#22 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[AdagioPace]

If I was participating I wouldn't wote for Kawhi yet (Durant, Giannis, Harden, Barkley, Ewing...so many people deserving).....but: 2017 Kawhi (ultimate spurs version) would have a way better case than 2019 Kawhi. His RS is clearly superior and his PS (even assuming his stats would have settled vs the Warriors in the WCF) is comparable to its '19 counterpart until that point. Winning bias is really something...

Kawhi getting injured in 2017 basically destroys his case.

I think his RS still keeps him afloat in terms of total value. People don't realize how much worse Kawhi was during the 2019 RS by RPM and availability. If number of games is a problem: TMac is already in and he didn't go past the first round (even though his RS is too good to ignore). CP3's seasons are also being considered despite either being cut short by early elimination or injuries.
More importantly: Kawhi's injury vs the Warriors is a random occurrence with no relationship with Kawhi's injury history (anybody would have gotten injured in that situation, ex novo. You already knew what it was going to happen the moment Zaza put his foot under him). On the other hand, the injury against the Rockets has to do with Kawhi's body, I aknowledge. At the same time Kawhi was already "over" the "Rockets injury" in the same way he was managing himself in this years' the finals. What I'm saying, 2017 KAwhi doesn't deserve penalization over 2019 Kawhi. They're basically the same player. The only difference is that one got f..... by some rare traumatic event/occurrence (ill-intentioned) that has nothing to do with his vulnerability or his body's previous history.

[Sublime187]

Giannis’s defence was good on Siakam, and I guess to a certain extent the Gasol/Ibaka tandem (not that either is a scoring powerhouse), but he utterly failed to stop Kawhi, and for all the talk of his ability to roam, he also did not disrupt Lowry or Van Vleet. Compare that to a clear and deliberate shift in defensive strategy giving Kawhi more responsibility for guarding Giannis, directly correlated with clear dips in Giannis’s performance. So no, when it mattered, I do not think the defensive gap was anywhere near as large as you want to portray it, nor would I say Giannis can claim an especially massive passing advantage considering how well Kawhi moved the ball over the four-game win-streak (especially the final two games). And yes, I would say Kawhi scoring thirty percent more on better efficiency is a suitably massive gap.

the only thing he made noteworthy contributions to was the offense which was +2. Since a +2 offense isn't usually good enough to contend, "kawhi won" utterly fails as a compelling argument.

As always, a beautiful sight when it comes right after you complain about cherrypicking and only looking at one subset of data.

You both are great posters but I don't know why you guys are going at each other all the time. Lol.

[liamliam1234]

One protected the rim, the other didn't. The man defense was merely big yes, the overall defensive gap was massive.

And yet that rim protection did nothing to stop Toronto’s sole reliable and predominant offensive weapon. That rim protection failed to stop Lowry and Van Vleet. Again, like I said, credit for the front-court effect, and “blame” goes far more toward coaching than toward Giannis himself, but Kawhi stepped up his defence on Milwaukee’s biggest threat when needed, whereas Giannis did not. I do not know whether he could not, but he did not, and Milwaukee could have really used that. There is more to basketball than just scheme, and sometimes you just need to stop the guy repeatedly roasting your team. And it would be one thing if every other Raptor were shut down, but they were not. Is that more on Bledsoe and Middleton and Brogdon? Of course, but if your teammates are struggling to do their jobs, again, sometimes that requires an adjustment. And since Giannis was not doing it on offence, then maybe it should have come on defence. But it did not, and he stayed the same on both ends. That is what tends to separate a lot of title-winners: when their backs were against the wall, they elevated. It is funny, you talk so much about Kawhi cruising during the regular season, as if Giannis did not cruise in his cushy regular season scheme all year up until it stopped working. The greats adjust. Kawhi did; Giannis did not.

Great, then you should find something that substantiates that the gap was enough for kawhi to be significantly than giannis. Or are we using the conclusion that the scoring gap was big enough to prove the scoring gap was big enough which would be circular reasoning...

