Is Giannis above Barkley/Malone/Garnett/Dirk if he wins a championship with FMVP?

[iamgine]

Giannis would have 2 MVPs and 1 title & FMVP. Tim Duncan is the only PF who has him beat.

Has it dawned on you that we might be seeing the 2nd greatest PF of all time very soon?

[DMAVS41]

Above is probably a stretch if he wins just because of the longevity argument, but he's definitely vaulted himself into that tier of player given his level of play and what he's done in his career so far.

[tontoz]

At a similar age he is far more accomplished than those guys. Giannis is only 26. Those guys had their best years when they were older.

[GrayGoat]

Don’t forget DPOY 2019/2020. Giannis would be miles better.

[j3lademaster]

Giannis would have 2 MVPs and 1 title & FMVP. Tim Duncan is the only PF who has him beat.

Has it dawned on you that we might be seeing the 2nd greatest PF of all time very soon?The possibility dawned on me like 3 or 4 years ago it was quite obvious. Giannis will be peaking in 2 or 3 years, so we just might see a run that matches or tops Duncan's 03. Especially if he wins this year and gets that championship monkey off his back.

As far as where Giannis ranks winning this year he's still below those guys due to longevity but he's up there if not better strictly comparing the best versions of those guys vs current Giannis.

[tpols]

At a similar age he is far more accomplished than those guys. Giannis is only 26. Those guys had their best years when they were older.

Those guys had less help and had to beat dynasty teams to win. This Suns team nowhere near dynasty Bulls, Lakers, Spurs and big 3 Heat. Does anybody really think Charles Barkley or Karl Malone wouldn't win with the Bucks supporting cast and a weak injury filled competition?

[Naero]

Nope. All those ATGs are within the 10-20 range, whereas Giannis would be considered 25-30 at the highest after closing out this series.

While Giannis will have already outachieved them all accolades-wise, you just can't bracket him with them yet if you reasonably weight longevity. He's only had several seasons of superstardom and one elite playoffs run so far, which simply doesn't outmeasure their overall bodies of work regardless of hardware.

This championship and Finals MVP will obviously give him a foothold to surpass them in the years to come, but there's more work to be done. It seems that anyone ready to rank him in the top twenty already is just implicitly projecting where he'll end up soon rather than honestly assessing how his career stacks up for the here and now.

[MadDog]

Not "above" although right there with those guys. His career resume already stacks up. Individually, Giannis isnt better than Barkley or Garnett. And likely not better than Malone or Dirk. Just depends on what you and your team value.

[Rudeboy3]

The possibility dawned on me like 3 or 4 years ago it was quite obvious. Giannis will be peaking in 2 or 3 years, so we just might see a run that matches or tops Duncan's 03. Especially if he wins this year and gets that championship monkey off his back.

As far as where Giannis ranks winning this year he's still below those guys due to longevity but he's up there if not better strictly comparing the best versions of those guys vs current Giannis.

Longevity of what? putting up empty numbers not to win shit in the end? If Giannis wins the finals and gets FMVP, he will have 2 mvps, a dpoy, 1 ring and a FMVP. That immediately puts him at number 2 behind Duncan, miss me with all that longevity stats, Giannis will get those, but accomplishments such as mvp and rings, Giannis has either passed or matched all of them, besides Duncan in rings at only 26


MVPS
Duncan-2
Giannis-2
Malone-2
Dirk-1
Garnett-1
Chuck-1

DPOYS
Giannis-1
Garnett-1

Rings+FMVP
Duncan 5+3FMVP
Dirk 1+1FMVP
Garnett 1+0FMVP
Giannis 1+1FMVP (pending)

Giannis has/will have atleast one award that not all those guys will have accomplished. He wins tonight, he's the 2nd greatest PF at 26 years old, with an insane trajectory to maybe even surpass Duncan, cause he has at least 1 more MVP and DPOY in him and how possible more rings too, miss me with the "longevity" bs

[ArbitraryWater]

those are top 15-20 players which is where Giannis would be at the lower end of, but you cant put him above them yet...

on a clear track to go down as greater player but let's see.

