Giannis is rank higher than Malone and Barkley

[Lebron23]

Despite being only in his 10th nba season, and only 28 years old. He already won an NBA Championship, and a 2x NBA MVP. Neither Barkley or Malone accomplished that Feat.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHXSgy7gGE8

[SouBeachTalents]

Giannis is a 2x MVP's & a 1x FMVP's. He is a better Finals performers and has won a DPOY's. He will end up passings Kobe Bryant when he retires.

[basketballcat]

Dirk is still above him, for winning a much tougher ring. So is KG, for longevity. Giannis will most likely surpass KG when all is said & done, though.

[Nike D'Antoni]

Giannis did not face Michael Jordan.

[Gotterdammerung]

Giannis did not face Michael Jordan.

Which brings to the hypothetical question: would Giannis win the title if we just straight up replaced Barkley on the 93 Suns and Malone on the 97 or 98 Jazz teams?
That alone would decide the difference - but I suspect Giannis would be much more inhibited by the stricter rules of ball handling back then, and not be allowed to take those gigantic dribble drives from 25 feet away like he does today.
:kobe:
And on the flip side, would the MVP versions of Barkley and Malone win the title with the 2021 Milwaukee Bucks?

[Xiao Yao You]

Which brings to the hypothetical question: would Giannis win the title if we just straight up replaced Barkley on the 93 Suns and Malone on the 97 or 98 Jazz teams?
That alone would decide the difference - but I suspect Giannis would be much more inhibited by the stricter rules of ball handling back then, and not be allowed to take those gigantic dribble drives from 25 feet away like he does today.
:kobe:
And on the flip side, would the MVP versions of Barkley and Malone win the title with the 2021 Milwaukee Bucks?

Giannis is would have been playing in the post as a center. How would he rank against Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing etc. would be a better question

[L.Kizzle]

Dirk is still above him, for winning a much tougher ring. So is KG, for longevity. Giannis will most likely surpass KG when all is said & done, though.
Giannis has already (depending on how you look at it) accomplished more than Chuck, Malone, KG & Dirk. It's not crazy to have him over them already. He's in season 10, not season 4. Pistol Pete played 10 seasons.

[90sgoat]

Nah, Giannis is on Patrick Ewing ranking.

He got lucky one postseason, but lets see.

[L.Kizzle]

Nah, Giannis is on Patrick Ewing ranking.

He got lucky one postseason, but lets see.
When Pat had 2 MVPs and a chip?

[DMAVS41]

When Pat had 2 MVPs and a chip?

He'll need to put some more quality years in for me in order to rank higher than some of the guys in that range.

Of that Dirk/KG/Barkley/Malone tier...I do think Giannis is the best player of that group, but he's only put in 7 high quality seasons so far. I'll need at least 10 and likely another title or at least another finals trip before he gets placed over those guys.

[kawhileonard2]

Giannis lost with HCA to Kawhi.

Lebron lost with HCA to Dwight and then Dirk.

[L.Kizzle]

He'll need to put some more quality years in for me in order to rank higher than some of the guys in that range.

Of that Dirk/KG/Barkley/Malone tier...I do think Giannis is the best player of that group, but he's only put in 7 high quality seasons so far. I'll need at least 10 and likely another title or at least another finals trip before he gets placed over those guys.
Why he need more years? Malone the only one with more MVPs and he has equal rings to Dirk and KG. Has more or equal All-NBA 1st teams with Dirk/KG/Chuck.
So, he's done more in less years but he can't be over because he ain't played enough years ... make it make sense.

[BigShotBob]

Lebron never faced prime Giannis in the playoffs. Why are you propping him up?

Embarassing

[RRR3]

Lebron never faced prime Giannis in the playoffs. Why are you propping him up?

Embarassing
How is that LeBron's fault? Giannis should have got out of the first round in 2017 and 2018 if he wanted to face LeBron.

[BigShotBob]

How is that LeBron's fault? Giannis should have got out of the first round in 2017 and 2018 if he wanted to face LeBron.

It's nobody's "fault" even though Lebron also never faced a prime Embiid/Simmons 76ers in the playoffs either. Or a prime Tatum/Brown Celtics. He never beat any of the East's best in their primes actually except for a one year prime Derrick Rose who had no one else on his team. Last top player he faced in their prime in the East was Dwight Howard, and he lost to him.

[1987_Lakers]

It's nobody's "fault" even though Lebron also never faced a prime Embiid/Simmons 76ers in the playoffs either. Or a prime Tatum/Brown Celtics. He never beat any of the East's best in their primes actually except for a one year prime Derrick Rose who had no one else on his team. Last top player he faced in their prime in the East was Dwight Howard, and he lost to him.

He beat a 73 win team.

[BigShotBob]

He beat a 73 win team.

So what happened in 2011

[1987_Lakers]

So what happened in 2011

What happened to this?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?483825-Stick-a-fork-in-Giannis

[BigShotBob]

What happened to this?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?483825-Stick-a-fork-in-Giannis

https://theathletic.com/4209833/2021/06/13/kyrie-irving-injured-as-bucks-even-series-against-nets-with-game-4-win/

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/31573789/brooklyn-nets-james-harden-ruled-game-1-vs-bucks-hamstring-injury

That happened

[1987_Lakers]

https://theathletic.com/4209833/2021/06/13/kyrie-irving-injured-as-bucks-even-series-against-nets-with-game-4-win/

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/31573789/brooklyn-nets-james-harden-ruled-game-1-vs-bucks-hamstring-injury

That happened

This happened

https://media1.tenor.com/images/bb2cb64b6dca618694ae9cdf5ad58774/tenor.gif?itemid=22417528

[John8204]

I classify Lebron as a PF then I've got Duncan, then Dirk then Bob Pettit with Barkley/KG neck and neck and then I would go with Giannis. Which is the highest I would rank any active player under 30 at any position.

Don't forget Pettit, KG, Malone and Barkley retired as double/double guys Giannis isn't going to do that...I do expect him to finish his career in the Dirk/Pettit range but it's a little early.

[1987_Lakers]

I classify Lebron as a PF then I've got Duncan, then Dirk then Bob Pettit with Barkley/KG neck and neck and then I would go with Giannis. Which is the highest I would rank any active player under 30 at any position.

Don't forget Pettit, KG, Malone and Barkley retired as double/double guys Giannis isn't going to do that...I do expect him to finish his career in the Dirk/Pettit range but it's a little early.

Peak wise, Malone wasn't close to the player current Giannis is, only thing he has on him is the longevity & Giannis' defensive edge on Barkley is too hard to ignore. KG was never as dominant as Giannis. If he keeps this up for a few more years, Giannis is gonna end up being the 2nd best PF ever behind Duncan.

[DMAVS41]

Why he need more years? Malone the only one with more MVPs and he has equal rings to Dirk and KG. Has more or equal All-NBA 1st teams with Dirk/KG/Chuck.
So, he's done more in less years but he can't be over because he ain't played enough years ... make it make sense.

Because not everyone ranks like you do.

For example, I don't really care about all-nba teams for ranking purposes....but I do care about longevity quite a bit. I care about how good a player was, what they did in their circumstances, and for how long they were, in the case of players like this...how long they were a legit championship first option.

I care far more about Dirk leading the Mavs to 11 straight 50 win plus seasons, for example, than I do about MVP's...but again...everyone is free to rank however they want.

Ultimately I'll rank Giannis ahead of them all, but if just retired tomorrow...I would not. I would simply say that, all those guys at their best, I'm probably taking Giannis...but for his career? No way would I take Giannis over them if he just quit tomorrow.

Sense is made just fine...just have to use your brain and think beyond adding up MVP's, all-nba's, and rings...which is just obvious with a little thought...if the opponent Charles Barkley faced was a team as good as the 21 Suns in the finals instead of the Bulls...he'd have a ring also. If Dirk faced a team like that instead of the 06 Heat...or just had a better 2nd option...he'd have 2 rings...

The circumstances matter for all this stuff and just counting it up is silly. It is both why Jokic has to prove more in the playoffs overall while also he shouldn't get hammered for the last 2 years given his help in the playoffs.

Again, just think a little...

[BigShotBob]

Because not everyone ranks like you do.

For example, I don't really care about all-nba teams for ranking purposes....but I do care about longevity quite a bit. I care about how good a player was, what they did in their circumstances, and for how long they were, in the case of players like this...how long they were a legit championship first option.

