Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1...

Moderators: KF10, GimmeDat, Knickstape1214, magnumt, BombsquadSammy, Tarik Black, Slava, CoreyGallagher, ken6199, Rhettmatic, Yuri Vaultin, Mr. E, bwgood77, DayofMourning, Dirk Nowitzki

User avatar
bwgood77
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 32,660
And1: 12,870
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Austin
Contact:
   

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#101 » by bwgood77 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:39 am

LivingLegend wrote:
bwgood77 wrote:
DarkAzcura wrote:
I agree with you, but historically this isn't true unfortunately. I think it's pretty unfair for the voting idealogy to finally change for Westbrook when he is on a 7th seeded team when in the past that would essentially automatically disqualify any candidate. Then again, it would be nice if the voting idealogy finally shifted..but if this is just a one off thing, then I don't agree with it and Westbrook should be out of the running until his team's record becomes much better.


There has been at least one MVP on either a low seed or even a non playoff team, though I can't remember who...quite a while back. I think if the case is clear, it shouldn't matter. MAYBE if it's neck and neck give it to the guy on the better team, but people should vote on who they think is the most valuable to their team regardless of how good that overall team is.


It is what it is man. The league strongly favors best players on the championship level teams. The Thunder are not that. They are a solid team with the 12th best record with 1 great player with a extremely high usage rate.

I understand the whole 'if you take him off the team they would be terrible' trust me. Im a Cavs fan. In my own world--LeBron has won 11 straight MVP for being the best player in the NBA, always on a top 3 team in basketball and 2 instances where the team he leaves falls to complete shambles and a high lottery pick. I mean he is the definition of that.

But I have came to grips with the NBA voting in weird ways. Almost like they want to limit certain players accolades because it gets boring for the league if they were just to give it to LeBron every year. So they seek out a young rising canidate who could use the publicity for the betterment of the NBAs brand. Like Derrick Rose way back when...Which is why I fully expect Harden or Westbrook to get it since they are putting on the 1 man show.

Fair or not, right or wrong I get it.


Hey, I understand how it is. I'm just stating how I think it would be. I still won't be surprised, despite having the 12th best record, if he finishes first or second in voting this year.
Gus Fring
Senior
Posts: 661
And1: 587
Joined: Dec 16, 2013

Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be... 

Post#102 » by Gus Fring » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:04 am

If Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and LaMarcus Aldridge had random names and careers but had the same stats and played the same as they have played this season, people wouldn't think as highly of Kawhi's teammates.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
TheOUTLAW
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 41,653
And1: 2,557
Joined: Aug 23, 2002
     

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#103 » by TheOUTLAW » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:54 am

Black Jack wrote:Trade him now while he still has value!!!

I can dig him as MVP over Westy and Harden. Especially given the Spurs are probably a star player short in the comparison with GSW and CLE but yet they have the #2 record in the league.


How are they a star player short. They've got Kawhi, Lamarcus, Gasol Ginobili and Parker. That's more HOFers than just about any team. They are getting a bit long in the tooth but they've been together for a while and have a superb system.
UncleDrew wrote: I get Buckets!
Chinook
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,780
And1: 755
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
       

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#104 » by Chinook » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:20 am

I really don't want to make it seem like I'm ragging on OKC fans for supporting their team, but you can totally argue that the Thunder being a seventh seed is an insignificant accomplishment. Sure, they'd be a lottery team without Russ, but in the grand scheme of things, is he making them any closer to winning a title now? Then how valuable are his contributions?

I think OKC winning in the first round would be a huge boost to Russ' candidacy, mainly because it would involve beating a contender or at least one of Utah/LAC. THAT would show exactly how good Westbrook makes the Thunder. If they get swept in the first round, then I don't know if they really look different than a 30-win team.

REALLY not trying to belittle the Thunder here. I am more trying to say that those who look at the top teams almost exclusively do so for a reason. The relative value of an improvement is boosted well beyond it's absolute value. Going from a 50-win team to a 65-win team is hella harder than going from a 25- to 30-win team to a 45- or 50-win team. That's just due to a normal distribution.
User avatar
inDe_eD
Pro Prospect
Posts: 855
And1: 430
Joined: Nov 29, 2012
Location: Nashville, TN
   

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#105 » by inDe_eD » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:28 am

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
inDe_eD wrote:
Winsome Gerbil wrote:

I know it hasn't been. I have long coined the true MVP formula of "best player with the best narrative on a 55+ contending team".