[tontoz]

Those guys had less help and had to beat dynasty teams to win. This Suns team nowhere near dynasty Bulls, Lakers, Spurs and big 3 Heat. Does anybody really think Charles Barkley or Karl Malone wouldn't win with the Bucks supporting cast and a weak injury filled competition?

Lets not forget that Giannis already has 2 MVPs at age 26, more than any of those guys. Competing for MVP with Lebron/Steph/Durant/Harden. He was up there this year too.

He has been putting up stupid numbers for several years. The knock on him is that his play fell off in the playoffs. Can't say that this year.

[fsvr54]

At a similar age he is far more accomplished than those guys. Giannis is only 26. Those guys had their best years when they were older.

Philly Charles Barkley was MVP contender every year.

Also if the Bucks win this year, it's because of Jrue, Khris, Tucker, Portis, Pat and Lopez. Not long arms Yanni

[Jasper]

Giannis would have 2 MVPs and 1 title & FMVP. Tim Duncan is the only PF who has him beat.

Has it dawned on you that we might be seeing the 2nd greatest PF of all time very soon?

I lik e your thoughts but lets wait till after the series.


Philly Charles Barkley was MVP contender every year.

Also if the Bucks win this year, it's because of Jrue, Khris, Tucker, Portis, Pat and Lopez. Not long arms Yanni

hate all ready in...
/

[tontoz]

Philly Charles Barkley was MVP contender every year.

Also if the Bucks win this year, it's because of Jrue, Khris, Tucker, Portis, Pat and Lopez. Not long arms Yanni

:facepalm

Giannis has been the Bucks best player in the playoffs by a mile. He is averaging 29/13/5 in the playoffs. None of his teammates are in the same zip code.

[DMAVS41]

Philly Charles Barkley was MVP contender every year.

Also if the Bucks win this year, it's because of Jrue, Khris, Tucker, Portis, Pat and Lopez. Not long arms Yanni

What?

Giannis has been basically a modern version of Shaq these entire playoffs. People, even NBA people, are grossly under-rating his performance in the playoffs and finals. If he closes this thing out...it would be an all-time great run.

I get it...it isn't pretty...he has flaws...the help he gets is more noticeable...we all had questions...the last couple years in the playoffs didn't paint an ideal picture.

But if he wins this thing...playing this great....he should get all-time elite comparisons.

[SouBeachTalents]

I really hate the way fans evaluate and rank players. They’ll never seem to comprehend championships are mostly circumstantial. Forget about all the injuries, if Durant’s toe is behind the line this thread would never get made. I’d like to think a guy could be great for more than 3 years before we anoint them top 15 status

[GrayGoat]

I really hate the way fans evaluate and rank players. They’ll never seem to comprehend championships are mostly circumstantial. Forget about all the injuries, if Durant’s toe is behind the line this thread would never get made. I’d like to think a guy could be great for more than 3 years before we anoint them top 15 status

Maybe not too 15 but he would pass the likes of David Robinson.

[StrongLurk]

Hell no, y'all overrate rings man.

Giannis putting up consistent MVP/ALL-NBA teams is more important in my opinion when it comes to ranking "individual" players.

Giannis has only been a superstar for 4 years now...people were doing the same thing with Kawhi.

We need to see superstars actually have long, productive primes (at least 7-8 years) before we can rank them in the top 20 all time...ranking Giannis above Barkley/Malone/Garnett/Dirk is very ignorant and disrespectful of past players.

I mean, Karl Malone literally put up 26/10/4 over a 15-year playoff stretch. Dirk had 26/10/3 over a 12-year stretch, etc.

[GrayGoat]

Hell no, y'all overrate rings man.

Giannis putting up consistent MVP/ALL-NBA teams is more important in my opinion when it comes to ranking "individual" players.

Giannis has only been a superstar for 4 years now...people were doing the same thing with Kawhi.