I have already established that I am not going to come up with some cutesy PIPM-type number for the series/playoffs. Is there a number that is going to change your mind given the starting gap in their respective season CORP/PIPM values? I doubt it, so I do not understand why you keep pretending you expect that to be what I will argue. I do not understand why you do not want to acknowledge Kawhi efficiently scoring fifty percent more than the next guy on his team, or thirty percent more than the lead scorer on the opposing team, does not represent significant impact. If you want to say the defensive gap outweighs it, fine. I disagree, and it is pretty obvious we are both evaluating their respective offence and defence in substantially different ways anyway.

If you want to say this is out of context then you have to explain how. I specifcally used context, kawhi being an offensive only star, so I'm not seeing what you're missing here.

I am sure you have seen the numbers on what happened to Toronto’s playoff offence without Kawhi. If that is not a clear sign of his massive offensive impact — maybe you will echo E-Balla’s take that it was all because his lack of high-level passing made them all forget how to play without him — then there apparently is not going to be any you are willing to accept.

[Mavericksfan]

Moses Malone 1983-
E-Balla has successfully converted another one. Very dominant player both on and off ball. Also was a good defender at his peak. His regular season motor is the only question but they were still a top team. He absolutely dominated the playoffs and led the Sixers to one of the top playoff runs in NBA history.

Patrick Ewing 1993-
Great two play player. Another player that I opened my eyes to after the D-Rob vs Ewing discussions. More of a floor raiser but also had a steller playoff performance despite not much talent around him. Went with 93 over 90 due to anchoring one of the best defenses of all time and having his 2nd best scoring posg season. Averaged atleast 24 points on 50% from the field in every series. Could definitely be swayed to other years.

Steve Nash 2006-
One of the greatest offensive playes ever. Carried the Suns to the 2nd best offense despite missing his second offensive star. Had a steller playoff run as well including posting 20/10 on 50/40/90 against the Mavs and their top 5 defense.[/quote]

[freethedevil]

And yet that rim protection did nothing to stop Toronto’s sole reliable and predominant offensive weapon.

Huh? Kawhi and the raptors scored less with giannis on the court than they did with him off the court. Ig you recalled, with giannis, the bucks built a 15 point lead vs the raps in game 6. A lead that fell apart ina few minuites when giannis was benched. The raptors fg effiency dropped massively whenever giannis was on the court. Giannis was unquestionably the best defender of the series and he was so by a wide margin. It isn't a defensive anchor's job to stop a single player, it's his job to stop the entire defense though ofc, for this logic to apply you'd have to show at a minimum that kawhi's effiency didn't drop when guarded by giannis. Because if it did, then this faulty premise is itself a falsehood. I'm also, rightfully, giving giannis far more credit for stops with one or no help defender than I'm giving kawhi with two or three help defenders.

Kawhi stepped up his defence on Milwaukee’s biggest threat when needed, whereas Giannis did not. I do not know whether he could not, but he did not, and Milwaukee could have really used that.

What? In game 6, with their backs behind the wall. Giannis's led defense was shutting down the raptors and they built up a 15 point lead with giannis on the court heading into the 4th quarter. Giannis came off and the lead evaporated. Giannis came on, and he brught the bucks within one possession. The raptors offense stalled with giannis on and went back to form whenever he was off, in what universe did giannis "not step up"?

There is more to basketball than just scheme, and sometimes you just need to stop the guy repeatedly roasting your team.

Which kawhi isn't capable of, hence why he had two to three help defenders against giannis each possesion.

And since Giannis was not doing it on offence,

Kawhi did; Giannis did not.

Kawhi had nothing to adjust to, he was asked to be a traffic cone among a wall of cones. Kawhi has never been good enough to warrant the defenses giannis has. Still, it's funny how the bucks built two 15 point leads with giannis on the court despite him "not knowing how to adjust". Leads they lost when giannis came off. If Giannis couldn't adjust why were the raptors consistently getting outscored when giannis was on?

I have already established that I am not going to come up with some cutesy PIPM-type number for the series/playoffs.

Come up with a # that shows kawhi improved his team way more than giannis did. It can be regular on/off, luck adjusted on/off, or whatever. Assuming you care about overall play, that number should be considered essential for a case that kawhi's x was >> gianni's x+y

I do not understand why you do not want to acknowledge Kawhi efficiently scoring fifty percent more than the next guy on his team, or thirty percent more than the lead scorer on the opposing team, does not represent significant impact.

