pepe1991 wrote: Bensational wrote:
pepe1991 wrote:When was Leonard 3rd option on great team?
While he was playing his 3rd year he won : championship, was finals MVP and was named on all nba defensive team.
Averaged 17,8 ppg in nba finlals ( behind only Parker, who averaged 0,2 points per game more). So is that your 3rd option?
Or you refering to his SECOND year, where he was same age as Isaac ( 21) and averaged 13,5 ppg in playoffs on 61% TS .
In Kawhi's 3rd year, when the Spurs won the championship, he averaged 9fgas a game behind Parker (13) and Duncan (12), with Manu also averaging 9. In the playoffs, he averaged 10fgas, Parker averaged 15, Duncan 12, and again Many 10.
That seems like a 3rd option on a great team to me.
Why did you have to pick his finals numbers, out of an entire season's worth of data? That would be like me pointing to Gordon being our team's top scorer in the playoffs and claiming him as our #1 option.
Not sure why you say you believe Gordon is a 3rd option on a great team, then when a 12.8ppg 3rd option of Kawhi is referenced you suddenly jump back off the comparison.
Just a fact that you can't compare Gordon's 5th year to Leonard's 5th year makes a great argument-against your argument.
In same time you can't even compare Gordon's age, 23 to Leonard's production at same age, because again, it kills your argument.
I can compare their age 23 numbers.
33.8mpg, 16ppg, 7.4rpg, 3.7apg, 0.7spg, 0.7bpg, 2.1topg, 45%fg, 35% 3fg (on 4.4 3fgas), 73%ft (on 3.2ftas)
31.8mpg, 16.5ppg, 7.2rpg, 2.5apg, 2.3spg, 0.8bpg, 1.5topg, 48%fg, 35% 3g (on 3 3fgas), 80%ft (on 3.9ftas)
Raw numbers are pretty comparable. Kawhi obviously blows AG out of the water in advanced numbers:
15.1 PER, 54%ts, 21.8usg, 5.1 win shares
22 PER, 57%ts, 23usg, 8.6 win shares
pepe1991 wrote:So you have to reach out and make nonsene of comparison using 3rd season of Leonard to compare it to Gordon's 5th season . But even when you reach out, you still can't explain why Leonard was finals MVP and took his game to another level when it mattered the most, where Gordon kept being in playoffs his old 15- ppg self, despite being left wide open whole series.
4 different people called you out on this Leonard crap, just give. Nobody expects you to man up and admit it's wrong , just let it go.
Why didn't you answer my questions? Why cherry pick data? Why pretend Kawhi wasn't a 3rd option on a great team at one point in his career? There's an opportunity for you to say that version of Kawhi is Gordon's ceiling, but for some reason the comparison upsets you this badly that you have to actually make up lies to try to make your case.
And Kawhi was finals MVP, but that's an award for just one series, which he had the benefit of playing in because he played alongside 3 of the most experienced championship players, and playing for the greatest coach in the league. Oh, and the next season - when Kawhi was
the #1 option, they were knocked out of the playoffs in the first round.
You see current Kawhi and that's all you know. You seem to have a very limited capacity to recall the past or to attempt to picture the future. The Kawhi of the past 4 seasons isn't what Kawhi has been his entire career. He's grown into that. He went from a 23 year old 16.5ppg #1 option of Kawhi, to this season's 27 year old 26.6ppg #1 option. In the span of that growth, there's a 10 point spectrum in ppg, a 5.6 point PER spectrum, a 0.04 TS% spectrum, a 7 point USG% spectrum and a 5 point Win Share spectrum. There are a lot of different places he could have landed, or any other player could land, on those spectrums. Within those parameters you've got other players, like Millsap, Harris, Butler, Marion, etc.
The point of the Kawhi comp has always been a demonstration that some players come into their games later. It's not to set the standard, or to treat his trajectory as 'the path', but he (and Paul George, and Oladipo, and Butler) establish a precedent that players come into their games at later ages. The reason this point has had to be made is because every single season the same voices continue to say that Gordon is tapped out. That he is what he is and he won't improve. You're a prime culprit for it because you point to someone like Tatum, or Doncic and say "see, they're young and putting up big numbers, so clearly Gordon won't because he's older". Hence, why names like the above are introduced to establish that some players develop later. But then these comps are taken literally, despite I-don't-know-how-many-times it's been stated that it's not a direct comp for standards.
You continue to take the suggestion of Gordon having scope for improvement as an assertion he's destined to be a star. The only time I entertained Gordon possibly blossoming into a star was prior to the start of his 3rd season, and since then it's been clear that he's not that player. I see him as a 3rd option on a great team.
For Gordon to be within range of being "a third option on a great team", he needs to reach a certain level of greatness himself. Prime Draymond, Kevin Love, Young Kawhi, Chris Bosh, James Harden, Andrew Bynum, Ray Allen, - this is the calibre of 3rd options on great teams in that past 10 years. Just think about how good the top 2 options on those teams had to be in order for those teams to make the finals.
You suggest you believe Gordon is a 3rd option on a great team too, but I suspect you feel that concession allows you to draw comps to players like Thad Young and Rudy Gay - but they have never been 3rd options on great teams. Even when making the Millsap comp, which you were the one to put forth, you still go out of your way to downplay the value of Millsap. Why? It's almost like you're pretending to give AG credit to act as if you're not trying to hate on him, when everything you say about him is an attempt to downplay any value or potential he offers, because... why? You consider him a threat to Vuc? I can't begin to imagine how much it upsets you that Gordon was the team's top scorer in the playoffs. Vuc couldn't step up. Fournier couldn't step up. DJ stepped up for one game. Yet, despite all that, you go out of your way to downplay AG's performances and impact, pretending that Toronto gameplanned to have Van Vleet defend him. (Side note, Green and Van Vleet also defended Fournier - and they shut. him. down.).
You realise this whole thread started off the notion that, for the playoffs, someone suggested we run more through AG since he was the only one being effective. I don't believe it was a long term proposal, just something for the benefit of the team in this one series.
So, I guess it's time to fess up - why do you lie, isolate numbers, and focus so much criticism on Gordon when players you've stated are more significant couldn't even match his performance? Why call him a 3rd option and then balk at a comp to a 3rd option? If you hate Gordon, just say it. There's no point pretending otherwise when everything you say suggests otherwise. May as well give up the charade and admit to being a hater.