We need to see superstars actually have long, productive primes (at least 7-8 years) before we can rank them in the top 20 all time...ranking Giannis above Barkley/Malone/Garnett/Dirk is very ignorant and disrespectful of past players.
Dpoy, two mvps a ring and a fmvp is solid as fvck no matter how you try to cut him down

[tanibanana]

Not yet.
His ring & FMVP (if he wins later) is not yet enough to compensate his lack of All-NBA & All-Star.
But definitely he will surpass them sooner or later in his career, if not all four of them, at least Barkley & Garnett.

[1Time4YourMind]

Top 30 if he wins a ring, if he has longevity into his 30s and puts up a few more all-nba and all-star he gets to top 20. With the ring and longevity, he has an argument to be better than them all because unlike Dirk and Barkley Giannis is a two way player and accomplished winning MVP and DPOY in the same year, something only MJ and Hakeem pulled off.

[Rudeboy3]

Hell no, y'all overrate rings man.

Giannis putting up consistent MVP/ALL-NBA teams is more important in my opinion when it comes to ranking "individual" players.

Giannis has only been a superstar for 4 years now...people were doing the same thing with Kawhi.

We need to see superstars actually have long, productive primes (at least 7-8 years) before we can rank them in the top 20 all time...ranking Giannis above Barkley/Malone/Garnett/Dirk is very ignorant and disrespectful of past players.

I mean, Karl Malone literally put up 26/10/4 over a 15-year playoff stretch. Dirk had 26/10/3 over a 12-year stretch, etc.

"putting up empty numbers is more impressive than winning rings" this clown

[StrongLurk]

"putting up empty numbers is more impressive than winning rings" this clown

Yeah cause MVPS, all-nba teams, and superstar playoff performances are "empty numbers".

You need to troll better man.

[tpols]

"putting up empty numbers is more impressive than winning rings" this clown

Empty numbers leading to the Finals? You realize Malone and Barkley had to beat MJ right? Not Devin Booker... MJ. And they had to beat Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem just to get there. Are you being serious?

[Rudeboy3]

Empty numbers leading to the Finals? You realize Malone and Barkley had to beat MJ right? Not Devin Booker... MJ. And they had to beat Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem just to get there. Are you being serious?

Devin booker is averaging 30ppg, doubt that child molester would beat booker himself

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Better than Dirk\Barkley because defense

Better then Garnett because offense

Better then Malone because everything

Yeah, he's definitely better then those guys.

[SouBeachTalents]

Better than Dirk\Barkley because defense

Better then Garnett because offense

Better then Malone because everything

Yeah, he's definitely better then those guys.
And he's the only one you can use to prop up Kawhi

[plowking]

He is a better and more impactful player than all of them. That doesn't change with a ring or not.

[HunterSThompson]

this is an insult to the Greek yogurt fountain


please only compare him to our Kang. these 2 thick boyz are on a completely different planet


no one else comes close to their genetics and skill combination


if I had to pick today I would say they're 1A and 1B all time right now. but their positions might flip in 3 years. for some reason nobody gives my Kang respect for what he did. dunno why. all 4 of Kang ships are just as organic with probably even less help

[Phoenix]

I really hate the way fans evaluate and rank players. They’ll never seem to comprehend championships are mostly circumstantial. Forget about all the injuries, if Durant’s toe is behind the line this thread would never get made. I’d like to think a guy could be great for more than 3 years before we anoint them top 15 status

Because it's s total shitshow. You may be arguing peak value while someone else values sustained greatness for longer. Some people ring count without looking at all the context around the chips. Stats from 1960 mean nothing compared to 1990, which means nothing to 2020 and will mean nothing to 2050 when we get there. But it all gets thrown into a giant pot and we nitpick players many of which played in totally different leagues.

[tpols]

Devin booker is averaging 30ppg, doubt that child molester would beat booker himself

:oldlol:

That's cute. Like Booker and the suns are anywhere NEAR as good as Jordan and the Bulls. Get real kid.

