|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 3, 2017 3:30:25 GMT
Current Rating: 83
Suggested Rating: 88
The only thing keeping him off of a 90 for me is just that his success hasn't really translated to real team success. Its a bit different cause most of his team is babies and they ARE still in the playoffs.
Idk if I need to make an arguement but here we go:
23.8 pts, 53%fg, 3pt is only weakness, 78%ft, 8.9 rpg, 5.9 ast, Most impressive: 2.0 stls, 2.0 blocks
The guy is a do it all who is the catalyst on his team on both offense and defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 3, 2017 7:54:54 GMT
He's a top 5 two way player in the game. Could make an argument for top 3 (LeBron-Kawhi-Giannis).
Second in the league in PER.
Under the Total Points Accounted (TPA) for model, Giannis is the leader in the East, and third overall, behind Russ and Harden.
TPA is OPA (Offensive Points Added) plus DPS (Defensive Points Saved). OPA is derived from adjusting offensive box plus minus (OBPM) to account for the number of possessions the player in question is present for. DPS is derived the same way, but from defensive box plus minus (DBPM).
Player A makes an average team 5 points better per 100 possessions than an average player would in his spot, and he plays 500 possessions.
Player B makes an average team 10 points better per 100 possessions than an average player would in his spot, and he plays 250 possessions.
Under TPA, both of these players are the same value, as both add the same points per possession, but one is on the court more than the other.
It's kind of a straight forward way to compare players across the minutes per game they play.
It should be noted that Giannis leads the Bucks in every major statistical category, and while they are only 17-16, they are a young team. You could argue your way in to saying that Giannis stats are a by-product of his teammates being worse this season. However, Jabari is averaging career highs in every category. As a team, thus far in to the 2016-2017 season (32 games for the Bucks), they have seen an increase of 6.1% in points per game as well as a 7.6% increase in assists per game. More importantly, their turnovers are down 9.6% from this season to last, on a per game basis. These stats are important because Giannis became the primary facilitator this season. We all know you can make a great pass and not be credited with an assist. And in that same respect, not all turnovers are the fault of the ball-handler. Case in point, everyone, in general, was kind of wondering how well Giannis at the point would work, and it is working out very very well.
Some may say that its only been 32 games, but since the All-Star break last year, plus this season (excluding January, which will hurt his numbers), Giannis is averaging:
21.03 PPG, on 52.01/29.6/73.4 FG/3PT/FT, 8.66 RPG (1.64 ORB), 6.17 APG, 1.69 STL, 1.88 BLK, 2.8 TOV.
Those bring his numbers down, a smidge. So for everyone saying he hasn't done it long enough, its 65 games of data, more than enough, which was the knock on a bigger increase last year.
Stats give a pretty solid argument, but one of the best things about sports is that something aren't described appropriately in numbers. The insane things he does each night with his athleticism and unique skill set give ESPN not just one highlight, but usually 3 or 4.
In my honest opinion, he's a top 10 player in the NBA right now, which is putting aside my personal love and the "did he just do that?!!?!" moments. Right now, I have:
LeBron, Russ, Harden, Durant, Curry, AD, Kawhi, Cousins, Giannis, Paul.
IMHO, he's better than these guys Blake (89), Jimmy (88), LMA (89), Wall (88), PG 13 (92), Dray (88), Klay (85). I purposefully left off guys who aren't in need of a rating change, or who don't play the wings, or it should be pretty obvious (Millsap, Gasol, Gasol..)
In terms of the best 2 way wings in the league, I think he is third behind LeBron and Kawhi. He is having a better year than Jimmy, PG 13, Klay. I don't think Durant is as good as Giannis on defense. Durant puts up solid BLK/G and STL/G numbers, but he gets kind of lost in the team rotations, as evidenced by the Durant Christmas Day Pirouette.
Wings need more points than a point guard because they have more skillsets. Giannis has a full skill set of a wing, a point guard, and a freakishly athletic power forward, minus the three point shot.
Truth of the matter is, the last increase Giannis had didn't do much in terms of demonstrating his skill set. He is elite athletically and defensively and inside. With above average point guard ratings. And when we bumped him, we just sort of sprinkled it all throughout. So he still needs points on his athletic stats as well.
Looking at PG-13's stats and his rating makes me want to say Giannis is at least a 92. Instead, PG's 2015-2016 numbers vs Giannis' last 65 (a positive difference is in favor of Giannis, negative in favor of George):
-1.07 PPG, +10.3% FG, -7.5% 3PT, -12.6 FT, +1.66 RPG, +2.07 APG, -0.11 STL, +1.48 BLK, +0.5 TOV (PG average more TOV than Giannis).
