Current Giannis v Prime Garnett

[HeartBreakKid]

Is that why the offense was 5.1 points per 100 possessions better with Giannis on the floor than when he was off? How about the 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor than off in total and being the engine behind a top 4 offense and the top defense in the league last season. Sounds pretty "additive" to me and a far cry from the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" drivel you're spewing. Need I mention the 10.8 BPM, 7.6 VORP, .292 WS/48, and the 6.69 RPM? Or do those all say he's on the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" too?

But wow! Guys score more when they're forced to with Giannis off the floor because they have the ball in their hands? You don't say!

I mean, you don't want to get in a +/- argument against Garnett, because he is easily #1 there. For perspective, his career average on/off is +11.5. That's nearly 3 points over Giannis' peak, and counting the Brooklyn seasons. He peaked at +23.6. +10 is obviously very good, but KG is a whole different animal in terms of impact, and that's why some people have him in their top 5 GOAT.

There's a HUGE difference between not having the +/- numbers Garnett does due to the teams he played on which CERTAINLY play a factor, and being on the "opposite end of the spectrum," because he's not "additive" because his "skillset stinks." Follow the context on the back and forth.

FWIW, KG never achieved the BPM that Giannis did this past season peaking at 9.9 to the 10.8 mark by Giannis this past season.

BPM isn't a real impact stat

[skones]

I mean, you don't want to get in a +/- argument against Garnett, because he is easily #1 there. For perspective, his career average on/off is +11.5. That's nearly 3 points over Giannis' peak, and counting the Brooklyn seasons. He peaked at +23.6. +10 is obviously very good, but KG is a whole different animal in terms of impact, and that's why some people have him in their top 5 GOAT.

There's a HUGE difference between not having the +/- numbers Garnett does due to the teams he played on which CERTAINLY play a factor, and being on the "opposite end of the spectrum," because he's not "additive" because his "skillset stinks." Follow the context on the back and forth.

FWIW, KG never achieved the BPM that Giannis did this past season peaking at 9.9 to the 10.8 mark by Giannis this past season.

BPM isn't a real impact stat

Nor is a straight +/- on off split given it doesn't provide any type of context when comparing players in different situations.

[skones]

I mean, you don't want to get in a +/- argument against Garnett, because he is easily #1 there. For perspective, his career average on/off is +11.5. That's nearly 3 points over Giannis' peak, and counting the Brooklyn seasons. He peaked at +23.6. +10 is obviously very good, but KG is a whole different animal in terms of impact, and that's why some people have him in their top 5 GOAT.

There's a HUGE difference between not having the +/- numbers Garnett does due to the teams he played on which CERTAINLY play a factor, and being on the "opposite end of the spectrum," because he's not "additive" because his "skillset stinks." Follow the context on the back and forth.

FWIW, KG never achieved the BPM that Giannis did this past season peaking at 9.9 to the 10.8 mark by Giannis this past season.

BPM does a much worse job capturing impact than basic +/-.

If your stance is that Giannis is having an impact offensively, BPM doesn't paint any picture for us other than "He touches the ball a lot".

I mean, that's not at all true, but I've no interest in getting into anything with you. You're free to oversimplify though.

[Colbinii]

There's a HUGE difference between not having the +/- numbers Garnett does due to the teams he played on which CERTAINLY play a factor, and being on the "opposite end of the spectrum," because he's not "additive" because his "skillset stinks." Follow the context on the back and forth.

FWIW, KG never achieved the BPM that Giannis did this past season peaking at 9.9 to the 10.8 mark by Giannis this past season.

BPM does a much worse job capturing impact than basic +/-.

If your stance is that Giannis is having an impact offensively, BPM doesn't paint any picture for us other than "He touches the ball a lot".

I mean, that's not at all true, but I've no interest in getting into anything with you. You're free to oversimplify though.

What do you think BPM does a good job measuring then?

[skones]

BPM does a much worse job capturing impact than basic +/-.