I've acknowledged it, but you still have to prove that scoring gap compensated for all the other gaps. What made the +16 player much better than the +13 one?

I am sure you have seen the numbers on what happened to Toronto’s playoff offence without Kawhi.

I am aware, and a +4 offensive improvement is merely moderate for an offense only superstar. And again, that +4 is still less than half of what the raptors defense was without kawhi, so yes, that the raptors won is still a terrible argument.

If that is not a clear sign of his massive offensive impact — maybe you will echo E-Balla’s take that it was all because his lack of high-level passing made them all forget how to play without him — then there apparently is not going to be any you are willing to accept.

Who cares about "massive impact", We're comparing him to giannis, not derozan. Everyone listed has had "massive imapct", and giannis had a bigger impact than kawhi, playoffs or otherwise.

[liamliam1234]

I do not have to argue against Giannis being a net positive for his team to also argue that Kawhi ultimately did a better job leading his team to success.

Kawhi had nothing to adjust to

Even if we accept there is a shred of accuracy here, that just speaks to the postseason scaling of Kawhi’s talents as compared to Giannis, á la Kobe or other transcendant isolation scorers.

Kawhi has never been good enough to warrant the defenses giannis has.

Strange, you would think scoring an efficient thirty points per game would have warranted additional defensive attention.

Come up with a # that shows kawhi improved his team way more than giannis did. It can be regular on/off, luck adjusted on/off, or whatever. Assuming you care about overall play, that number should be considered essential for a case that kawhi's x was >> gianni's x+y

“If you do not buy into the metrics I always use, just come up with a fundamentally identical one.”

I've acknowledged it, but you still have to prove that scoring gap compensated for all the other gaps. What made the +16 player much better than the +13 one?

I might need to check my math on this, but I think +16 is around a quarter better than +13.

I am aware, and a +4 offensive improvement is merely moderate for an offense only superstar.

Mm, pretty skeptical of that given how it compared to basically every other player in this postseason. Maybe this year was a down year for overall offence, but in a relative sense it was pretty clearly top of the pack, and I am not going to dismiss that outright, especially without proof of other instances where the diminishment was far more extreme for players currently not in the project. Or superstar players, in the off-chance Manu is the counter-example.

again, that +4 is still less than half of what the raptors defense was without kawhi, so yes, that the raptors won is still a terrible argument.

What? The Raptors can pat themselves on the back all they want for having a great defence with or without Kawhi, but that does not mean it helps them get past the second round. This is obviously a more extreme example, but I am sure the 2009-10 Cavaliers had a solid defensive rating without Lebron (this is anecdotal, not essential), but that does not mean they could do anything without him. Or the 1998-2003 Spurs without Duncan. So much of that is team makeup that I can even point to the current Jazz team being strong on defence without Rudy Gobert. Fact of the matter is, with Kawhi they were championship quality, and without they were an unconvincing second round exit. And since you yourself have emphasised the value of top-end elevation, I (rhetorically) wonder why you are suddenly so reluctant to apply it here.

[freethedevil]

“If you do not buy into the metrics I always use, just come up with a fundamentally identical one.”

If you can't provide a metric that gauges overall play, then i have no idea why you're trying to argue that kawhi overall played much better than giannis. If I had made an argument for giannis having outscored kawhi, your responses might have been relevant but i didn't, so they weren't.

that just speaks to the postseason scaling of Kawhi’s talents as compared to Giannis

'
Uh, no, it speaks to the fact that a radical scheme change improved, not only kawhi, but the raptors as a whole defensively. Hence why siakim was as effective as kawhi vs giannis "man v man", even though it was really 3 v1 or 4 v1. If bud had introduced a similar scheme with similar personell and giannis failed, you might have a point but he didn't, so you don't.

Strange, you would think scoring an efficient thirty points per game would have warranted additional defensive attention.

How are you using the result of less defensive attention to justify the conclusion he required more attention? That's circular reasoning.