I care far more about Dirk leading the Mavs to 11 straight 50 win plus seasons, for example, than I do about MVP's...but again...everyone is free to rank however they want.

Ultimately I'll rank Giannis ahead of them all, but if just retired tomorrow...I would not. I would simply say that, all those guys at their best, I'm probably taking Giannis...but for his career? No way would I take Giannis over them if he just quit tomorrow.

Sense is made just fine...just have to use your brain and think beyond adding up MVP's, all-nba's, and rings...

Is Giannis putting up those stats in Dirk/Barkley/Malone's era?

[1987_Lakers]

Is Giannis putting up those stats in Dirk/Barkley/Malone's era?

You hate on every current player, it's ridiculous. Giannis at age 23 was putting up 27 ppg while his team played at a 96.2 pace.

Barkley put up the same points at the same pace when he was 24.

He would be fine.

[DMAVS41]

Is Giannis putting up those stats in Dirk/Barkley/Malone's era?

No, not exactly.

He's averaging 29/12/6 with elite defense over the last 6 years in the regular season and something similar in the playoffs. Would it really matter if it was 27/10/5 on slightly worse efficiency, but with better defense? I don't really think so...he's just a dominant force either way.

I mean, at some point it just comes down to preference. I personally think Giannis is the best player, at his best, of that group. Would I argue a ton with someone that took KG/Barkley/Dirk at their peaks over him? No, I wouldn't...

[RRR3]

It's nobody's "fault" even though Lebron also never faced a prime Embiid/Simmons 76ers in the playoffs either. Or a prime Tatum/Brown Celtics. He never beat any of the East's best in their primes actually except for a one year prime Derrick Rose who had no one else on his team. Last top player he faced in their prime in the East was Dwight Howard, and he lost to him.
LeBron beat the teams that beat Embiid and Giannis. They should have stopped playing like shit if they wanted to face LeBron.

[BigShotBob]

You hate on every current player, it's ridiculous. Giannis at age 23 was putting up 27 ppg while his team played at a 96.2 pace.

Barkley put up the same points at the same pace when he was 24.

He would be fine.

Rule changes. Try again. Stop acting obtuse to stan modern players.



No, not exactly.

He's averaging 29/12/6 with elite defense over the last 6 years in the regular season and something similar in the playoffs. Would it really matter if it was 27/10/5 on slightly worse efficiency, but with better defense? I don't really think so...he's just a dominant force either way.

I mean, at some point it just comes down to preference. I personally think Giannis is the best player, at his best, of that group. Would I argue a ton with someone that took KG/Barkley/Dirk at their peaks over him? No, I wouldn't...

I'm wondering what your seeing in him. Right now he just takes advantage of the lackadaisical rules. He'd have to play a completely different game if he was in Malone/Barkley/Dirk/KG's era. That's just a fact.

His peak during that time would be a prime/peak David Robinson. He lost to Hakeem and Barkley and Malone in different playoff series.

So in that era Giannis might not ever win an MVP, he might now ever win a DPOY, and he definitely isn't winning a championship.

I'm sure you wouldn't put a accolade-less Giannis over them at all

[1987_Lakers]

Imagine a fan in the 80's hating on current players like Magic, Bird, Dr. J while praising players like Wilt, Big O, & West constantly. That is what BigshotBob sounds like. Someone who doesn't even watch current games, as confirmed by him saying Tatum didn't play any defense a season or two ago while embracing an era that happened when he was 5.

"But look at the way Magic dribbles the ball, he wouldn't have gotten away with that in the 60's with the rules."

He shits on Giannis for having "no skill"

But then shits on Jokic despite him being probably the most skilled center ever.

We all know it's agenda based.

[AussieSteve]

Giannis will rank higher than Barkley, but Barkley was the better basketball player.

Don't forget that Barkley is also a 2x MVP. With both MVPs coming when Jordan was in his peak and on winning teams.

And Barkley is very unlucky not to have a title or two. In 93 he came up against one of the greatest players and teams ever, and was also hamstrung by his second option giving him nothing. In 94 he and the Suns were looking dominant in the playoffs until his back flared up. After that he was never the same player.

[1987_Lakers]

Giannis will rank higher than Barkley, but Barkley was the better basketball player.

Don't forget that Barkley is also a 2x MVP. With both MVPs coming when Jordan was in his peak and on winning teams.

And Barkley is very unlucky not to have a title or two. In 93 he came up against one of the greatest players and teams ever, and was also hamstrung by his second option giving him nothing. In 94 he and the Suns were looking dominant in the playoffs until his back flared up. After that he was never the same player.

No he's not.

[John8204]

Peak wise, Malone wasn't close to the player current Giannis is, only thing he has on him is the longevity & Giannis' defensive edge on Barkley is too hard to ignore. KG was never as dominant as Giannis. If he keeps this up for a few more years, Giannis is gonna end up being the 2nd best PF ever behind Duncan.

I've got Giannis in the 20's all-time right now...so I am big on him. I wish he would get the third MVP this year and a 2nd ring because that will elevate him. KG was a pretty great two-way player and he has a full career to judge that Giannis doesn't have. He's got half the All-Star appearances of Dirk and less than half the All-NBA first teams of Bob Pettit. Dirk also made two finals appearances and beat a super team...Giannis lucked into a ring when the league was decimated with injuries.

[AussieSteve]

No he's not.

Except that we all know he is.

He received 38 1st place votes in 1990.

Magic got 27.

Magic favouring voters leaving Barkley off their ballot entirely is why Magic won. Obviously, if votes were made public then (as they are now) this would not have happened and Barkely would have won comfortably.

Barkely also won the Sporting News MVP that year. It's clear that most thought of him ad rhe MVP that year.

Regardless of whether you agree, my point stands about Barkley beating out Jordan twice in the MVP ballot, in years where Jordan was close to his peak and on winning teams.

[L.Kizzle]

Because not everyone ranks like you do.

For example, I don't really care about all-nba teams for ranking purposes....but I do care about longevity quite a bit. I care about how good a player was, what they did in their circumstances, and for how long they were, in the case of players like this...how long they were a legit championship first option.

I care far more about Dirk leading the Mavs to 11 straight 50 win plus seasons, for example, than I do about MVP's...but again...everyone is free to rank however they want.

Ultimately I'll rank Giannis ahead of them all, but if just retired tomorrow...I would not. I would simply say that, all those guys at their best, I'm probably taking Giannis...but for his career? No way would I take Giannis over them if he just quit tomorrow.

Sense is made just fine...just have to use your brain and think beyond adding up MVP's, all-nba's, and rings...which is just obvious with a little thought...if the opponent Charles Barkley faced was a team as good as the 21 Suns in the finals instead of the Bulls...he'd have a ring also. If Dirk faced a team like that instead of the 06 Heat...or just had a better 2nd option...he'd have 2 rings...

The circumstances matter for all this stuff and just counting it up is silly. It is both why Jokic has to prove more in the playoffs overall while also he shouldn't get hammered for the last 2 years given his help in the playoffs.

Again, just think a little...
We don't know if 93 Suns or 11 Dirk beat the 21 Suns.
We do know that he's accomplished more or equal to those guys already in less seasons.

You already said at their best, you're taking Giannis just not yet. I just ask why. Took him half the time to accomplish what those guys did (or never did.)

Someone mentioned Bob Pettit who only played 11 seasons. But, difference is he was dominant from the start. Took Giannis about 4 year to get goin. Both have two MVPs and a title.

[ArbitraryWater]

What happened to this?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?483825-Stick-a-fork-in-Giannis


:oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Rule changes. Try again. Stop acting obtuse to stan modern players.




I'm wondering what your seeing in him. Right now he just takes advantage of the lackadaisical rules. He'd have to play a completely different game if he was in Malone/Barkley/Dirk/KG's era. That's just a fact.

His peak during that time would be a prime/peak David Robinson. He lost to Hakeem and Barkley and Malone in different playoff series.

So in that era Giannis might not ever win an MVP, he might now ever win a DPOY, and he definitely isn't winning a championship.

I'm sure you wouldn't put a accolade-less Giannis over them at all

What I'm seeing in him?

I see one of the greatest athletes in sports history. He is a 7 foot monster that is versatile on both ends of the floor. He is a good leader and he makes his teammates better on both ends of the floor.