If your stance is that Giannis is having an impact offensively, BPM doesn't paint any picture for us other than "He touches the ball a lot".

I mean, that's not at all true, but I've no interest in getting into anything with you. You're free to oversimplify though.

What do you think BPM does a good job measuring then?

You're the one stating that it only says "he touches the ball a lot." Why is it that a lot of guys have the ball in their hands often, yet their corresponding OBPM measurement doesn't stack up to Giannis in that regard? Again, you came out with an oversimplification of the statistic (which you're WELL aware of), and as a result I have no interest in discussing with you.

[LakersLegacy]

Giannis has already matched KGs Timberwolves legacy with a trip to the conference Finals and a MVP award.

What Giannis has done is really impressive. Giannis is the better ball handler and athlete. KG is the better shooter and defender. If Giannis improves his defense slightly and adds a go to shot I would choose Giannis.

[G35]

KG was the exact opposite kind of player. His elite passing and shooting would open things up for his teammates big time. Regardless of style of the players he played with. This was the case into the early 2010s.

Is Giannis still pretty good offensively? Yeah because he overcomes it with brute force. Is it optimal? No. Is he as elite as his boxscore would imply? Hell no.

Is that why the offense was 5.1 points per 100 possessions better with Giannis on the floor than when he was off? How about the 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor than off in total and being the engine behind a top 4 offense and the top defense in the league last season. Sounds pretty "additive" to me and a far cry from the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" drivel you're spewing. Need I mention the 10.8 BPM, 7.6 VORP, .292 WS/48, and the 6.69 RPM? Or do those all say he's on the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" too?

But wow! Guys score more when they're forced to with Giannis off the floor because they have the ball in their hands? You don't say!

I mean, you don't want to get in a +/- argument against Garnett, because he is easily #1 there. For perspective, his career average on/off is +11.5. That's nearly 3 points over Giannis' peak, and counting the Brooklyn seasons. He peaked at +23.6. +10 is obviously very good, but KG is a whole different animal in terms of impact, and that's why some people have him in their top 5 GOAT.

Players that play in systems that benefit everyone do not rate as well in on/off.

Its not like KG ever was a part of a dominant offense, which is the real goal that gets lost in these impact arguments.

Is the question how well "player X" does or is it how well the player's team does overall. I give more impact to say Steph Curry and his on/off because he is part of ATG offenses and his impact is readily apparent. Curry helped a 2nd round player become one of the most valuable players in the league.

Can you say Garnett's impact made any of his teammates super valuable...no you can't...in fact every teammate KG played with sucked......

[Jaivl]

in fact every teammate KG played with sucked......

Good to know we agree!

[Dr Spaceman]

Is that why the offense was 5.1 points per 100 possessions better with Giannis on the floor than when he was off? How about the 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor than off in total and being the engine behind a top 4 offense and the top defense in the league last season. Sounds pretty "additive" to me and a far cry from the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" drivel you're spewing. Need I mention the 10.8 BPM, 7.6 VORP, .292 WS/48, and the 6.69 RPM? Or do those all say he's on the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" too?

But wow! Guys score more when they're forced to with Giannis off the floor because they have the ball in their hands? You don't say!

I mean, you don't want to get in a +/- argument against Garnett, because he is easily #1 there. For perspective, his career average on/off is +11.5. That's nearly 3 points over Giannis' peak, and counting the Brooklyn seasons. He peaked at +23.6. +10 is obviously very good, but KG is a whole different animal in terms of impact, and that's why some people have him in their top 5 GOAT.

Players that play in systems that benefit everyone do not rate as well in on/off.

Its not like KG ever was a part of a dominant offense, which is the real goal that gets lost in these impact arguments.

Is the question how well "player X" does or is it how well the player's team does overall. I give more impact to say Steph Curry and his on/off because he is part of ATG offenses and his impact is readily apparent. Curry helped a 2nd round player become one of the most valuable players in the league.

Can you say Garnett's impact made any of his teammates super valuable...no you can't...in fact every teammate KG played with sucked......

