Peak Only: Jordan/Giannis or Bird/Wilt

[Matt15]

Peak only which duo would you rather have?

[SNPA]

What era?

[dygaction]

Usually modern players are penalized for lack of longevity or recency bias but Giannis' upside and two-way impact are so high that I would take him over Bird for now

[70sFan]

Jordan and Giannis fit on offense is odd, but they are better defensively. I don't know, it's a close one.

[AussieBuck]

Jordan and Giannis fit on offense is odd, but they are better defensively. I don't know, it's a close one.

Feels like one where you have to think about how they came together. Giannis has a lot of his mentor Kobe in him, but if Jordan establishes himself earlier or is a little older in this scenario then you probably get a 25 PPG wildly efficient Giannis who spends more energy on D. I dunno overall. I'm kinda cooling on Bird and I haven't done the kind of research where I'm happy with my settled view on Wilt.

[70sFan]

Jordan and Giannis fit on offense is odd, but they are better defensively. I don't know, it's a close one.

Feels like one where you have to think about how they came together. Giannis has a lot of his mentor Kobe in him, but if Jordan establishes himself earlier or is a little older in this scenario then you probably get a 25 PPG wildly efficient Giannis who spends more energy on D. I dunno overall. I'm kinda cooling on Bird and I haven't done the kind of research where I'm happy with my settled view on Wilt.

There are two things that makes me hesitate to pick the first duo:

1. Giannis is a great finisher and transition player, but I am not sure how he'd operate in halfcourt setting. I guess him being an upgraded version of Pippen can work, but as you said - it would depend on when he gets paired with Jordan. If we just put them together via trade or something, I have concerns about 2021 or 2022 Giannis scaling down to Jordan in a successful way.

2. Bird on the other hand has a long history of thriving next to good post players and finishers, which makes their fit way more natural.

Defensive advantage isn't titanic either, as Wilt was top tier defender himself. That's a very tough comparison.

[OhayoKD]

probably team 2 if you're strictly era-relative, otherwise it's pretty easily team 1. Bird's a weak-link

[rand]

probably team 2 if you're strictly era-relative, otherwise it's pretty easily team 1. Bird's a weak-link

Interesting. Where do you rank peak Bird and peak Giannis?

[OhayoKD]

probably team 2 if you're strictly era-relative, otherwise it's pretty easily team 1. Bird's a weak-link

Interesting. Where do you rank peak Bird and peak Giannis?

era-relative, both seem like top 10 candidates(1-year, descriptive, it would probably be 2019 and 86) with me having more confidence in bird .

Absolute? Giannis has a strong argument as "best player not named lebron" if you go by "value/corp over replacement". If you go by "absolute value", could easily see the argument for "best player ever". Enig explains the latter concept here:

Then there is also the perpetual question of how bigs should be valued: is their worth what happens when replaced with someone worse, or is their worth their absolute addition to a team in isolation? Because there is an innate defensive value to being tall which applies to even backup bigs, so whether that makes superstar bigs comparatively less valuable seems like a semantic distinction. Because in the absolute, Russell and Kareem are a more constant presence and thus can theoretically impact nearly every possession… but the same would be true of any equivalent big in their place.

[rand]

probably team 2 if you're strictly era-relative, otherwise it's pretty easily team 1. Bird's a weak-link

Interesting. Where do you rank peak Bird and peak Giannis?

era-relative, both seem like top 10 candidates(1-year, descriptive, it would probably be 2019 and 86) with me having more confidence in bird .

Absolute? Giannis has a strong argument as "best player not named lebron" if you go by "value/corp over replacement". If you go by "absolute value", could easily see the argument for "best player ever". Enig explains the latter concept here:

Then there is also the perpetual question of how bigs should be valued: is their worth what happens when replaced with someone worse, or is their worth their absolute addition to a team in isolation? Because there is an innate defensive value to being tall which applies to even backup bigs, so whether that makes superstar bigs comparatively less valuable seems like a semantic distinction. Because in the absolute, Russell and Kareem are a more constant presence and thus can theoretically impact nearly every possession… but the same would be true of any equivalent big in their place.

How does this intersect with Wilt and Bird being much bigger than Giannis and Jordan?

