'17-'18 POY discussion

[eminence]

Have a tough time putting an order to my list at this point. So many guys to follow still, 15+ I wouldn't be surprised to see wind up on my ballot.

[PaulieWal]

I'm still lost on who's even in my 5 after Harden.

I think the only locks for me right now in my top 5 are LeBron and Harden. This year playoffs will play an even bigger role because the RS has been either underwhelming for a lot of the top superstars or they have been injured a lot.

[bondom34]

I'm still lost on who's even in my 5 after Harden.

I think the only locks for me right now in my top 5 are LeBron and Harden. This year playoffs will play an even bigger role because the RS has been either underwhelming for a lot of the top superstars or they have been injured a lot.

Yeah Lebron is there somewhere too. So many guys missed time its hard to account for. I think I keep Giannis in for the time being with probably AD and not sure for 5. The more I look in debating either KAT or Lowry as I feel like a Toronto guy should be somewhere.

[PaulieWal]

I'm still lost on who's even in my 5 after Harden.

I think the only locks for me right now in my top 5 are LeBron and Harden. This year playoffs will play an even bigger role because the RS has been either underwhelming for a lot of the top superstars or they have been injured a lot.

Yeah Lebron is there somewhere too. So many guys missed time its hard to account for. I think I keep Giannis in for the time being with probably AD and not sure for 5. The more I look in debating either KAT or Lowry as I feel like a Toronto guy should be somewhere.

I think the Toronto guys haven't really been at the top 5 level. DeMar and Kyle have been good but more in the 10-20 range. There are a lot of guys this year that I would take before either one of them. I am actually not sure how to rank KAT. I know his offense is amazing but his defense is so inconsistent. I was reading that after getting Harden'd in the social media on defense his effort actually improved but anytime I watch Wolves' games he doesn't look dominant to me on that end (something for example your eye test can see right away with a guy like Embiid or even Horford with his positioning).

[Doctor MJ]

I just posted a list on the GB thread, thought I'd share here:

1. Harden
2. Paul
3. Lillard
4. LeBron
5. Embiid

I think most will see Houston having the top 2 guys as crazy, but these are 2 top tier superstars leading by far the best team this regular season, and the next closest contender is Lillard.

LeBron I characterize as "no excuses". I"m done with giving LeBron a boost based on any sort of "weak supporting cast". This is the bed he has made, including the midseason siesta he took, and he'll have to lie in it.

Embiid is there at this point as something on an honorary position. If he returns and plays well in the playoffs, he'll probably rise higher in my list. I'm going to guess by regular season's end though someone else jumps him.

Not a bad list but would you mind talking about Lillard over LeBron?

You could argue both at this point are mostly offensive players but LeBron gets a massive edge on defense just by the virtue of his size and defensive IQ whenever he feels like turning it on. And if we are going offense only, LeBron is still better than Lillard offensively to me.

Lillard is a superstar leading a team to more success than LeBron, and LeBron gets no excuses from me, so Lillard gets the edge.

In general I like to imagine how guys would do if swapped, etc, etc, but I refuse to write a player in at a higher spot just because of what he could have theoretically done. LeBron has made the culture of the Cavaliers, and my assessment of his accomplishment will be chained to that so long as he remains there.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm still lost on who's even in my 5 after Harden.

I think the only locks for me right now in my top 5 are LeBron and Harden. This year playoffs will play an even bigger role because the RS has been either underwhelming for a lot of the top superstars or they have been injured a lot.

Yeah Lebron is there somewhere too. So many guys missed time its hard to account for. I think I keep Giannis in for the time being with probably AD and not sure for 5. The more I look in debating either KAT or Lowry as I feel like a Toronto guy should be somewhere.

I don't see how KAT can get consideration. Butler really made clear how much superior he was as an alpha, and the team is now in danger of going back to the lottery from what looked to be a Top 5 seed because the KAT led team still gets led nowhere in the absence of a true alpha.

Toronto guys are more debatable, but the reality is that neither of them are guys I would even remotely consider drafting in the top 5 of an all-league draft. They are winning as the leaders of an ensemble, and deserve a lot of credit for that, but Top 5? That's really, really a lot.

[PaulieWal]

I just posted a list on the GB thread, thought I'd share here:

1. Harden
2. Paul
3. Lillard
4. LeBron
5. Embiid

I think most will see Houston having the top 2 guys as crazy, but these are 2 top tier superstars leading by far the best team this regular season, and the next closest contender is Lillard.