KG led 3 straight top 5 offenses. Considering the offensive talent he played with that is incredibly impressive. It doesn’t put him on the same tier as Nash, Harden, Curry, or LeBron as an offensive player... which, okay? Saying KG is a step below those guys offensively is incredibly high praise.

[Timmyyy]

Is that why the offense was 5.1 points per 100 possessions better with Giannis on the floor than when he was off? How about the 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor than off in total and being the engine behind a top 4 offense and the top defense in the league last season. Sounds pretty "additive" to me and a far cry from the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" drivel you're spewing. Need I mention the 10.8 BPM, 7.6 VORP, .292 WS/48, and the 6.69 RPM? Or do those all say he's on the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" too?

But wow! Guys score more when they're forced to with Giannis off the floor because they have the ball in their hands? You don't say!

I mean, you don't want to get in a +/- argument against Garnett, because he is easily #1 there. For perspective, his career average on/off is +11.5. That's nearly 3 points over Giannis' peak, and counting the Brooklyn seasons. He peaked at +23.6. +10 is obviously very good, but KG is a whole different animal in terms of impact, and that's why some people have him in their top 5 GOAT.

Players that play in systems that benefit everyone do not rate as well in on/off.

Its not like KG ever was a part of a dominant offense, which is the real goal that gets lost in these impact arguments.

Is the question how well "player X" does or is it how well the player's team does overall. I give more impact to say Steph Curry and his on/off because he is part of ATG offenses and his impact is readily apparent. Curry helped a 2nd round player become one of the most valuable players in the league.

Can you say Garnett's impact made any of his teammates super valuable...no you can't...in fact every teammate KG played with sucked......

So the goal of basketball is only to score as much as you can? In my eyes there is missing something.
I do not understand why defense always gets treated like a 'nice to have' (I guess it is because KG led really dominant defenses in Boston and that would be counterproductive to admit).

In both active KG threads it is now well established that KG was a great offensive player and an all time great offensive big, but he was not in the elite offensive player overall tier. No one is arguing with it. But when you add his all time great defense he gets into an absolute elite overall player territory.

We can now of course try to shift the goal of basketball and live in a parallel universe where only offense is important. Then yes, I agree with your point.

To the OP. Giannis was great last year. Good offensive player and great defensive player. But when you have a coach like Bud with a great offensive and defensive system and a balanced team all over the floor and bench it should be intuitive that Giannis' way to great team performances was easier than KG's (just saying this because some again focus on pure team performance).

The way I see it Giannis has a pretty low IQ for a guy that has the ball in his hands as much. His drives are nearly unstoppable and he is a decent passer but it is not like he is making the smartest decisions out there. His off ball value is also a little limited and in the end these factors are the reasons why he is rated more like a tier 3 offensive player by the +/-, while other guys with his playstyle are rated higher. Defensively he is great and in my eyes just below DPOY level.
But when I compare that to prime KG I see a guy that is slightly worse on offense (feels a bit generous) and comfortably worse on defense. Every +/- based data sees KG with a significant advantage in many years, too.

At his near peak years I don't think there is much of a case for Giannis vs KG and even in his secondary prime years I take KG . But Giannis himself was on 'weak best player of the year level' last year so it's not like he is too far away from some of KG's weaker prime years either.

[skones]

To the OP. Giannis was great last year. Good offensive player and great defensive player. But when you have a coach like Bud with a great offensive and defensive system and a balanced team all over the floor and bench it should be intuitive that Giannis' way to great team performances was easier than KG's (just saying this because some again focus on pure team performance).

The way I see it Giannis has a pretty low IQ for a guy that has the ball in his hands as much. His drives are nearly unstoppable and he is a decent passer but it is not like he is making the smartest decisions out there. His off ball value is also a little limited and in the end these factors are the reasons why he is rated more like a tier 3 offensive player by the +/-, while other guys with his playstyle are rated higher. Defensively he is great and in my eyes just below DPOY level.
But when I compare that to prime KG I see a guy that is slightly worse on offense (feels a bit generous) and comfortably worse on defense. Every +/- based data sees KG with a significant advantage in many years, too.

