Lately the unofficial best player mantle goes to the superstar who's most dominant in the playoffs.
Doesn't this make it seem a little arbitrary?
Obviously a superstar has a lot of say in how far his team goes in the playoffs, but he's not the only factor. A lot of it depends on his teammates as well as his opponents.
A close series can come down to one or two role players getting hot or going cold, even if the main guys on either side put up monster stats. Just the same, a series could be decided by an untimely injury or suspension.
Look no further than LeBron, who, thanks to a mid-season injury and a weak roster around him, didn't even get a chance to defend his "best player" crown in the playoffs.
Kawhi has been awesome, but I don't think he's been so much better than anything we've seen recently from Curry, KD, LeBron, etc. that it makes sense to conclude that he's now the "best player."
It's a good reminder, though, that you don't need to have the no-doubt "best player" in order to compete for a title. You just need a guy who can be the best player in any given series. Then you need the right set of teammates and the right set of circumstances for that guy to dominate for four series.