, but in a relative sense it was pretty clearly top of the pack, and I am not going to dismiss that outright

Huh? You're arguing a pro-kawhi stance, why the hell would you be expected to "dismiss outright" that kawhi had a strong offensive impact. No, you need to show it was more impressive than giannis's overall impact.

The Raptors can pat themselves on the back all they want for having a great defence with or without Kawhi, but that does not mean it helps them get past the second round.

And why does it need to? We're not comparing kawhi to a repalcement player, we're comparing him to giannis.

I might need to check my math on this, but I think +16 is around a quarter better than +13.

Over 6 games? That's basically nothing. You would also expect kawhi to have the better +/- since he has the better team, even if he was giannis's equal or marginal inferior. If you want, we can dismiss kawhi's better cast and just assume he was a half a point better than giannis throughout the series, which doesn't really hold a candle to giannis being significantly to massively better for the 90 games proceeding that,

[E-Balla]

Man this is hard. Really didn't think about who I was going to vote after Kobe was in until now. Could go so many ways. Think I'll go:

1. 2015 Chris Paul

He has a really solid case as the best player in the league that year. Blake missed a bunch of games but he still led the Clippers to a 6.8 SRS and the best offense in the league. At least regular season wise it's a feat comparable to 2008 Kobe. 19-5-10 on 49-40-90, 60% TS, 26 PER, numbers are definitely there. The Spurs series was masterful and it truly marked his ascenion to Point God. I can't really put the Rockets loss on him at all, now when we averaged 26-10 efficiently for the last 3 games. The one missed game, well, if 2016 Curry is already in with 7 missed Playoff games, then that is a moot point here.

The way he controlled games this year was unreal, his BBIQ was ludricious.

2. 2008 Chris Paul

Basically just as good in every way as 2015 but less experienced and a slightly worse shooter. Raw numbers are utterly absurd (even better in 2009, which is IMO the 2nd best regular season for a PG after 2016 Curry, but of course he was terrible in the Playoffs). Absurd Playoffs too, 30.7 PER for a PG is just wtf.

3. 1990 Charles Barkley

It's clearly his peak IMO. All the numbers favor it over 1993. The main reason 1993 gets votes is those two ridiculous games 5 and 7 performances against Seattle, but I'm not putting 2016 LeBron over 2013 LeBron based on 2 games either. Dragged a very uninspiring Sixers team to the 2nd ranked offense in the league with God-like scoring and honestly pretty underrated playmaking. If he was even a Dirk-like defender he'd be in contention for a top 12 peak.

I really think 2015 CP3 had the potential to be a 2011 Dirk or 2019 Kawhi-like run if his teammates didn't falter like they did.

What? His teammates played amazingly. Maybe if he didn't miss 2 games against Houston they would've won. Blake was out there throwing up 27/12/5 on 59 TS% but you're saying Chris Paul was in a situation similar to 2011 Dirk?

[No-more-rings]

Man this is hard. Really didn't think about who I was going to vote after Kobe was in until now. Could go so many ways. Think I'll go:

1. 2015 Chris Paul

He has a really solid case as the best player in the league that year. Blake missed a bunch of games but he still led the Clippers to a 6.8 SRS and the best offense in the league. At least regular season wise it's a feat comparable to 2008 Kobe. 19-5-10 on 49-40-90, 60% TS, 26 PER, numbers are definitely there. The Spurs series was masterful and it truly marked his ascenion to Point God. I can't really put the Rockets loss on him at all, now when we averaged 26-10 efficiently for the last 3 games. The one missed game, well, if 2016 Curry is already in with 7 missed Playoff games, then that is a moot point here.

The way he controlled games this year was unreal, his BBIQ was ludricious.

2. 2008 Chris Paul

Basically just as good in every way as 2015 but less experienced and a slightly worse shooter. Raw numbers are utterly absurd (even better in 2009, which is IMO the 2nd best regular season for a PG after 2016 Curry, but of course he was terrible in the Playoffs). Absurd Playoffs too, 30.7 PER for a PG is just wtf.