At his near peak years I don't think there is much of a case for Giannis vs KG and even in his secondary prime years I take KG . But Giannis himself was on 'weak best player of the year level' last year so it's not like he is too far away from some of KG's weaker prime years either.

Calling Giannis a "good offensive player" is an undersell here when you go ahead and call KG "great." Lost in the shuffle of Harden's scoring performance, Giannis was absolutely ELITE scoring the ball last season. You can split hairs and call his offense limited or low iq or whatever blah blah blah, but at the end of the day results matter most and scoring 39+ per 100 possessions (6.1 more than Garnett ever accomplished) on the efficiency he did (.644 vs Garnett's career high of .589) puts him in EXTREMELY rare air. Giannis put up those efficiency numbers relying on TWOs not the threes that give everyone else their substantial efficiency boosts. Giving Bud's "great systems" all this credit and neglecting to acknowledge that Giannis is THE guy who allows all of it to work is just nonsensical to me.

KG was a more talented passer, but beyond that, Giannis is flat out better scoring the ball, and there's a mountain of data to support that. Nobody is sitting around calling Shaquille O'neal merely "good" on offense and KG great despite KG's more varied skillset. Giannis was a dominant force during the 18-19 campaign on the offensive end.

[Timmyyy]

To the OP. Giannis was great last year. Good offensive player and great defensive player. But when you have a coach like Bud with a great offensive and defensive system and a balanced team all over the floor and bench it should be intuitive that Giannis' way to great team performances was easier than KG's (just saying this because some again focus on pure team performance).

The way I see it Giannis has a pretty low IQ for a guy that has the ball in his hands as much. His drives are nearly unstoppable and he is a decent passer but it is not like he is making the smartest decisions out there. His off ball value is also a little limited and in the end these factors are the reasons why he is rated more like a tier 3 offensive player by the +/-, while other guys with his playstyle are rated higher. Defensively he is great and in my eyes just below DPOY level.
But when I compare that to prime KG I see a guy that is slightly worse on offense (feels a bit generous) and comfortably worse on defense. Every +/- based data sees KG with a significant advantage in many years, too.

At his near peak years I don't think there is much of a case for Giannis vs KG and even in his secondary prime years I take KG . But Giannis himself was on 'weak best player of the year level' last year so it's not like he is too far away from some of KG's weaker prime years either.

Calling Giannis a "good offensive player" is an undersell here when you go ahead and call KG "great." Lost in the shuffle of Harden's scoring performance, Giannis was absolutely ELITE scoring the ball last season. You can split hairs and call his offense limited or low iq or whatever blah blah blah, but at the end of the day results matter most and scoring 39+ per 100 possessions (6.1 more than Garnett ever accomplished) on the efficiency he did (.644 vs Garnett's career high of .589) puts him in EXTREMELY rare air. Giannis put up those efficiency numbers relying on TWOs not the threes that give everyone else their substantial efficiency boosts. Giving Bud's "great systems" all this credit and neglecting to acknowledge that Giannis is THE guy who allows all of it to work is just nonsensical to me.

KG was a more talented passer, but beyond that, Giannis is flat out better scoring the ball, and there's a mountain of data to support that. Nobody is sitting around calling Shaquille O'neal merely "good" on offense and KG great despite KG's more varied skillset. Giannis was a dominant force during the 18-19 campaign on the offensive end.

I mean if you wipe away some of the biggest issues of Giannis with bla bla bla, of course he looks elite in your eyes.
That is not splitting hairs, Giannis is limited because he can't shoot which is causing a negative spacing effect everytime he is on the court and his IQ is oftentimes leading to him making bad decisions with the ball, not seeing the floor as well and so on.