Call FG and 3Pt a wash. Does the more RPG, APG, BLK, and less turnovers equal a the more 1.07 PPG and 0.11 more steals per game, as well as the 12.6 FT (The way we calculate FT is on a straight scale, so if PG is an 86 in FT, Giannis would be a 73.4, which is a little less than one OVR point).
Its also very hard to find a solid comp for Giannis, I chose 2015-2016 because PG played a facilitating PF some of the time. I also understand PG is a better man defender/team defense. In reality, Giannis has no comp. Maybe its LeBron, but then that's kind of unfair. Maybe its Durant because of the similar heights, but then Giannis is more athletic. Who knows. I'm done typing, hopefully I have swayed some opinion.
I'm going to go with a 92. What he lacks against George in some stats is made up in others which carries over to the one on one defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 3, 2017 8:02:34 GMT
I also know that one big argument will be that Giannis' numbers have spiked because Middleton is out. To which I have two counters:
1. The 65 games from above include from February to December. 33 From last season, and 32 from this season. Which means Middleton played in the majority of those games. Yet Giannis' still averaged those numbers.
2. So what? Whether Giannis is putting up the numbers because Middleton is in the line-up, because he is an alien, or because he's on PED's, doesn't matter really for our purposes. The numbers are what they are, we aren't here to discount them because of bad teammates, lack of effort, injuries to others. We need to rate accordingly.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 3, 2017 11:58:30 GMT
89
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 3, 2017 13:41:36 GMT
88 is good I watch most Bucks games because I like to see Jabari, but Giannis is the team's leader so far and has turned into a Top 10 player in the league. edit: or at least Top 20 in retrospect  |
|
Glenn Robinson
 Milwaukee Bucks
Starter
Posts: 1,226
Nov 22, 2024 4:29:32 GMT
|
Post by Glenn Robinson on Jan 3, 2017 14:00:21 GMT
92
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 3, 2017 14:50:46 GMT
86.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure he'll get there, but I want to see an entire season out of Giannis doing what he's doing. Then I can go high 80s, and until the Bucks starting becoming a threat, he's not getting into the 90s for me. We kept Kevin Love locked in at 89 because the Timberwolves sucked even though he had the stats of a 90+ player. Same thing for Giannis.
|
|
Glenn Robinson
Milwaukee Bucks
Starter
Posts: 1,226
Nov 22, 2024 4:29:32 GMT
|
Post by Glenn Robinson on Jan 3, 2017 15:12:35 GMT
Giannis has essentially been doing this since the all-star break of last year.
I don't think we should be devaluing a player based on a past player that didn't get the rating he deserved. Anthony Davis has gotten a fair rating and he's been on some terrible teams.
Like Charles said, he's probably a top 3, two-way player. If I was starting a franchise, I'd have a hard time finding someone I'd take over Giannis.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 16:38:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 15:41:53 GMT
Giannis is a top 5 player in the NBA.
Period.
94
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 3, 2017 15:50:19 GMT
86. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure he'll get there, but I want to see an entire season out of Giannis doing what he's doing. Then I can go high 80s, and until the Bucks starting becoming a threat, he's not getting into the 90s for me. We kept Kevin Love locked in at 89 because the Timberwolves sucked even though he had the stats of a 90+ player. Same thing for Giannis. Love wasn’t ½ the defensive player Giannis was and didn’t have his athleticism or playmaking ability though 90 for me |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 3, 2017 16:03:02 GMT
90 and above is hallowed ground. Giannis is not there yet.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 16:38:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 16:10:37 GMT
90 and above is hallowed ground. Giannis is not there yet. If you are rating players based on who is the best, right now, and not taking a "prove it for a long time" approach to rating players, I think Giannis has to be above a 90, and a very strong argument can be made for him being a Top 5 player in the NBA. My 94 vote WAS conservative. Do you know how many points we are gonna need for this guy? |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jan 3, 2017 17:44:46 GMT
86 still wayyy too early for me. I'd be willing to revisit at the end of the season but not yet
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 3, 2017 17:52:22 GMT
86. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure he'll get there, but I want to see an entire season out of Giannis doing what he's doing. Then I can go high 80s, and until the Bucks starting becoming a threat, he's not getting into the 90s for me. We kept Kevin Love locked in at 89 because the Timberwolves sucked even though he had the stats of a 90+ player. Same thing for Giannis. So a players rating should be tied in with the success of their RL team? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jan 3, 2017 18:34:33 GMT
Agree with Alex. If he was actually that good of a player, then his team wouldn't be struggling to stay above .500 in a weak East.
I think he has improved from last year, but not as drastically as most people here seem to think.
