2024-25 RealGM All-Season Awards Discussion Thread

[Doctor MJ]

ROY voting:

1. Castle
2. Risacher
3. Wells

Followed by: Sarr, Edey & Kel'el

Honestly, I'm quite apathetic about this, anyone have passionate thoughts?

Is there any rookie left we should be talking about?

Yeah, it's brutal. I feel like I'm just going to vote the same as the official people. Honestly I was ramping up to champion Risacher if he did well in the play-in, but nope, that didn't happen.

MIP voting:

1. Dyson (ATL)
2. Zubac (LAC)
3. Cade (DET)

Followed by: Braun, Reaves, Mobley, Amen

This is an award where statistical differences tend to really pop so I expect we'll get there along the way.

I have some skepticism toward Dyson that I'd appreciate people try to win me over on - lots of steals on a bad defense on a disappointing team?

On the other hand, I think Zubac hasn't gotten anywhere near enough love for the leap he's made. He's my #1 right now.

I like all the other guys that are listed above, but I do have a bias toward guys I see as reaching all-star level for the first time. I think Zubac reached that level even if he didn't get picked, and of course Cade & Mobley did make it. Love Braun & Reaves but they're a tier lower...Amen I'd listen to the case for.

Not sure I have new feelings here. Still leaning Zubac here.

While Zubac may end up tumbling on my DPOY, I think he's got my 6MOY vote basically locked in. Will probably have 1st time all-stars (Cade, Mobley, J-Dub, Sengun) in the other ballot spots.

6MOY voting:

1. Pritchard (BOS)
2. Beasley (DET)
3. Jerome (CLE)

Followed by: Hunter, Naz, NAW, Westbrook, Caruso

Pritchard & Jerome are to me classic strong candidates.

I struggle in taking seriously 6th Men from middling teams like Beasley. I can acknowledge the possibility that such a player might actually be the most effective 6th man in the league, but it just seems to me that if a player really is that good, he should be starting for that team.

Hunter had a weird season, but if he ends up seeming the better guy on a great Cavs playoff run relative to Jerome, I could see it.

Naz' lack of hype for this award this year is telling. He won it last year, remained eligible and got better, yet it seems like people were content to think "Ah, he already got his"...but that's weird! Historically there hasn't been a great reluctance to have back-to-back winners in this award, but this year it feels like that's effectively what happened outcome-wise. (The fact that fellow Wolf NAW is on this list further showcases that there wasn't passionate support for Naz.)

Let's note Caruso's mention is just a single 3rd place vote, but I think it's at least chewing on who OKC's 6th man candidate should be, and how highly we should view Caruso given his minutes being limited even relative to 6MOY competition.

So, Caruso now is now acting as a clear cut 6th man level for the Thunder. Seriously thinking about him, though Pritchard had a hell of a year.

Beyond them, all the guys who got official votes are gone except for the Timberwolves duo (Naz & NAW). As mentioned, I think Naz is a strong candidate.

Looking at the other teams, seems like Toppin for the Pacers and McBride for the Knicks are worth considering but aren't super-compelling.

Okay so, Payton Pritchard is a great candidate, while Alex Caruso is dear to my heart. Let me get into some stats.

Here's the leaderboard for non-starting OnWins for the season (RS & PS), along with OnLosses.

1. Payton Pritchard (BOS) 55-33
2. Nickeil Alexander-Walker (MIN) 50-37
3. Sam Merrill (CLE) 49-23
4. Ty Jerome (CLE) 47-28
5. Alex Caruso (OKC) 46-21

And fyi

Miles McBride (NYK) 44-28
Malik Beasley (DET) 37-33
TJ McConnell (IND) 47-47
Aaron Wiggins (OKC) 45-20
Isaiah Joe (OKC) 45-29

No rule against using a guy's starter games as part of his 6MOY candidacy, but I do find this particular b-r query to be useful.

If I do the same thing for the playoffs:

1. Carson Wallace (OKC) 12-4 (ineligible for award)
2. Alex Caruso (OKC) 10-6
(tie) Miles McBride (NYK) 10-8
4. TJ McConnell (IND) 9-7
(tie) Payton Pritchard (BOS) 9-2
(tie) Aaron Wiggins (OKC) 9-6

And
Nickeil Alexander-Walker (MIN) 7-8
Isaiah Joe (OKC) 7-9
Ty Jerome (CLE) 6-2
Sam Merrill (CLE) 3-2

Wow, so, Pritchard added 9 more OnWins on a team that won 6 playoff game - and he was definitely impressive while dong so, I mean he seemed like someone no opponent had an answer for. Makes me feel like moving anyone ahead of him would be being a prisoner of the moment.