LeBron I characterize as "no excuses". I"m done with giving LeBron a boost based on any sort of "weak supporting cast". This is the bed he has made, including the midseason siesta he took, and he'll have to lie in it.

Embiid is there at this point as something on an honorary position. If he returns and plays well in the playoffs, he'll probably rise higher in my list. I'm going to guess by regular season's end though someone else jumps him.

Not a bad list but would you mind talking about Lillard over LeBron?

You could argue both at this point are mostly offensive players but LeBron gets a massive edge on defense just by the virtue of his size and defensive IQ whenever he feels like turning it on. And if we are going offense only, LeBron is still better than Lillard offensively to me.

Lillard is a superstar leading a team to more success than LeBron, and LeBron gets no excuses from me, so Lillard gets the edge.

In general I like to imagine how guys would do if swapped, etc, etc, but I refuse to write a player in at a higher spot just because of what he could have theoretically done. LeBron has made the culture of the Cavaliers, and my assessment of his accomplishment will be chained to that so long as he remains there.

No, but I am not even referring to the "how he would do" scenario or giving LeBron a boost for his much likely incoming better playoff play.

I am simply comparing Lillard and LeBron based on this RS alone and I just don't see a case for Lillard over LeBron as a basketball player. So if you think Lillard is actually playing better than LeBron I'd love to read the case for that. I am always interested in your NBA opinions even if I may not agree with them .

[Doctor MJ]

Not a bad list but would you mind talking about Lillard over LeBron?

You could argue both at this point are mostly offensive players but LeBron gets a massive edge on defense just by the virtue of his size and defensive IQ whenever he feels like turning it on. And if we are going offense only, LeBron is still better than Lillard offensively to me.

Lillard is a superstar leading a team to more success than LeBron, and LeBron gets no excuses from me, so Lillard gets the edge.

In general I like to imagine how guys would do if swapped, etc, etc, but I refuse to write a player in at a higher spot just because of what he could have theoretically done. LeBron has made the culture of the Cavaliers, and my assessment of his accomplishment will be chained to that so long as he remains there.

No, but I am not even referring to the "how he would do" scenario or giving LeBron a boost for his much likely incoming better playoff play.

I am simply comparing Lillard and LeBron based on this RS alone and I just don't see a case for Lillard over LeBron as a basketball player. So if you think Lillard is actually playing better than LeBron I'd love to read the case for that. I am always interested in your NBA opinions even if I may not agree with them .

Cleveland should have been better. Simple as that. The fact they weren't had everything to do with the messages LeBron sent to his team along the way. When he doesn't take defense seriously, neither do his teammates. When he tanks January essentially forcing the team to make trades, it's on him. LeBron is a guy capable of leading a team with this supporting cast to much greater heights, and when he doesn't, I don't really see him as an MVP.

All of this needs to be put in a Shaq-like context. It's the playoffs that really matter and so a star being something other than entirely engaged in the regular season isn't the worst thing in the world...but it should hurt any regular season award candidacy.

At the same time you'll note I have a very hard time putting anyone ahead of LeBron who is on a worse team because of the esteem I have for his capabilities.

Most broadly, it seems like you're evaluating LeBron bottom-up focusing on what he's doing skill-wise on the court whereas I tend to have more of a top-down focus. One isn't better than the other - you need both - but you could argue that my way is the more dangerous of the two approaches. Done poorly you end up letting narrative decide what the player actually did. Approaches that don't factor in a leader's impact in the locker room however just don't seem meaningful to me.

[dontcalltimeout]

Re: LeBron

Worth noting his on court net rating is 0.5, the lowest after his rookie year. The equivalent of a 42 or 43-win team. And based on what I've seen, he bears a lot of the responsibility for that (not talking about off the court stuff). He's been having an amazing offensive year after all-star, but not enough to make up for how he played for much of the year.

It's not even an amazing carry job by him.

Others:

Personally, i'm not that impressed with Lillard (when he's on the court the ortg is only 111.8). That's not any better than a guy like Jokic (115.8 ortg) or Embiid, Westbrook and barely above Kemba Walker.

What do people think of Oladipo? I know he fell out of fashion but when he's on the court Indiana plays above average on offense and defense and he's their best player on both sides of the ball. (When Oladipo is on the court, Indiana has been better than Portland with Lillard on the court).

I also like Jokic, bc all signs point to the fact that he's carrying Denver and their SRS is actually better than Cleveland, New Orleans, & Washington.

