http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ve-a-real-race
The individual numbers aren't as impressive as some of these other guys, but the manner in which Kawhi Leonard exudes an almost stat-less dominance -- or a less traditional stat-driven dominance if you will -- has everybody in the league buzzing about him and fearing him on a nightly basis. Part of the boost in his MVP potential is the fact that the Spurs are on the heels of the Warriors after Golden State dominated the conversation with the best start in NBA history. After all of that, the Spurs are right there. They're also more dominant to date (and most dominant in history thus far) and there's a real chance they go perfect at home.
Where Kawhi's case is hurt is the fact that the Spurs are destroyers whether he's on the court or off the court. The defense is just one point worse without him than with him, and both look to be historic measurements of defensive efficiency. Overall, the Spurs with Kawhi on the court are a ridiculous 15.1 points per 100 possessions better than their opponent. But without Leonard out there, the Spurs are still 14.6 points per 100 better. It's tough to judge the "value" of a player when the team just dominates no matter who is on the floor.
You can break that down into him being the new Tim Duncan, who sets the tone for the organization and roster by being willing to sacrifice, being willing to do whatever his team asks and being willing to be treated like the 15th man on the roster when he's the best player they have. And there's merit to that. It's just really difficult to make the case of him being the most valuable in that assumption. He's arguably the best defender in the NBA this season and he's been one of the most accurate 3-point shooters in the league. I'm just not quite there to name him over ...
Ehhh, not sure why they bring up how the Spurs are amazing regardless of Kawhi being playing or not, and then following that up with a comparison to Duncan.
When Duncan was in his prime, it wasn't like that at all. He absolutely carried the team night in and night out and they were didn't perform well at all when he went to the bench. Those teams weren't remotely as deep as the current one.
Fair assessment.
Unfortunately, Duncan's 2003 dominance is forgotten due to playing in the least popular era of NBA basketball in league history, tbh..when he was carrying teams with young Parker/Ginobili and role players, nobody outside of hardcore NBA fans was watching
I think this "You can break that down into him being the new Tim Duncan, who sets the tone for the organization and roster by being willing to sacrifice, being willing to do whatever his team asks and being willing to be treated like the 15th man on the roster when he's the best player they have." answers that. But I get what you're saying, although it was clear they wanted to make the article short as possible thus the jumbled topics.
Fair enough, but yeah, it is sort of jumbled. It kind of makes it seem like Duncan was playing the same sort of role as Kawhi (having his minutes limited, often taking a backseat to other players, etc.), but like I said, Duncan in his prime years wasn't really doing those things. He was playing 40 minutes a night and while he certainly would've been willing to take a backseat to others, the roster didn't allow for it.
1. Curry
2. Kawhi
3. Lebron
4. Westbrook/Durant
6. Green
7. Chris Paul
True. Also, people have a tendency to look back on those years and just look at names rather than how players actually performed. People assume or act like Parker/Manu were always the players they ended up becoming and that simply wasn't the case. I've heard people argue that Duncan had plenty of help in 2003 and mention D-Rob/Parker/ManuUnfortunately, Duncan's 2003 dominance is forgotten due to playing in the least popular era of NBA basketball in league history, tbh..when he was carrying teams with young Parker/Ginobili and role players, nobody outside of hardcore NBA fans was watching
The whole "the Spurs are nearly as good without Kawhi" thing is silly, IMO. Sample size and opposition are important..
Yep..as I've always said, the NBA suffers from "name recognition" way more than any other pro sport, and it's not even close..True. Also, people have a tendency to look back on those years and just look at names rather than how players actually performed. People assume or act like Parker/Manu were always the players they ended up becoming and that simply wasn't the case. I've heard people argue that Duncan had plenty of help in 2003 and mention D-Rob/Parker/Manu
Washed-up players are constantly hyped, and teams with recognizable names are given too much credit..the Chicago Bulls being the perfect example, perennially overrated, because people look at the names, rather than their impact..this year's Miami Heat is receiving a lot of it, too..