[OhayoKD]

Interesting. Where do you rank peak Bird and peak Giannis?

era-relative, both seem like top 10 candidates(1-year, descriptive, it would probably be 2019 and 86) with me having more confidence in bird .

Absolute? Giannis has a strong argument as "best player not named lebron" if you go by "value/corp over replacement". If you go by "absolute value", could easily see the argument for "best player ever". Enig explains the latter concept here:

Then there is also the perpetual question of how bigs should be valued: is their worth what happens when replaced with someone worse, or is their worth their absolute addition to a team in isolation? Because there is an innate defensive value to being tall which applies to even backup bigs, so whether that makes superstar bigs comparatively less valuable seems like a semantic distinction. Because in the absolute, Russell and Kareem are a more constant presence and thus can theoretically impact nearly every possession… but the same would be true of any equivalent big in their place.

How does this intersect with Wilt and Bird being much bigger than Giannis and Jordan?

Bird's "bigger" but he lacks comparable explosiveness and honestly may well be a weaker rim protector, and is probably a weaker rim threat/interior presence. Don't think his size really helps here in this comparison. Wilt is bigger but Giannis has a pretty gigantic advantage as a passer, ball-handler, and off course is much better suited for help d. I think unibro's also brought up legitimate questions about how the fluidity of Wilt's movements, and again, Giannis is the gold-standard for players that size in that regard. The biggest limitations for both are arguably their ability(or lack thereof) to play-call/orchestrate, but playing in a more optimized league gives Giannis an advantage in terms of knowledge.

[70sFan]

era-relative, both seem like top 10 candidates(1-year, descriptive, it would probably be 2019 and 86) with me having more confidence in bird .

Absolute? Giannis has a strong argument as "best player not named lebron" if you go by "value/corp over replacement". If you go by "absolute value", could easily see the argument for "best player ever". Enig explains the latter concept here:

How does this intersect with Wilt and Bird being much bigger than Giannis and Jordan?

Bird's "bigger" but he lacks comparable explosiveness and honestly may well be a weaker rim protector, and is probably a weaker rim threat/interior presence. Don't think his size really helps here in this comparison. Wilt is bigger but Giannis has a pretty gigantic advantage as a passer, ball-handler, and off course is much better suited for help d. I think unibro's also brought up legitimate questions about how the fluidity of Wilt's movements, and again, Giannis is the gold-standard for players that size in that regard. The biggest limitations for both are arguably their ability(or lack thereof) to play-call/orchestrate, but playing in a more optimized league gives Giannis an advantage in terms of knowledge.

I'm not really sure Giannis has any advantage on help defense and passing is also arguable.

[OhayoKD]

How does this intersect with Wilt and Bird being much bigger than Giannis and Jordan?

Bird's "bigger" but he lacks comparable explosiveness and honestly may well be a weaker rim protector, and is probably a weaker rim threat/interior presence. Don't think his size really helps here in this comparison. Wilt is bigger but Giannis has a pretty gigantic advantage as a passer, ball-handler, and off course is much better suited for help d. I think unibro's also brought up legitimate questions about how the fluidity of Wilt's movements, and again, Giannis is the gold-standard for players that size in that regard. The biggest limitations for both are arguably their ability(or lack thereof) to play-call/orchestrate, but playing in a more optimized league gives Giannis an advantage in terms of knowledge.

I'm not really sure Giannis has any advantage on help defense and passing is also arguable.

Big agility advantage paired with extensive experience shutting down vastly more spaced out-offenses. Would be shocked if the help-gap isn't large. Whether planned or improvised, Giannis has extensive experience making a wider variety of reads for more dynamic offenses against more sophisticated defenses and from what I've seen from Wilt, Giannis also has an advantage in passing-velocity.

Giannis also has some off-ball stuff I haven't seen Wilt do(correct me here if need be) like situating himself as if he was a shooter and then running in inside(there's a bit of secondary creation that comes from this).

Also beenfits from multiple seasons spent as a ball-handling unipolar helio. Even if it's not optimal to use him that way, that skillset has a variety of applications even in a low-usage context. All in all, Giannis is just a vastly more polished offensive player with a guard-like physical qualities to augment that skill-set.