But I've also long considered that utterly ridiculous. I find most focuses on "wins" to be comically primitive. Its put forth as some advanced be all, when in the end its the very most primitive means of determining who was better there is. It tells you very little, certainly about an individual in a team sport.

And in any case, in this particular year Kawhi's largely "normal" star on an elite team season is simply dwarfed by the unique in most of our lifetimes performances going on nightly in OKC and Houston. Guys don't do this. If Kawhi were giving us a LeBron performance in San Antonio, then maybe. Otherwise it's a travesty again of team performance determining an individual award, and one of those awards that in the future will historically not accurately describe the special of this season. Kawhi's a great player, but he's not doing anything legendary this season. The other two guys are.


Winsome, take the team aspect out of it then. Do you really think Harden/Westbrook's seasons are actually that much better than Kawhi's? He's essentially putting up prime Dirk offensive numbers with great defense and as much impact as anyone else. You can't criticize win counting as primitive and then point to counting numbers as your alternative.


Yes I can when I'm talking about an individual award. Those guys mean EVERYTHING to their teams. And BTW, in previous years when Duncan for instance won it, he too meant everything to his teams. Nobody else was close. A major reason why he deserved it. Kawhi's a great player, but he's playing alongside at least one 20ppg scorer without him. He's playing for not only a HOF coach, but a Top 5 all time coach, alongside probably 3 other future (aging) HOFers, for a franchise that last won less than 55 games two decades ago. Yes, he's valuable. No he's not the most valuable. The Spurs are a machine. Kawhi's their current chief cog. Westbrook and Harden both ARE the machines.

If Kawhi were matching the nearly unprecedented productivity of the two guards, only on a better team? Sure, of course he'd be right there. But he's not. He's 25.9pts 5.9rebs 3.3ast, which are really good SF numbers, but hardly anything revolutionary. Jimmy Butler is averaging 24.4pts 6.3rebs 4.9ast. It's just not extraordinary enough to outrank a couple of guys having legendary level seasons that will still be being talked about in 20 years. Or given that who knows when we see somebody pull another Oscar, in Westbrook's case maybe even longer. We still talk about Oscar 50 years later.


I thought we weren't using team success in this comparison? You're using past Spurs teams success as a higher baseline for Kawhi than the other guys, which is pretty silly. If you think the Spurs are a 45 win team without Kawhi, we can just agree to disagree. I don't know what stat to tell you to look at, it's just glaringly obvious when you watch a Spurs game.

Re: productivity - Kawhi IS matching the productivity of the other two guys. He's second in PER behind only Westbrook. He's anchoring the best defense, and the number 5 offense. His 26/6/3/2/1 Statline is impressive because he's pairing it with elite efficiency, on high volume, on one of the slowest teams in the league, on top of being the best perimeter defender in the game. Yea that's a mouthful, and it doesn't sound as good as "triple double" or "points and assists leader" but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's every bit as impressive if you care about team success.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 20,621
And1: 10,182
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Zach Lowe: 

Post#106 » by E-Balla » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:29 am

Doctor MJ wrote:2. When Westbrook was drafted onto OKC he had one job: Become Durant's perfect partner. And not only did he not become that, he developed a game where he essentially tried to win the game by himself. Players who try to do everything themselves tend to frustrate those around them. Westbrook's not the first, and he won't be the last.

I disagree I think his one job was to become the best player he could possibly be and I have no doubt that he did just that. Players who do it all can frustrate teammates around them but usually its the frustrated party being a baby about it (Dwight and Shaq come to mind). If anything once Russ became better than KD it should've been KD's job to adjust and become his number 2. You're looking at this as if he had the audacity to outgrow his role but that's not how these things work. You think the Lakers as a franchise would've been better off if Kobe kept developing into a suped up version of 2000 Kobe instead on Jordan-lite? That Miami would've been better off if Wade developed into a number 2 instead of a demon on isos?

