Perfect example of Eye Test vs Statistics

[Mr Bones]

The scouting report on Kawhi before he was drafted:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kawhi-Leonard-5821/

The top ranked wing on our Big Board,Kawhi Leonard (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kawhi-Leonard-5821/)'s stock is based primarily on his physical attributes, defensive abilities, and upside, so it's not a huge surprise that he doesn't fare very well from a purely statistical standpoint. His profile strongly indicates that he's destined to play a complimentary role in the NBA, at least in his first few seasons.

Leonard's 0.889 points per possession overall ranks third worst of the 17 wings we evaluated, and his adjusted field goal percentage of 46.3% ranks dead last, a strong illustration of his scoring woes. On the positive side, Leonard's overall turnover percentage of 11.8% ranks third best in the class, and he could actually even stand to improve at the next level when he's projected to have even less shot creation responsibility initially.

Another interesting note looking at Leonard's possessions is that only 13% of his possessions came in transition, which ranks him 13th overall in the group. Leonard played on one of theslowest-paced teams in college basketball (http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjTempo), likely due to his team's mediocre guard play. For a player with his physical tools, this is less than ideal, and he could certainly see a spike in that regard at the next level, which should help his overall efficiency.

In the half-court, Leonard ranks seventh of all wings in the percentage of his possessions coming from isolations, at 15%. His .721 PPP on these possessions ranks 15th, indicating that he struggled to create shots effectively for himself last season. He was unable to get to the free throw line consistently (11.3%, 12th) for many of these same reasons, and did not finish around the basket at a high rate, where his 1.069 PPS ranked 13th.

If Leonard ever does develop into a more reliable isolation threat, improving his left hand should be among his top priorities, as despite seeing a near equal breakdown of drives in both directions (37 possessions going right, 35 going left), Leonard's efficiency going right (0.865 PPP) more than doubled his efficiency going left (0.429 PPP).

Leonard is not only an average ball-handler, but he also struggles to make shots consistently from beyond the arc. His 0.743 points per shots on jumpers ranks 16th of 17 in the class, where he shot an abysmal 31% from the field. His struggles extend both to his catch and shoot jumpers (32%) and pull-ups (28%).

While these numbers point out some glaring weaknesses, it's important to remember the different role Leonard is projected to play in the pros, and how most of the strengths in his scouting report (such as defense and rebounding) come in areas largely unquantifiable by statistics of this nature (at least reliably).

From DraftExpress.comhttp://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz3PrCwarvD (http://www.draftexpress.com/#ixzz3PrCwarvD)
http://www.draftexpress.com

[SnakeBoy]

I don't get the thread title. Pre-draft Leonard was a horrible offensive player according to the stats and the eye test. Even Duncan said he thought wtf? when he first saw Kawhi in the gym. How quickly he improved his ball handling and shooting has been amazing.

[EVAY]

I don't get the thread title. Pre-draft Leonard was a horrible offensive player according to the stats and the eye test. Even Duncan said he thought wtf? when he first saw Kawhi in the gym. How quickly he improved his ball handling and shooting has been amazing.

Both his improvement in ball handling and three point shooting is a function of player development by the Spurs' coaching staff.

Don't you remember the first two years whenever either Kawhi or Danny Green took off in transition it was just a cringe-worthy sight? I remember hating to see either one of them start a fast break, because neither of them could ever finish one.

Today both players are much better ball handlers. Kawhi's three was developed since his wing position in the 2012-2014 dominant offensive set was to essentially be there in the corner for a kick-out three. His development of his other shots is coming along nicely as his decision making. More development in both of those areas will allow him to become the dominant force that I think the FO foresees. It is not a criticism of him to acknowledge that a 23 year old who has made great improvements already can be even better than he is now.

I think the OP just shows the great strides he has already made, and notes that he can do more.

[Mr Bones]

The eye test from the lead scouts of the Spurs identified him as a good player capable of improvement... whereas going by the stats you might say this guy's nothing but a role player...

[spurs10]

The eye test from the lead scouts of the Spurs identified him as a good player capable of improvement... whereas going by the stats you might say this guy's nothing but a role player... Yes I remember seeing that back then. The kid has worked hard and has his eye on the prize. His relationship with Pop and the training staff have paid off for us. How he helps the team is obvious.

[Diego20]

Yes I remember seeing that back then. The kid has worked hard and has his eye on the prize. His relationship with Pop and the training staff have paid off for us. How he helps the team is obvious.

I think the team helps him too..

