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'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, 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 e 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
I don't get the thread le. 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.
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.
I think the team helps him too..
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.
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 the work ethic was seen in the eye test. Eye tests see things that stats don't, like character, temperament, and work ethic.
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.
Another eye test thing: This guy is coachable, unlike say a Josh Smith...
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...
That's not an eye test item. You find that out by digging, talking to coaches and friends and family, and using psychological testing.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Mr Bones; 01-25-2015 at 02:58 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Best Case: Shawn Marion
Worst Case: Luc Richard Mbah A Moute
That's still true...Best Case: Shawn Marion
Worst Case: Luc Richard Mbah A Moute
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.
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/...leonard-1.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