4. I'm not dodging questions, I"m pointing out how drastic your fixations are here. Any talk about GS having serious problems isn't something that makes much sense to me. The amount of drama coming out of GS is basically 1/10th of what comes out of LeBron's super teams basically every year.

It is small in comparison to the Lebron drama but you know I give Lebron crap for that too (especially as it concerns Bosh and Love). Golden State has already come close to matching last season's loss total and iirc after going 30-4 in clutch situations last year they're 11-6 now meanwhile OKC has shot up. OKC underperforming in crunch time has been a thing we've discussed since 2012 and the second KD leaves the issue is gone and his new team has more issues than before? Its hard not to notice that especially when his teammates are clearly having issues with his play.

5.1) I don't particularly want a volume scoring point guard but if someone is good enough at scoring and passing it just makes sense. I will say as OKC is currently constructed I wouldn't pretend the Thunder would be better off playing another way, but back when they had Durant, yes, they'd have been better off with a real passing point guard...which incidentally, I think Harden would have done quite well. He's proven he can be a great player without volume scoring, it's just that in Houston, he's been by far the best scorer.

When exactly did Harden prove he can be great without volume scoring? When he was in OKC volume scoring with the bench lineup and floundering when out with KD and WB? When he was in Houston volume scoring? I'm confused. Also last year they had KD nearly leading the league in scoring, Westbrook adding 24 ppg on 55 TS%, and a bunch of bad offensive players. Who was supposed to take all these extra shots and convert them better than Russ? Kobe Wade? Serge the 31 year old? Steven Adams with his non existent offensive game? Was Enes Kanter supposed to play more because he already scores like 23-24 per 36. Truth is last year OKC had the 2nd best offense with a ton of mediocre to bad offensive players outside of KD and Russ. I don't think CP3 who couldn't do much better with Blake, DeAndre, and JJ would help that much.

2) Okay let's get one thing straight: Westbrook has at this point proven he's fundamentally incapable of shooting efficiently whether he has girl scouts as teammates or superstars. He doesn't ever get to blame his situation again.

Westbrook had a +2 TS% last year. That's not inefficient.

And he's volume scoring in a league where a 5'9" guy is volume scoring with a TS% 8 points higher than him, so you can't say it's in an era where it's hard to figure out what a good or bad shot is.

We still doing this TS% means how good you are at scoring thing completely removed from the context of the game? Isaiah is great but his efficiency doesn't mean Westbrook isn't efficient just that he's more efficient. Isaiah literally plays with more spacing than any other PG in the league while Westbrook plays with less than any other PG. The worst shooter in the rotation is Smart and Smart shoots better than everyone in OKC's rotation but Dipo and Albrines. Isaiah also doesn't play a lick of defense to conserve energy and he gets probably the best ref treatment in the league due to his size.

[/quote]Westbrook as a scorer takes too many bad shots.
Westbrook as a passer takes consistently chooses not to pass and instead take bad shots.
Westbrook as a defender focuses primarily on getting the ball.

I don't mean to damn the guy. I totally get why he's an MVP candidate and frankly I'm thinking a lot more about him than I am Durant in that context. He is an astonishing specimen with an iron will. But to me he largely has the same issues he came in the league with, those are issues that cause problems with portability, and thus while I think OKC totally could have won the title last year, were I tasked with actually building around Westbrook to win a title hoping to get realistic secondary stars, I wouldn't like my chances.

(To be clear, I also have concerns about Harden because of his defense. I may knock Westbrook's defensive focus, but in the playoffs if he needs to do some serious man defense, he can. Harden's defensive issues will only get worse in the playoffs and frankly it makes it tough for me when I think about MVPs.)[/quote]
Westbrook does take too many bad shots but his passing is fine. Everyone gets involved. Steven Adams gets the touches he wants, Kanter gets hella touches, Oladipo gets as many scoring chances as in Orlando, Sabonis, Grant, etc. are spoonfed easy buckets. They don't make them. I don't get who all these people are that he's not giving the ball and if you're talking about last year again everyone got their touches. Every shot isn't going to be a good shot and every pass isn't a good pass. No one is perfect.