[exstatic]

The eye test from the lead scouts of the Spurs identified him as a good player capable of improvement... whereas going by the stats you might say this guy's nothing but a role player...

The eye test would have been right if it weren't for his work ethic. There are probably 4-5 players like Kawhi, raw talent wise, in every draft, and maybe one thinks that he needs to improve, and wants to work at it.

[Andthentherewas21]

Problem is your trying to compare two different things. There is a difference between someone failing the eye test and the statistics saying otherwise or vice versa, as opposed to trying to use some statistics to project qualities into the future when the two environments are not equivalent (college vs NBA). The main focus of the article is Kawhi's offense, particularly is PPP which often doesn't translate well from college into the NBA, however things like rebounding, steals, and defense generally are good indicators and carryover from college to the NBA.

Side note: Didn't Kawhi play mostly PF in college? If so, the fact all of his stats are being compared to guards (even if he is playing on the perimeter as a SF) is a bit strange.

[Mr Bones]

The eye test would have been right if it weren't for his work ethic. There are probably 4-5 players like Kawhi, raw talent wise, in every draft, and maybe one thinks that he needs to improve, and wants to work at it.

I think the work ethic was seen in the eye test. Eye tests see things that stats don't, like character, temperament, and work ethic.

[exstatic]

Many players pass the "eye test" with flying colors and fall flat on their faces in the NBA. Kawhi succeeded neither because of the eye test or statistics. He has the heart of a warrior. It's something you can't see.

[Mr Bones]

Another eye test thing: This guy is coachable, unlike say a Josh Smith...

[Mr Bones]

Many players pass the "eye test" with flying colors and fall flat on their faces in the NBA. Kawhi succeeded neither because of the eye test or statistics. He has the heart of a warrior. It's something you can't see.

Right, and many players pass the "stat test" with flying colors and fall flat too. I think a combination of the two is the best approach. i think the "warrior" thing can be seen by some scouts...

[exstatic]

Another eye test thing: This guy is coachable, unlike say a Josh Smith...

That's not an eye test item. You find that out by digging, talking to coaches and friends and family, and using psychological testing.

[exstatic]

Why do you think that in addition to Kawhi, the Spurs have had Malcolm Thomas and Josh Davis signed at various times? Pop has a relationship with and trusts Steve Fisher.

[Mr Bones]

That's not an eye test item. You find that out by digging, talking to coaches and friends and family, and using psychological testing.

You're mincing words. You "evaluate" the guy... I mean "eye test" in the bigger scope-- a penetrating look, not a casual look.

[exstatic]

You're mincing words. You "evaluate" the guy... I mean "eye test" in the bigger scope-- a penetrating look, not a casual look.

And you're blurring things. Eye test means just what it says: what you can see with your eyes, what a player physically presents on the court. If the "heart of a warrior" could be seen by an eye test, Kawhi never falls to #15.

[Mr Bones]

And you're blurring things. Eye test means just what it says: what you can see with your eyes, what a player physically presents on the court. If the "heart of a warrior" could be seen by an eye test, Kawhi never falls to #15.

You're still mincing words... I say "character, temperament, work ethic" and you say "No-- Heart of a warrior." When you "watch" basketball, you never "see" that one player seems to be much more of a warrior than another? I'm using Eye Test in a broad, general, conversational way and you're analyzing the phrase like a grad student from the Linguistics Dept. It's the same thing.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Kawhi exemplifies what anyone in any field can be capable of doing if s/he is keen on improvement and development. I have seen a lot of folks in various phases of my career who have through sheer dedication, moved far away from their initial "scouting reports" while so called "geniuses" floundered and faded away.

[exstatic]

You're still mincing words... I say "character, temperament, work ethic" and you say "No-- Heart of a warrior." When you "watch" basketball, you never "see" that one player seems to be much more of a warrior than another? I'm using Eye Test in a broad, general, conversational way and you're analyzing the word like a grad student from the Linguistics Dept.
The linguistics department is important. It's how we communicate clearly. Eye test isn't all that fuzzy. You're the one scrambling it up and misusing it. I'm never going to agree on your broader more convenient to your argument definition.

And no, I've never seen a kid's work ethic on the court. No matter how aggressive they appear, that doesn't translate into hours in the gym hoisting jumpers or doing defensive slides.

[Mr Bones]

The linguistics department is important. It's how we communicate clearly. Eye test isn't all that fuzzy. You're the one scrambling g it up and misusing it.