I completely disagree that he'd have to play a completely different style. I think, in any era, he'd be doing a floor of something like 25/10/5 on offense in his prime...all while playing elite defense. Again, his defense would get better in those other eras you are talking about. Imagine him being able to be more physical and getting called for less fouls...good luck against that.

I addressed the accolade stuff earlier. I don't really care about accolades. Nash has two MVP's and I think one has to be straight up an idiot to argue he's better than Dirk/Nash/Kobe/Shaq/Durant/KG/Barkley....etc.

I care about how good a player is in their prime, how good they were at their peak, for how long could you argue they were a championship first option (in the case of the 20 or so best players ever)...and what were the team results based on their circumstances. We don't hold KG accountable for not winning in Minny...maybe he should have had more success, but all that means is that he would have been a better player if his team was better.

Like I said before...I care about Dirk leading his team to the finals twice, winning a title as a huge underdog entering the playoffs, upsetting Duncan Spurs at the peak of their powers, 11 straight 50 win seasons....all while consistently playing at an elite level in the playoffs...with a 12 year playoff run of 26/10/3 on what was super high efficiency in that era. If you tell me Dirk had 4 more first team all-nba awards, it would not make me rank him higher.

Same goes for Giannis. I have my opinion of how good I think he's been these last 7 years...how good he was during the 21 title...maybe I'm wrong...but so far the results based on his circumstances combined with his level of play...to me, are absolutely solid evidence that he's going to go down as one of the 15 or so best players ever barring a major injury.

Now, how high he climbs will depend on what he's able to produce in terms of finals appearances and titles with this team. His team is really really good...he needs to win at least another title with this team in order for me to rank him higher than Dirk, for example...and I think that is fair. We all have our biases...but results don't lie. There is no reason, if Giannis is as good as I think he is, that he doesn't end his career with multiple finals and multiple titles given his help. If he doesn't, then I'll admit I was wrong about how high I viewed him.

[DMAVS41]

We don't know if 93 Suns or 11 Dirk beat the 21 Suns.
We do know that he's accomplished more or equal to those guys already in less seasons.

You already said at their best, you're taking Giannis just not yet. I just ask why. Took him half the time to accomplish what those guys did (or never did.)

Someone mentioned Bob Pettit who only played 11 seasons. But, difference is he was dominant from the start. Took Giannis about 4 year to get goin. Both have two MVPs and a title.

We never know anything for sure, but I think it is quite obvious that Barkley beats a team like the 21 Suns...same with the 06 Mavs. You don't even have to go there...what if the 93 Suns / 06 Mavs played a team as good as the 07 Cavs? You really think they are losing that series? Hell no...again, this is why circumstances matter...it is beyond silly to just ring count or accolade count.

No, he has not accomplished more than those guys in half the seasons. Again, that is only based on your narrow view. How has Giannis accomplished more than Dirk? Dirk led the Mavs to 11 straight 50 win seasons. You aren't accounting for that at all. Dirk led the 06 Mavs to the finals after upsetting the Duncan led Spurs at the peak of their powers...the only series they lost in 3 years was to Dirk's Mavs. Has Giannis beaten a team like that in the playoffs? No, he hasn't...he couldn't even get by the 19 Raptors...a series in which he was underwhelming. How about beating a team like the 11 Heat? I could go on...longevity and circumstances matter to me.

They don't have to matter for you. That is fine...but pretending it doesn't make sense because you are unwilling to actually think a little is on you.

Again, it is not hard...

Peak...I'll take Giannis, but it isn't like I think it is obvious or something like I said. I just happen to think Giannis is the best player of that group from what I've seen at his best.

Career...I'll take Giannis if his longevity and results based on his circumstances play out like I think they will. But if Giannis never wins another title with a team this good at his peak...I'll rightly not rank him as high as I currently do because that would mean he's not as good as I think.

[BigShotBob]

:oldlol:

https://theathletic.com/4209833/2021/06/13/kyrie-irving-injured-as-bucks-even-series-against-nets-with-game-4-win/

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/31573789/brooklyn-nets-james-harden-ruled-game-1-vs-bucks-hamstring-injury

That happened

[DMAVS41]

https://theathletic.com/4209833/2021/06/13/kyrie-irving-injured-as-bucks-even-series-against-nets-with-game-4-win/

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/31573789/brooklyn-nets-james-harden-ruled-game-1-vs-bucks-hamstring-injury

That happened

So you are still on the "Giannis isn't good enough to be the best player on a title winning team without a lot of luck" train?

[Full Court]

He beat a 73 win team.

Lol. Wooo hooo. You Bronie fluffers don't have much else other than that and a career scoring record, do you?

[1987_Lakers]

Lol. Wooo hooo. You Bronie fluffers don't have much else other than that and a career scoring record, do you?

You act as if winning 4 chips and being the all-time leading scorer is no big deal.

What has your favorite player Paul George done?

[BigShotBob]

So you are still on the "Giannis isn't good enough to be the best player on a title winning team without a lot of luck" train?

My issue with Giannis is multi-faceted and not that hard to grasp for those who wish to have an honest discussion and actually know basketball and watch him play.

* Limited scoring skill. He won't display the skill necessary against tight defense unless his back is against the wall. His game 6 performance in the Finals was a flash of his peak ceiling. He was hitting jumpshots, hooks, fades, everything he had worked on. So did he "earn" that title? Sure. Did he deserve it since Kyrie, Harden, and Trae Young were all injured? Not really. And Middleton was playing out of his mind against the Hawks when Giannis sat.

* The year after his title he is favored to win, Middleton goes down and Giannis against the Celtics....reverts back to his old ways. Tries to barrel into the lane, he's missing everything out of 3ft (and sometimes shots right at the rim), he's not making the game easier for himself, just a horrendous performance from a player that was supposed to improve his scoring ability

* Defensively he's fine. On the boards he's fine. Motor is fine. He's just not outscoring or outworking teams that Dirk/Barkley/Malone went against. Giannis against the Spurs in their peak isn't beating them like Dirk is because Dirk was a matchup nightmare for every PF he's ever faced in their absolute prime/peak, even Duncan. Giannis isn't outworking Seattle, he's not beating Hakeem, he's not beating David Robinson, and he's not beating Karl Malone. And even if he does, he's not beating Jordan. He'd have to be a different player because all of those bigs had versatile games.

* Which brings me to my final point. Out of KG/Barkley/Dirk/Malone/Robinson/Ewing/Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq who has by far the least versatile offensive game out of them? It's Giannis and it's not even close. So in what world is he beating them and how can you justifiably rank him over any of them?

[1987_Lakers]

* Which brings me to my final point. Out of KG/Barkley/Dirk/Malone/Robinson/Ewing/Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq who has by far the least versatile offensive game out of them? It's Giannis and it's not even close. So in what world is he beating them and how can you justifiably rank him over any of them?

You sound like a retard. McHale is more skilled than most of those guys you listed, but in no world is he ranked above most of them.

Giannis is the Shaq of power forwards, a dominant force (while also being a good passer). Wilt didn't have much skill to his game and is top 10 ever.

If skill is all you look at then you must have Jokic as the GOAT center, which you don't because you shit on him too. Just admit it, your posts are all agenda based.

[DMAVS41]

My issue with Giannis is multi-faceted and not that hard to grasp for those who wish to have an honest discussion and actually know basketball and watch him play.

* Limited scoring skill. He won't display the skill necessary against tight defense unless his back is against the wall. His game 6 performance in the Finals was a flash of his peak ceiling. He was hitting jumpshots, hooks, fades, everything he had worked on. So did he "earn" that title? Sure. Did he deserve it since Kyrie, Harden, and Trae Young were all injured? Not really. And Middleton was playing out of his mind against the Hawks when Giannis sat.

* The year after his title he is favored to win, Middleton goes down and Giannis against the Celtics....reverts back to his old ways. Tries to barrel into the lane, he's missing everything out of 3ft (and sometimes shots right at the rim), he's not making the game easier for himself, just a horrendous performance from a player that was supposed to improve his scoring ability

* Defensively he's fine. On the boards he's fine. Motor is fine. He's just not outscoring or outworking teams that Dirk/Barkley/Malone went against. Giannis against the Spurs in their peak isn't beating them like Dirk is because Dirk was a matchup nightmare for every PF he's ever faced in their absolute prime/peak, even Duncan. Giannis isn't outworking Seattle, he's not beating Hakeem, he's not beating David Robinson, and he's not beating Karl Malone. And even if he does, he's not beating Jordan. He'd have to be a different player because all of those bigs had versatile games.