3. 1990 Charles Barkley

It's clearly his peak IMO. All the numbers favor it over 1993. The main reason 1993 gets votes is those two ridiculous games 5 and 7 performances against Seattle, but I'm not putting 2016 LeBron over 2013 LeBron based on 2 games either. Dragged a very uninspiring Sixers team to the 2nd ranked offense in the league with God-like scoring and honestly pretty underrated playmaking. If he was even a Dirk-like defender he'd be in contention for a top 12 peak.

I really think 2015 CP3 had the potential to be a 2011 Dirk or 2019 Kawhi-like run if his teammates didn't falter like they did.

What? His teammates played amazingly. Maybe if he didn't miss 2 games against Houston they would've won. Blake was out there throwing up 27/12/5 on 59 TS% but you're saying Chris Paul was in a situation similar to 2011 Dirk?

Blake Griffin averaged this in the 2015 playoffs-

25.5/12.7/6.1 55.7 ts%, 24.8 PER 6.4 BPM

In the first 2 games of the Rockets series without Paul, he averaged 30/14.5/8.5 on 58.5 ts%, the way he ran point forward in that game one was something to see from a big man and I don’t recall in my time watching anyone capable of that other than Jokic and KG.

In those 5 games with Paul- 25.6/11.4/3.4 58.9 ts%

Small sample, but Griffin actually played better without Paul than with him in that series. Either way it’s embarrassing how Paul supporters always repeat the myth that Paul didn’t have help in that series it’s a blatant lie.

The role players mostly disappeared in those last 2-3 games, but with Cp3 getting an efficient 27, 30 and 28 point games from Blake on good efficiency i would think that’s enough to win at least one of those last 3 games.

I’d be interested to see like some metrics for how the Clippers did with and without Paul in that series.

[liamliam1234]

If you can't provide a metric that gauges overall play, then i have no idea why you're trying to argue that kawhi overall played much better than giannis.

Yes, I am very aware that you tend to only acknowledge what specific metrics which attempt to measure “impact” tell you. Which is why generally I do not find these discussions productive apart from giving everyone else the arguments which do not act as if basketball has been “solved” by equations.

If I had made an argument for giannis having outscored kawhi, your responses might have been relevant but i didn't, so they weren't.

Scoring is impact and a major advantage for Kawhi, regardless of how much you want to effectively dismiss it.

Uh, no, it speaks to the fact that a radical scheme change improved, not only kawhi, but the raptors as a whole defensively. Hence why siakim was as effective as kawhi vs giannis "man v man", even though it was really 3 v1 or 4 v1. If bud had introduced a similar scheme with similar personell and giannis failed, you might have a point but he didn't, so you don't.

And maybe specific schemes exaggerate impact. I am not going to base my evaluations too heavily on whether players could have done better under a smarter scheme, and most of the time I doubt you do anyway. Attribute it to “leadership” if you want. Giannis has enough clout to push for changes or added responsibility. He is not blameless for their failure.

How are you using the result of less defensive attention to justify the conclusion he required more attention? That's circular reasoning.

See above. Either Budenholzer is a blithering idiot who deliberately under-guarded Kawhi in favour of, uh, shutting down Pascal Siakam, or the defence simply failed to stop him.

, Huh? You're arguing a pro-kawhi stance, why the hell would you be expected to "dismiss outright" that kawhi had a strong offensive impact. No, you need to show it was more impressive than giannis's overall impact.

No, you need me to do that. As I have said time and time again, I am not concerned with whether there is a magic impact number I can give you. And I have said it often enough that I do not see how you benefit from carrying on as if I might give one.

And why does it need to? We're not comparing kawhi to a repalcement player, we're comparing him to giannis.

Yep, and Giannis elevated his team to a conference finals exit and a backdoor sweep.

Over 6 games? That's basically nothing. You would also expect kawhi to have the better +/- since he has the better team, even if he was giannis's equal or marginal inferior. If you want, we can dismiss kawhi's better cast and just assume he was a half a point better than giannis throughout the series, which doesn't really hold a candle to giannis being significantly to massively better for the 90 games proceeding that,

To you, no. But I have consistently said and shown relative indifference to regular season production, and that is especially true in Kawhi’s case (again, one of the two most blatant “Let me know when the playoffs start” seasons I have ever seen”). And maybe you missed it, but I marked Giannis closely behind Kawhi, and ahead of Barkley and Ewing and Paul and Nash, so it is not as if I am even being inconsistent with that postseason gap.