85
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 3, 2017 19:54:04 GMT
86 still wayyy too early for me. I'd be willing to revisit at the end of the season but not yet With Feb to now, 65 games, its too early for you. This coming from the guy who put up a thread to decrease Tyreke after 7 games when he came back from an injury. Logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jan 3, 2017 20:02:45 GMT
86 still wayyy too early for me. I'd be willing to revisit at the end of the season but not yet With Feb to now, 65 games, its too early for you. This coming from the guy who put up a thread to decrease Tyreke after 7 games when he came back from an injury. Logic. Yes 65 games is not enough for me to increase somebody into the 90's, you are correct. The Tyreke thread had nothing to do with his performance this year but how he had been playing the 2 years before. No need to be snarky just because we disagree Charles. |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 3, 2017 20:52:46 GMT
With Feb to now, 65 games, its too early for you. This coming from the guy who put up a thread to decrease Tyreke after 7 games when he came back from an injury. Logic. Yes 65 games is not enough for me to increase somebody into the 90's, you are correct. The Tyreke thread had nothing to do with his performance this year but how he had been playing the 2 years before. No need to be snarky just because we disagree Charles. Evans had a career year two years ago, I am pretty sure. We actually increased his rating that year. He averaged 15.5, 5.5 and 6 and you think that is a 79? His team was also complete shit. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 16:38:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 21:08:42 GMT
Yes 65 games is not enough for me to increase somebody into the 90's, you are correct. The Tyreke thread had nothing to do with his performance this year but how he had been playing the 2 years before. No need to be snarky just because we disagree Charles. Evans had a career year two years ago, I am pretty sure. We actually increased his rating that year. He averaged 15.5, 5.5 and 6 and you think that is a 79? His team was also complete shit. Tyreke literally carried that team to the playoffs that year. Jrue was hurt, so he played point guard. I've said it a billion times but his best years are when he is a point guard. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 3, 2017 21:09:28 GMT
So a players rating should be tied in with the success of their RL team? It should absolutely influence it. Scoring 20ppg for the Sixers is not the same as scoring 20ppg for the Spurs. Decent players on bad teams put up inflated stats all the time. Someone has to score points on bad teams. Good players put up stats while also helping their team win games. We should try and account for that with our ratings. Do you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 3, 2017 21:13:27 GMT
So a players rating should be tied in with the success of their RL team? It should absolutely influence it. Scoring 20ppg for the Sixers is not the same as scoring 20ppg for the Spurs. Decent players on bad teams put up inflated stats all the time. Someone has to score points on bad teams. Good players put up stats while also helping their team win games. We should try and account for that with our ratings. Do you disagree? lol he's obviously hinting at BL |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 3, 2017 22:08:58 GMT
89
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 4, 2017 5:28:35 GMT
So a players rating should be tied in with the success of their RL team? It should absolutely influence it. Scoring 20ppg for the Sixers is not the same as scoring 20ppg for the Spurs. Decent players on bad teams put up inflated stats all the time. Someone has to score points on bad teams. Good players put up stats while also helping their team win games. We should try and account for that with our ratings. Do you disagree? I agree to a very small extent. I think the Sixers are a special case at the moment, and even more of that case the past few seasons. Yes, on a bad team, bad players have to put up good numbers. But the Bucks aren't bad. They're 17-16, good enough for the 6th seed in the East currently. And two games better than the Wizards/Knicks (9 seeds) and 9 games better than the Nets (Last in the East). If you're weighing team success in to a player's rating, you should look at their record and see that they aren't trash. Furthermore, what makes a player a bad player vs a good player? Their talent? And how does their talent demonstrate itself? Via stats, usually. If you want to be really subjective about a player's rating, go ahead and be really subjective about it. Don't base your opinion around a statistical argument that makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 4, 2017 5:32:57 GMT
It should absolutely influence it. Scoring 20ppg for the Sixers is not the same as scoring 20ppg for the Spurs. Decent players on bad teams put up inflated stats all the time. Someone has to score points on bad teams. Good players put up stats while also helping their team win games. We should try and account for that with our ratings. Do you disagree? lol he's obviously hinting at BL Yep, him and JW. The team success argument is stupid. It'd be like saying Mike Trout isn't good because his team isn't good. We literally have a stat in basketball that measures points accounted for, which takes the team success out of the equation. And Giannis is third. With Giannis, the stats, both advanced and traditional, paint a pretty solid picture of him as a player. And if you're not a stats person, the highlights post a better picture. But discounting all 3 with the team's success is moronic. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 4, 2017 5:39:41 GMT