And no, I've never seen a kid's work ethic on the court. No matter how aggressive they appear, that doesn't translate into hours in the gym hoisting jumpers or doing defensive slides.


But if you're a scout and you're following him, you hear that he spends many hours in the gym... maybe you actually "see" and maybe you don't. It's still a part of your overall "look" at him.

It's ironic that you use the word "blurring." That's a word associated with seeing, so you've accidentally agreed with me while disagreeing with me.
Yay, linguistics.

[cjw]

The NBA and college game are totally different. For one, there is a lot more variance in the ability of players and guys on very good teams can be made to look much better as a result (Waiters?) while guys carrying borderline top-25 teams or worse have to carry much more of the load (Steph Curry anyone?).

Rebounding is one area that carries over well to the pros, and that's something Kawhi's always had.

[stxspurs]

Best Case: Shawn Marion
Worst Case: Luc Richard Mbah A Moute


:lmao

[TheGreatYacht]

Best Case: Shawn Marion
Worst Case: Luc Richard Mbah A Moute


:lmao
That's still true...

[tholdren]

Many players pass the "eye test" with flying colors and fall flat on their faces in the NBA. Kawhi succeeded neither because of the eye test or statistics. He has the heart of a warrior. It's something you can't see.

yep, think of how many kids go D1 on "potential" and height. Seen tons of really, really good 6 foot players not get recruited and mediocre at best 6'6 players go to college and never amount to anything.

[tholdren]

side note-

KL stats in college were pretty good. double double fresh soph year... with PER in the mid 20s....

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/kawhi-leonard-1.html

[KL2]

The Spurs saw his raw talent, he already had NBA size and wasn't done filling out. It's like Cojo/Baynes/Splitter/Green, they look like shit before they developed but if you know what to look for you can see what they'll develop into. Some will be great, others just average.

Leonard actually does a lot of the same stuff he did back at SDSU, he used to bring the ball up the court a lot and facilitate. He could rebound among anybody which is a skill that generally translates to the NBA, he could get great position in the post, get to the rim at will, get high % shots, knock down 1 handed floaters, he was capable of doing all of this in college. Problem was his shot mechanics were way off.

His elbow was flared out and he release was too slow/high. When your elbow is flared out you have no control of the ball, I have experienced this myself, I changed my shot and I went from bricking everything to making everything with ease.

It made him predictable on offense, he couldn't knock down 3's, jumpers, etc.

[Chinook]

OMFG. STATS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE! It makes no sense to say that stats would lead someone to believe Kawhi would only be a role-player. At best, they would have said Kawhi wasn't much more than a role-player in college (which they don't, as tholdren points out). Stats are descriptive; they show what happened until whatever constraints they're put under. The weakness of them is based on the scope and nature of the constraints, not the philosophy behind them.

Simply put, if a player shoots 10 percent on 1000 shots, then he is not a good shooter, not matter what the eye test says. However, there's no reason why his previous percentage would cap his future production. Stats are IID values for that reason.

[FkLA]

WTF are you even trying to say OP? Are you saying statistics lie? Because at that age Kawhi wasn't the offensive player he is today. Those stats were indicative of the limited offensive player Kawhi was at 19.

Numbers don't lie, biased fanboys do.

[ajh18]

There's a pretty strong case to be made that there is really no such thing as "the eye test." All that term really refers to is a person's brain processing several different metrics and data points that aren't as commonly or as frequently recorded.

-Percent of time the player goes to the right spot in an offensive set.
-Wingspan
-Percent of shots a player takes from his high-efficiency areas
-Relative effectiveness of a player's screens in getting a guard to the basket compared to others
-Etc, etc, etc

These are all the kinds of metrics "they eye test" is actually assessing. Even personality and behavioral traits can be quantified.

[some_user86]

WTF are you even trying to say OP? Are you saying statistics lie? Because at that age Kawhi wasn't the offensive player he is today. Those stats were indicative of the limited offensive player Kawhi was at 19.

Numbers don't lie, biased fanboys do.

No, I think what he is trying to say is that misapplication of statistics to gain predictive value from them is misleading. As Chinook said, stats are descriptive not predictive. But there are clearly a lot of people both inside and outside the NBA who use stats in a predictive fashion (Hollinger's Playoff Predictor and ESPN's Trade Predictor being prime examples).

[FkLA]

No, I think what he is trying to say is that misapplication of statistics to gain predictive value from them is misleading. As Chinook said, stats are descriptive not predictive. But there are clearly a lot of people both inside and outside the NBA who use stats in a predictive fashion (Hollinger's Playoff Predictor and ESPN's Trade Predictor being prime examples).