The best per-minute guys for me have been Curry, CP, Butler, Embiid, and Gobert, but I don't know if any of them will log enough minutes to be in the conversation.

[bondom34]

I think the only locks for me right now in my top 5 are LeBron and Harden. This year playoffs will play an even bigger role because the RS has been either underwhelming for a lot of the top superstars or they have been injured a lot.

Yeah Lebron is there somewhere too. So many guys missed time its hard to account for. I think I keep Giannis in for the time being with probably AD and not sure for 5. The more I look in debating either KAT or Lowry as I feel like a Toronto guy should be somewhere.

I don't see how KAT can get consideration. Butler really made clear how much superior he was as an alpha, and the team is now in danger of going back to the lottery from what looked to be a Top 5 seed because the KAT led team still gets led nowhere in the absence of a true alpha.

Toronto guys are more debatable, but the reality is that neither of them are guys I would even remotely consider drafting in the top 5 of an all-league draft. They are winning as the leaders of an ensemble, and deserve a lot of credit for that, but Top 5? That's really, really a lot.

This was my thinking before looking at the numbers. But they've been healthy and I don't really have anyone I feel is clearly at 5 right now. Butler was 2 for me pre injury but missed so much time now.

[bondom34]

Gobert is another who missed time and would be in the running.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah Lebron is there somewhere too. So many guys missed time its hard to account for. I think I keep Giannis in for the time being with probably AD and not sure for 5. The more I look in debating either KAT or Lowry as I feel like a Toronto guy should be somewhere.

I don't see how KAT can get consideration. Butler really made clear how much superior he was as an alpha, and the team is now in danger of going back to the lottery from what looked to be a Top 5 seed because the KAT led team still gets led nowhere in the absence of a true alpha.

Toronto guys are more debatable, but the reality is that neither of them are guys I would even remotely consider drafting in the top 5 of an all-league draft. They are winning as the leaders of an ensemble, and deserve a lot of credit for that, but Top 5? That's really, really a lot.

This was my thinking before looking at the numbers. But they've been healthy and I don't really have anyone I feel is clearly at 5 right now. Butler was 2 for me pre injury but missed so much time now.

My way of thinking about is that the highest level of superstar in the league, the MVP-type player, are guys who just know how to win. They don't have to be geniuses and they don't have to be old, but some guys know what it feels like to guide their team toward what clicks and some guys don't.

To me KAT is very clearly a guy who doesn't know what it takes to actually win. He's raw despite seeming polished in many way. He's still more ingredient than successfully-baked-cake, and were I looking to win a title this year, I basically wouldn't even consider him on my list of alphas.

I think Giannis has analogous issues, but not nearly as bad.

I think Embiid is someone basically without these issues - can still improve, but he doesn't really need to figure anything else out to be the best player on a champion team because he just translates so naturally on both sides of the floor.

[Doctor MJ]

Gobert is another who missed time and would be in the running.

True. Gobert really is what I had hoped Davis would be. Now Davis is a lot better on offense and that's no small thing, but Gobert's defense is unreal.

If Gobert can lead the Jazz on an upset win in the playoffs, he's going to elevate his standing in the league tremendously.

[bondom34]

I don't see how KAT can get consideration. Butler really made clear how much superior he was as an alpha, and the team is now in danger of going back to the lottery from what looked to be a Top 5 seed because the KAT led team still gets led nowhere in the absence of a true alpha.

Toronto guys are more debatable, but the reality is that neither of them are guys I would even remotely consider drafting in the top 5 of an all-league draft. They are winning as the leaders of an ensemble, and deserve a lot of credit for that, but Top 5? That's really, really a lot.

This was my thinking before looking at the numbers. But they've been healthy and I don't really have anyone I feel is clearly at 5 right now. Butler was 2 for me pre injury but missed so much time now.

My way of thinking about is that the highest level of superstar in the league, the MVP-type player, are guys who just know how to win. They don't have to be geniuses and they don't have to be old, but some guys know what it feels like to guide their team toward what clicks and some guys don't.

To me KAT is very clearly a guy who doesn't know what it takes to actually win. He's raw despite seeming polished in many way. He's still more ingredient than successfully-baked-cake, and were I looking to win a title this year, I basically wouldn't even consider him on my list of alphas.

I think Giannis has analogous issues, but not nearly as bad.

I think Embiid is someone basically without these issues - can still improve, but he doesn't really need to figure anything else out to be the best player on a champion team because he just translates so naturally on both sides of the floor.