I should also say that Caruso playing limited minutes, and not actually being the #6 MPG guy on his team during the regular season (Joe was), isn't something I should just ignore, but the fact that Caruso has been the clear #6 guy in the playoffs and been so exceptionally distinct makes me want to toss all that to the side. I think I see that Pritchard is basically unsurpassable.

Beyond those two, I think I'd lean Jerome for the 3rd spot.

COY voting (likely):

1. Atikinson (CLE)
2. Bickerstaff (DET)
3. Udoka (HOU)

Follwed by: Lue (LAC)

Of these guys, only Atkinson is still going after the first round. That hurts for my assessment definitely, but then I'm also prone to favoring guys with elite teams because I just don't want to give the nod to coaches doing good work reaching mediocrity who may struggle hanging with the big boys in June.

Much will depend on how it all plays out, but I do feel like Daigneault will be hard not to vote for if OKC just plows through the playoffs - and while maybe that's true of any coach who does that - OKC seems like the state-of-the-art.

Thinking a lot about Carlisle for what he's doing in Indiana as well as Finch for Minny.

Feel like Thibs didn't so much out-adjust the Celtics but benefitted from his players being settled. Maybe I'm overestimating it, but Brunson seems to have a safety-blanket like effect on his teammates.

Alright, so we get to see Daigneault & Carlisle go head to head now. All eyes on that. Feel like they'll probably top my list, with Atkinson hanging on to that last spot on the ballot.

EOY we don't have access to any voting data so far but key guys on my mind:

Rob Pelinka (LAL) - got Luka
Mike Dunleavy (GS) - got Jimmy
Koby Altman (CLE) - hired Atkinson, possible cumulative achievement edge
Sam Presti (OKC) - got iHart & Caruso, possible cumulative achievement edge

Pelinka, Dunleavy & Presti remain strong candidates for me. Not sure if the GMs of the other remain teams impressed me that much in the past 12 months, though the fact that both KAT & Randle's teams are still going could end up really as a feather in whoever seems like they got the upper hand.

Okay, so I I think it's going to be hard for me to not pick Presti if OKC wins the title going away. I consider completing a roster to be more actual proof of GMing competence than merely acquiring a particular dude, and I'll probably feel like Presti is the best GM in the league which is one hell of a tiebreaker.

I still think the fact Pelinka didn't get official EOY love is absurd and smacks of sour grapes, but I could see putting someone above who I'm more impressed impressed by generally and had a really shrewd year.

[iggymcfrack]

I genuinely think Caruso is the most impactful defender in the NBA. But 54 games of 19.3 MPG isn’t enough for DPOY, in my view. I really do feel like he has historically-elite-big-man level of defensive impact when he’s on the court though.

I felt like the DPOY was Zubac before the playoffs started, but the Clippers defense did kind of get smoked when he was on the floor in the Denver series. Watching it, it didn’t feel like that was his fault, but the fact that it happened still makes me think twice on him.

I wouldn't really blame Zubac for team level effects in the Nuggets series as his role was clearly to focus on 1-on-1 defense against Jokic and he did an excellent job slowing him down. Jokic had his lowest scoring output against the Clippers than he did in any series since the 2020 WCF against AD and the Lakers.

[Texas Chuck]

I still think the fact Pelinka didn't get official EOY love is absurd and smacks of sour grapes, but I could see putting someone above who I'm more impressed impressed by generally and had a really shrewd year.

I don't think its sour grapes at all.

I think its any single NBA executive who got a call from Dallas saying we will give you Luka Doncic for AD and basically nothing else would say yes super fast too.

Obviously its a great result for the Lakers, but it required no special skill or forethought. Not a move that would move the needle for me in deciding who was the best executive for a year. Nobody turns that down.

[lessthanjake]

I still think the fact Pelinka didn't get official EOY love is absurd and smacks of sour grapes, but I could see putting someone above who I'm more impressed impressed by generally and had a really shrewd year.

I don't think its sour grapes at all.

I think its any single NBA executive who got a call from Dallas saying we will give you Luka Doncic for AD and basically nothing else would say yes super fast too.

Obviously its a great result for the Lakers, but it required no special skill or forethought. Not a move that would move the needle for me in deciding who was the best executive for a year. Nobody turns that down.