And you must've forgot the problems he came into the league with. His biggest one was that he wasn't a passer at all and for the longest he wasn't but I don't know how you can't see the massive improvement in his passing ability last year. I wasn't even that big on Westbrook until last season (products of being a major Rose fan back in the day) but even I couldn't deny how great he was. Your criticisms just seem completely outdated to me.

3) Fundamentally there are just a lot of Westbrook possessions that end ugly and didn't seem to seriously try to get Durant involved, and this was the case regardless of the coach. He's never been a gifted passer. He's improved with experience, but he's not one of these guys who knows where everyone on the floor is all the time. He gets tunnel vision, and that's basically precisely what you don't want to have when you have a teammate that is a much better scorer than you are.

Was KD supposed to get 23 shots a game? I mean come on KD took tons of shots. All these so called problems just don't match up with the reality of the situation which is that KD took more shots than WB and KD was top 10 in usage percentage. He got the ball a ton of times. Actually last time he got that many touches was when Westbrook was a clearly defined 2nd option.

4) At this point I don't know if anyone is actually publishing rebounding regressions. Back when they did, Westbrook's defensive rebounding impact was not good. It's possible that by this point Donovan has developed a system so focused on making use of Westbrook being Westbrook that the team's rebounding suffers without him, but when Westbrook first started crashing the defensive boards when Durant was hurt, it wasn't good for the team's defensive rebounding.

Again, to be clear, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a mistake, because it helps start the fast break. The offensive gain may outweigh the defensive cost, and so the only thing to stress here fundamentally is that a point guard who gets a lot of defensive rebounds is something that should be considered as a strategy primarily for the offensive benefit. On defense the way to really get good at defensive rebounding is tried & true:

1) Get big, tall, athletic guys.
2) Have them work together to box out the opponent.
3) Rebounds gained on the interior are typically done by guys already on the interior, as they are the one who aren't simply closest, but can get to the ball without having to create an opening through which an opponent can also jump in.

Rules 2 & 3 are why young bigs typically suck at defensive rebounding even if they are great at offensive rebounding. They may get a lot of defensive boards, but they allow openings which make there be a bigger chance that the ball will bounce to the opponent.

I get this generally but Donovan has made it a point and like you see its clearly reflected in the numbers. In the Westbrook thread on the PC board I actually went into depth on the rebounding numbers and Westbrook - by far - has the biggest impact on rebounding on the team.

I think we've gotten way off topic so I'll stop here so people can get back to discussing Kawhi for MVP. If you want to continue this discussion you know where to find me.
Violator: Jay Hova, Kamaal The Abstract, Justin Blaze, Raekwon The Chef, Badu, RH Factor, Earl Sweat, ASAP, Vince Staples, 36 Mafia (DJ Paul, Lord Infamous, Gangsta Boo, Juicy J, Crunchy Black, Project Pat), Danny Brown
OrangeBlueSkies
Pro Prospect
Posts: 912
And1: 368
Joined: Jul 22, 2013

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#107 » by OrangeBlueSkies » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:41 am

If Westbrook averages a TD, which I did not think he could accomplish, I would give it to Westbrook. Kawhi will get his I'm sure of that, but Westbrook is literally making history in front of our eyes.
User avatar
Winsome Gerbil
General Manager
Posts: 9,317
And1: 5,158
Joined: Feb 07, 2010

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#108 » by Winsome Gerbil » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:48 am

inDe_eD wrote:
Winsome Gerbil wrote:
inDe_eD wrote:
If you think the Spurs are a 45 win team without Kawhi, we can just agree to disagree.


I do in fact. Not too much more perhaps, but actually given Pop's history it could probably just be Pop and the D-League team and they'd win 45.

The thing is, that right now San Antonio has a Net Ortg of +9.8 with Kawhi on the floor. And a Net Ortg of +8.4 with Kawhi OFF the floor.

Now, those can be slightly tricky sometimes. I don't actually believe they would barely miss Kawhi. But on the other hand a Net Ortg of +8.4 would still be the 2nd best Net ORTG in the entire league. I find it very hard to believe that suddenly sans Kawhi it's going to plummet all the way down to a +0.5 or something (actually, the Pacers are on pace to win about 45 with a -0.8).