Scoring is great and he did a very good job with that, which is why he was a good offensive player (if you are having a problem with the words I used, I would have him in the +2-3 range while I have prime KG in the +2,5-3,5 range), but scoring isn't the only thing on offense. The concerns I mentioned is what is knocking him down a bit. Every +/- based statistic agrees with it, that he isn't in the Harden, Curry or even the Jokic, Durant, Lillard tier of offensive players (there are more guys in these tiers but I was too lazy to write them all down) and in my opinion my concerns are the exact reason for it. You can go ahead and rate offense purely by scoring but thats not my approach.

KG had years where he was on a level in ORAPM that seems just higher than what Giannis is capable now. In my opinion it is exactly the other way around as you make it seem to be. The only area in which Giannis is better than Garnett is scoring (on a effectiveness base not even on a skill set base, but I believe that in this case Giannis effectiveness was more impactful). Garnett is the better passer, better off ball player because he give a little spacing effect and does a lot more little things on offense better like screen setting etc.

Shaq was way better than both player in question on offense. I do not hope that you think your boy Giannis is anywhere on Shaqs level offensively. No need to bring him up.

In the end I was never arguing about scoring but overall offense and you give me a post where you come around borderline offended and you argue just about scoring. If you want limit offense to scoring go ahead, but then there is no need to reply to me.

[JVL]

Prime Garnett is one of the best players of all time. This isn't a discussion worth having.

[Ron Swanson]

It absolutely is a discussion worth having, but of course it's no surprise that people dismiss this last MVP year by Giannis even though it either measures up to or exceeds prime KG by any metric you want to use. Asking people's opinion on KG in the PC board is akin to asking people's opinion on the Pope in a Catholic League meeting. He was apparently an absolutely perfect basketball player, but for some reason just couldn't ever elevate his teams to the extent that guys like Lebron, Hakeem, and yeah, 2019 Giannis actually proved that they could with somewhat equal supporting casts.

*insert predictable/tiresome "KG never got to play with all-time greats like Eric Bledsoe and Khris Middleton" excuses here*

[Timmyyy]

It absolutely is a discussion worth having, but of course it's no surprise that people dismiss this last MVP year by Giannis even though it either measures up to or exceeds prime KG by any metric you want to use. Asking people's opinion on KG in the PC board is akin to asking people's opinion on the Pope in a Catholic League meeting. He was apparently an absolutely perfect basketball player, but for some reason just couldn't ever elevate his teams to the extent that guys like Lebron, Hakeem, and yeah, 2019 Giannis actually proved that they could with somewhat equal supporting casts.

*insert predictable/tiresome "KG never got to play with all-time greats like Eric Bledsoe and Khris Middleton" excuses here*

Why can't we just stop ridiculing peoples opinions? Disagree, argue with it but stop being sarcastic about things you See differently.
Giannis does absolutely not measure up with KG in the +/- category. So If someone values that high he can reasonably disagree with you (but hey let us forget about that because you want to make your sarcastic comment look like it is backed up by something).
And of course the Team that has Brook Lopez, bledsoe, Middleton, brogdon, George hill, mirotic, Ilyasova is such a bad supporting cast. And having bud as a coach is also such a burden, the success was aaall about giannis. Saying this is as bad as KGs situation is really...funny.
And I see what you did in the last sentence. Showing that the bucks had no 2nd big time star, when they were completely stacked top to bottom is just showing that you somehow tried to shut down every supporting cast debate with this weak argument.

I have no problem with your opinion. But the intolerance and disrespect for the other side and the bending of the facts to push your opinion is just not necessary if you have good arguments and is really lowering the quality of the discussion.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using RealGM mobile app

[ShotCreator]

TS% with Giannis, then TS without Giannis:
Bledsoe: 55.8 to 61.3
Lopez: 59.6 to 62.0
Middleton: 53.4 to 56.9
Brogdon: 60.1 to 61.6

PP100 with Giannis, then PP100 without Giannis:
Bledsoe: 22.2 to 32.9
Lopez: 19.4 to 22.5
Middleton: 21.5 to 36.7
Brogdon: 24.1 to 30.7

KG was the exact opposite kind of player. His elite passing and shooting would open things up for his teammates big time. Regardless of style of the players he played with. This was the case into the early 2010s.