I think the counterargument here is that the reason Pelinka was the one approached about this is because he has a relationship with individuals at the Mavericks (particularly Nico Harrison) and they’d previously discussed the topic in a not-super-serious way. I’d say that maintaining relationships and communication with other teams such that you’re more likely to be approached with a good deal is a pretty significant part of being a good GM.

[Doctor MJ]

I still think the fact Pelinka didn't get official EOY love is absurd and smacks of sour grapes, but I could see putting someone above who I'm more impressed impressed by generally and had a really shrewd year.

I don't think its sour grapes at all.

I think its any single NBA executive who got a call from Dallas saying we will give you Luka Doncic for AD and basically nothing else would say yes super fast too.

Obviously its a great result for the Lakers, but it required no special skill or forethought. Not a move that would move the needle for me in deciding who was the best executive for a year. Nobody turns that down.

I think the counterargument here is that the reason Pelinka was the one approached about this is because he has a relationship with individuals at the Mavericks (particularly Nico Harrison) and they’d previously discussed the topic in a not-super-serious way. I’d say that maintaining relationships and communication with other teams such that you’re more likely to be approached with a good deal is a pretty significant part of being a good GM.

Yeah, this was basically what I was going to say.

Part of being a GM is recognizing talent (and fit)
Part of being a GM is about negotiating deals.
Part of being a GM is about relationships and trust.

Pelinka gets no credit for recognizing Luka is good at basketball, and of course Luka's fit on the LeBron roster wasn't good, but in terms of the latter two, Pelinka was outstanding.

And to me the sour grapes here is essentially a GM or front office saying, "We could have done what Pelinka did if Nico had trusted us enough to do long-term secret negotiations", which while true, is also an acknowledgement that they didn't build the relationship with Nico that Pelinka did.

Of course the other thing going on here is that Nico clearly specifically loved AD and Pelinka had AD because he had traded for him. While I didn't give Pelinka much credit for acquiring AD because I felt like it was more about LeBron & Klutch, the fact that he went with Klutch when it worked for the Lakers, and then blew up the Klutch core when he had a chance for something better says some pretty good things about him in my book.

Now as I say this:

1. He didn't build a roster this year to max out Luka.
2. He almost spent a lot of assets for one talented but questionable big, but then didn't whether because of medical or because he chickened out.
3. He still doesn't really have any proven track record at building a perfectly aligned roster.
4. Why on earth didn't the Lakers make a point to get either Lively or Gafford in the deal? Yeah it probably meant giving up Reaves, and I love Reaves, but you know you're going to have to give Luka rim runners, so why not grab them from Luka's previous team who now isn't going to need them so much? Perhaps Nico was just delusional here, but it's just weird the way after Luka was traded, the Mavs still had a better fit for Luka than his new team.

[iggymcfrack]

Is it crazy to say "the eye test tells me Haliburton's better than Giannis"? He's basically like peak Steve Nash if he turned into a much better version of Michael Jordan the last 2 or 3 minutes of every close game. Just the sheer value of what he's done in the clutch provides so much value it's insane. I might feel differently if the Pacers lose the next 3 in a row, but right now I have to have Haliburton #3.

[Texas Chuck]

I mean vote for who you want, but yeah I'd say its "crazy" to say he's a better player than Giannis. But Giannis doesn't play "right" so he's never going to get proper PC board respect where how you do it is more important than how effective you are at doing it.

[Special_Puppy]

Is it crazy to say "the eye test tells me Haliburton's better than Giannis"? He's basically like peak Steve Nash if he turned into a much better version of Michael Jordan the last 2 or 3 minutes of every close game. Just the sheer value of what he's done in the clutch provides so much value it's insane. I might feel differently if the Pacers lose the next 3 in a row, but right now I have to have Haliburton #3.

Yes you are insane lol

[Outside]

Is it crazy to say "the eye test tells me Haliburton's better than Giannis"? He's basically like peak Steve Nash if he turned into a much better version of Michael Jordan the last 2 or 3 minutes of every close game. Just the sheer value of what he's done in the clutch provides so much value it's insane. I might feel differently if the Pacers lose the next 3 in a row, but right now I have to have Haliburton #3.

This sounds like being a prisoner of the moment, just because Haliburton is playing on TV while Giannis isn't.

Haliburton is obviously very good, but look at the numbers for both him and Giannis, and then also consider the impact each has beyond basic stats, particularly defensively in Giannis's case.