I see. Im assuming he's somehow trying to use it to defend Enrique's terrible metrics which is pretty dumb and desperate.

[spurs10]

I think the team helps him too.. I concur. It's what the Spurs do.

[Brunodf]

HOLY S#IT THIS BLEW MY MIND :wow

I DIDN'T EXPECT KAWHI TO BE A BIGGER FACTOR ON THE DEFENSIVE END :wow

[Mr Bones]

No, I think what he is trying to say is that misapplication of statistics to gain predictive value from them is misleading. As Chinook said, stats are descriptive not predictive. But there are clearly a lot of people both inside and outside the NBA who use stats in a predictive fashion (Hollinger's Playoff Predictor and ESPN's Trade Predictor being prime examples).

I'd phrase it this way: Stats are a translation of a player's effectiveness, not a purely objective fact of effectiveness. Brandan Wright has awesome statistical numbers as a 20mpg player. He's a great bench player, but that doesn't mean he should get 38 minutes a game. He excels in some match ups, and suffers in others. There have been years when Bonner was a star of the +/- stat.. Again, he benefitted from good match ups during his playing time, but that doesn't mean he was one of the "best" players on the roster.

[Mr Bones]

I see. Im assuming he's somehow trying to use it to defend Enrique's terrible metrics which is pretty dumb and desperate.


Wrong again. I look at stats all the time and definitely see the strong correlation between stats and effective play. I just see that there are repeatedly glitches and shortcomings to most stats too.

[hater]

some truth bombs imo

[Johnny RIngo]

The eye test from the lead scouts of the Spurs identified him as a good player capable of improvement... whereas going by the stats you might say this guy's nothing but a role player...

It should be noted that there are stat guys out there that build draft models for college players and try to predict their impact in the NBA based on the data. None of them are perfect but some have some interesting results. Here's one that had Leonard as the 2nd best player in the draft:

http://s5.postimg.org/kokht5ehj/2011_draft_model.png

Also, it's more than likely that the Spurs(along with most teams in NBA) have their own analytics researcher on their staff. It's incredibly naive to think that all they're using is the "eye test" when gauging talent. Here's a list of teams that have an analytics department:

http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Depar tment/

Completely dismissing all stats as useless(because your favorite player is not rated highly in any of them) is petty and stupid.

[Aztecfan03]

Problem is your trying to compare two different things. There is a difference between someone failing the eye test and the statistics saying otherwise or vice versa, as opposed to trying to use some statistics to project qualities into the future when the two environments are not equivalent (college vs NBA). The main focus of the article is Kawhi's offense, particularly is PPP which often doesn't translate well from college into the NBA, however things like rebounding, steals, and defense generally are good indicators and carryover from college to the NBA.

Side note: Didn't Kawhi play mostly PF in college? If so, the fact all of his stats are being compared to guards (even if he is playing on the perimeter as a SF) is a bit strange.

I think Billy White was the "center" and Malcolm Thomas was PF and Kawhi was SF and the article does says "wings", not "guards" but that SDSU team pretty much had 3 starting PF's

[Andthentherewas21]

I think Billy White was the "center" and Malcolm Thomas was PF and Kawhi was SF and the article does says "wings", not "guards" but that SDSU team pretty much had 3 starting PF's

Thanks for the info :bobo

[Mr Bones]

Completely dismissing all stats as useless(because your favorite player is not rated highly in any of them) is petty and stupid.

Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.

[Johnny RIngo]

Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.

You claimed that the Spurs predicted Kawhi would be a good player only due to the eye test...which is ridiculous. I already showed you how high Kawhi was ranked in certain draft models. There were a lot of people that thought he was being underrated going into the draft. Spurs have been using analytics for years(longer than most NBA teams) - they more than likely have their own college draft models. A good team will use BOTH(eye test and stats) in coordination when evaluating talent.

And, as many have pointed out in this thread, there are a couple guys like Kawhi in every draft. Most of them don't pan out due to a multitude of reasons(poor work ethic, injuries, or even inadequate player development from the team itself).

I understand you're angry about everybody shitting on Parker using the advanced numbers but that's a poor reason to create a thread like this.

[100%duncan]

That's still true...

People like you are why I love to shit on TP sometimes :lol

[Raven]

That's still true...

i don't remember marion ever being a fmvp

[DrunkTXLabrat]

And you're blurring things. Eye test means just what it says: what you can see with your eyes, what a player physically presents on the court. If the "heart of a warrior" could be seen by an eye test, Kawhi never falls to #15.