Is Giannis still pretty good offensively? Yeah because he overcomes it with brute force. Is it optimal? No. Is he as elite as his boxscore would imply? Hell no.

Is that why the offense was 5.1 points per 100 possessions better with Giannis on the floor than when he was off? How about the 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor than off in total and being the engine behind a top 4 offense and the top defense in the league last season. Sounds pretty "additive" to me and a far cry from the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" drivel you're spewing. Need I mention the 10.8 BPM, 7.6 VORP, .292 WS/48, and the 6.69 RPM? Or do those all say he's on the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" too?

But wow! Guys score more when they're forced to with Giannis off the floor because they have the ball in their hands? You don't say!

I already said Giannis was good.
Those impact numbers are not ground breaking.

Like I said, Giannis actual value is seriously lacking relative to the box score numbers he puts up. KG was the opposite of that.

If you saw the box scores you would actually think they are close at-best in favor of Giannis, when in reality Giannis isn’t close to KG at all.


WS, BPM, and VORP all get outperformed by impact metrics in predicting through every study I’ve seen. They really just are not good at tracking anything other than box score production. And box score production isn’t showing all the substance of the game.


Anyway, you can gloss over Giannis effect of teammates but it is a really big indicator seeing that elite offensive players make guys better, not worse. And this goes back to 2017 for Giannis as well. His approach and skill set isn’t conducive to maximizing talent. But he is good.



https://m.imgur.com/a/K91MgiK

And it has always been that way.

[ShotCreator]

Is that why the offense was 5.1 points per 100 possessions better with Giannis on the floor than when he was off? How about the 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor than off in total and being the engine behind a top 4 offense and the top defense in the league last season. Sounds pretty "additive" to me and a far cry from the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" drivel you're spewing. Need I mention the 10.8 BPM, 7.6 VORP, .292 WS/48, and the 6.69 RPM? Or do those all say he's on the "opposite end of the impact spectrum" too?

But wow! Guys score more when they're forced to with Giannis off the floor because they have the ball in their hands? You don't say!

I mean, you don't want to get in a +/- argument against Garnett, because he is easily #1 there. For perspective, his career average on/off is +11.5. That's nearly 3 points over Giannis' peak, and counting the Brooklyn seasons. He peaked at +23.6. +10 is obviously very good, but KG is a whole different animal in terms of impact, and that's why some people have him in their top 5 GOAT.

Players that play in systems that benefit everyone do not rate as well in on/off.

Curry and Draymond set on/off records from 15-17. And Curry’s got one of the highest ever from 15-19.

[skones]

I mean if you wipe away some of the biggest issues of Giannis with bla bla bla, of course he looks elite in your eyes.
That is not splitting hairs, Giannis is limited because he can't shoot which is causing a negative spacing effect everytime he is on the court and his IQ is oftentimes leading to him making bad decisions with the ball, not seeing the floor as well and so on.

Scoring is great and he did a very good job with that, which is why he was a good offensive player (if you are having a problem with the words I used, I would have him in the +2-3 range while I have prime KG in the +2,5-3,5 range), but scoring isn't the only thing on offense. The concerns I mentioned is what is knocking him down a bit. Every +/- based statistic agrees with it, that he isn't in the Harden, Curry or even the Jokic, Durant, Lillard tier of offensive players (there are more guys in these tiers but I was too lazy to write them all down) and in my opinion my concerns are the exact reason for it. You can go ahead and rate offense purely by scoring but thats not my approach.

KG had years where he was on a level in ORAPM that seems just higher than what Giannis is capable now. In my opinion it is exactly the other way around as you make it seem to be. The only area in which Giannis is better than Garnett is scoring (on a effectiveness base not even on a skill set base, but I believe that in this case Giannis effectiveness was more impactful). Garnett is the better passer, better off ball player because he give a little spacing effect and does a lot more little things on offense better like screen setting etc.

