The Kevin Durant Conundrum

Way back in the 10th grade I took a test to determine whether I was more of a right or left-brained person. The midpoint was a score of four, and with a somewhat ambiguous score of 5.3, I registered as slightly more right-brained, but not overly dominant. This confused me because I always felt like I was so much stronger in math and science and not so much in English. What I failed to recognize at the time was how much music (I played drums) and art (I loved going to galleries) were influencing my life. In fact, I completely discounted my more esoteric and intangible qualities like daydreaming or simply living my youth with passion.

Fast forward far too many years and I’ve been thinking a lot about another enigmatic yet timely subject: Kevin Durant. In doing so, I find myself to be just as conflicted as I was back in 10th grade. No, not with whether or not the Golden State Warriors are better off today with or without him, but exactly how to determine his value to the team.

My analytical side immediately starting churning away at statistics and probability. I posited a scenario of how each of the two teams, one with Kevin and one without, might do over a very large number of games, say 1000, playing ? of their games versus Western Conference teams and ? versus the East. The only difference between the two teams is that one would have Durant and the other would have another player on the Warriors roster who is currently not playing.

My best guess is that both teams would perform extremely well and might even be statistically similar, but the challenge with running a simulation is that it fails to account for the non-measurable qualities that Kevin, or any other player, brings to the game, particularly in those few, absolutely critical games that must be won. Anyone who actually watches the Warriors sees an example of this conundrum every game in the play of Klay Thompson. Being one of the best two-way players (one who is skilled both offensively and defensively) is something we can witness, but can’t be so easily measured. We see him disrupting the other team’s offense through his defensive prowess, and while that kind of effort might ultimately find its way into team statistics, extracting individual performance is nearly impossible; Durant’s contributions are often much of the same.

What we are unable to measure are intangibles such as how much attention on the court he demands, or how much practice time needs to be devoted by the opposing team while preparing to face him, or how his length and athleticism simply force payers he’s defending to reconsider their shots or take poor ones. We also can't possibly know how much he leads by example when the cameras are not present, such as through his relentless practice regimen, even though he is already at the top of the sport. Admittedly, we do see some very positive qualities from a Durant-less Warriors team on the court today, such as added ball movement or elevated performances from teammates who would otherwise not be on the court as often, but how much of that value has been recently extracted out of necessity, rather than based on pure skill? Over time, would those other players maintain their elevated levels, or would they regress back to their historical means?

The reasons I believe that the Warriors are a better team with Kevin Durant are not simply the obvious observations that he is arguably the best player in the league, or that he is one of the best pure scorers of all time, but because of qualities we just don’t think about very often because they don't show up in the analytics.

Imagine a scenario where it’s game 7 of the NBA finals. Kawhi Leonard just stole the ball at mid-court and sailed in for a dunk, putting the Raptors up by one with eight seconds left on the game clock. The Dubs have to get a shot up and it has to be a good one. As much as I love the rest of the team, there is one player in the league with a nearly indefensible, no, make that indefensible shot, and it’s a KD turnaround fading mid-range jumper. And if Toronto risks double-teaming him, that often leaves someone free to cut to the basket; it’s the perfect shot in a situation that necessitates perfection. In the stat sheet, that's simply one made basket, but in real life, it's the difference between a three-peat and losing for the second time in four years.

This scenario also makes me ponder the business world—how many of us contribute in less-measurable, abstruse ways that never find their way into our performance management evaluations? I think of employees that enhance their corporate culture by their positive outlook, or through their passion for their work, or simply by being a friend and listening to someone suffering from trauma. How much more efficient is a company with an internal communications manager with whom someone feels comfortable calling with even the most mundane question that gets responded to immediately, rather than having it stew in their mind, distracting them from a task?

This is how I view the Kevin Durant conundrum, in a similar fashion to how I questioned my own unappreciated propensity toward creativity back in the 10th grade. In the past I readily undervalued the contributions from the right half of my brain since they were not so easily measured, but today, I can’t possibly imagine a world (or imagine anything at all) without my ability to dream, to conceive, or to inspire. Just as the world is made a better place because of those qualities, I believe the Warriors to be a better team with KD, and I wish him nothing but a full and (if possible) speedy recovery!