Malone and Barkley were on a totally different tier of basketball skill. And just as if not even more brolic. But they played in an era defenses could hit you back, there was no spacing, and they had to face a gauntlet of healthy MVPs and dynasties to win.

Just like last years ring this year is a mickey mouse title either way.

Its worth maybe 1/3 of Dirks and honestly Barkleys '93 and Malones '98 runs were better too. Even KG had to take down peak Lebron and Kobe. I'm taking all those runs over this years Bucks or Suns.

[DMAVS41]

:oldlol:

That's cute. Like Booker and the suns are anywhere NEAR as good as Jordan and the Bulls. Get real kid.

Malone and Barkley were on a totally different tier of basketball skill. And just as if not even more brolic. But they played in an era defenses could hit you back, there was no spacing, and they had to face a gauntlet of healthy MVPs and dynasties to win.

Just like last years ring this year is a mickey mouse title either way.

Its worth maybe 1/3 of Dirks and honestly Barkleys '93 and Malones '98 runs were better too. Even KG had to take down peak Lebron and Kobe. I'm taking all those runs over this years Bucks or Suns.

Basketball skill does not equal how good at basketball you are unless you are talking about everything...in which case Giannis is not on a totally different tier.

I love KG, but he did not beat peak Lebron to win his title.

We have to stop acting like being an unreal athlete and really big are things that don't matter. This never used to be a talking point. Nobody with a brain questioned the greatness of Shaq because his skill level wasn't as high as Kobe's....what you say about Barkley and Malone would apply to Shaq as well...yet he was easily a better player than both at his best.

Giannis has to win this series while playing great...and he has to have a long prime to leap these guys, but he's certainly in their class as a player...

[3ba11]

Yes because he's trouncing a real dude - if the Suns didn't have Ayton, then it would be a cakewalk - but Giannis is overcoming and actual physical presence inside by simply playing futuristic - Giannis' pace is too much for Ayton and nullifies Ayton - when Giannis is doing his thing and teammates are following, Ayton is an empty-stats non-factor.. the game becomes BEYOND ayton because Giannis pace and game is too much

[tpols]

Basketball skill does not equal how good at basketball you are unless you are talking about everything...in which case Giannis is not on a totally different tier.

I love KG, but he did not beat peak Lebron to win his title.

We have to stop acting like being an unreal athlete and really big are things that don't matter. This never used to be a talking point. Nobody with a brain questioned the greatness of Shaq because his skill level wasn't as high as Kobe's....what you say about Barkley and Malone would apply to Shaq as well...yet he was easily a better player than both at his best.

Giannis has to win this series while playing great...and he has to have a long prime to leap these guys, but he's certainly in their class as a player...

Well the skill thing is absolutely relevant. As are the points on spacing, physicality and competition. Giannis in the 90s doesn't get away with his limited skill set what he gets away with today. Put him in a packed paint with no soft calls it all falls apart. We saw that even last year. The spacing that creates the lobs and driving lanes simply wouldn't be there. He would need a baby jumper or hook shot that he doesn't have. Barkley and Malone OTOH had the same level of bull ability but with feathery jumpers. Its night and day.

Malone and Barkley faced gauntlets just to make the Finals. They beat more impressive list of players in 2 rounds than the bucks have beaten in 4.

That's what it is.

At the end of the day I'm looking at them as basketball players and not solely judging based on circumstance. There's a ton of all time greats that never won that would win with this stacked Bucks cast facing a bunch of injured and weak teams. Is what it is. But lets compare facing injured baby Trae and Devin Booker to ****ing MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, and Robinson.

Right?

Durant is the only superstar the Bucks have faced and his 2 best teammates got hurt while every Buck was healthy.

[tpols]

Basketball skill does not equal how good at basketball you are unless you are talking about everything...in which case Giannis is not on a totally different tier.

I love KG, but he did not beat peak Lebron to win his title.

We have to stop acting like being an unreal athlete and really big are things that don't matter. This never used to be a talking point. Nobody with a brain questioned the greatness of Shaq because his skill level wasn't as high as Kobe's....what you say about Barkley and Malone would apply to Shaq as well...yet he was easily a better player than both at his best.