I have a tough time saying this about Embiid and not the others when Embiid has certain physical gifts over even them. I think he's up there but has missed time and even has games where he occasional disappears ant has a better roster than Giannis.

KAT is admittedly flawed bit has been improved and durable. I think you guys talked me out of him though. I struggle with 5. I could see Gobert. Mayne if Westbrook has a great playoffs. Lowry the same.

[Doctor MJ]

This was my thinking before looking at the numbers. But they've been healthy and I don't really have anyone I feel is clearly at 5 right now. Butler was 2 for me pre injury but missed so much time now.

My way of thinking about is that the highest level of superstar in the league, the MVP-type player, are guys who just know how to win. They don't have to be geniuses and they don't have to be old, but some guys know what it feels like to guide their team toward what clicks and some guys don't.

To me KAT is very clearly a guy who doesn't know what it takes to actually win. He's raw despite seeming polished in many way. He's still more ingredient than successfully-baked-cake, and were I looking to win a title this year, I basically wouldn't even consider him on my list of alphas.

I think Giannis has analogous issues, but not nearly as bad.

I think Embiid is someone basically without these issues - can still improve, but he doesn't really need to figure anything else out to be the best player on a champion team because he just translates so naturally on both sides of the floor.

I have a tough time saying this about Embiid and not the others when Embiid has certain physical gifts over even them. I think he's up there but has missed time and even has games where he occasional disappears ant has a better roster than Giannis.

KAT is admittedly flawed bit has been improved and durable. I think you guys talked me out of him though. I struggle with 5. I could see Gobert. Mayne if Westbrook has a great playoffs. Lowry the same.

This is my point though. Not everyone needs to get smarter for their game to impact, it just turns out that KAT & Giannis do. Maybe they'll surpass Embiid, but to this point Embiid's been the more natural impactor.

Re: better roster than Giannis. I actually think Giannis is a big part of the low ceiling here. Simply put, he's not that great of a playmaker, and if you let someone be unipolar like this and his BBIQ is not off the charts, you're going to eventually have problems. To me Milwaukee is just hoping Giannis keeps learning at this point, and if he really plateaus, the Bucks probably aren't ever going to be a contender with the approach they are using.

I think it's important to remember how Philly instantly looked good last year whenever Embiid played on a team where Nik Stauskas was the guy playing the most minutes.

[bondom34]

My way of thinking about is that the highest level of superstar in the league, the MVP-type player, are guys who just know how to win. They don't have to be geniuses and they don't havMe to be old, but some guys know what it feels like to guide their team toward what clicks and some guys don't.

To me KAT is very clearly a guy who doesn't know what it takes to actually win. He's raw despite seeming polished in many way. He's still more ingredient than successfully-baked-cake, and were I looking to win a title this year, I basically wouldn't even consider him on my list of alphas.

I think Giannis has analogous issues, but not nearly as bad.

I think Embiid is someone basically without these issues - can still improve, but he doesn't really need to figure anything else out to be the best player on a champion team because he just translates so naturally on both sides of the floor.

I have a tough time saying this about Embiid and not the others when Embiid has certain physical gifts over even them. I think he's up there but has missed time and even has games where he occasional disappears ant has a better roster than Giannis.

KAT is admittedly flawed bit has been improved and durable. I think you guys talked me out of him though. I struggle with 5. I could see Gobert. Mayne if Westbrook has a great playoffs. Lowry the same.

This is my point though. Not everyone needs to get smarter for their game to impact, it just turns out that KAT & Giannis do. Maybe they'll surpass Embiid, but to this point Embiid's been the more natural impactor.

Re: better roster than Giannis. I actually think Giannis is a big part of the low ceiling here. Simply put, he's not that great of a playmaker, and if you let someone be unipolar like this and his BBIQ is not off the charts, you're going to eventually have problems. To me Milwaukee is just hoping Giannis keeps learning at this point, and if he really plateaus, the Bucks probably aren't ever going to be a contender with the approach they are using.

I think it's important to remember how Philly instantly looked good last year whenever Embiid played on a team where Nik Stauskas was the guy playing the most minutes.

Milwaukee looks quite good with Giannis.he just can't play 48 minutes. And Phiilys strength roster wise is a pretty large gap.

[Doctor MJ]

I have a tough time saying this about Embiid and not the others when Embiid has certain physical gifts over even them. I think he's up there but has missed time and even has games where he occasional disappears ant has a better roster than Giannis.