The biggest advantage Haliburton has is that his team is MUCH better than Giannis's, but that shouldn't be the deciding factor. Nor should Haliburton's splashy game-winning or -tying shots, not compared to his play for 48 minutes. Not that it's everything, but it's also not nothing that Siakim was named Eastern Conference finals MVP over Haliburton.

[Doctor MJ]

Is it crazy to say "the eye test tells me Haliburton's better than Giannis"? He's basically like peak Steve Nash if he turned into a much better version of Michael Jordan the last 2 or 3 minutes of every close game. Just the sheer value of what he's done in the clutch provides so much value it's insane. I might feel differently if the Pacers lose the next 3 in a row, but right now I have to have Haliburton #3.

Well, you don't exactly sound grounded my friend.

When you say "eye test tells me A > B" about two players who play completely differently, how exactly is your eye doing that?

What my eyes tell me is that the Pacers play a very particular offensive style built around Haliburton's instincts, and it may end up looking like the best offense in the world at Final's end, and that's a really, really big deal...but it doesn't necessarily mean he's better than B, which very much depends on all the complications of all the different lineups populating the league.

Doesn't mean I won't come down with my opinion in the form of a vote, but honestly, I'll never have total certainty about A > B comparisons like this.

Back to what I am certain of: This quick-pass offense of the Pacers is noteworthy to me because I'd like to see more quick-pass teams (like Warriors & Nuggets for example). For me, much of the beauty of the game is in the collaboration of teammates. Aesthetically, I just don't like guys going and standing somewhere out of the way as much as I like them seeing them actively work and problem solve.

[BusywithBball]

Back to what I am certain of: This quick-pass offense of the Pacers is noteworthy to me because I'd like to see more quick-pass teams (like Warriors & Nuggets for example). For me, much of the beauty of the game is in the collaboration of teammates. Aesthetically, I just don't like guys going and standing somewhere out of the way as much as I like them seeing them actively work and problem solve.

I completely agree. Indiana are just exciting in a way I don’t know I’ve been excited. I hear the Suns and Nash but these kids remind me of Boston and Bird. Moving and moving then it’s in.

Game four against Cleveland hits me in the same spot Game one finals 1985. They eventually lose but it was incredible to watch. The announcer said the Lakers were favorites but Boston had “intimidation factor”. But usually when you say that you say that about a player not a team.

Of course Larry is a legend but when you play basketball like that, everyone becomes intimidating. It’s a beautiful thing. Not saying the other way is bad but I love when it’s everyone instead of just one.

I’d love to see a team like that win again.

[BusywithBball]

Is Haliburton better than Giannis. I don’t know, likely not, but sometimes there’s more to it than who is better.

Did you know there was only one 7 point one minute comeback in nba History before Indiana did it to against the Bucks? And then they did it to Cleveland. And then they did it to New York. And another one against 68-14 OKC Thunder.

When you accomplish what no one does before against sixty four and sixty eight win teams there’s something more there than the how good you are.

And what if they win?

If Indiana win they’ll be the biggest vegas underdog to win. And they’ll do it against great opponents, no doubt.

Ok if Haliburton isn’t better player but this year he is greater to me. And he’s really really good too. Of course it helps to have great teammates but Indiana are special and he’s the one stirring the drink.

[Doctor MJ]

Back to what I am certain of: This quick-pass offense of the Pacers is noteworthy to me because I'd like to see more quick-pass teams (like Warriors & Nuggets for example). For me, much of the beauty of the game is in the collaboration of teammates. Aesthetically, I just don't like guys going and standing somewhere out of the way as much as I like them seeing them actively work and problem solve.

I completely agree. Indiana are just exciting in a way I don’t know I’ve been excited. I hear the Suns and Nash but these kids remind me of Boston and Bird. Moving and moving then it’s in.

Game four against Cleveland hits me in the same spot Game one finals 1985. They eventually lose but it was incredible to watch. The announcer said the Lakers were favorites but Boston had “intimidation factor”. But usually when you say that you say that about a player not a team.

Of course Larry is a legend but when you play basketball like that, everyone becomes intimidating. It’s a beautiful thing. Not saying the other way is bad but I love when it’s everyone instead of just one.

I’d love to see a team like that win again.

Amen brother, and welcome to the board!

[Doctor MJ]

Is Haliburton better than Giannis. I don’t know, likely not, but sometimes there’s more to it than who is better.

Did you know there was only one 7 point one minute comeback in nba History before Indiana did it to against the Bucks? And then they did it to Cleveland. And then they did it to New York. And another one against 68-14 OKC Thunder.