The 2012-2014 spurs narrative of being all about the team and everyone is involved have somehow affected peoples perception on the 03-05 teams. Tbh.Unfortunately, Duncan's 2003 dominance is forgotten due to playing in the least popular era of NBA basketball in league history, tbh..when he was carrying teams with young Parker/Ginobili and role players, nobody outside of hardcore NBA fans was watching
Especially the strength of the Spurs bench compared to other teams. How many games has it turned into trash time in the early third quarter and the Spurs 2nd and 3rd teams come in and dominate the other teams bench.
Kawhi is a great player but this is a one man race.
Young Parker. Ginobili and Tim are almost the same age, tbhUnfortunately, Duncan's 2003 dominance is forgotten due to playing in the least popular era of NBA basketball in league history, tbh..when he was carrying teams with young Parker/Ginobili and role players, nobody outside of hardcore NBA fans was watching
I think some people take the numbers too far (the Spurs wouldn't be just as good without Kawhi), but there is something to say about how the Spurs are still dominant even when he goes to the bench, compared to the Warriors who absolutely collapse when Steph goes to the bench.
Curry on: Net RTG = +22.1, Curry off: Net RTG = -7.5
Curry on, Draymond off (127 minutes): Net RTG = +12.5
Curry off, Draymond on (197 minutes): Net RTG = -2.2
Curry on, Klay off (295 minutes): Net RTG = +17.2
Curry off, Klay on (256 minutes): Net RTG = -4.9
Curry on, Klay and Draymond off (71 minutes): Net RTG = +14.2
Curry off, Klay and Draymond on (166 minutes): Net RTG = -2.3
The Warriors are a completely different team (in a bad way) when Curry isn't playing. Their offense revolves around the insane amount of attention defenses are required to give him. Kawhi is immensely important/valuable to the Spurs, but not to the extent Curry is for the Warriors.
Says more about the benches/teams than Kawhi or Curry, IMO.
"You can break that down into him being the new Tim Duncan"
Yet another thing I "don't get". (I suppose you aren't surprised... yet again.) I guess it must be my inability to have fantasies about Kawhi while watching the games. My lens is broken.
Kawhi is the best player on the team now. And he deserves to be considered a solid #2 MVP candidate. The "new Tim Duncan"? Not yet, anyway.
Dammit! I just blew another chance to get into the Krew, didn't I? Good thing there's like a dozen tryout threads a day.
I mean it's not like Golden State has an awful bench. I'd say most are in agreement that they're probably top 5 in that aspect. Iguodala is one of the best bench players in the league, and guys like Livingston/Ezeli are pretty solid as well. Besides, I provided numbers where Draymond and/or Klay were playing and GS still didn't look remotely as good without Curry.
Don't get me wrong: I agree with the idea that Kawhi's importance to the team gets understated when you look at on/off numbers since SA has such a dominant bench. But I still think the notion that he's nearly as important to SA as Curry is to GS is way off.
Last edited by SpursFan86; 01-21-2016 at 03:15 PM.
BTW the positive aspect of that (for us Spurs fans) is that GS is much more heavily-dependent on Curry than we are on Kawhi. The Warriors with Curry struggling/uncomfortable are far less dangerous than the Spurs with a struggling Kahwi.
Ya, but young Parker and Ginobili(2003) weren't anywhere near what they would eventually become..
#2 or #3 is accurate right now. It's going to be a lot of fun if he doesn't make it to the ASG because Kobe Bryant has suddenly been slotted as "front court"...
Which is very likely because Draymond was always higher in popularity.
A top 5 player in the league not making the AS SL because of popularity and Kobe deciding to retire as a SF.
Well the front court designation is correct. He's spent the vast majority of his minutes this year playing SF, so him being labeled a front court player is fine.
Regardless, yeah, it's beyond stupid that Kobe will be the reason Kawhi isn't starting in the ASG...that's the downside of fan voting: people pick based off names and not performance. In the end though he'll still make it regardless. There's no way coaches won't select him.
Situational BS because they happen to be playing small ball. He's the prototypical 2, and has always been. It's just that 3 players are selected in the front court instead of 2.
Sure, he has been in the past. Now he's much slower due to age/injuries and he really isn't suited to be playing the 2. Any smart coach wouldn't be playing him at SG at this point (probably wouldn't be playing him at all
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