Meanwhile when Westbrook leaves the floor his team absolutely plummets to a catastrophic -10.5 Net Ortg (from a +3.2 with him). The 9-47 Nets are only -8.6 on the season.
Chinook
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,780
And1: 755
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
       

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#109 » by Chinook » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:54 am

Yes, I think the Spurs would win at least 45 games without Kawhi. Spurs fans are becoming too absorbed in the offensive shift Kawhi is undergoing and then the Spurs can't score without him. But they can, as their record in his absence shows. They can beat bad teams and probably even mediocre teams without him. That's where 45 wins would come from. They just aren't going to be any better than any other lower-seed team unless Tony, Manu or Green really turns it on.

Pop gets WAY too much credit for the Spurs' success, but that doesn't stop SAS from being full of guys who know how to win. It's actually sort of crazy that both fans and "non-fans" underrate the team as a whole. No one man show threatens 65 wins. None.
OrangeBlueSkies
Pro Prospect
Posts: 912
And1: 368
Joined: Jul 22, 2013

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#110 » by OrangeBlueSkies » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:55 am

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
inDe_eD wrote:
Winsome Gerbil wrote:


I do in fact. Not too much more perhaps, but actually given Pop's history it could probably just be Pop and the D-League team and they'd win 45.

The thing is, that right now San Antonio has a Net Ortg of +9.8 with Kawhi on the floor. And a Net Ortg of +8.4 with Kawhi OFF the floor.

Now, those can be slightly tricky sometimes. I don't actually believe they would barely miss Kawhi. But on the other hand a Net Ortg of +8.4 would still be the 2nd best Net ORTG in the entire league. I find it very hard to believe that suddenly sans Kawhi it's going to plummet all the way down to a +0.5 or something (actually, the Pacers are on pace to win about 45 with a -0.8).


Meanwhile when Westbrook leaves the floor his team absolutely plummets to a catastrophic -10.5 Net Ortg (from a +3.2 with him). The 9-47 Nets are only -8.6 on the season.



Pretty sure the Spurs without Kawhi are not a top 4 team in the West. Sorry pa.
User avatar
OrlandoTill
Veteran
Posts: 2,619
And1: 1,463
Joined: Mar 06, 2016
Contact:
 

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#111 » by OrlandoTill » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:01 am

Chinook wrote:No one man show threatens 65 wins. None.


I think the 2009 Cavs say hi. I understand your point though
On tanking....
bargnanimvp wrote:
Nyce_1 wrote:Are we really about to lose to this bum ass team?

hopefully
andrewww
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,582
And1: 1,234
Joined: Jul 26, 2006
     

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#112 » by andrewww » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:06 am

That principle of the MVP being from a championship contender was what prevented Kobe from taking this recognition home in 2006 and to a slightly lesser extent, 2007.
Fico92
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,342
And1: 1,760
Joined: Aug 05, 2014
 

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#113 » by Fico92 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:14 am

andrewww wrote:That principle of the MVP being from a championship contender was what prevented Kobe from taking this recognition home in 2006 and to a slightly lesser extent, 2007.

And it allowed him to take it home in 2008.
User avatar
inDe_eD
Pro Prospect
Posts: 855
And1: 430
Joined: Nov 29, 2012
Location: Nashville, TN
   

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#114 » by inDe_eD » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:23 am

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
inDe_eD wrote:
Winsome Gerbil wrote:


I do in fact. Not too much more perhaps, but actually given Pop's history it could probably just be Pop and the D-League team and they'd win 45.

The thing is, that right now San Antonio has a Net Ortg of +9.8 with Kawhi on the floor. And a Net Ortg of +8.4 with Kawhi OFF the floor.

Now, those can be slightly tricky sometimes. I don't actually believe they would barely miss Kawhi. But on the other hand a Net Ortg of +8.4 would still be the 2nd best Net ORTG in the entire league. I find it very hard to believe that suddenly sans Kawhi it's going to plummet all the way down to a +0.5 or something (actually, the Pacers are on pace to win about 45 with a -0.8).


Meanwhile when Westbrook leaves the floor his team absolutely plummets to a catastrophic -10.5 Net Ortg (from a +3.2 with him). The 9-47 Nets are only -8.6 on the season.


