Giannis Antetokounmpo vs. Hakeem Olajuwon - who is the better player?

[70sFan]

I really struggle to get your point OhayoKD. What is your stance on this comparison?

What it's always been. They're similarly valuable players at their best but Hakeem has an advantage in resiliency, durability, and consistency that gives him a better era-relative floor. Giannis is probably better if you average impact across time.

I don't know why you're struggling to get my point though. I made it pretty explicit in my first post. 3 posters used SRS as a proxy for supporting cast after a bump and that's sily. I always argue against that whether it's Giannis or not

Would you disagree that Giannis played with significantly more talented supporting casts than Hakeem on average though?

[tsherkin]

Would you disagree that Giannis played with significantly more talented supporting casts than Hakeem on average though?

Ah, a trap question. Nice. xD

[OhayoKD]

I really struggle to get your point OhayoKD. What is your stance on this comparison?

What it's always been. They're similarly valuable players at their best but Hakeem has an advantage in resiliency, durability, and consistency that gives him a better era-relative floor. Giannis is probably better if you average impact across time.

I don't know why you're struggling to get my point though. I made it pretty explicit in my first post. 3 posters used SRS as a proxy for supporting cast after a bump and that's sily. I always argue against that whether it's Giannis or not

Would you disagree that Giannis played with significantly more talented supporting casts than Hakeem on average though?

No.

[70sFan]

What it's always been. They're similarly valuable players at their best but Hakeem has an advantage in resiliency, durability, and consistency that gives him a better era-relative floor. Giannis is probably better if you average impact across time.

I don't know why you're struggling to get my point though. I made it pretty explicit in my first post. 3 posters used SRS as a proxy for supporting cast after a bump and that's sily. I always argue against that whether it's Giannis or not

Would you disagree that Giannis played with significantly more talented supporting casts than Hakeem on average though?

No.

Then I am not sure what's the point of this long discussion.

I get that looking at raw regular season SRS isn't a good indicator of how good your supporting cast is, but I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think that way. Sometimes, I feel that you don't need to write esseys to say that one player played in a less talented team, that's all.

[OhayoKD]

I don't particularly care what you consider a "waste of time". You are being pressed on what you've said.

Purposelessly.

I've made the translation case for the likes of Curry and Giannis against the likes of Shaq, MJ, Wilt, Bird, and Hakeem(and I'm pretty sure you've read most of those posts).

Giannis is not Curry, and Hakeem is not dramatically losing his defensive status in the league the way Shaq and Bird are. I do not actually think you have made a good case against the other three names as distinct from the observation that being an outlier in prior eras generally becomes more difficult moving forward, no.

I don't particularly care what you consider "absurd" here, but that isn't what I'm interested in as you were made well aware in my first response.

You obviously do care, hence the past dozen posts crying about it.

[/quote]

I've spent like 4 posts "crying" about it, after you started an argument on the subject. My original response consisted of 5 sentences targeting some lazy logic before agreeing you with on your ultimate conclusion.

You've found a bunch of ways to stretch the confines of that narrow convo and now you're pinning it on me. If you think this is a waste of time, then stop "crying". No one is forcing you to respond.

Then you have no purpose here. Look at the thread title. This is the “weird tangent”, and you cannot even try to tie it back by at least making an argument for Giannis over Hakeem today.

I literally did "tie it back" with "hakeem is a better player relative to era", you took an issue with that and now we're here.

With that in mind, I'm going to snip the dead weight.

I am operating from the standpoint that all else being equal, winning is better than losing, yes.

That wasn't what I asked.

And the suggestion that there is no credit awarded in a loss was never made.

You presented a choice between a neutral assessment and a negative assessment and then when i asked a clarifying question and you decided to be evasive. If you wanna be anenigma, cool, but that's how we end up "wasting time".

Similarly if we discern the same-level of support, is the star that wins 66 and loses as a 1st seed every postseason worse than the one who wins 46 and loses as a 4th seed every postseason?

If literally everything is equal but for the fact that one player individually generates twenty more wins in the regular season, then yes, that player is better. However, if you adjust that slightly and say the guy worth twenty wins less in the regular season is also worth five wins more in the postseason, I would rather have the postseason guy.

Noted.

But you do not feel like doing that for Hakeem — you seem to know what it would suggest. You generally have not felt like doing that for Robinson. You generally have not felt like doing that for Jordan either outside of pointing to his team’s relative success in 1994

Actually I do. The Bulls and the Rockets getting better in the playoffs is why I have the two as top 5 candidates along with Duncan. Their regular seasons don't get them there.

And Giannis is not generating postseason improvement, which brings us back to: what exactly are we doing here.

Except he did. The Bucks got better in the postseason in 2019, 2021, and 2022. Their defensive improvement significantly outpaced their offensive decline. And that holds true despite the rather obvious point that the 2019 Raptors were a much better team than their regular season averages would indicate because they added their best defender mid-season and their best attacking player saw his production skyrocket in the playoffs.

Incidentally, in the series the Bucks lost, the opposing team saw their fg% drop by 8 points with Giannis on the floor along with the numbers of the opposing all-time wing collapsing. Giannis did not win, but it looks to me he elevated in the playoffs, just as he did in 2021 and 2022.

The Edwards-Kobe analogy is entirely inappropriate

Of course, what we could do is spill a dozen posts complaining about your lack of thorough analysis of how the Bulls got better in the postseason and to what degree that is attributable to Jordan or to his cast, because who knows, what if it was all the cast! Not saying it is, do not think it is, but it theoretically could be, so we should spend all this extra time explaining precisely why that is not the case, just in the off chance that someone might try to argue that was the case, and as we all know, if anyone offers a counterargument requiring further elaboration on your end, that is bad for some reason. Right?????