[No-more-rings]

So unless there’s some miracle turnaround, i think it’s safe to say that 83 Moses is going to run away with this. By my count he has 19.5 pts already, and next highest is 90 Ewing at 11. No other player or season is even close right now.

[liamliam1234]

I would still like to hear the case for 1990 Ewing/Barkley over Giannis. I think DatAsh said Barkley had “two to three times” the offensive impact, and I cannot really see support for that by their actual production. But everyone else has kind-of glossed over it.

[No-more-rings]

I would still like to hear the case for 1990 Ewing/Barkley over Giannis. I think DatAsh said Barkley had “two to three times” the offensive impact, and I cannot really see support for that by their actual production. But everyone else has kind-of glossed over it.

I’m not sure about Barkley vs Giannis, but for me Ewing still was a better defender than Giannis, and if his scoring game gets shut down i don’t think it’s as detrimental as if it happens to Giannis. On offense Giannis is better sure, but being a dpoy caliber guy in a league where Gobert, and Draymond are the top suspects compared to a league with Drob, Hakeem, Rodman, etc. isn’t really the same.

[freethedevil]

I would still like to hear the case for 1990 Ewing/Barkley over Giannis. I think DatAsh said Barkley had “two to three times” the offensive impact, and I cannot really see support for that by their actual production. But everyone else has kind-of glossed over it.

I’m not sure about Barkley vs Giannis, but for me Ewing still was a better defender than Giannis, and if his scoring game gets shut down i don’t think it’s as detrimental as if it happens to Giannis. On offense Giannis is better sure, but being a dpoy caliber guy in a league where Gobert, and Draymond are the top suspects compared to a league with Drob, Hakeem, Rodman, etc. isn’t really the same.

Oh so we're doing the time machine argument now?

Morden defense isharder than 90's defense so I'm not sure you want to open that rabbit hole.

[No-more-rings]

I would still like to hear the case for 1990 Ewing/Barkley over Giannis. I think DatAsh said Barkley had “two to three times” the offensive impact, and I cannot really see support for that by their actual production. But everyone else has kind-of glossed over it.

I’m not sure about Barkley vs Giannis, but for me Ewing still was a better defender than Giannis, and if his scoring game gets shut down i don’t think it’s as detrimental as if it happens to Giannis. On offense Giannis is better sure, but being a dpoy caliber guy in a league where Gobert, and Draymond are the top suspects compared to a league with Drob, Hakeem, Rodman, etc. isn’t really the same.

Oh so we're doing the time machine argument now?

Morden defense isharder than 90's defense so I'm not sure you want to open that rabbit hole.

I’m talking individuals, not league wide defense. The crop of top defenders today is nothing particularly impressive and hasn’t been for a while. Before Draymond took off the top defenders were like Chandler, Noah, Marc Gasol etc. Great defenders but not an all time one like Ewing.

[freethedevil]

Yes, I am very aware that you tend to only acknowledge what specific metrics which attempt to measure “impact” tell you. Which is why generally I do not find these discussions productive apart from giving everyone else the arguments which do not act as if basketball has been “solved” by equations.

PPG and ts are also math fam. The only difference is my math isn't exclusive to a single part of the game while yours is. I weigh math according to what and how effectively they measure things. Since ppg and ts only measures part of the game, any statistical substantiation that uses math for scoring and speculation for everything else sin't something i'm going to taken seriously. Especially since your eyetest has repeatedly shown me you don't understand what you're watching. You opined on man defense for a paragraph despite it being well below paint protection in terms of importance and you didn't even bother to mention the help defenders kawhi and giannis were using to achieve their respective results. That kawhi's defense was close enough to giannis that the scoring gap made kawhi better is purely hearsay, hearsay I don't have any reason to think means anything coming from you.

Scoring is impact and a major advantage for Kawhi, regardless of how much you want to effectively dismiss it.

I never dismissed it, I said that scoring being a mjor advantage doesn't mean kawhi was better, becayse scoring is part of the game. For you to assert the opposite you need to show evidence of the opposite. But you haven't done that so I'm left wondering why I should care.