* Which brings me to my final point. Out of KG/Barkley/Dirk/Malone/Robinson/Ewing/Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq who has by far the least versatile offensive game out of them? It's Giannis and it's not even close. So in what world is he beating them and how can you justifiably rank him over any of them?

The problem with analysis like this is that you only focus on the skill deficits of Giannis and ignore everything that makes him so dominant. It is like saying Shaq wasn't that great because he had a "limited scoring skillset"

Giannis is not perfect and has his share of flaws, but he is a dominant two-way force...and for all that lacking scoring skillset...has managed to average 28 points per game on 58% TS the last 6 years in the playoffs.

Yes, he'll need certain types of supporting casts...but that is true for everyone.

End of the day...Giannis is leading his team to 50 plus wins every year and has been the best player on a title winning team. The questions have been answered....he's one of the best players ever and a championship first option.

The only thing left is how high he ultimately climbs. He has to win more titles with a team this good in order to elevate himself. As he should...so I get saying he hasn't done enough yet. Like I said...I won't argue much.

However, to be as wrong as you've been here....and to just not admit it...and keep going on and on about how he got lucky to win essentially....just makes no sense. If it was so easy to be the clear cut best player on a title winning team...way more guys would have done it by now....Giannis did it and he deserves the appropriate credit...whether you like his skillset or not.

[DMAVS41]

You sound like a retard. McHale is more skilled than most of those guys you listed, but in no world is he ranked above most of them.

Giannis is the Shaq of power forwards, a dominant force (while also being a good passer). Wilt didn't have much skill to his game and is top 10 ever.

If skill is all you look at then you must have Jokic as the GOAT center, which you don't because you shit on him too. Just admit it, your posts are all agenda based.

The bold is a really good point. He diminishes the insane skillset of Jokic on offense, straight up lies about his supporting cast, and ignores how much better the Nuggets are on offense and defense with Jokic on the court.

If Giannis can't be as good as guys like Dirk because of the skillset difference...how the **** does he not have Jokic higher in his rankings????

[BigShotBob]

You sound like a retard. McHale is more skilled than most of those guys you listed, but in no world is he ranked above most of them.

Giannis is the Shaq of power forwards, a dominant force (while also being a good passer). Wilt didn't have much skill to his game and is top 10 ever.

If skill is all you look at then you must have Jokic as the GOAT center, which you don't because you shit on him too. Just admit it, your posts are all agenda based.

McHale is not more skilled than most of the guys listed but you don't know basketball so it's not surprising. He's around their relative skill level. Giannis isn't anywhere close in an era where it's easier to score.

Wilt didn't have much skill? :roll:

Learn basketball you're way out of your depth, like always. Poverty IQ takes.





The problem with analysis like this is that you only focus on the skill deficits of Giannis and ignore everything that makes him so dominant. It is like saying Shaq wasn't that great because he had a "limited scoring skillset"

Giannis is not perfect and has his share of flaws, but he is a dominant two-way force...and for all that lacking scoring skillset...has managed to average 28 points per game on 58% TS the last 6 years in the playoffs.

Yes, he'll need certain types of supporting casts...but that is true for everyone.

End of the day...Giannis is leading his team to 50 plus wins every year and has been the best player on a title winning team. The questions have been answered....he's one of the best players ever and a championship first option.

The only thing left is how high he ultimately climbs. He has to win more titles with a team this good in order to elevate himself. As he should...so I get saying he hasn't done enough yet. Like I said...I won't argue much.

However, to be as wrong as you've been here....and to just not admit it...and keep going on and on about how he got lucky to win essentially....just makes no sense. If it was so easy to be the clear cut best player on a title winning team...way more guys would have done it by now....Giannis did it and he deserves the appropriate credit...whether you like his skillset or not.

I see we have a hard time following an argument to its logical conclusion.

The healthiest team Giannis beat was in the Finals, and that were the Suns. He was actually favored against Kawhi and the Raptors and was up 2-0, he lost. He lost the year after that in the Bubble but I don't hold much stock in the Bubble. Then he won a title due to injuries a year later, then he lost due to Middleton being injured, though Giannis's performance was pedestrian as he reverted back to playing as if he had no skill.

You want to apply all the context in the world to Dirk, your favorite player, but very little to Giannis so your argument is a constant stream of non sequitors and strawman.

Logical conclusion is that Giannis's game is good/great, but his lack of skill meant that so far, he can only win when....all of the best players are injured/hurt. Name one player out of Shaq/Barkley/Malone/Duncan/Robinson/Hakeem/Ewing/Dirk that would have lost to the teams Giannis beat enroute to a championship.

Name one and we can have a discussion.

Shaq far more dominant and has more skill in the post than Giannis has ever shown by the way. Once Giannis develops the skill to have an automatic/reliable jump hook then let me know

[BigShotBob]

[/B]

The bold is a really good point. He diminishes the insane skillset of Jokic on offense, straight up lies about his supporting cast, and ignores how much better the Nuggets are on offense and defense with Jokic on the court.

If Giannis can't be as good as guys like Dirk because of the skillset difference...how the **** does he not have Jokic higher in his rankings????

Jokic is not more skilled than Hakeem or prime Sabonis.

Try again.

[DMAVS41]

Jokic is not more skilled than Hakeem or prime Sabonis.

Try again.

I never said that. Try to make a coherent point.

[BigShotBob]

I never said that. Try to make a coherent point.

That was @ 1987_Fakers not at you

[DMAVS41]

McHale is not more skilled than most of the guys listed but you don't know basketball so it's not surprising. He's around their relative skill level. Giannis isn't anywhere close in an era where it's easier to score.

Wilt didn't have much skill? :roll:

Learn basketball you're way out of your depth, like always. Poverty IQ takes.






I see we have a hard time following an argument to its logical conclusion.

The healthiest team Giannis beat was in the Finals, and that were the Suns. He was actually favored against Kawhi and the Raptors and was up 2-0, he lost. He lost the year after that in the Bubble but I don't hold much stock in the Bubble. Then he won a title due to injuries a year later, then he lost due to Middleton being injured, though Giannis's performance was pedestrian as he reverted back to playing as if he had no skill.

You want to apply all the context in the world to Dirk, your favorite player, but very little to Giannis so your argument is a constant stream of non sequitors and strawman.

Logical conclusion is that Giannis's game is good/great, but his lack of skill meant that so far, he can only win when....all of the best players are injured/hurt. Name one player out of Shaq/Barkley/Malone/Duncan/Robinson/Hakeem/Ewing/Dirk that would have lost to the teams Giannis beat enroute to a championship.

Name one and we can have a discussion.

Shaq far more dominant and has more skill in the post than Giannis has ever shown by the way. Once Giannis develops the skill to have an automatic/reliable jump hook then let me know

No, you were wrong. Giannis did exactly what you said he couldn't do...just like Dirk did exactly what you said he couldn't do...and instead of admitting you were wrong, you are trying to come up with reasons why these players keep doing things you claim they'll never be able to do. Please stop with the nonsense...you were wrong. Full stop.

Now, you are absolutely right that Giannis has flaws and that 21 was not the most difficult title. He also has a great supporting cast that is capable of producing a winning record without him and a positive differential while he's on the bench.

Nowhere have I ever argued that Giannis is some flawless basketball player that is clearly better than the likes of KG/Barkley/Dirk...even peak vs peak. I do think he's better than Malone clearly, but that is a different debate. I simply said I think he's the best of that group when he's at his best, but has to accomplish quite a bit more to be put on a different tier than those guys.

No, it isn't a strawman...you said he'd never win...and he did.

It isn't a non sequitur to rightly give him credit for being a dominant two-way monster that was the clear cut best player on a title team. He's proven that...what he hasn't proven...and what you rightly point out...is can he beat multiple great teams on the path to a title like Dirk did in 2011. Can he go toe to toe with a player like prime Duncan and win the series with equal or less than equal help. Can he sustain his great play for another 5 plus years. Those are all fair questions and I'm right there with you that he needs to answer those.