Giannis has to win this series while playing great...and he has to have a long prime to leap these guys, but he's certainly in their class as a player...

And absolutely not. Shaq was definitely not "easily" better than Charles Barkley. That's absurd. If you gave Barkley Kobe and Wade and gave Shaq only Kevin Johnson their title count would be reversed. Malone also trounced Shaq before Kobe became a true superstar. Literally swept his ass.

[theman93]

No.

This ring has a major asterisk attached to it.

[DMAVS41]

And absolutely not. Shaq was definitely not "easily" better than Charles Barkley. That's absurd. If you gave Barkley Kobe and Wade and gave Shaq only Kevin Johnson their title count would be reversed. Malone also trounced Shaq before Kobe became a true superstar. Literally swept his ass.

Sorry, but peak Shaq, which is what I said, was easily better than Barkley. Doesn't matter if Barkley would have won with Kobe or Wade....not even sure why you think that is relevant.

And even if I were to agree with what you are saying....Shaq is easily a top 15 player of all-time at worst. So I'd say Giannis is in pretty good company whether you approve of how he plays or not.

[DMAVS41]

Well the skill thing is absolutely relevant. As are the points on spacing, physicality and competition. Giannis in the 90s doesn't get away with his limited skill set what he gets away with today. Put him in a packed paint with no soft calls it all falls apart. We saw that even last year. The spacing that creates the lobs and driving lanes simply wouldn't be there. He would need a baby jumper or hook shot that he doesn't have. Barkley and Malone OTOH had the same level of bull ability but with feathery jumpers. Its night and day.

Malone and Barkley faced gauntlets just to make the Finals. They beat more impressive list of players in 2 rounds than the bucks have beaten in 4.

That's what it is.

At the end of the day I'm looking at them as basketball players and not solely judging based on circumstance. There's a ton of all time greats that never won that would win with this stacked Bucks cast facing a bunch of injured and weak teams. Is what it is. But lets compare facing injured baby Trae and Devin Booker to ****ing MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, and Robinson.

Right?

Durant is the only superstar the Bucks have faced and his 2 best teammates got hurt while every Buck was healthy.

You keep acting like I'm high on Giannis because he might win a ring. I've been arguing with you about how good Giannis is for like 3 years now. Your post has nothing to do with my points.

I'm not arguing this ring, if he even gets it, is somehow the same thing as facing Jordan.

I simply said in terms of being good at basketball...Giannis is in that tier of player...which honestly is just obvious. Where he ultimately will rank depends on how good he plays and for how long...and what he accomplishes.

Does it not get old? You used to claim Lebron wasn't special and he'd never win. Then it was Giannis isn't good at basketball. You expect to be taken seriously if your takes are...Lebron isn't special and Giannis isn't even good?

And then when the play all-time great and have a ton of individual and team success...you come up with some BS about how they wouldn't be good in a different era.

Come on now...just admit you were wrong.

[Lebron23]

Not yet. But he needs a couple of good seasons. And those guys best some pretty good teams in the playoffs.

[tpols]

You keep acting like I'm high on Giannis because he might win a ring. I've been arguing with you about how good Giannis is for like 3 years now. Your post has nothing to do with my points.

I'm not arguing this ring, if he even gets it, is somehow the same thing as facing Jordan.

I simply said in terms of being good at basketball...Giannis is in that tier of player...which honestly is just obvious. Where he ultimately will rank depends on how good he plays and for how long...and what he accomplishes.

Does it not get old? You used to claim Lebron wasn't special and he'd never win. Then it was Giannis isn't good at basketball. You expect to be taken seriously if your takes are...Lebron isn't special and Giannis isn't even good?

And then when the play all-time great and have a ton of individual and team success...you come up with some BS about how they wouldn't be good in a different era.

Come on now...just admit you were wrong.

