2914
by rusty2
You might have seen this number floating around this season: The Celtics were 12-3 when Irving didn't play. In raw data, it's true, the Celtics have won more over the past two seasons without Irving than with him. They were 26-11 when he didn't play, a .704 win percentage, and 78-49 with him, a .614 win percentage. And, of course, they went to Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals without him in 2018 and were knocked out in five games with four straight losses to the Milwaukee Bucks in the second round this year with him.
When Irving doesn't play, the Celtics are better on defense and Rozier's production blossoms. Some of the best games we've seen from Jayson Tatum are without Irving, too. So Irving bolts and everything should be just fine, right?
Eh. Despite all those numbers, Irving's value is unquestioned. They were way better on offense with Irving, and their net rating, which to some is the mother of all team stats, drops by more than half from plus-5.9 points per 100 possessions to just plus-2.7 points when he's not in the game.
Using Real Plus-Minus data, ESPN's Kevin Pelton estimates that if the Celtics brought back their entire roster minus Irving, they would have five fewer wins next season. That would mean a record of 44-38, which would've gotten them the No. 6 seed this past season. Not exciting.
But you can say this: They probably would be happier as a team without the Irving off-court drama and on-court ball domination. That reality doesn't always show up in the analytics but did show up in their record, and if you watched the Celtics when Irving was out, sometimes it felt like they were kids at recess.