But, end of the day, it is simple...

Giannis is averaging something around 28/13/5 over the last 6 years in the regular season and playoffs. He has this team at or close to 50 plus wins every year...and he was the clear cut best player on a title winning team.

I'm not sure you understand NBA history. That puts him in elite company historically. What you are doing...is lamenting the fact that he doesn't play how you think he should...or he doesn't have the skills you admire...and you are ignoring the results.

You do the exact same shit with Jokic.

You are like the embodiment of the following gif...acting like the craziest shit ever had to happen for Giannis to do the thing you said he couldn't do. When in reality...you were just wrong and won't admit it...

https://media.tenor.com/oGo3P-2HBAoAAAAC/he-cant-keep-getting-away-with-it.gif

[1987_Lakers]

McHale is not more skilled than most of the guys listed but you don't know basketball so it's not surprising. He's around their relative skill level. Giannis isn't anywhere close in an era where it's easier to score.

Wilt didn't have much skill? :roll:

Learn basketball you're way out of your depth, like always. Poverty IQ takes.



McHale is more skilled than Shaq, but only a dummy would say he was better than him.

Kyrie is more skilled than Magic, you see where I'm going?

And OMG look at the skills Wilt had. :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfwVlFe7pjQ&t

[tontoz]

So Giannis only won a title because of injuries even though he was actually injured in the finals facing a healthy Suns team that had the best record in the league?

:facepalm

[90sgoat]

Giannis has 1 finals in the weak east, it's not impressive.

[tontoz]

Giannis has 1 finals in the weak east, it's not impressive.



The east isn't as weak as it was years ago. The east currently has 3 50 win teams. The west has 1.

[Xiao Yao You]

The east isn't as weak as it was years ago. The east currently has 3 50 win teams. The west has 1.

One of which is the Bucks and the best player in the league

[90sgoat]

The east isn't as weak as it was years ago. The east currently has 3 50 win teams. The west has 1.

Giannis entire career comes down to one finals, one ring, in a conference where everyone were injured.

It might be enough to matter, but it depends on what happens to the rest of his career imo. I mean, he is not even near Kawhi in his own era in achievements.

[tontoz]

Giannis entire career comes down to one finals, one ring, in a conference where everyone were injured.

It might be enough to matter, but it depends on what happens to the rest of his career imo. I mean, he is not even near Kawhi in his own era in achievements.

Giannis was injured too but still merked a healthy Suns team in the finals, the team that had the best record in the league.

Team doctors tried to get him to play with a knee brace and he told them to f off

Funny to mention kawhi who was drafted by a dynasty. He didn't create a title team built around him like Giannis did.

Speaking of benefitting from injuries what would have happened if Durant and Klay were healthy in the finals against the raps?

[90sgoat]

Giannis was injured too but still merked a healthy Suns team in the finals, the team that had the best record in the league.

So did Luka basically.

CP3 is a the goat choker.

[DMAVS41]

Giannis entire career comes down to one finals, one ring, in a conference where everyone were injured.

It might be enough to matter, but it depends on what happens to the rest of his career imo. I mean, he is not even near Kawhi in his own era in achievements.

I definitely agree that it matters what happens in the rest of his career, but strongly disagree that his entire career comes down to the ring in 21.

He's had 6 pretty crazy years in a row now. He's at 29/12/6 (62% TS) with elite defense over his last 400 plus games. Being the clear cut best player on a title winning team is just the icing on the cake.

There are so few guys in history that have had comparable runs...even without the title.

How great he is and where he ultimately ranks is, of course, a reasonable debate that will become clearer over time...but there is no debating that he's one of the best players ever.

[basketballcat]

Giannis has already (depending on how you look at it) accomplished more than Chuck, Malone, KG & Dirk. It's not crazy to have him over them already. He's in season 10, not season 4. Pistol Pete played 10 seasons.
Nope. Giannis barely won a ring due to injuries, which was more than the usual. KG was within a hair of bouncing him despite having a shorthanded crew. That was an * ring.

Dirk
Dirk's 2011 run has the 10th highest single season playoff VORP ever. He beat three very strong teams en route to a ring.
- Kobe & Pau
- Durant, Westbrook, & Harden
- Wade, James, & Bosh
Dirk has 12 All NBA selections, double of Giannis'.
Dirk is 6th all time in scoring. Giannis hasn't even cracked the top 100 yet.
Giannis makes up for some of these for his defense, but he has a long way to go before he passes Dirk.

KG
Made it to the Finals 2x, that means he has 1 more conference champ than Giannis. KG has 3 more All NBA selections. KG has 12 All Defensive selections, 3rd all time. Giannis has a lot of ground to cover on this, as he only has 5. KG has the 9th most rebounds all time. Giannis hasn't even cracked to top 50 yet.

To be fair, Giannis has +1 MVP and +1 FMVP. If Giannis does more on longevity (e.g. All NBA, rebounds), then he might equal KG on the all time lists.

[90sgoat]

one of the best players ever.

Yeah he's a Hall of Fame player like the hundred and fifty of other players.

We're all victims of recency. Is Giannis more impressive in his time than Nique or D-Rob or Ewing? Nah. It's about the same. Great player, way too lacking in some areas to sniff the top 30. D-Rob is better than Giannis, so is Ewing, when considering the sustained ability to compete at the highest level through skill.

[1987_Lakers]

Yeah he's a Hall of Fame player like the hundred and fifty of other players.

We're all victims of recency. Is Giannis more impressive in his time than Nique or D-Rob or Ewing? Nah. It's about the same. Great player, way too lacking in some areas to sniff the top 30. D-Rob is better than Giannis, so is Ewing, when considering the sustained ability to compete at the highest level through skill.

Nique? Is this a serious question? Lol

[Xiao Yao You]

Nique? Is this a serious question? Lol

Dominique is with Carmelo not even up with the original AD, English or King to name just a few

[DMAVS41]

Yeah he's a Hall of Fame player like the hundred and fifty of other players.

We're all victims of recency. Is Giannis more impressive in his time than Nique or D-Rob or Ewing? Nah. It's about the same. Great player, way too lacking in some areas to sniff the top 30. D-Rob is better than Giannis, so is Ewing, when considering the sustained ability to compete at the highest level through skill.

Could not disagree more. I'll wager any amount you want that Giannis ends his career ranked higher than the guys you mention by an overwhelming majority of lists.

Just curious. Where do you rank Nash and Iverson?

[BigShotBob]

No, you were wrong. Giannis did exactly what you said he couldn't do...just like Dirk did exactly what you said he couldn't do...and instead of admitting you were wrong, you are trying to come up with reasons why these players keep doing things you claim they'll never be able to do. Please stop with the nonsense...you were wrong. Full stop.

Now, you are absolutely right that Giannis has flaws and that 21 was not the most difficult title. He also has a great supporting cast that is capable of producing a winning record without him and a positive differential while he's on the bench.

Nowhere have I ever argued that Giannis is some flawless basketball player that is clearly better than the likes of KG/Barkley/Dirk...even peak vs peak. I do think he's better than Malone clearly, but that is a different debate. I simply said I think he's the best of that group when he's at his best, but has to accomplish quite a bit more to be put on a different tier than those guys.

No, it isn't a strawman...you said he'd never win...and he did.

It isn't a non sequitur to rightly give him credit for being a dominant two-way monster that was the clear cut best player on a title team. He's proven that...what he hasn't proven...and what you rightly point out...is can he beat multiple great teams on the path to a title like Dirk did in 2011. Can he go toe to toe with a player like prime Duncan and win the series with equal or less than equal help. Can he sustain his great play for another 5 plus years. Those are all fair questions and I'm right there with you that he needs to answer those.

But, end of the day, it is simple...

Giannis is averaging something around 28/13/5 over the last 6 years in the regular season and playoffs. He has this team at or close to 50 plus wins every year...and he was the clear cut best player on a title winning team.

I'm not sure you understand NBA history. That puts him in elite company historically. What you are doing...is lamenting the fact that he doesn't play how you think he should...or he doesn't have the skills you admire...and you are ignoring the results.

You do the exact same shit with Jokic.

You are like the embodiment of the following gif...acting like the craziest shit ever had to happen for Giannis to do the thing you said he couldn't do. When in reality...you were just wrong and won't admit it...

https://media.tenor.com/oGo3P-2HBAoAAAAC/he-cant-keep-getting-away-with-it.gif

If the Nets were fully healthy does Giannis win? If not then I was right, and the rest of his career will reflect it if one fluke ring is all he has to his name.