KAT is admittedly flawed bit has been improved and durable. I think you guys talked me out of him though. I struggle with 5. I could see Gobert. Mayne if Westbrook has a great playoffs. Lowry the same.

This is my point though. Not everyone needs to get smarter for their game to impact, it just turns out that KAT & Giannis do. Maybe they'll surpass Embiid, but to this point Embiid's been the more natural impactor.

Re: better roster than Giannis. I actually think Giannis is a big part of the low ceiling here. Simply put, he's not that great of a playmaker, and if you let someone be unipolar like this and his BBIQ is not off the charts, you're going to eventually have problems. To me Milwaukee is just hoping Giannis keeps learning at this point, and if he really plateaus, the Bucks probably aren't ever going to be a contender with the approach they are using.

I think it's important to remember how Philly instantly looked good last year whenever Embiid played on a team where Nik Stauskas was the guy playing the most minutes.

Milwaukee looks quite good with Giannis.he just can't play 48 minutes. And Phiilys strength roster wise is a pretty large gap.

Let Giannis play 48 MPG, Milwaukee is still isn't a contender because they really aren't that good with him on the floor. This is what I'm saying here: People tend to think that Embiid & Giannis are both on teams that need to find their way to contention, but whenever Embiid plays, Philly IS a contender. When Giannis plays, Milwaukee looks like Philly did with Embiid last year.

Clearly you're saying something that could be oversimplified into "Yeah, but then Embiid got Simmons.", but if Giannis got Simmons they wouldn't have made a leap like that because Giannis is sucking up all the playmaking oxygen in the room. I'm saying that unless Giannis becomes a truly elite playmaker, he probably shouldn't be used as your unipolar playmaker.

At what Embiid does, he's amazing. By contrast, it's amazing that Giannis can be a ballhandler and facilitator at his size...but he's not really ballhandling because he's a great ballhandler and he's not really facilitating because he's a great facilitator. We all agree he's an insane talent, but Milwaukee has chosen a path with him that's iffy. In fairness to him, he already seemed to be plateauing before they let him be the point forward, so this is something new they could try that has done good things, but I'm really not sure if it will ever lead to an elite offense or an elite defense. Giannis, in other words, still looks like a floor raiser, and I think he has more to figure out in order to be an elite ceiling raiser.

[Franco]

Lillard is a superstar leading a team to more success than LeBron, and LeBron gets no excuses from me, so Lillard gets the edge.

In general I like to imagine how guys would do if swapped, etc, etc, but I refuse to write a player in at a higher spot just because of what he could have theoretically done. LeBron has made the culture of the Cavaliers, and my assessment of his accomplishment will be chained to that so long as he remains there.

No, but I am not even referring to the "how he would do" scenario or giving LeBron a boost for his much likely incoming better playoff play.

I am simply comparing Lillard and LeBron based on this RS alone and I just don't see a case for Lillard over LeBron as a basketball player. So if you think Lillard is actually playing better than LeBron I'd love to read the case for that. I am always interested in your NBA opinions even if I may not agree with them .

Cleveland should have been better. Simple as that. The fact they weren't had everything to do with the messages LeBron sent to his team along the way. When he doesn't take defense seriously, neither do his teammates. When he tanks January essentially forcing the team to make trades, it's on him. LeBron is a guy capable of leading a team with this supporting cast to much greater heights, and when he doesn't, I don't really see him as an MVP.

All of this needs to be put in a Shaq-like context. It's the playoffs that really matter and so a star being something other than entirely engaged in the regular season isn't the worst thing in the world...but it should hurt any regular season award candidacy.

At the same time you'll note I have a very hard time putting anyone ahead of LeBron who is on a worse team because of the esteem I have for his capabilities.

Most broadly, it seems like you're evaluating LeBron bottom-up focusing on what he's doing skill-wise on the court whereas I tend to have more of a top-down focus. One isn't better than the other - you need both - but you could argue that my way is the more dangerous of the two approaches. Done poorly you end up letting narrative decide what the player actually did. Approaches that don't factor in a leader's impact in the locker room however just don't seem meaningful to me.

I'd have a really hard time putting a player that is considerably worse then LeBron ahead of him, but in this case at least I can see where you're coming from.

Yeah, dumpster fire or not, with or without injuries, there's no way in hell this Cavs squad should be in jeopardy of not even getting into the 50 wins column. While a lot of that isn't on LeBron, the matter of fact is that he lifted teams above this year's result when he had worse supporting casts and was a worse player.

