> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://bad-sport.ghost.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # General NBA Tomfoolery and Bad Takes - URL: https://bad-sport.ghost.io/general-nba-tomfoolery-and-bad-takes/ - Published: 2026-10-15T18:47:04.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-15T18:52:54.000Z - Author: Finn Hanson Ladies and Gentlemen... It is good news that I was told my eyeglasses prescription was ready to pick up today, because I could not believe what I saw on First Take this morning. Stephen A. Smith said this morning that Kawhi Leonard is the worst superstar in NBA history and then proceeded to give a combination of basketball-related and non-basketball-related reasons for his argument. He cited load management as a reason, which is a legitimate concern, but also said that Kawhi does nothing to market his team or the sport. This begs the unfortunate question: What is an NBA superstar? I don't think it's what Stephen A. Smith's definition suggests. When we think of NBA superstars, and NBA players in general, we ultimately judge them on what they do on the court. When people argue about whether they trust Paul George or Paul Pierce down the stretch, I highly doubt anyone factors in that Gatorade commercial. Nor do they contest the GOAT debate over who was a better actor in Space Jam. Maybe some people do, but I think those people are Looney Tunes (nice). Stephen A. Smith isn't wrong to factor in commercial or cultural influence when comparing superstars, but I think it's a double-edged sword. Michael Jordan's superstardom is built on his incredible on-court performances, combined with the cultural movement the Jordan shoe brand created. But if we treated cultural influence as a sufficient condition for superstardom, we could just as easily make an argument for someone like Brian Scalabrine, whose niche cult following as the White Mamba, along with his rather poignant quotes about power leveling in basketball, have given him a recognizable place in NBA culture despite his on-court performances. I don't think anyone is seriously putting Brian Scalabrine in the same conversation as Michael Jordan, and that's precisely my point. Cultural influence can contribute to superstardom, but it cannot establish superstardom on its own. That doesn't mean cultural influence becomes irrelevant when comparing two players who are already superstars. Cultural influence ultimately needs to be distinguished from the willingness of NBA talent to market themselves because they are not interchangeable ideas. Kawhi is a culturally recognizable NBA superstar despite his lack of intention to market himself. His personality, laugh, reserved demeanor, and playoff performances are recognizable throughout NBA culture, but he doesn't cultivate celebrity status the way someone like Dillon Brooks does. I think Anthony Edwards and LaMelo Ball are also great examples of this. I would argue that LaMelo and Ant don't actively cultivate celebrity culture themselves, but that it logically follows their personalities. LaMelo especially is a great example of this because his entire rise to NBA stardom was quite literally televised, and I highly doubt that the writers for his family's show put pen to paper and came up with "Ion run it." All of this is to say that a player's willingness to market themselves is not a reliable measure of their cultural influence. Kawhi, Dillon Brooks, and LaMelo have all achieved cultural recognition through different means. One avoids the spotlight, another actively embraces the role of a villain, and the third has a personality that naturally attracts attention. They take different routes, but all three converge at the same spot, which is cultural recognition. Now, cultural recognition and cultural influence aren't necessarily the same thing. Simply being recognizable doesn't mean you've fundamentally influenced the culture of basketball. But when a player's personality, performances, and mannerisms become recognizable parts of NBA culture, I think it's reasonable to say they've had some influence on it, regardless of whether they intended to. Now, I certainly don't think Kawhi is above criticism. Load management is a serious concern when evaluating his career. His injury history and inability to remain consistently available for his team are perfectly reasonable criticisms. The best ability is availability, and Kawhi isn't exactly winning perfect attendance anytime soon. But there's a difference between questioning how much a player contributes over the course of a season and questioning whether that player is a superstar in the first place. Kawhi's inability to consistently stay on the court certainly affects his value to a team, but I don't think it erases what he's accomplished when he's been healthy enough to play. These are arguments Stephen A. makes in his brief, one-minute soundbite calling Kawhi the worst superstar in NBA history, and you could listen to that soundbite and determine that maybe I'm grasping at straws. You could, but I think Stephen A. actually introduces two independent variables to measure his stardom. I almost wonder if I'm misunderstanding Stephen A.'s definition of "market," but considering he mentions the sport after his team, I think it's reasonable to interpret it as the creation of commercial value. If that's what he means, I don't think a player's willingness to participate in advertising campaigns or cultivate a celebrity persona should determine their standing as an NBA superstar. But even if Stephen A.'s intention behind "market" means playing entertaining basketball, Kawhi's 2019 playoff run and many of his performances the last two year make a pretty compelling counterargument. I think the most generous interpretation of "market" is being an ambassador for basketball, which I think Kawhi is actually a pretty good example of, even if he's an unconventional one. He's a guy who generally stays out of the limelight, doesn't cause much trouble (contract dealings aside), and just hoops. If an NBA ambassador is someone who represents the sport to the public, I don't think that representation has to come through interviews, commercials, or a carefully cultivated personality. Sometimes it comes through the basketball itself, and Kawhi has given us plenty of that. At the end of the day, we are talking about a two-time NBA champion, two-time Finals MVP, and two-time Defensive Player of the Year. He brought the Raptors their first franchise championship. Giannis and LeBron both did this same thing. Whether he fits nicely into that tier is a different story, but ultimately, Kawhi's accomplishments speak for themselves, even if he doesn't care to speak on them himself. If Stephen A. wants to criticize Kawhi's availability, that's a legitimate concern that should be argued. But if availability is going to be the standard, it needs to be applied fairly to other superstars as well. (Looking at you, Joel Embiid.) What I don't think Stephen A. has established is why Kawhi's unwillingness to market himself makes him the worst superstar in NBA history. You can criticize his availability, question his longevity, or argue about where he belongs among the greats, but simply pointing to his lack of commercial participation doesn't get you to that conclusion. Calling Kawhi the worst superstar in NBA history because he hasn't done a Tim Hortons commercial is an argument that I don't think can survive under scrutiny. Kawhi doesn't owe Adam Silver a personality. He certainly doesn't owe the Clippers one, and he definitely doesn't owe the Raptors one either. Kawhi owes them good basketball, and when Kawhi is on the floor, he consistently proves himself to be one of the greatest players of the modern era. I'll be picking up my glasses soon, and hopefully, by the time First Take airs tomorrow, I won't feel the need to throw them across the room.