You apply 0 context to Giannis but all the context to Dirk. You're a legitimate hypocrite.

Multiple great teams....you're literally lying. Nets with an injured Kyrie and Harden..."Great" team. Hawks....need I say more? "Great team" Why are you trolling me right now? Serious question. Name a "great" team he beat. Historically. Ever. Just one.

Now we're comparing stats across eras.....when Giannis plays in the most offensive friendly era......okay.

Alright you're trolling. I get it. One day you'll stop and learn to address my points instead of going on a tirade.

[BigShotBob]

So Giannis only won a title because of injuries even though he was actually injured in the finals facing a healthy Suns team that had the best record in the league?

:facepalm

The Suns didn't have a back-up center because he was injured. Or did you forget that?

[1987_Lakers]

Name a "great" team he beat. Historically. Ever. Just one.


MJ never beat a great team, stick a fork in him.

[BigShotBob]

McHale is more skilled than Shaq, but only a dummy would say he was better than him.

Kyrie is more skilled than Magic, you see where I'm going?

And OMG look at the skills Wilt had. :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfwVlFe7pjQ&t


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfczQovODz8&ab_channel=FoobasSports

"60% or more of his shots came on fadeaways"

It's over....

[BigShotBob]

MJ never beat a great team, stick a fork in him.

Trolling. He beat several

[1987_Lakers]

Dude is taking something randomly said by a random person in a vid as a fact. It's over.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=jEj1OjjynPY&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fthinkingbasketball.net%2 F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

[1987_Lakers]

Trolling. He beat several

No he didn't.

[Lebron23]

Trolling. He beat several

You are an idiot.

[Axe]

You are an idiot.
Lmao

[tontoz]

The Suns didn't have a back-up center because he was injured. Or did you forget that?

A back up center? That's your argument?

:oldlol:

Injuries are part of the playoffs every year.

[DMAVS41]

If the Nets were fully healthy does Giannis win? If not then I was right, and the rest of his career will reflect it if one fluke ring is all he has to his name.

You apply 0 context to Giannis but all the context to Dirk. You're a legitimate hypocrite.

Multiple great teams....you're literally lying. Nets with an injured Kyrie and Harden..."Great" team. Hawks....need I say more? "Great team" Why are you trolling me right now? Serious question. Name a "great" team he beat. Historically. Ever. Just one.

Now we're comparing stats across eras.....when Giannis plays in the most offensive friendly era......okay.

Alright you're trolling. I get it. One day you'll stop and learn to address my points instead of going on a tirade.

You actually misread my post. I said he has to prove he can beat "multiple great teams" and have sustained success beyond what he's done. I said you are absolutely right to withhold judgement on some level. I even said so myself. Giannis has a great supporting cast around him...and if he wants to go down as one of the truly best ever...he needs to make multiple more finals and win at least a couple more titles imo. Again, I have said this.

Sorry, that is context. What isn't "context" is when someone says "Giannis and Dirk will never win"....then they do win...and the guy that was completely wrong...won't admit it.

Giannis deserves credit for being a two-way monster that was the clear cut best player on a title winning team. You don't give him that....because you are bitter that you were wrong, yet again. Obvious to anyone reading your posts.

Again, the stats could go down 10%, which would be a ton, and it would still be historically elite...and, again, his defense would improve as well if he could play a more physical defense without worrying about foul trouble as often.

Trolling? You have lost your damn mind on this subject.

I'm not even taking a hard stance. All I've said is that Giannis can be argued with those guys in peak vs peak...but needs to produce quite a bit more before I place him on a higher tier than the likes of Dirk/KG/Barkley.

How is that lacking context? I'm literally agreeing with half of what you say...while also understanding NBA history well enough to know that there are maybe like 20 guys ever that could have produced a similar 6 years in terms of individual performance and team success given his circumstances.

Just take the L man...this is embarrassing.

Giannis makes the finals....****ing goes "Super Saiyan God" with 35/13/5 (66% TS) (135 ortg)...and leads his team to the title against a good Suns. Yes, the Suns were not some historically great team....you are right about that....but they also aren't some shit finals opponent like the 07 Cavs or something.

But they were a legit team...and Giannis ****ing owned them.

And after watching that...your conclusion is....yea, he's just not capable of leading a team to a title...he's not that good.

And you accuse me of trolling...:cheers:

[Overdrive]

If the Nets were fully healthy does Giannis win? If not then I was right, and the rest of his career will reflect it if one fluke ring is all he has to his name.

You apply 0 context to Giannis but all the context to Dirk. You're a legitimate hypocrite.

Multiple great teams....you're literally lying. Nets with an injured Kyrie and Harden..."Great" team. Hawks....need I say more? "Great team" Why are you trolling me right now? Serious question. Name a "great" team he beat. Historically. Ever. Just one.

Now we're comparing stats across eras.....when Giannis plays in the most offensive friendly era......okay.

Alright you're trolling. I get it. One day you'll stop and learn to address my points instead of going on a tirade.

Your point for bekng right about Giannis never winning a ring is that he met an injured team? That's all you got?

[tontoz]

What isn't "context" is when someone says "Giannis and Dirk will never win"....then they do win...and the guy that was completely wrong...won't admit it.





Exactly

[90sgoat]

Just curious. Where do you rank Nash and Iverson?

Top 50.

Iverson maybe around top 30.

[90sgoat]

the stats

We have to stop comparing stats across eras.

Giannis stats make no sense when compared to Barkley and Malone's era, neither his dribbling which would be called as carry well into the mid 00s.

[DMAVS41]

Top 50.

Iverson maybe around top 30.

So your take is that Allen Iverson was orders of magnitude better than Giannis?

[DMAVS41]

We have to stop comparing stats across eras.

Giannis stats make no sense when compared to Barkley and Malone's era, neither his dribbling which would be called as carry well into the mid 00s.

I agree that comparing stats across eras isn't perfect, but the game hasn't changed so much that you can't post them for reference.

Also, the biggest LOL ever about his dribbling being called a carry in the 00's...Iverson carried the ball all the time in the exact era you say it wasn't allowed. You can't do that man, if Iverson played today...you'd be saying he wouldn't be that great in the early 00's because the defense would shut him down or some nonsense about him getting called for rules violations....all while also ignoring that players adapt to the rules.

You guys really need to understand NBA history better. The notion that Giannis isn't remotely close to a top 30 player ever, but Iverson definitely is....is just laughably ignorant.

[Xiao Yao You]

I agree that comparing stats across eras isn't perfect, but the game hasn't changed so much that you can't post them for reference.

Also, the biggest LOL ever about his dribbling being called a carry in the 00's...Iverson carried the ball all the time in the exact era you say it wasn't allowed. You can't do that man, if Iverson played today...you'd be saying he wouldn't be that great in the early 00's because the defense would shut him down or some nonsense.

You guys really need to understand NBA history better. The notion that Giannis isn't remotely close to a top 30 player ever, but Iverson definitely is....is just laughably ignorant.

I'd want Giannis on my team. You can have AI

[90sgoat]

So your take is that Allen Iverson was orders of magnitude better than Giannis?

Skill wise, Iverson was magnitudes better yes.

Giannis is more in the realm of one dimensional physical freaks like Mutombo, but because of the rules, they allow Giannis to carry and thus score 10+ more points than I figure he would have back in the day. Giannis can't hit a jumper to save his life, can't do a simple jump hook.

Iverson came up in a league that didn't have defensive 3 seconds, gather step or new carry rules. Iverson would lead the league in scoring every season.

[90sgoat]

I agree that comparing stats across eras isn't perfect, but the game hasn't changed so much that you can't post them for reference.

Also, the biggest LOL ever about his dribbling being called a carry in the 00's...Iverson carried the ball all the time in the exact era you say it wasn't allowed. You can't do that man, if Iverson played today...you'd be saying he wouldn't be that great in the early 00's because the defense would shut him down or some nonsense about him getting called for rules violations....all while also ignoring that players adapt to the rules.

You guys really need to understand NBA history better. The notion that Giannis isn't remotely close to a top 30 player ever, but Iverson definitely is....is just laughably ignorant.