When you accomplish what no one does before against sixty four and sixty eight win teams there’s something more there than the how good you are.

And what if they win?

If Indiana win they’ll be the biggest vegas underdog to win. And they’ll do it against great opponents, no doubt.

Ok if Haliburton isn’t better player but this year he is greater to me. And he’s really really good too. Of course it helps to have great teammates but Indiana are special and he’s the one stirring the drink.

I think this lays out some good things to chew on. I'll point in a slightly different direction that I see as related:

The Indiana Pacers developed this whole approach based on Tyrese Haliburton. The offense is basically what comes about organically when you empower a guy like Haliburton, and you cannot expect to get something like this based on another random offensive alpha like, Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Is it possible in theory that Giannis could learn to emulate Haliburton and over time become a better Hali than Hali? Sure...but it's not how we've ever seen Giannis play, and I would argue that how we've seen Giannis play largely is how he feels comfortable playing.

This then to say that if building a team offense around Hali leads to a considerably more resilient team offense than building around Giannis, then I think that be a case to say Haliburton's the better offensive player.

Though of course, none of what I said speaks to anything that would naturally be identified with RAPM-type stats, and to zoom in back on Haliburton:

What's the legacy of Haliburton if he is clearly the keystone of a champion's culture and identity, as well as their biggest MPG guy and their most on-ball player, but it turns out that he has a teammate - say Pascal Siakam - who is consistently more impactful statistically? Can what you did be greater even it was less impactful at apex than who he is being compared to?

Tough question to answer imho.

[ShaqAttac]

Is Haliburton better than Giannis. I don’t know, likely not, but sometimes there’s more to it than who is better.

Did you know there was only one 7 point one minute comeback in nba History before Indiana did it to against the Bucks? And then they did it to Cleveland. And then they did it to New York. And another one against 68-14 OKC Thunder.

When you accomplish what no one does before against sixty four and sixty eight win teams there’s something more there than the how good you are.

And what if they win?

If Indiana win they’ll be the biggest vegas underdog to win. And they’ll do it against great opponents, no doubt.

Ok if Haliburton isn’t better player but this year he is greater to me. And he’s really really good too. Of course it helps to have great teammates but Indiana are special and he’s the one stirring the drink.

I think this lays out some good things to chew on. I'll point in a slightly different direction that I see as related:

The Indiana Pacers developed this whole approach based on Tyrese Haliburton. The offense is basically what comes about organically when you empower a guy like Haliburton, and you cannot expect to get something like this based on another random offensive alpha like, Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Is it possible in theory that Giannis could learn to emulate Haliburton and over time become a better Hali than Hali? Sure...but it's not how we've ever seen Giannis play, and I would argue that how we've seen Giannis play largely is how he feels comfortable playing.

This then to say that if building a team offense around Hali leads to a considerably more resilient team offense than building around Giannis, then I think that be a case to say Haliburton's the better offensive player.

Though of course, none of what I said speaks to anything that would naturally be identified with RAPM-type stats, and to zoom in back on Haliburton:

What's the legacy of Haliburton if he is clearly the keystone of a champion's culture and identity, as well as their biggest MPG guy and their most on-ball player, but it turns out that he has a teammate - say Pascal Siakam - who is consistently more impactful statistically? Can what you did be greater even it was less impactful at apex than who he is being compared to?

Tough question to answer imho.

Siakim has more impact?

[eminence]

I think it was here we had a short discussion on replacement level.

A visual to show why I generally feel folks set replacement level too low, -3 region, I prefer the -2 region.



Ripped from a Ben Taylor Nylon Calculus article.

Folks will set it at the very worst handful of players in the league, when it should be after the sharp decrease at -1. It doesn't make any logical sense for the talent distribution to crater after -1 in between the 'just in the league' and 'just out of the league' level. And the play of the -1 guys in other leagues certainly doesn't suggest it. Much more likely that there are more -2 players in the world than -1 guys.

*Numbers are specific to this study, though pretty consistent to others I've seen/done. Notes on distribution hold across other numbers.

[ShotCreator]

Is it crazy to say "the eye test tells me Haliburton's better than Giannis"? He's basically like peak Steve Nash if he turned into a much better version of Michael Jordan the last 2 or 3 minutes of every close game. Just the sheer value of what he's done in the clutch provides so much value it's insane. I might feel differently if the Pacers lose the next 3 in a row, but right now I have to have Haliburton #3.