Your arguments are garbage because you only evaluate guys on how they stack WWE accolades and circumstantial titles. I just laid out how Barkley and Malone faced more competition just to make the Finals than the Bucks have beat to win the title. I judge on basketball ability and skill and can apply context. You apparently can't. You ride the carousel though and I expect more of it.

[tpols]

Sorry, but peak Shaq, which is what I said, was easily better than Barkley. Doesn't matter if Barkley would have won with Kobe or Wade....not even sure why you think that is relevant.

And even if I were to agree with what you are saying....Shaq is easily a top 15 player of all-time at worst. So I'd say Giannis is in pretty good company whether you approve of how he plays or not.

what do you think? You're god? You're word is the spoken word? Shaq is better just because you say so? Barkley was a shooters version of Shaq. He was better but didn't ever have the help Shaq had. Period.

[DMAVS41]

Your arguments are garbage because you only evaluate guys on how they stack WWE accolades and circumstantial titles. I just laid out how Barkley and Malone faced more competition just to make the Finals than the Bucks have beat to win the title. I judge on basketball ability and skill and can apply context. You apparently can't. You ride the carousel though and I expect more of it.

What are you talking about?

I'm not putting Giannis up there because he might win the title playing historically weak competition...which I agree with. I rank him up there because of how good of a player he's become.

Let me make this clear...Giannis has become a basketball player on the level of those guys. He could lose this series...which I still think he does...and my opinion of him will be exactly the same unless he completely chokes or plays terrible.

What are you not understanding?

[DMAVS41]

what do you think? You're god? You're word is the spoken word? Shaq is better just because you say so? Barkley was a shooters version of Shaq. He was better but didn't ever have the help Shaq had. Period.

Well, we can have that debate, but I think it was pretty clear that peak Shaq had more of an impact than Barkley ever did.

[SouBeachTalents]

Well, we can have that debate, but I think it was pretty clear that peak Shaq had more of an impact than Barkley ever did.
Yeah, tpols is tripping on this point :lol Shaq gets argued as having the greatest peak ever, Barkley is simply not in that discussion

[tpols]

Well, we can have that debate, but I think it was pretty clear that peak Shaq had more of an impact than Barkley ever did.

We sure can and you wouldn't be happy about it. Shaq got wrecked by all the same players Barkley lost to. He only won with a mature superstar Kobe vs old Pippen and the Blazers, Reggie and the Pacers, Nets, and Nets again. Prime Barkley with prime Kobe wins in all those situations. And he also wins with Wade getting 100 FTs while Shaq dropped 15 PPG or whatever. You don't have an argument for why Shaq was better other than being a media parrot just saying what they said with absolutely no backing of your own. Barkley was far more efficient and unexploitable offensively, a champion rebounder, and both were lazy on D.

[basketballcat]

Giannis would have 2 MVPs and 1 title & FMVP. Tim Duncan is the only PF who has him beat.

Has it dawned on you that we might be seeing the 2nd greatest PF of all time very soon?

Dirk had one of the most alpha rings ever, nobody is over him except Duncan and possibly Malone.
Garnett didn't win Finals MVP but he had a much harder path. Given Garnett's further Finals appearance, Giannis would still not be over him especially with an double asterisk run.
Normally, I would put him over Malone because a ring is a ring. However, his run this year is extremely fluky so Malone's body of work is still greater.
As for Barkley, Giannis would be above him.

Dirk > Garnett > Malone > Giannis > Barkley

[DMAVS41]

We sure can and you wouldn't be happy about it. Shaq got wrecked by all the same players Barkley lost to. He only won with a mature superstar Kobe vs old Pippen and the Blazers, Reggie and the Pacers, Nets, and Nets again. Prime Barkley with prime Kobe wins in all those situations. And he also wins with Wade getting 100 FTs while Shaq dropped 15 PPG or whatever. You don't have an argument for why Shaq was better other than being a media parrot. Barkley was far more efficient and unexplpitable offensively, a champion rebounder, and both were lazy on D.

So, just to be clear....