[No-more-rings]

Jordan and Giannis fit on offense is odd, but they are better defensively. I don't know, it's a close one.

Peak wise, I don’t think it’s clear that Jordan/Giannis are better on defense. Wilt is the best defender, and Bird was a pretty good defender at peak himself. It goes Wilt>Giannis>Jordan>Bird.

[No-more-rings]

probably team 2 if you're strictly era-relative, otherwise it's pretty easily team 1. Bird's a weak-link

What makes Bird a weak link when being compared to Giannis?

[RoyceDa59]

Give me Jordan and Giannis.

Giannis is Pippen on steroids, and we know how that first duo played out.

[70sFan]

Bird's "bigger" but he lacks comparable explosiveness and honestly may well be a weaker rim protector, and is probably a weaker rim threat/interior presence. Don't think his size really helps here in this comparison. Wilt is bigger but Giannis has a pretty gigantic advantage as a passer, ball-handler, and off course is much better suited for help d. I think unibro's also brought up legitimate questions about how the fluidity of Wilt's movements, and again, Giannis is the gold-standard for players that size in that regard. The biggest limitations for both are arguably their ability(or lack thereof) to play-call/orchestrate, but playing in a more optimized league gives Giannis an advantage in terms of knowledge.

I'm not really sure Giannis has any advantage on help defense and passing is also arguable.

Big agility advantage paired with extensive experience shutting down vastly more spaced out-offenses. Would be shocked if the help-gap isn't large. Whether planned or improvised, Giannis has extensive experience making a wider variety of reads for more dynamic offenses against more sophisticated defenses and from what I've seen from Wilt, Giannis also has an advantage in passing-velocity.

Giannis also has some off-ball stuff I haven't seen Wilt do(correct me here if need be) like situating himself as if he was a shooter and then running in inside(there's a bit of secondary creation that comes from this).

Also beenfits from multiple seasons spent as a ball-handling unipolar helio. Even if it's not optimal to use him that way, that skillset has a variety of applications even in a low-usage context. All in all, Giannis is just a vastly more polished offensive player with a guard-like physical qualities to augment that skill-set.

That sounds like a very strict era argument. Which is fine, but I am not interested in looking at Wilt with no experience in modern schemes and settings. It would be only fair to give Wilt time to learn and adjust.

About agility - that's fair, but Wilt was significantly bigger and longer, so he wouldn't really need identical agility to be as effective. Wilt was also much better rim protector and I don't see this as even close.

Attacking closeouts and cuts are also very era-related things. We can also talk about Wilt having drastic advantage as an offensive rebounder and lob finisher. I don't see Giannis having the edge off-ball to be honest.

About helio - fair, Giannis is much more skilled perimeter player than Wilt. He also doesn't touch Wilt as a post scorer and inside player overall (inside positioning, hand-off actions, offensive rebounding). Giannis perimeter skills are definitely an advantage, but we have to keep in mind how much it matters in such context. In the end, I wouldn't like Giannis playing like a big helio with significantly better offensive player next to him.

[OhayoKD]

Big agility advantage paired with extensive experience shutting down vastly more spaced out-offenses. Would be shocked if the help-gap isn't large. Whether planned or improvised, Giannis has extensive experience making a wider variety of reads for more dynamic offenses against more sophisticated defenses and from what I've seen from Wilt, Giannis also has an advantage in passing-velocity.

Giannis also has some off-ball stuff I haven't seen Wilt do(correct me here if need be) like situating himself as if he was a shooter and then running in inside(there's a bit of secondary creation that comes from this).

Also beenfits from multiple seasons spent as a ball-handling unipolar helio. Even if it's not optimal to use him that way, that skillset has a variety of applications even in a low-usage context. All in all, Giannis is just a vastly more polished offensive player with a guard-like physical qualities to augment that skill-set.

That sounds like a very strict era argument. Which is fine, but I am not interested in looking at Wilt with no experience in modern schemes and settings. It would be only fair to give Wilt time to learn and adjust.

Well, my position in the "fairness' discussion is that era-relativity is similarly "unfair" towards newer players. Thus, I'm not really interested in mitigating a modern player advantages in "absolute" comparisons. FWIW, I'm fine giving a player an off-season to adjust though I'm equally fine just letting them enter raw and having them adapt on the spot over longer time-frames.