I don't fault you for that opinion, and I don't have a good statistical argument for it without digging for it, but I think the team would be middle of the pack or worse on defense, and they'd really struggle to create offense. Parker running the show as the guy this year would be a disaster. Putting any more minutes on Manu would mean 20 games less of Manu. There's an argument to be made for Aldridge stepping up i guess, but I just don't see it. There are some bench guys that have been phenomenal this year, but they are bench guys.
User avatar
inDe_eD
Pro Prospect
Posts: 855
And1: 430
Joined: Nov 29, 2012
Location: Nashville, TN
   

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#115 » by inDe_eD » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:31 am

Chinook wrote:Yes, I think the Spurs would win at least 45 games without Kawhi. Spurs fans are becoming too absorbed in the offensive shift Kawhi is undergoing and then the Spurs can't score without him. But they can, as their record in his absence shows. They can beat bad teams and probably even mediocre teams without him. That's where 45 wins would come from. They just aren't going to be any better than any other lower-seed team unless Tony, Manu or Green really turns it on.

Pop gets WAY too much credit for the Spurs' success, but that doesn't stop SAS from being full of guys who know how to win. It's actually sort of crazy that both fans and "non-fans" underrate the team as a whole. No one man show threatens 65 wins. None.


I disagree. I think you're using narrative from Spurs' teams of past, and not really watching how this years' team is scoring points.
Chinook
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,780
And1: 755
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
       

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#116 » by Chinook » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:37 am

inDe_eD wrote:
Chinook wrote:Yes, I think the Spurs would win at least 45 games without Kawhi. Spurs fans are becoming too absorbed in the offensive shift Kawhi is undergoing and then the Spurs can't score without him. But they can, as their record in his absence shows. They can beat bad teams and probably even mediocre teams without him. That's where 45 wins would come from. They just aren't going to be any better than any other lower-seed team unless Tony, Manu or Green really turns it on.

Pop gets WAY too much credit for the Spurs' success, but that doesn't stop SAS from being full of guys who know how to win. It's actually sort of crazy that both fans and "non-fans" underrate the team as a whole. No one man show threatens 65 wins. None.


I disagree. I think you're using narrative from Spurs' teams of past, and not really watching how this years' team is scoring points.


Yes, I'm watching them. It's really hard to argue with the stats that show they can score just fine without him. You don't have to be great to beat bad teams, nor do you need dominant guys to do it.

To put it this way, the Spurs play 35-42 games every year against lottery teams. That's potentially half their schedule. There are plenty of bad teams on EVERYONE's schedule. You throw in mediocre playoffs teams, and you get up to about 60-65 winnable games even for meh teams. Add in coaching and experience, and 45 wins seems a little low. Of course, it seems even lower if you replace Kawhi with an average starter and not just take him off the team altogether.

Then again, you asserted that running the offense through Tony is a horrible thing, when most of the Kawhi-less offense runs through Tony, Manu, or Pau and puts up great numbers.
User avatar
inDe_eD
Pro Prospect
Posts: 855
And1: 430
Joined: Nov 29, 2012
Location: Nashville, TN
   

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#117 » by inDe_eD » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:16 am

Chinook wrote:
inDe_eD wrote:
Chinook wrote:Yes, I think the Spurs would win at least 45 games without Kawhi. Spurs fans are becoming too absorbed in the offensive shift Kawhi is undergoing and then the Spurs can't score without him. But they can, as their record in his absence shows. They can beat bad teams and probably even mediocre teams without him. That's where 45 wins would come from. They just aren't going to be any better than any other lower-seed team unless Tony, Manu or Green really turns it on.

Pop gets WAY too much credit for the Spurs' success, but that doesn't stop SAS from being full of guys who know how to win. It's actually sort of crazy that both fans and "non-fans" underrate the team as a whole. No one man show threatens 65 wins. None.


I disagree. I think you're using narrative from Spurs' teams of past, and not really watching how this years' team is scoring points.


Yes, I'm watching them. It's really hard to argue with the stats that show they can score just fine without him. You don't have to be great to beat bad teams, nor do you need dominant guys to do it.