And maybe specific schemes exaggerate impact. I am not going to base my evaluations too heavily on whether players could have done better under a smarter scheme,

Which is again, why I don't give a **** about your eye evaluation. I give weight to the tape analysis of people who've shown me they consider and weigh context. You haven't, so I'm going to need empirical data to take anything you say seriously. If you don't want to meet that burden, then we can agree to disagree.

See above. Either Budenholzer is a blithering idiot who deliberately under-guarded Kawhi in favour of, uh, shutting down Pascal Siakam, or the defence simply failed to stop him.

Or...

, Huh? You're arguing a pro-kawhi stance, why the hell would you be expected to "dismiss outright" that kawhi had a strong offensive impact. No, you need to show it was more impressive than giannis's overall impact.

No, you need me to do that. As I have said time and time again, I am not concerned with whether there is a magic impact number I can give you. And I have said it often enough that I do not see how you benefit from carrying on as if I might give one.

Yep, and Giannis elevated his team

To a slim series loss to kawhi's team. His team was on the level of kawhi's throughout the series despite kawhi having the much better supporting cast. Hence I'm inclined to think that kawhi significantly outplaying him is kind of silly. The end of a series being more significant than the start of the series is a baseless assertion, one you'll need to substantiate for me to care.

To you, no. But I have consistently said and shown relative indifference to regular season production,.

Yes, and that indifference is yet another example of how you ignore context which is why i don't take your takes seriously in the absence of empirical evidence. Additionally, given that I think kawhi's cast was significantly better, i think the marginal +/- gap points to giannis being better throughout the series, and I think the gap widens when we take the playoffs as a whole. Given that giannis is good enough to mantain that kawhi+ level of ps play without needing a strong roster to make the po's, the gap between giannis and kawhi isn't even close as far as I'm concerned.

[freethedevil]

I’m not sure about Barkley vs Giannis, but for me Ewing still was a better defender than Giannis, and if his scoring game gets shut down i don’t think it’s as detrimental as if it happens to Giannis. On offense Giannis is better sure, but being a dpoy caliber guy in a league where Gobert, and Draymond are the top suspects compared to a league with Drob, Hakeem, Rodman, etc. isn’t really the same.

Oh so we're doing the time machine argument now?

Morden defense isharder than 90's defense so I'm not sure you want to open that rabbit hole.

I’m talking individuals,

Yes and an individual defender would have to be better today to retain the impact they would have had in the 90's. If a player has atg defensive impact in a league where it's harder to have that impact(which is why you're calling ewing an atg defender), then that's even more impressive.

[liamliam1234]

Seeing as neither of us value the other’s means of analysis all that much, if at all, why do we keep doing this.

[No-more-rings]

Oh so we're doing the time machine argument now?

Morden defense isharder than 90's defense so I'm not sure you want to open that rabbit hole.

I’m talking individuals,

Yes and an individual defender would have to be better today to retain the impact they would have had in the 90's. If a player has atg defensive impact in a league where it's harder to have that impact(which is why you're calling ewing an atg defender), then that's even more impressive.

How is it harder to have defensive impact today? For a center I don’t see much basis for that, and for supreme talents like the guys we’re talking they would adapt in any era, so this seems like a non-point to me.

[liamliam1234]

I would still like to hear the case for 1990 Ewing/Barkley over Giannis. I think DatAsh said Barkley had “two to three times” the offensive impact, and I cannot really see support for that by their actual production. But everyone else has kind-of glossed over it.

I’m not sure about Barkley vs Giannis, but for me Ewing still was a better defender than Giannis, and if his scoring game gets shut down i don’t think it’s as detrimental as if it happens to Giannis. On offense Giannis is better sure, but being a dpoy caliber guy in a league where Gobert, and Draymond are the top suspects compared to a league with Drob, Hakeem, Rodman, etc. isn’t really the same.

What supports Ewing being a DPoY-calibre player in 1990? That is my point. People are selecting 1990 because of Ewing’s offence, even though his defence was clearly a ways off his 1993-94 peak and was probably the worst defensive year of his career... so what makes his offence + defence better than Giannis’s that year?