This sounds like being a prisoner of the moment, just because Haliburton is playing on TV while Giannis isn't.

Haliburton is obviously very good, but look at the numbers for both him and Giannis, and then also consider the impact each has beyond basic stats, particularly defensively in Giannis's case.

The biggest advantage Haliburton has is that his team is MUCH better than Giannis's, but that shouldn't be the deciding factor. Nor should Haliburton's splashy game-winning or -tying shots, not compared to his play for 48 minutes. Not that it's everything, but it's also not nothing that Siakim was named Eastern Conference finals MVP over Haliburton.

FWIW, I believe Giannis is better than Haliburton on offense in their current roles, but there is no way in hell Siakam is playing as well next to him versus Haliburton. Absolutely out of the question.

[falcolombardi]

I think it was here we had a short discussion on replacement level.

A visual to show why I generally feel folks set replacement level too low, -3 region, I prefer the -2 region.



Ripped from a Ben Taylor Nylon Calculus article.

Folks will set it at the very worst handful of players in the league, when it should be after the sharp decrease at -1. It doesn't make any logical sense for the talent distribution to crater after -1 in between the 'just in the league' and 'just out of the league' level. And the play of the -1 guys in other leagues certainly doesn't suggest it. Much more likely that there are more -2 players in the world than -1 guys.

*Numbers are specific to this study, though pretty consistent to others I've seen/done. Notes on distribution hold across other numbers.

Is this for every player, third string included?

[eminence]

I think it was here we had a short discussion on replacement level.

A visual to show why I generally feel folks set replacement level too low, -3 region, I prefer the -2 region.



Ripped from a Ben Taylor Nylon Calculus article.

Folks will set it at the very worst handful of players in the league, when it should be after the sharp decrease at -1. It doesn't make any logical sense for the talent distribution to crater after -1 in between the 'just in the league' and 'just out of the league' level. And the play of the -1 guys in other leagues certainly doesn't suggest it. Much more likely that there are more -2 players in the world than -1 guys.

*Numbers are specific to this study, though pretty consistent to others I've seen/done. Notes on distribution hold across other numbers.

Is this for every player, third string included?

That apm would be through 10-12th man. Too few minutes for others.

2.2 / .0064 = 344

Probably some rounding somewhere in the graphic, but roughly that many players per season.

[BusywithBball]

Is Haliburton better than Giannis. I don’t know, likely not, but sometimes there’s more to it than who is better.

Did you know there was only one 7 point one minute comeback in nba History before Indiana did it to against the Bucks? And then they did it to Cleveland. And then they did it to New York. And another one against 68-14 OKC Thunder.

When you accomplish what no one does before against sixty four and sixty eight win teams there’s something more there than the how good you are.

And what if they win?

If Indiana win they’ll be the biggest vegas underdog to win. And they’ll do it against great opponents, no doubt.

Ok if Haliburton isn’t better player but this year he is greater to me. And he’s really really good too. Of course it helps to have great teammates but Indiana are special and he’s the one stirring the drink.

I think this lays out some good things to chew on. I'll point in a slightly different direction that I see as related:

The Indiana Pacers developed this whole approach based on Tyrese Haliburton. The offense is basically what comes about organically when you empower a guy like Haliburton, and you cannot expect to get something like this based on another random offensive alpha like, Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Is it possible in theory that Giannis could learn to emulate Haliburton and over time become a better Hali than Hali? Sure...but it's not how we've ever seen Giannis play, and I would argue that how we've seen Giannis play largely is how he feels comfortable playing.

This then to say that if building a team offense around Hali leads to a considerably more resilient team offense than building around Giannis, then I think that be a case to say Haliburton's the better offensive player.

Though of course, none of what I said speaks to anything that would naturally be identified with RAPM-type stats, and to zoom in back on Haliburton:

What's the legacy of Haliburton if he is clearly the keystone of a champion's culture and identity, as well as their biggest MPG guy and their most on-ball player, but it turns out that he has a teammate - say Pascal Siakam - who is consistently more impactful statistically? Can what you did be greater even it was less impactful at apex than who he is being compared to?

Tough question to answer imho.

So a few kids have been telling me about impact statistic and RAPM but I haven’t seen it in 2025. Is Siakam better?

I don’t want to only look at stats but if Haliburton is not the #1 on floor I have to reconsider his greatness a little. I haven’t really thought about Tyrese vs Siakam much but Haliburton is assisting more and scoring almost same on better ts% and playing better on Thunder too.