them much more in the playoffs than the Love loss.
They won 11% more of their games with Love in their lineup than without Love. To say they could have won just as many games without Love is factually incorrect because their record without him is 11% worse. 11% is a big number when it comes to winning percentages. They won 56.5% without him and 67.7% with him. That gap isn't as easy to make up as people on here are trying to argue by saying Love could have easily been replaced. Is the difference as big for him as Kyrie and Lebron, no, but it's still the difference between them being a good and an elite team. .
Right. But you are forgetting the fact that if they didn't get Love, they would have had Wiggins instead. We don't know what impact that might have had (better or worse). But I don't think it's unreasonable to think Wiggins would have helped more than hurt. Also, .565 winning percentage (without Love or Wiggins) would have been good enough to get into the playoffs. Once you get into the playoffs - it's all about LeBron/Kyrie. We saw they were able to blow past the Hawks and Bulls just fine without Love (or Wiggins).
At the end of the day, I really don't give a rip. Love is gone. Wiggins is here. And I'm totally fine with that. We need camp to start soon so we have more stuff to talk about!
I really can't believe people are suggesting a 19 year old rookie and multi-time all-star/recent league MVP candidate might bring the same impact to the floor night in and night out. That argument baffles me.
khans2k5 wrote:
I really can't believe people are suggesting a 19 year old rookie and multi-time all-star/recent league MVP candidate might bring the same impact to the floor night in and night out. That argument baffles me.
I think It's because you are stuck on the mindset of Love as he was in MN. The Cavs didn't get the All Star 26.9 PER Kevin Love. They got the solid 18 PER/3rd Option Kevin Love. He contributed. But he wasn't "the man". And if you are saying that Kevin Love is in another league than Andrew Wiggins, then you are saying we were totally screwed on that trade. That would put you in the minority. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. For the record, here's what they both did after the All Star Break:
khans2k5 wrote:
I really can't believe people are suggesting a 19 year old rookie and multi-time all-star/recent league MVP candidate might bring the same impact to the floor night in and night out. That argument baffles me.
I think It's because you are stuck on the mindset of Love as he was in MN. The Cavs didn't get the All Star 26.9 PER Kevin Love. They got the solid 18 PER/3rd Option Kevin Love. He contributed. But he wasn't "the man". And if you are saying that Kevin Love is in another league than Andrew Wiggins, then you are saying we were totally screwed on that trade. That would put you in the minority. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. For the record, here's what they both did after the All Star Break:
That's an unfair argument, Carlos. In just emphasizing offensive stats you're ignoring other areas where Kevin makes extraordinary contributions...defense, leadership, clutch shooting and just being a great teammate.
longstrangetrip wrote:
That's an unfair argument, Carlos. In just emphasizing offensive stats you're ignoring other areas where Kevin makes extraordinary contributions...defense, leadership, clutch shooting and just being a great teammate.
The sarcasm meter on my laptop just broke LST. You owe me a new one!
khans2k5 wrote:
I really can't believe people are suggesting a 19 year old rookie and multi-time all-star/recent league MVP candidate might bring the same impact to the floor night in and night out. That argument baffles me.
I think It's because you are stuck on the mindset of Love as he was in MN. The Cavs didn't get the All Star 26.9 PER Kevin Love. They got the solid 18 PER/3rd Option Kevin Love. He contributed. But he wasn't "the man". And if you are saying that Kevin Love is in another league than Andrew Wiggins, then you are saying we were totally screwed on that trade. That would put you in the minority. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. For the record, here's what they both did after the All Star Break:
And Cleveland wouldn't have had the 40 MPG/20PPG version of Wiggins. If you're gonna argue Love isn't the same as a third option versus when he was here, is it not fair to do the same to Wiggins? Are you gonna cut all of Wiggins stats by the same percentage as Love's drop or just use the convenient our #1 option versus their #3 option as to why our guy would have been better than theirs playing the #3 role?