Shaq was way better than both player in question on offense. I do not hope that you think your boy Giannis is anywhere on Shaqs level offensively. No need to bring him up.

In the end I was never arguing about scoring but overall offense and you give me a post where you come around borderline offended and you argue just about scoring. If you want limit offense to scoring go ahead, but then there is no need to reply to me.

I'm not sure what the hell you're watching if you think Giannis gives some sort of "negative spacing effect." Teams have to sit back in the paint and try to stop him because if they don't, it's a bucket. Gravity works both ways in the NBA and forcing teams to sit back, collapse to help, and leaving shooters wide open from distance is one of them. Milwaukee took the third most threes WIDE open in the NBA (6+ feet) on frequency and was 2nd on attempts. They were 5th most in the NBA on "open looks" (4-6 feet) by frequency and 3rd in attempts. Does that sound like he's creating a "negative spacing effect?" No absolutely not, because his gravity is what allows these looks to materialize. Giannis finished just 4 field goals made short of the NBA record (since being recorded in 96-97) for field goals made in the restricted area (567, Shaq holds at 571) and he did it on CRAZY efficiency. You say "no need to bring him up" because it doesn't fit your narrative when he's the ONLY player that scored at the rate Giannis did and in the area Giannis did. Does his lack of range limit Milwaukee sometimes? Sure, but on the greater whole? Absolutely not.

You just seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Milwaukee's offense works by giving Bud all this credit instead of wholly acknowledging Bud built the system around the one player who made all of it possible.

[Timmyyy]

I mean if you wipe away some of the biggest issues of Giannis with bla bla bla, of course he looks elite in your eyes.
That is not splitting hairs, Giannis is limited because he can't shoot which is causing a negative spacing effect everytime he is on the court and his IQ is oftentimes leading to him making bad decisions with the ball, not seeing the floor as well and so on.

Scoring is great and he did a very good job with that, which is why he was a good offensive player (if you are having a problem with the words I used, I would have him in the +2-3 range while I have prime KG in the +2,5-3,5 range), but scoring isn't the only thing on offense. The concerns I mentioned is what is knocking him down a bit. Every +/- based statistic agrees with it, that he isn't in the Harden, Curry or even the Jokic, Durant, Lillard tier of offensive players (there are more guys in these tiers but I was too lazy to write them all down) and in my opinion my concerns are the exact reason for it. You can go ahead and rate offense purely by scoring but thats not my approach.

KG had years where he was on a level in ORAPM that seems just higher than what Giannis is capable now. In my opinion it is exactly the other way around as you make it seem to be. The only area in which Giannis is better than Garnett is scoring (on a effectiveness base not even on a skill set base, but I believe that in this case Giannis effectiveness was more impactful). Garnett is the better passer, better off ball player because he give a little spacing effect and does a lot more little things on offense better like screen setting etc.

Shaq was way better than both player in question on offense. I do not hope that you think your boy Giannis is anywhere on Shaqs level offensively. No need to bring him up.

In the end I was never arguing about scoring but overall offense and you give me a post where you come around borderline offended and you argue just about scoring. If you want limit offense to scoring go ahead, but then there is no need to reply to me.

I'm not sure what the hell you're watching if you think Giannis gives some sort of "negative spacing effect." Teams have to sit back in the paint and try to stop him because if they don't, it's a bucket. Gravity works both ways in the NBA and forcing teams to sit back, collapse to help, and leaving shooters wide open from distance is one of them. Milwaukee took the third most threes WIDE open in the NBA (6+ feet) on frequency and was 2nd on attempts. They were 5th most in the NBA on "open looks" (4-6 feet) by frequency and 3rd in attempts. Does that sound like he's creating a "negative spacing effect?" No absolutely not, because his gravity is what allows these looks to materialize. Giannis finished just 4 field goals made short of the NBA record (since being recorded in 96-97) for field goals made in the restricted area (567, Shaq holds at 571) and he did it on CRAZY efficiency. You say "no need to bring him up" because it doesn't fit your narrative when he's the ONLY player that scored at the rate Giannis did and in the area Giannis did. Does his lack of range limit Milwaukee sometimes? Sure, but on the greater whole? Absolutely not.