An Iverson carry today would be the most conservative dribble of any guard in the league.

[Xiao Yao You]

An Iverson carry today would be the most conservative dribble of any guard in the league.

and certainly he'd still be one of the most inefficient gunners the game has ever seen

[DMAVS41]

Skill wise, Iverson was magnitudes better yes.

Giannis is more in the realm of one dimensional physical freaks like Mutombo, but because of the rules, they allow Giannis to carry and thus score 10+ more points than I figure he would have back in the day. Giannis can't hit a jumper to save his life, can't do a simple jump hook.

Iverson came up in a league that didn't have defensive 3 seconds, gather step or new carry rules. Iverson would lead the league in scoring every season.

None of this matters. Skill wise, Iverson was much more skilled than Shaq...yet he wasn't close to as good of a basketball player.

Notice how you can't answer the question...you have to preface it with "skill wise"....that should tell you that you don't even believe your own arguments.

[DMAVS41]

An Iverson carry today would be the most conservative dribble of any guard in the league.

Hard disagree, but even if I did...your argument focuses only on skill and not overall impact...and removes any ability for players to adapt to the league the play in.

You need to rethink how you evaluate players and study more NBA history if you think Iverson was clearly a more impactful player than Giannis...and that Giannis can't sniff the top 30.

[90sgoat]

Hard disagree, but even if I did...your argument focuses only on skill and not overall impact...and removes any ability for players to adapt to the league the play in.

You need to rethink how you evaluate players and study more NBA history if you think Iverson was clearly a more impactful player than Giannis...and that Giannis can't sniff the top 30.

Giannis can end up in the top 30, I'll reserve judgement.

My point is that he is not an obvious skill based superstar, so it's his effectiveness and accomplishments that will decide in the end, where as Iverson and Barkley were obvious skill monsters, who simply were legends from the day they stepped on the court. From sheer basketball ability.

[Xiao Yao You]

Giannis can end up in the top 30, I'll reserve judgement.

My point is that he is not an obvious skill based superstar, so it's his effectiveness and accomplishments that will decide in the end, where as Iverson and Barkley were obvious skill monsters, who simply were legends from the day they stepped on the court. From sheer basketball ability.

so we ignore basketball IQ which was certainly not a strong suit of Iverson? Throwing up more shots doesn't make anyone better

[Hey Yo]

Giannis can end up in the top 30, I'll reserve judgement.

My point is that he is not an obvious skill based superstar so it's his effectiveness and accomplishments that will decide in the end, where as Iverson and Barkley were obvious skill monsters, who simply were legends from the day they stepped on the court. From sheer basketball ability.
Neither was Shaq, but it worked out well for him.

[DMAVS41]

Giannis can end up in the top 30, I'll reserve judgement.

My point is that he is not an obvious skill based superstar, so it's his effectiveness and accomplishments that will decide in the end, where as Iverson and Barkley were obvious skill monsters, who simply were legends from the day they stepped on the court. From sheer basketball ability.

But what does skill based matter when it is impact that matters? Chris Paul has way more skill than Giannis, but he isn't close to as good as him and they've had a ton of overlap in the same era. So does James Harden...Giannis is clearly more impactful. I just think that is a weird way to rank players....especially when being bigger/faster/stronger is a huge advantage in all eras of basketball. I think that gets ignored too often...there is no era of NBA basketball in which the athleticism and size of Giannis wouldn't be huge advantages for him....not to mention his defense in other eras would also dramatically improve as the rules would favor him on that end.

There really is no era of NBA history in which Giannis wouldn't be putting up something like 25/10/4 in his prime while playing elite defense.

[90sgoat]

But what does skill based matter when it is impact that matters? Chris Paul has way more skill than Giannis, but he isn't close to as good as him and they've had a ton of overlap in the same era. So does James Harden...Giannis is clearly more impactful. I just think that is a weird way to rank players....especially when being bigger/faster/stronger is a huge advantage in all eras of basketball. I think that gets ignored too often...there is no era of NBA basketball in which the athleticism and size of Giannis wouldn't be huge advantages for him....not to mention his defense in other eras would also dramatically improve as the rules would favor him on that end.

There really is no era of NBA history in which Giannis wouldn't be putting up something like 25/10/4 in his prime while playing elite defense.

People value different things and I value peak ability above everything else.

It's kind of like in music, some musicians burst onto the scene with genius tracks, but then flame out and never recover. Others keep releasing so-so but good albums. Depends on what you think is the most important. I value those who can give us the highest of high experiences, if only for a short while. Some prefer the mundane, but predictable, such as Lebron fans.

[DMAVS41]

People value different things and I value peak ability above everything else.

It's kind of like in music, some musicians burst onto the scene with genius tracks, but then flame out and never recover. Others keep releasing so-so but good albums. Depends on what you think is the most important. I value those who can give us the highest of high experiences, if only for a short while. Some prefer the mundane, but predictable, such as Lebron fans.

I think the NBA is a bit more objective than music, but I understand your point.

If that is how you view players...then I think you should steer away from ranking players unless you say it is merely a ranking of your favorite players to watch or something....because I think it is as close to objective as possible to say, for example, Lebron throughout his career gives his team a better chance to win titles than Allen Iverson. Not saying you are arguing otherwise specifically, but you can see why one might be confused with your takes.

[90sgoat]

I think the NBA is a bit more objective than music, but I understand your point.

If that is how you view players...then I think you should steer away from ranking players unless you say it is merely a ranking of your favorite players to watch or something....because I think it is as close to objective as possible to say, for example, Lebron throughout his career gives his team a better chance to win titles than Allen Iverson. Not saying you are arguing otherwise specifically, but you can see why one might be confused with your takes.

It's not quite how I see it, because I see it as if you have like a 3 year period in their prime and each player gets a comparable team, then who will win the most?

And then I'll pick Barkley above Giannis for sure and Bird above Lebron for sure.

[DMAVS41]

It's not quite how I see it, because I see it as if you have like a 3 year period in their prime and each player gets a comparable team, then who will win the most?

And then I'll pick Barkley above Giannis for sure and Bird above Lebron for sure.

I think the prime period should be much longer than 3 years as that is too small given how long players can lead players to titles, but I do like that method...I'm just not sure how you get that Iverson is winning more than Giannis given the evidence we've seen...and not just winning more, but it not being even close as you said. You said Giannis can't sniff the top 30 and Iverson was ranked at 30.

Barkley vs Giannis and Bird vs Lebron are perfectly reasonable either way imo.

[90sgoat]

I'm just not sure how you get that Iverson is winning more than Giannis

You're probably right.

I do rank Giannis in that same group, but like I said, I don't feel like you can rank Giannis just yet. He can go higher and he can go lower. One more ring and he's ranked around where the NBA wants to put him (top 20-25 ish). No more accolades? I don't know. Again, where do you rank Ewing? Consistent and productive for 15 years, almost beating MJ on several occassions, only beat by some all time greats. It's all random and luck, bad luck. That's why you can have your all-time greats, those who can sniff the top 10. And then there are like 30 other guys who have good arguments for why they should be above each other.

[DMAVS41]

You're probably right.

I do rank Giannis in that same group, but like I said, I don't feel like you can rank Giannis just yet. He can go higher and he can go lower. One more ring and he's ranked around where the NBA wants to put him (top 20-25 ish). No more accolades? I don't know. Again, where do you rank Ewing? Consistent and productive for 15 years, almost beating MJ on several occassions, only beat by some all time greats. It's all random and luck, bad luck. That's why you can have your all-time greats, those who can sniff the top 10. And then there are like 30 other guys who have good arguments for why they should be above each other.

I really try to rank based on how good I think the player was (obviously subjective), how long they were really good (their longevity), how good were they at their best (their peak), and how did they and their teams perform in their circumstances.

As I have said in this thread...I think it is too early to properly rank Giannis as well. I said that I think Giannis, at his best, is the best player in the group of Dirk/Malone/Barkley/KG...but it isn't a big gap and I wouldn't argue that much about it. What I need to see from Giannis...if he wants to jump up a tier or two in the rankings...I need to see him play great and make multiple more finals and win at least two more rings. I say that because his team is really good...if the Bucks are healthy...there isn't a better supporting cast in the league around a star player. Maybe you could argue the Suns around Durant, but it's close either way. So if Giannis doesn't make the finals this year, it doesn't hurt him in the rankings, but it certainly doesn't help him imo. He has a team around him more than good enough to win it all if he's the best player in the league.

