I guess I've been watching a different guy, cuz I just don't see how he's NOT "offensively dominant" ... 20.2 PPG, 15.2 RBPG, 2.5 APG, shoots a .470 FG rate, .417 for threes, (which in itself is a huge weapon in a "big"), FTs at .850, etc..
Well, in terms of scoring, of the top-10 PF's in the NBA (excluding ____ ____ who should be a SF), Love has the worst FG%. In fact, he has the lowest FG% of the 15 highest scoring PF's.
His 3pt shot is a huge weapon, but he lacks a low-post game, and is not particularly good at creating his own shot. That's why he's not even the primary scoring option on his own team.
This guy had some extremely big games this year, where he was easily the dominating force on the court.
Yes, he really has. Some really eye-opening statistical games..but a lot of those games were losses, as were the majority of the games he played in during the season.
I can fathom how a player can play 36 minutes per game and still finish on a team without 50 wins, yet still be considered a wholly 'dominant' player. I can understand how a play like that could even miss the playoffs in a tough conference.
But just 17 wins, bad defense, and the second option on offense? I don't think that qualifies as dominance. If anything, I think it allows the argument to be made that his stats are if anything, inflated, and a somewhat unsubstantial indicator of total performance.