To put it this way, the Spurs play 35-42 games every year against lottery teams. That's potentially half their schedule. There are plenty of bad teams on EVERYONE's schedule. You throw in mediocre playoffs teams, and you get up to about 60-65 winnable games even for meh teams. Add in coaching and experience, and 45 wins seems a little low. Of course, it seems even lower if you replace Kawhi with an average starter and not just take him off the team altogether.

Then again, you asserted that running the offense through Tony is a horrible thing, when most of the Kawhi-less offense runs through Tony, Manu, or Pau and puts up great numbers.


The stats don't show that at all though. In fact they show that the bench plays great defense, not great offense.

Funny enough, they've been losing to bad teams this year. In fact over half the losses have been to under .500 teams. If Kawhi was gone, they'd lose more of those games, and obviously not compete against any of the contenders, let alone go 6-1.

Pau's been out, a lot, and he plays ~80% of his minutes with Kawhi. Ditto for Parker, and even when he's playing consistently, he's below average in just about every aspect of the game, including running the offense. Manu's been great in bursts, but he's 39 and plays 18 minutes a game.
User avatar
Phreak50
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,940
And1: 2,303
Joined: Feb 01, 2014

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#118 » by Phreak50 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:29 am

Chinook wrote:Yes, I think the Spurs would win at least 45 games without Kawhi. Spurs fans are becoming too absorbed in the offensive shift Kawhi is undergoing and then the Spurs can't score without him. But they can, as their record in his absence shows. They can beat bad teams and probably even mediocre teams without him. That's where 45 wins would come from. They just aren't going to be any better than any other lower-seed team unless Tony, Manu or Green really turns it on.

Pop gets WAY too much credit for the Spurs' success, but that doesn't stop SAS from being full of guys who know how to win. It's actually sort of crazy that both fans and "non-fans" underrate the team as a whole. No one man show threatens 65 wins. None.


I disagree. Winning the odd game or two is A LOT different than playing a whole season without him.

There's a chance we don't even make the playoffs without Kawhi, such is the decline of Aldridge.

Parker, Ginobili, Gasol, are all old and barely shadows of themselves, only looking good within the flow of a full strength team playing well.

I love Mills, Simmons and Bertans but they are role players and aren't suited to (or likely to) step up into bigger roles.

I said it earlier, I don't think Leonard deserves the MVP quite yet but at the same time would doubt we'd win 40-45 games without him.
User avatar
Infinite Llamas
Starter
Posts: 2,032
And1: 3,422
Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Location: Land of Llamas
   

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#119 » by Infinite Llamas » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:10 am

As a Celtics fan, I'm used to the "player X is better because of the coach". Stevens gets sooooooo much credit for the success of the team, but the truth of the matter is that until the team got Isaiah Thomas, they were never going to be anything because you can only win so many games with Jordan Crawford and Brandon Bass as starters. Credit Stevens for helping put Isaiah in a position to succeed, but it's a symbiotic relationship at the end of the day. You can't give all the credit to one and none to the other.

I feel like just because Kawhi has Pop as a coach, he'll always be labeled as a product of a great system under a great coach, but at the end of the day, maybe it's guys like Duncan and Parker and Kawhi that made Pop great. And why should Kawhi be faulted because he plays for a great coach? How is that a disqualifying mark? The truth is that Kawhi is having a great season and doing a better job lifting his supporting cast of role players than Harden or Westbrook are doing. People keep yapping about Harden's historic season...when the numbers look pretty darn similar to last year...the only difference is he has the ball in his hands even more (if such a thing is possible) and he's playing on a team with a better record. Nobody was lobbying him for MVP last year, but they are now because of the team success. People are fooling themselves if they don't think that record matters.
Gerald Green Loves LLamas!
baldur
Starter
Posts: 2,039
And1: 1,778
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: melbourne
     

Re: Zach Lowe:" I am not sure Kawhi isn't the MVP of the whole league" "should be #1... 

Post#120 » by baldur » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:13 am

Fico92 wrote:
andrewww wrote:That principle of the MVP being from a championship contender was what prevented Kobe from taking this recognition home in 2006 and to a slightly lesser extent, 2007.

And it allowed him to take it home in 2008.

how so? lakers made the finals in 2008.

Return to The General Board