You accuse me of only caring about rings...and then your argument against Shaq is that he didn't win enough outside of Kobe/Wade.

You need to get your arguments in order...or try to make a coherent point at least.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk had one of the most alpha rings ever, nobody is over him except Duncan and possibly Malone.
Garnett didn't win Finals MVP but he had a much harder path. Given Garnett's further Finals appearance, Giannis would still not be over him especially with an double asterisk run.
Normally, I would put him over Malone because a ring is a ring. However, his run this year is extremely fluky so Malone's body of work is still greater.
As for Barkley, Giannis would be above him.

Dirk > Garnett > Malone > Giannis > Barkley

I'd have them all over Giannis still at this point, but I like your list.

[tpols]

So, just to be clear....

You accuse me of only caring about rings...and then your argument against Shaq is that he didn't win enough outside of Kobe/Wade.

You need to get your arguments in order...or try to make a coherent point at least.

No... my argument is you have no argument for Shaq >> Barkley outside media talking points and rings since you never even cared to initially provide any type of justification yourself, and this directly related to the current topic because you're willing to put a player over Barkley or Malone solely off a win or production against inferior competition.

[DMAVS41]

No... my argument is you have no argument for Shaq >> Barkley outside media talking points and rings since you never even cared to initially provide any type of justification yourself, and this directly related to the current topic because you're willing to put a player over Barkley or Malone solely off a win or production against inferior competition.

A couple things;

1. I never put Giannis over Barkley or Malone. I said he's become about as good at basketball as they were and I'd put him on the same tier, but below them for now. It has very little to do with the Bucks making the finals...and everything to do with the level of play Giannis is playing at. Are you even watching this? I mean...I get you claimed he "isn't good at basketball" so you have to pretend it isn't happening, but are you honestly not impressed watching what this dude is doing on both ends?

2. Media talking points? Just to be clear...you think the only reason one can have for taking Shaq at this best over Barkley is because of narrative and rings? I just want to understand how clear it is you think Barkley was better than Shaq.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Tpols, you can say Shaq was lazy on defense. Not many will disagree there.

But from 2000-2005ish, Shaq was miles better as a defender. Which ultimately made him a player with more impact.

Barkley's peak play in 90 and 93 is up there with Shaq's. No doubt. Just not as dominant in the playoffs or finals.

[DMAVS41]

Tpols, you can say Shaq was lazy on defense. Not many will disagree there.

But from 2000-2005ish, Shaq was miles better as a defender. Which ultimately made him a player with more impact.

Barkley's peak play in 90 and 93 is up there with Shaq's. No doubt. Just not as dominant in the playoffs or finals.

Barkley's Finals in 93 were amazing. Yes, it wasn't as dominant as Shaq was, but hard to compare given the different circumstances.

[tpols]

A couple things;

1. I never put Giannis over Barkley or Malone. I said he's become about as good at basketball at they were and I'd put him on the same tier, but below them for now. It has very little to do with the Bucks making the finals...and everything to do with the level of play Giannis is playing at. Are you even watching this? I mean...I get you claimed he "isn't good at basketball" so you have to pretend it isn't happening, but are you honestly not impressed watching what this dude is doing on both ends?

2. Media talking points? Just to be clear...you think the only reason one can have for taking Shaq at this best over Barkley is because of narrative and rings? I just want to understand how clear it is you think Barkley was better than Shaq.

That's exactly what I think. I do think Barkley was better than Shaq but whats even more absurd is that you think Shaq was "easily better" than Barkley. And you provided zero evidence... only relying on mainstream stigma. I told you why I thought the way I did. You couldn't reciprocate.

As for the first point I've already said it... Malone and Barkley didn't come up in this environment and Giannis didn't come up in theirs. Malone and Barkley had similar physical prowess with more skill. A lot more.

Beating baby Trae and Devin Booker and old Chris Paul would be child's play for prime Chuck or Karl.

What are you arguing?