About agility - that's fair, but Wilt was significantly bigger and longer, so he wouldn't really need identical agility to be as effective. Wilt was also much better rim protector and I don't see this as even close.

When I said "help" I was thinking about being able to switch and assist teammates/put out fires. Applying this to rim deterrence I was thinking about flying in from the weakside or recovering after a breakdown. Wilt is definitely the better rim-protector. Buuuut I will caveat with this that Giannis doesn't neccesarily need to match Wilt's rim-protection in the absolute. He simply needs to be capable of countering the premier rim-threats of the time period. If we take him to the 60's, he's probably struggling vs Wilt, but are there other players he'd do significantly worse against? On the other hand, I imagine Giannis would do much better than Chamberlain on a Jerry West, Hondo, or Oscar Robertson.

Attacking closeouts and cuts are also very era-related things. We can also talk about Wilt having drastic advantage as an offensive rebounder and lob finisher. I don't see Giannis having the edge off-ball to be honest.

And again, I'd apply the aforementioned caveat. Giannis loses out to Wilt h2h here. But who else is exploiting Giannis's relative lack of strength or power to beat him on the boards? Russell I guess. Who else? Attacking close-out and exploiting/worrying defenses with that off-ball threat predates the 3-point explosion. So I think those sorts of off-ball actions still have applicability.

About helio - fair, Giannis is much more skilled perimeter player than Wilt. He also doesn't touch Wilt as a post scorer and inside player overall (inside positioning, hand-off actions, offensive rebounding). Giannis perimeter skills are definitely an advantage, but we have to keep in mind how much it matters in such context. In the end, I wouldn't like Giannis playing like a big helio with significantly better offensive player next to him.

[/quote]
I don't like Giannis that much as an offensive helio now. But move him a decade back, I'm happy. Another couple of decades, I'm frothing. A rudimentary post-game is a question mark but I think his combo of passing/handles/rim-gravity is enough to make hin an all-time creator. Additionally, I think his passing(fast, relatively accurate and I think he should have enough time to react) offers a strong counter. Oversized playmaking helios did pretty well in the 90's/2000's(there was also oscar robertson in the 60's who ben seemed to be really low on in terms of passing skill) and Giannis off-sets whatever passing defiecit is there with being much harder to stop from getting to the basket. Giannis's three-point shooting also is a potential positive here(does not apply to wilt's era tbf)? Defenses were often just leaving shooters open and I think his open-three percentage is enough for the math to work. Marginal add, but at least it's not really a weakness.

Put him in Hakeem's place on the 94/95 Rockets, and I think the league is thoroughly ****. In the 60's I think he could be an oscar-russell hybrid pushing for best offensive player while being, at least arguably, the second best defensive guy(Given the relative lack of dominant interior scorers, I'd lean towards him over Wilt). As it is, he's my pick for "best player" in the most sophisticated/talented version of the league where all his big strengths are significantly more common.

Hard to bet against that when we translate across eras.

[70sFan]

Well, my position in the "fairness' discussion is that era-relativity is similarly "unfair" towards newer players. Thus, I'm not really interested in mitigating a modern player advantages in "absolute" comparisons.

Nobody wants you to be "fair" one way or another. My problem with that thinking is that we have seen a lot of players transcending their own eras and adapting to very different rules and styles. If you use this way of thinking, then you would never predict that 2005 LeBron would still be GOAT level player in late 2010s. 2005 LeBron wouldn't be nearly as effective as he was back when he played, but great players adapt to changing environment.

If we use sheer time machine argument, then even an outlier player like 2009 LeBron would struggle immensly. Does it mean that 2009 James isn't better than 2023 Giannis?

FWIW, I'm fine giving a player an off-season to adjust though I'm equally fine just letting them enter raw and having them adapt on the spot over longer time-frames.

That's fair, but then we're not really having a peak conversation anymore. Personally, I like thinking about giving players years to adjust - that's what young players do after all.

When I said "help" I was thinking about being able to switch and assist teammates/put out fires.

Then yes, Giannis has the edge here. It doesn't make him a better help defender overall though.

Applying this to rim deterrence I was thinking about flying in from the weakside or recovering after a breakdown.