His ego this year has just been strange, and even though he probably will play all 82 games, his leadership in-court doesn't seem to be the same this season. Of course, I'm more then a little confident that he will raise his game and floor raising to another level in the playoffs, there's where he might get serious contention for POY (I personally have him 2nd or 3rd now, Harden being the runaway 1) but you can't give credit for something that didn't happen yet. For all we know he could tear his Achilles next game and he season would be over.

[bondom34]

This is my point though. Not everyone needs to get smarter for their game to impact, it just turns out that KAT & Giannis do. Maybe they'll surpass Embiid, but to this point Embiid's been the more natural impactor.

Re: better roster than Giannis. I actually think Giannis is a big part of the low ceiling here. Simply put, he's not that great of a playmaker, and if you let someone be unipolar like this and his BBIQ is not off the charts, you're going to eventually have problems. To me Milwaukee is just hoping Giannis keeps learning at this point, and if he really plateaus, the Bucks probably aren't ever going to be a contender with the approach they are using.

I think it's important to remember how Philly instantly looked good last year whenever Embiid played on a team where Nik Stauskas was the guy playing the most minutes.

Milwaukee looks quite good with Giannis.he just can't play 48 minutes. And Phiilys strength roster wise is a pretty large gap.

Let Giannis play 48 MPG, Milwaukee is still isn't a contender because they really aren't that good with him on the floor. This is what I'm saying here: People tend to think that Embiid & Giannis are both on teams that need to find their way to contention, but whenever Embiid plays, Philly IS a contender. When Giannis plays, Milwaukee looks like Philly did with Embiid last year.

Clearly you're saying something that could be oversimplified into "Yeah, but then Embiid got Simmons.", but if Giannis got Simmons they wouldn't have made a leap like that because Giannis is sucking up all the playmaking oxygen in the room. I'm saying that unless Giannis becomes a truly elite playmaker, he probably shouldn't be used as your unipolar playmaker.

At what Embiid does, he's amazing. By contrast, it's amazing that Giannis can be a ballhandler and facilitator at his size...but he's not really ballhandling because he's a great ballhandler and he's not really facilitating because he's a great facilitator. We all agree he's an insane talent, but Milwaukee has chosen a path with him that's iffy. In fairness to him, he already seemed to be plateauing before they let him be the point forward, so this is something new they could try that has done good things, but I'm really not sure if it will ever lead to an elite offense or an elite defense. Giannis, in other words, still looks like a floor raiser, and I think he has more to figure out in order to be an elite ceiling raiser.

I'm not actually saying that about the teams finding their way, MKE looks lost, they look like a terrible team in general. They're poorly coached and lack depth and top talent. Philly doesn't, and isn't IMO . Also I don't follow the floor/ceiling raiser ideology.

[Mystical Apples]

Re: better roster than Giannis. I actually think Giannis is a big part of the low ceiling here. Simply put, he's not that great of a playmaker, and if you let someone be unipolar like this and his BBIQ is not off the charts, you're going to eventually have problems. To me Milwaukee is just hoping Giannis keeps learning at this point, and if he really plateaus, the Bucks probably aren't ever going to be a contender with the approach they are using.

Milwaukee looks quite good with Giannis.he just can't play 48 minutes. And Phiilys strength roster wise is a pretty large gap.

Let Giannis play 48 MPG, Milwaukee is still isn't a contender because they really aren't that good with him on the floor. This is what I'm saying here: People tend to think that Embiid & Giannis are both on teams that need to find their way to contention, but whenever Embiid plays, Philly IS a contender. When Giannis plays, Milwaukee looks like Philly did with Embiid last year.

Clearly you're saying something that could be oversimplified into "Yeah, but then Embiid got Simmons.", but if Giannis got Simmons they wouldn't have made a leap like that because Giannis is sucking up all the playmaking oxygen in the room. I'm saying that unless Giannis becomes a truly elite playmaker, he probably shouldn't be used as your unipolar playmaker.

At what Embiid does, he's amazing. By contrast, it's amazing that Giannis can be a ballhandler and facilitator at his size...but he's not really ballhandling because he's a great ballhandler and he's not really facilitating because he's a great facilitator. We all agree he's an insane talent, but Milwaukee has chosen a path with him that's iffy. In fairness to him, he already seemed to be plateauing before they let him be the point forward, so this is something new they could try that has done good things, but I'm really not sure if it will ever lead to an elite offense or an elite defense. Giannis, in other words, still looks like a floor raiser, and I think he has more to figure out in order to be an elite ceiling raiser.

How exactly are you defining playmaking here?