So I do think, of course, luck plays a bit of a role, but I also think we can use some thought and context as well. KG seems to be ranked appropriately for how good he was and he had truly awful luck the first 10 years of his career. Hell, he even had bad luck in 04 when Sam Cassell got hurt in the WCF...I really think he had a chance in that series against the Lakers. Point being...he is still ranked in the top 25 even though he spent almost all of his best years on teams that didn't win. So I think we do a better job than people argue about when ranking players...it is just that people get really stubborn, including myself.

Ewing? I don't know...I haven't really thought about it a lot lately, but I'd put him pretty high because I thought he was great, he hardly ever missed games, and didn't have a bunch of elite teams...so I think he performed pretty well given his circumstances. Probably around 25-30...and I think it would be fair to put him higher if he was a little better in the playoffs than he was...and he accomplished winning in 94. You are absolutely right to point out that he lost to an all-time great, but other players have found a way. Duncan beat Shaq/Kobe in 03, Dirk beat Lebron/Wade, Hakeem won with limited help...etc. So given Ewing wasn't quite as dominant in the playoffs and he never led a team to a title...I can't rank him higher. He didn't play great in the 94 finals and had a lackluster game 7...yes, it is nitpicking, but that is what separates some of the best players ever...what you actually do given the chances you have.

Just for fun...to see if I was remembering correctly...Ewing in the 94 Finals shot 39%TS...I grant your broad points, but to me, that isn't bad luck...they barely lost that series in 7 games. No excuse not to better in the biggest games of your career...and it would diminish that guys that came through in their moment to rank Ewing higher than them imo.

[90sgoat]

Fair points.

Honestly I haven't watched Giannis enough and his team is very good and has a very good coach, but like we see with Luka, that is a skill in itself. He's a bit like Duncan like that, which gets underrated initially maybe, but we'll see if history will redeem him for being a good teammate.

[BigShotBob]

You actually misread my post. I said he has to prove he can beat "multiple great teams" and have sustained success beyond what he's done. I said you are absolutely right to withhold judgement on some level. I even said so myself. Giannis has a great supporting cast around him...and if he wants to go down as one of the truly best ever...he needs to make multiple more finals and win at least a couple more titles imo. Again, I have said this.

Sorry, that is context. What isn't "context" is when someone says "Giannis and Dirk will never win"....then they do win...and the guy that was completely wrong...won't admit it.

Giannis deserves credit for being a two-way monster that was the clear cut best player on a title winning team. You don't give him that....because you are bitter that you were wrong, yet again. Obvious to anyone reading your posts.

Again, the stats could go down 10%, which would be a ton, and it would still be historically elite...and, again, his defense would improve as well if he could play a more physical defense without worrying about foul trouble as often.

Trolling? You have lost your damn mind on this subject.

I'm not even taking a hard stance. All I've said is that Giannis can be argued with those guys in peak vs peak...but needs to produce quite a bit more before I place him on a higher tier than the likes of Dirk/KG/Barkley.

How is that lacking context? I'm literally agreeing with half of what you say...while also understanding NBA history well enough to know that there are maybe like 20 guys ever that could have produced a similar 6 years in terms of individual performance and team success given his circumstances.

Just take the L man...this is embarrassing.

Giannis makes the finals....****ing goes "Super Saiyan God" with 35/13/5 (66% TS) (135 ortg)...and leads his team to the title against a good Suns. Yes, the Suns were not some historically great team....you are right about that....but they also aren't some shit finals opponent like the 07 Cavs or something.

But they were a legit team...and Giannis ****ing owned them.

And after watching that...your conclusion is....yea, he's just not capable of leading a team to a title...he's not that good.

And you accuse me of trolling...:cheers:

Funny, I remember saying Dirk won't win unless there's a defensive anchor behind him. Not like I was wrong, but Dirk was good/great but was also seen as somewhat of a choker. You make it seem like I was being too hard on him.

Giannis's deficiencies weren't ever addressed, he just cruised/coasted to a championship playing against teams that had little talent or depth (especially with big men capable of stopping him) during a time where rules favored him. If that outlier year is what took for him to win, then you can hang on your hat on that and pat yourself on the back. It's nothing to be proud of though and it doesn't mean you know anything, it just means you play it safe.

Whenever anyone makes playoff/championship predictions it's always with the caveat of "barring injuries"

Barring injuries, there's yet to be a year where Giannis was capable of winning a championship.

So we'll see what he does this year if his team and everyone else stays healthy.

Same with Jokic. For as much as you ride for him, let's see what he does this year with a 1 seed and a healthy team with depth. You have 0 expectations for him because again, you like to play it safe and you don't analyze players and their play style.

You go by star power and team-stacking potential, meaning you probably don't even know what you're seeing when you watch the games.

Regardless we shall see who has the last laugh

[tontoz]

Barring injuries, there's yet to be a year where Giannis was capable of winning a championship.


Nonsense. Injuries are routinely part of the playoffs. Teams that lose constanly use injuries as an excuse. So do people like you who were proven wrong.

The injury excuse makes even less sense when the team in question was struggling with injuries all season long.

Giannis averaged 35/13/5 shooting 62% in the Finals with a bad knee. He was completely dominant.

[Overdrive]

Funny, I remember saying Dirk won't win unless there's a defensive anchor behind him. Not like I was wrong, but Dirk was good/great but was also seen as somewhat of a choker. You make it seem like I was being too hard on him.

Giannis's deficiencies weren't ever addressed, he just cruised/coasted to a championship playing against teams that had little talent or depth (especially with big men capable of stopping him) during a time where rules favored him. If that outlier year is what took for him to win, then you can hang on your hat on that and pat yourself on the back. It's nothing to be proud of though and it doesn't mean you know anything, it just means you play it safe.

Whenever anyone makes playoff/championship predictions it's always with the caveat of "barring injuries"

Barring injuries, there's yet to be a year where Giannis was capable of winning a championship.

So we'll see what he does this year if his team and everyone else stays healthy.

Same with Jokic. For as much as you ride for him, let's see what he does this year with a 1 seed and a healthy team with depth. You have 0 expectations for him because again, you like to play it safe and you don't analyze players and their play style.

You go by star power and team-stacking potential, meaning you probably don't even know what you're seeing when you watch the games.

Regardless we shall see who has the last laugh

How hard is it to say "I was wrong"?

Can't be tougher than writing essay after essay? Are you to proud to show weakness infront of some random nameless strangers?

[DMAVS41]

Funny, I remember saying Dirk won't win unless there's a defensive anchor behind him. Not like I was wrong, but Dirk was good/great but was also seen as somewhat of a choker. You make it seem like I was being too hard on him.

Giannis's deficiencies weren't ever addressed, he just cruised/coasted to a championship playing against teams that had little talent or depth (especially with big men capable of stopping him) during a time where rules favored him. If that outlier year is what took for him to win, then you can hang on your hat on that and pat yourself on the back. It's nothing to be proud of though and it doesn't mean you know anything, it just means you play it safe.

Whenever anyone makes playoff/championship predictions it's always with the caveat of "barring injuries"

Barring injuries, there's yet to be a year where Giannis was capable of winning a championship.

So we'll see what he does this year if his team and everyone else stays healthy.

Same with Jokic. For as much as you ride for him, let's see what he does this year with a 1 seed and a healthy team with depth. You have 0 expectations for him because again, you like to play it safe and you don't analyze players and their play style.

You go by star power and team-stacking potential, meaning you probably don't even know what you're seeing when you watch the games.

Regardless we shall see who has the last laugh

I agree Dirk needed a defensive big next to him, but that is just saying Dirk needed the right team around him to win a title…which is true for every player…even better players. It is a meaningless statement…nobody wins without help and or luck. Nobody.

Won’t take a hard stance? I spent years on here arguing that Dirk was good enough to carry a team to a title before he did. I said the same about Giannis and I’ll happily say the same about Jokic. I personally don’t love this Nuggets roster this year, but I think it is close. I’m “riding” Jokic when I say he’s an all-time great that makes his teammates better and is maybe the 3rd best player in the league? Ok…

Last laugh? You were wrong. It is already over for you on Dirk and Giannis. We’ll see about Jokic.