Heart of a warrior is easily apparent. He's falls to 15 and is acquirable because "the celtics suck."

[DrunkTXLabrat]

The linguistics department is important. It's how we communicate clearly. Eye test isn't all that fuzzy. You're the one scrambling it up and misusing it. I'm never going to agree on your broader more convenient to your argument definition.

And no, I've never seen a kid's work ethic on the court. No matter how aggressive they appear, that doesn't translate into hours in the gym hoisting jumpers or doing defensive slides.

The hell you haven't seen a kids work ethic on the court. You see it in the way he repeatedly rips away the ball for a full court sprint. He has IT, IT is called mojo. It looks beastly. You ignore IT. Cause you don't have IT.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

You claimed that the Spurs predicted Kawhi would be a good player only due to the eye test...which is ridiculous. I already showed you how high Kawhi was ranked in certain draft models. There were a lot of people that thought he was being underrated going into the draft. Spurs have been using analytics for years(longer than most NBA teams) - they more than likely have their own college draft models. A good team will use BOTH(eye test and stats) in coordination when evaluating talent.

And, as many have pointed out in this thread, there are a couple guys like Kawhi in every draft. Most of them don't pan out due to a multitude of reasons(poor work ethic, injuries, or even inadequate player development from the team itself).

I understand you're angry about everybody shitting on Parker using the advanced numbers but that's a poor reason to create a thread like this.

The stats said kawhi was a mediocre player. Good d and rebounding, poor shooter. The spurs used the eye test, their "tired of richard jeffersonness," and their tired of hill or parkerness to take the best gamble they've ever taken. The spurs should gamble on their eye test and situational desperation more often. But instead the stashers mess their bodies up abroad, while we sit and defend Bonner and Ayers because it looks like somebody on the coaching staff believes in them.

[Yuixafun]

The eye test to me, has always implied a quick study, semi superficial like... "Well he looks the part..." ... But how deep a person can see with that glance varies.... It is why some people can see something in someone no one else does, or enables to look past the obvious and gimmicks.

In regards to cultivating a visionary philosophy, keep this in mind....

Look straight ahead, what's there, if you see it for what it is you will never err.

To see with eyes unclouded by hate...

[Agloco]

Best Case: Shawn Marion
Worst Case: Luc Richard Mbah A Moute


:lmao


That's still true...

Lol no.

[Mr Bones]

You claimed that the Spurs predicted Kawhi would be a good player only due to the eye test...which is ridiculous. I already showed you how high Kawhi was ranked in certain draft models. There were a lot of people that thought he was being underrated going into the draft. Spurs have been using analytics for years(longer than most NBA teams) - they more than likely have their own college draft models. A good team will use BOTH(eye test and stats) in coordination when evaluating talent.




Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.

You are very bad at reading comprehension.

[Johnny RIngo]

Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.


The eye test from the lead scouts of the Spurs identified him as a good player capable of improvement... whereas going by the stats you might say this guy's nothing but a role player...

:lol attributing the Spurs drafting Leonard only due to the eye test.

Again, empty claims without any proof. Spurs aren't the Knicks or Bobcats. They actually have an analytics department and have been using advanced metrics longer than most teams in the league.

[Mr Bones]

Read the whole sentence: The eye test identified him as a good player capable of improvement. His defensive and rebounding stats were very good, but his offensive stats weren't. Observations of his character & work ethic made them believe he could improve offensively and become better than, say, Mbah a Moute or Al Farouq Aminu....

Mediocre offensive stats in college don't predict that you will someday be a good offensive player.

[Mr Bones]

I'm sorry about your reading comprehension troubles.

[Chinook]

... stats ... don't predict ...

at all. It's an absolutely baseless attack to bring up Kawhi improving.

[Mr Bones]

at all. It's an absolutely baseless attack to bring up Kawhi improving.

Not sure what you mean here... explain?

[Chinook]

Not sure what you mean here... explain?

Stats gauge what has already happened. To say they're a misrepresentation (or even a flawed representation) of reality due to Kawhi getting better makes no sense. Stats suggest Parker has been terrible this season. They don't say he won't improve.

[Brazil]

Stats gauge what has already happened.


tell that to Avante

[Mr Bones]

Stats gauge what has already happened. To say they're a misrepresentation (or even a flawed representation) of reality due to Kawhi getting better makes no sense. Stats suggest Parker has been terrible this season. They don't say he won't improve.