You could, and I'd respond by directly comparing his postseason results(as I literally have) while noting that Pippen also elevated. The reason why it wouldn't become a dozen post "derail" is if someone points out that caveat I'd acknowledge it and move on. People are free to criticize how I arrive at my conclusions. And when they do, I don't "whine" about it.

That is not the question. The question is would I be upset if people took Kareem — as they almost universally do — because of Walton’s lack of replication, and the answer would be no. But even that is a flawed comparison because they were contemporaries and Walton’s impact signals in that title completely outpaced Kareem’s.

You said you the comparison is "insulting". My question was "the question".

[OhayoKD]

Would you disagree that Giannis played with significantly more talented supporting casts than Hakeem on average though?

No.

Then I am not sure what's the point of this long discussion.

I get that looking at raw regular season SRS isn't a good indicator of how good your supporting cast is, but I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think that way. Sometimes, I feel that you don't need to write esseys to say that one player played in a less talented team, that's all.

i said like 5 lines originally

[70sFan]

For those who are interested:

2019-23 Bucks:

- RS: +2.7 rORtg, -3.4 rDRtg
- 1st rounds: +3.1 rORtg, -8.2 rDRtg
- excluding 1st rounds: -0.7 rORtg, -5.5 rDRtg

1993-97 Rockets:

- RS: +1.3 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg
- 1st rounds: +6.7 rORtg, -2.1 rDRtg
- excluding 1st rounds: +5.3 rORtg, -2.1 rDRtg

[AEnigma]

Purposelessly.

You obviously do care, hence the past dozen posts crying about it.

I've spent like 4 posts "crying" about it, after you started an argument on the subject. My original response consisted of 5 sentences targeting some lazy logic before agreeing you with on your ultimate conclusion. You've found a bunch of ways to stretch the confines of that narrow convo and now you're pinning it on me. If you think this is a waste of time, then stop "crying". No one is forcing you to respond.

In other words, quite literally starting an argument over nothing — and now trying to blame me for having the gall to respond to your bait. Typical.

Then you have no purpose here. Look at the thread title. This is the “weird tangent”, and you cannot even try to tie it back by at least making an argument for Giannis over Hakeem today.

I literally did "tie it back" with "hakeem is a better player relative to era", you took an issue with that and now we're here.

If you think he needs an era stipulation, yet again, make. an. argument.

And the suggestion that there is no credit awarded in a loss was never made.

You presented a choice between a neutral assessment and a negative assessment and then when i asked a clarifying question and you decided to be evasive. If you wanna be anenigma, cool, but that's how we end up "wasting time".

Your inability to parse simple meaning is not my evasion. Neutral was never my word, you inserted that in — and again, you also have full prior knowledge of where I stand on those seasons generally. No, evasion is when you are pressed to get to an actual point and constantly refused until absolutely backed into a corner.

If literally everything is equal but for the fact that one player individually generates twenty more wins in the regular season, then yes, that player is better. However, if you adjust that slightly and say the guy worth twenty wins less in the regular season is also worth five wins more in the postseason, I would rather have the postseason guy.

Noted.

And Giannis is not generating postseason improvement, which brings us back to: what exactly are we doing here.

Except he did. The Bucks got better in the postseason in 2019, 2021, and 2022. Their defensive improvement significantly outpaced their offensive decline. And that holds true despite the rather obvious point that the 2019 Raptors were a much better team than their regular season averages would indicate because they added their best defender mid-season and their best attacking player saw his production skyrocket in the playoffs.

Incidentally, in the series the Bucks lost, the opposing team saw their fg% drop by 8 points with Giannis on the floor along with the numbers of the opposing all-time wing collapsing. Giannis did not win, but it looks to me he elevated in the playoffs, just as he did in 2021 and 2022.

Hm, hold on now, you are just looking at the team + Giannis. How could you do that? Where is the analysis of what Giannis is improving as opposed to his team? Where is the accompanying wall of explanation?????

The Edwards-Kobe analogy is entirely inappropriate

Why? Edwards has raised his production in his first two postseasons. Looks on pace, better start having those conversations!

Of course, what we could do is spill a dozen posts complaining about your lack of thorough analysis of how the Bulls got better in the postseason and to what degree that is attributable to Jordan or to his cast, because who knows, what if it was all the cast! Not saying it is, do not think it is, but it theoretically could be, so we should spend all this extra time explaining precisely why that is not the case, just in the off chance that someone might try to argue that was the case, and as we all know, if anyone offers a counterargument requiring further elaboration on your end, that is bad for some reason. Right?????

You could, and I'd respond by directly comparing his postseason results(as I literally have)

Oh wow if only results had been compared.

while noting that Pippen also elevated.

Not consistently.

The reason why it wouldn't become a dozen post "derail" is if someone points out that caveat I'd acknowledge it and move on. People are free to criticize how I arrive at my conclusions. And when they do, I don't "whine" about it.

You did not have a caveat. Two pages deep since you started this, and you did not even think anyone was wrong in their characterisation of Hakeem as a better riser on worse teams in less favourable circumstances. Productive.

That is not the question. The question is would I be upset if people took Kareem — as they almost universally do — because of Walton’s lack of replication, and the answer would be no. But even that is a flawed comparison because they were contemporaries and Walton’s impact signals in that title completely outpaced Kareem’s.

You said you the comparison is "insulting". My question was "the question".

Okay, then it is a wrong question because he is a bad analogue. Walton has poor replicability because he literally only had the one functional postseason as a starter, same issue as Brandon Roy. I can honestly say that that Bill Walton never lost a series when he played every game. Is that replicable? No, but it is a far cry from Giannis.

[tsherkin]

Gentlemen, play nice.