I don't know if Giannis would look better in such situations to be honest. Quite the opposite in fact.

Wilt is definitely the better rim-protector. Buuuut I will caveat with this that Giannis doesn't neccesarily need to match Wilt's rim-protection in the absolute. He simply needs to be capable of countering the premier rim-threats of the time period.

Sure, but the inverse argumentation applies here as well - Witl wouldn't need to match Giannis quickness on perimeter to be as effective. He just needs to be good enough not to be exploited, while providing significantly better inside pressence.

If we take him to the 60's, he's probably struggling vs Wilt, but are there other players he'd do significantly worse against?

Probably most centers and slashers.

On the other hand, I imagine Giannis would do much better than Chamberlain on a Jerry West, Hondo, or Oscar Robertson.

That's not how defense was played back then though.

And again, I'd apply the aforementioned caveat. Giannis loses out to Wilt h2h here. But who else is exploiting Giannis's relative lack of strength or power to beat him on the boards? Russell I guess. Who else?

Thurmond, Bellamy, later Lanier and even Kareem would be tough. The league was full of quality bigs back then.

Attacking close-out and exploiting/worrying defenses with that off-ball threat predates the 3-point explosion. So I think those sorts of off-ball actions still have applicability.

Sure they do, it is an advantage for Giannis.

I don't like Giannis that much as an offensive helio now. But move him a decade back, I'm happy. Another couple of decades, I'm frothing. A rudimentary post-game is a question mark but I think his combo of passing/handles/rim-gravity is enough to make hin an all-time creator. Additionally, I think his passing(fast, relatively accurate and I think he should have enough time to react) offers a strong counter. Oversized playmaking helios did pretty well in the 90's/2000's(there was also oscar robertson in the 60's who ben seemed to be really low on in terms of passing skill) and Giannis off-sets whatever passing defiecit is there with being much harder to stop from getting to the basket. Giannis's three-point shooting also is a potential positive here(does not apply to wilt's era tbf)? Defenses were often just leaving shooters open and I think his open-three percentage is enough for the math to work. Marginal add, but at least it's not really a weakness.

Then we disagree strongly on our view on Giannis offense. To me Giannis with less spacing and stricter ball-handling rules wouldn't be anywhere near the creator he is right now. Also, with lack of 5 out offense I wonder how effective he'd be at creating shots for himself.

There is a reason why nobody played that way back then and it wasn't simply lack of talent.

Also, I don't know where do you find the idea that Ben is very low on Oscar passing skills (he views him as the best passer before Magic basically), but I'm pretty sure Ben would tell you that Oscar was clearly a better passer than Giannis.

Put him in Hakeem's place on the 94/95 Rockets, and I think the league is thoroughly ****.

Put him in Hakeem's place on the 1994/95 Rockets and he'd be forced to play as a low post player and no perimeter creator, I don't see him doing any better than Hakeem. Olajuwon made it work, because he's one of the greatest tough shots maker in the league history - Giannis isn't anywhere near that. Rockets created spacing in different way that Bucks - they didn't have a stretch center to pull rim protectors away from the basket, they played with a closer 3P line giving Giannis less space to operate as well.

In the 60's I think he could be an oscar-russell hybrid pushing for best offensive player

Giannis with 1960s rules would be Oscar-level offensive player? Are you aware that back then Giannis couldn't run through defenders right?

On a more serious note - Giannis would be a terror in transition of course, but overall he doesn't have a quarter of halfcourt skills Oscar had. No, we are in huge disagreement here.

while being, at least arguably, the second best defensive guy(Given the relative lack of dominant interior scorers, I'd lean towards him over Wilt).

There were dominant interior scorers back then and rim protection was way more important than switchability.

[Cavsfansince84]

This comparison makes more sense to me if we are putting Bird/Wilt in the 70's or 80's and MJ/Giannis in the 10's or 20's. I don't think Giannis' game and style would work on offense nearly as much back in the day. Just as Wilt's defensive value is going to be higher back then. I think Bird translates to any era equally as well while MJ is going to flourish a bit more in the 80's and beyond imo. Within the specific eras I think Bird/Wilt combo would be slightly better. Though I have concerns about Wilt playing next to a guy who should have more primacy on offense.