Gotcha, and agreed. I think Kawhi's stats in college were the numbers of a guy who hadn't developed a great offensive game yet, but the straightfoward observation of his character, work ethic, and temperament led the Spurs to believe he had the tools and the attitude to improve... I don't think they would've made that trade if they thought he was going to be a Luc Richard Mbah a Moute...

My angle has always been use stats AND use observation in conjunction, but no matter how many time I repeat this Johnny ringo comes back with, "you don't thinks stats should be used at all." It's absurd. I post in the Think Tank all the time, and use stats extensively, but somehow this still translates as "I don't like stats" to him.

[Johnny RIngo]

My angle has always been use stats AND use observation in conjunction, but no matter how many time I repeat this Johnny ringo comes back with, "you don't thinks stats should be used at all." It's absurd. I post in the Think Tank all the time, and use stats extensively, but somehow this still translates as "I don't like stats" to him.

Just take the L on this one and move on, bro. It's obvious that this is a reactionary thread because you're butthurt about all Tony Parker criticism. Doesn't mean you have to use retarded backwards logic to prove your point. Like Chinook said, damning all stats because they didn't predict Kawhi would be this good is faulty logic. No way comparable to the stats that are saying Parker's a bad player right now.

[Mr Bones]

Just take the L on this one and move on, bro. It's obvious that this is a reactionary thread because you're butthurt about all Tony Parker criticism. Doesn't mean you have to use retarded backwards logic to prove your point. Like Chinook said, damning all stats because they didn't predict Kawhi would be this good is faulty logic. No way comparable to the stats that are saying Parker's a bad player right now.

Your reading comprehension is so bad that it's actually amusing right now. Keep hammering the same untrue statements like "damning all stats" etc., etc. Anyone with sense can read the posts and see that I repeatedly say use both, but your only response is saying that I don't like stats, which is completely untrue, as i've pointed out again and again and again. You might as well say, "Dude, you're wrong because you live in a tree house and drive a '73 Ford Pinto."
Not true, not relevant, not interesting.

[FkLA]

Ok, so what if a player has bad metrics and fails the eye test? Like Enrique who can't take guys like Humphries/Mirotic off the dribble and can't stay in front of anybody.

[Cry Havoc]

I would trust stats beyond the reach of any "talent scout" in the league.

There's not a single person in the NBA who doesn't bring bias about what an "NBA player should look like" or be able to accomplish on a basketball court.

Pretty sure the Spurs didn't go out and "eyeball test" every Euroleague player in the world to find Parker and Manu.

Also fairly certain that Kawhi wasn't their only wish for the NBA draft. Draft another player and he might not have worked out at all for us.

[Yuixafun]

Abilities are innate, and skills are to be developed.

I'm sure it was organic for the Spurs and their defensive pedigree to see the true value of what Kawhi could be, despite his limited offensive success.

I reckon the Spurs are confidant they can build a players shot, and teach offense, and with KL there was plenty of clay to mold.

What's the point of all this turmoil anyway, the same vision was at work when the Spurs drafted Tony, Manu and KL...

It's remarkable how the coaching staff was able to identify and make diamonds out of those players ( in tandem with their own fighting spirits). A Speedy kid from France, a whirling dervish from Argentina, a stoic kid with wingspan and hands.

Even Danny Green has been a revelation.

[Old School 44]

When Bruce lost a step/retired the Spurs realized they needed versatile, long, defensive wings to compete. Guys who can defend the likes of Dirk, LeBron, KD, Aldridge, Griffin, but also be flexible enough to maybe guard a Westbrook, Rose, Lillard, Thompson, Curry. They drafted Kawhi because he had the defensive attributes. Along with Green, they developed probably the best and most versatile wing defenders in the league. I actually think the Spurs just got lucky with their offensive contributions. I'm sure they saw they could improve, but I don't think they ever thought to the extent they are at right now...and still growing.

[dabom]

When Bruce lost a step/retired the Spurs realized they needed versatile, long, defensive wings to compete. Guys who can defend the likes of Dirk, LeBron, KD, Aldridge, Griffin, but also be flexible enough to maybe guard a Westbrook, Rose, Lillard, Thompson, Curry. They drafted Kawhi because he had the defensive attributes. Along with Green, they developed probably the best and most versatile wing defenders in the league. I actually think the Spurs just got lucky with their offensive contributions. I'm sure they saw they could improve, but I don't think they ever thought to the extent they are at right now...and still growing.

The spurs thought they were drafting a bruce bowen but got a scottie pippen.