You just seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Milwaukee's offense works by giving Bud all this credit instead of wholly acknowledging Bud built the system around the one player who made all of it possible.

Giannis himself doesn't space the floor hence negative spacing effect. Giannis does provide great gravity inside creating openings. One does not exclude the other from being true.
I never said I give bud all the credit. Of course Giannis enabled that offense.
You act as if I said Giannis would be bad when I am just arguing that he isn't as good as KG. I already said that I have him on weak best player in the league level.
You are still only pointing to Giannis insane scoring that I already admitted to be great. But still the impact isnt on the level of KG and definitely not on shaqs which is why I said he doesn't add to the discussion. You say, hey he scores nearly as much as Shaq hence he is as good as him offensively and that flat out is incomplete. Shaq had clearly more Impact on offense then both so it's unnecessary to bring him up.

Look at any +/- statistic of any year of Giannis career and you will see that it has him lower than you see him

And its really funny how you act as if I have an agenda when Giannis is my favorite player in the nba alongside Jokic and I have absolutely no sympathie for KG. In fact he is the exact type of sportsman I hate.
But other than you I at least try to put my fandom aside and analyze what I see in the court and in the data. Don't be so offended when someone brings up obvious flaws in your darling's game.
With that attitude I have no interest in discussing with you. But since you didn't bring up anything other than scoring I would say this discussion wasn't going anywhere anyway.
Have a nice day.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using RealGM mobile app

[skones]

Giannis himself doesn't space the floor hence negative spacing effect. Giannis does provide great gravity inside creating openings. One does not exclude the other from being true.
I never said I give bud all the credit. Of course Giannis enabled that offense.
You act as if I said Giannis would be bad when I am just arguing that he isn't as good as KG. I already said that I have him on weak best player in the league level.
You are still only pointing to Giannis insane scoring that I already admitted to be great. But still the impact isnt on the level of KG and definitely not on shaqs which is why I said he doesn't add to the discussion. You say, hey he scores nearly as much as Shaq hence he is as good as him offensively and that flat out is incomplete. Shaq had clearly more Impact on offense then both so it's unnecessary to bring him up.

Look at any +/- statistic of any year of Giannis career and you will see that it has him lower than you see him

And its really funny how you act as if I have an agenda when Giannis is my favorite player in the nba alongside Jokic and I have absolutely no sympathie for KG. In fact he is the exact type of sportsman I hate.
But other than you I at least try to put my fandom aside and analyze what I see in the court and in the data. Don't be so offended when someone brings up obvious flaws in your darling's game.
With that attitude I have no interest in discussing with you. But since you didn't bring up anything other than scoring I would say this discussion wasn't going anywhere anyway.
Have a nice day.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using RealGM mobile app

The post was about the gravity (ie. spacing) Giannis creates which you flat out ignored. Of course a discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you don't take the time to look at the context of the argument I'm making and just sit there with and, "wow, omg, scoring again" attitude.

I'm not offended by a knock on my "darling." I think your "negative spacing" drivel is trash. Gravity is the thing that provides spacing in this league. If you can shoot, players have to lean towards you to contest, they have to rotate harder. It spreads the defense thin on the interior, that's spacing. Conversely collapsing the defense, forcing defenders to help down, bunching the defense up, such as Giannis does, ALSO creates space. It creates space on the perimeter for wide open threes, and it creates easy looks on the backside when the defense hard rotates. That is GRAVITY. The idea that spacing is only created one way (in this case shooting the three) is false.

There aren't a lot of players who produce this collapsable effect, but Giannis is an outlier and it should be acknowledged as such. You're legitimately using this sort of "negative spacing effect" for Giannis that just isn't there. He doesn't space the floor in a traditional manner with his shooting, but make no mistake he DOES space it. Calling it a "negative spacing effect" as if he's causing some detriment to the ball club is entirely off base. THAT's what I take issue with.