[DMAVS41]

That's exactly what I think. I do think Barkley was better than Shaq but whats even more absurd is that you think Shaq was "easily better" than Barkley. And you provided zero evidence... only relying on mainstream stigma. I told you why I thought the way I did. You couldn't reciprocate.

As for the first point I've already said it... Malone and Barkley didn't come up in this environment and Giannis didn't come up in theirs. Malone and Barkley had similar physical prowess with more skill. A lot more.

Beating baby Trae and Devin Booker and old Chris Paul would be child's play for prime Chuck or Karl.

What are you arguing?

I said peak Shaq...and I think it is pretty simple....when you have a true big capable of dominating the way Shaq did at his best...it is more valuable than what Barkley brought to the table...as you call it something like "Shaq with shooting"....I'd rather just have Shaq owning the paint.

Again, I'm not putting Giannis with them because he might win the title. Again, Giannis destroys both of them defensively and he's an absolute offensive force...I don't think you even watch Giannis anymore. The dude is out there making mid-range shots, turn around, euro steps, passes well....is he perfect? Of course not, but his physical prowess as you put it...makes him one of the best players of all-time on any fair assessment.

What has Giannis done the last like 4 years? Like 28/12/5 while winning a ton of games with good, but not great help...while also providing DPOY level defense. I mean...what more do you want out of him? He's done it all...and you don't think he is on the same tier?

Again, we've been telling you this for 3 years. You still think Pascal Siakim is better?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Barkley's Finals in 93 were amazing. Yes, it wasn't as dominant as Shaq was, but hard to compare given the different circumstances.

Context is definitely important.

Barkley having to play the Dyansty Bulls/Jordan was tougher comp than anything LA went thru. Just by watching them though, Shaq peaked a little higher. His size made him a respectable defender. Well elite actually depending on the years in question.

[DMAVS41]

Context is definitely important.

Barkley having to play the Dyansty Bulls/Jordan was tougher comp than anything LA went thru. Just by watching them though, Shaq peaked a little higher. His size made him a respectable defender. Well elite actually depending on the years in question.

Oh I agree.

I just think Barkley's run in 93 gets under-rated. But yea...peak Shaq dominated in a way very few players ever have imo...and while Barkley was a beast...I don't think he had the impact Shaq did.

[DMAVS41]

tpols does it again...

yep, just watching Giannis tonight...he just doesn't have it

do you not understand how hard it was to win this game tonight when Jrue Holiday is out there missing the rim on most of his shots? he barely got help tonight and played one of the best complete games of his career in the biggest game of his career. dominated on both ends like few in history could.

but yea, you are right...he isn't even on the same tier as those guys.

[DMAVS41]

Imagine being dumb enough to say a player this good is "bad at basketball"

Then imagine years later...on the very night that same player is dropping 50/14/2 with 5 blocks to win the title....you are arguing he can't even sniff the same tier as players that in their entire careers accomplished less than this cat has at age 26.

[tpols]

I honestly don't think Dirk, Barkley, Malone, or KG wouldve done any less vs what was faced. If you think this Devin Booker Suns team was worth MJ Bulls or Kobe Lakers or Wade Lebron Heat I don't know what to tell you. Except that you're ignoring all oppositional context. And you're dumb.

[DMAVS41]

I honestly don't think Dirk, Barkley, Malone, or KG wouldve done any less vs what was faced. If you think this Devin Booker Suns team was worth MJ Bulls or Kobe Lakers or Wade Lebron Heat I don't know what to tell you. Except that you're ignoring all oppositional context. And you're dumb.

What?

I never said those guys couldn't do some version of this...and I never said this ring is as impressive as every other ring. I will say though...winning with Jrue playing this poorly offensively is more impressive than it initially seems as I agree the Suns aren't some elite force...but your guard sucking it up that much...that was hard to overcome. Not many guys in history could win a game like this tonight. Please at least read or take the time to grasp what I'm saying.

I simply said Giannis has become good enough to be on the same tier as those guys. He's gotten so damn good at basketball that there aren't many guys in history that clearly have had better careers...and he's only 26.

Take the L man...