With Feb to now, 65 games, its too early for you. This coming from the guy who put up a thread to decrease Tyreke after 7 games when he came back from an injury. Logic. Yes 65 games is not enough for me to increase somebody into the 90's, you are correct. The Tyreke thread had nothing to do with his performance this year but how he had been playing the 2 years before. No need to be snarky just because we disagree Charles. Im not being snarky because we disagree. I am being snarky because there is no basis in your disagreement. How many games does Giannis need to perform at this level to increase him to the 87, or the 88, or the 89? |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 4, 2017 5:41:31 GMT
Yes 65 games is not enough for me to increase somebody into the 90's, you are correct. The Tyreke thread had nothing to do with his performance this year but how he had been playing the 2 years before. No need to be snarky just because we disagree Charles. Evans had a career year two years ago, I am pretty sure. We actually increased his rating that year. He averaged 15.5, 5.5 and 6 and you think that is a 79? His team was also complete shit. Thinks 15.5, 5.5, and 6 is a 79 for Tyreke, thinks 21, 8, 6, 2, 2 is an 86 for Giannis. But somehow thinks 5.6, 3.2, 3.3 is an 80 for Iggy |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 4, 2017 6:42:11 GMT
I agree to a very small extent. I think the Sixers are a special case at the moment, and even more of that case the past few seasons. Yes, on a bad team, bad players have to put up good numbers. But the Bucks aren't bad. They're 17-16, good enough for the 6th seed in the East currently. And two games better than the Wizards/Knicks (9 seeds) and 9 games better than the Nets (Last in the East). If you're weighing team success in to a player's rating, you should look at their record and see that they aren't trash. Furthermore, what makes a player a bad player vs a good player? Their talent? And how does their talent demonstrate itself? Via stats, usually. If you want to be really subjective about a player's rating, go ahead and be really subjective about it. Don't base your opinion around a statistical argument that makes no sense. You're reading so far into my comment and seeing things that aren't there. Or mixing up examples of Sixers vs Spurs and Love with my thoughts on Giannis specifically. Where did I say the Bucks are trash? I said they're not a threat. A 90+ rating designates someone as a franchise player, and franchise players can almost singlehandedly make teams competitive. Giannis has not shown an ability to do that yet. My other point was that we're only 30 games into this season and I want to see him do it all the way until the end. An 86 is hardly a bad rating too... Players demonstrate their talent through stats and wins. The first doesn't do much good if the second is happening. Mike James averaged 20ppg for a shit Raptors team once. He still should have been rated high 70s at best because those were empty stats. We've never had a direct stats to ratings system for stockwatch. If you do want that system then why don't you think Westbrook and Harden deserve 99 ratings? Their stats are fucking nuts, and a pure stat valuation would surely give them a max rating. I get that you enjoy being condescending and dismissive to those you think are wrong, but there's no need for it. Even when you disagree, if you put a little effort into it, you should easily be capable of seeing the merit of a different point of view. Someone isn't moronic just because they have a different opinion from you... |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 4, 2017 7:58:01 GMT
I agree to a very small extent. I think the Sixers are a special case at the moment, and even more of that case the past few seasons. Yes, on a bad team, bad players have to put up good numbers. But the Bucks aren't bad. They're 17-16, good enough for the 6th seed in the East currently. And two games better than the Wizards/Knicks (9 seeds) and 9 games better than the Nets (Last in the East). If you're weighing team success in to a player's rating, you should look at their record and see that they aren't trash. Furthermore, what makes a player a bad player vs a good player? Their talent? And how does their talent demonstrate itself? Via stats, usually. If you want to be really subjective about a player's rating, go ahead and be really subjective about it. Don't base your opinion around a statistical argument that makes no sense. You're reading so far into my comment and seeing things that aren't there. Or mixing up examples of Sixers vs Spurs and Love with my thoughts on Giannis specifically. Where did I say the Bucks are trash? I said they're not a threat. A 90+ rating designates someone as a franchise player, and franchise players can almost singlehandedly make teams competitive. Giannis has not shown an ability to do that yet. My other point was that we're only 30 games into this season and I want to see him do it all the way until the end. An 86 is hardly a bad rating too... Players demonstrate their talent through stats and wins. The first doesn't do much good if the second is happening. Mike James averaged 20ppg for a shit Raptors team once. He still should have been rated high 70s at best because those were empty stats. We've never had a direct stats to ratings system for stockwatch. If you do want that system then why don't you think Westbrook and Harden deserve 99 ratings? Their stats are fucking nuts, and a pure stat valuation would surely give them a max rating. I get that you enjoy being condescending and dismissive to those you think are wrong, but there's no need for it. Even when you disagree, if you put a little effort into it, you should easily be capable of seeing the merit of a different point of view. Someone isn't moronic just because they have a different opinion from you... What I asked you in response to your comment about being 90+ and being a threat wasn't related to the 90+/threat thing, nor Love, as I didn't even think twice about him. I simply asked if you felt a team's success (wins and losses) should play in to the players rating. You agreed. I then spoke on how Giannis and the Bucks are performing, and that if wins and losses play in to your rating of player, it should not be hurting Giannis. I specifically went away from the "threat" theory because it has merits that are widely subjective and I'm not trying to call you a moron for a stance based on an opinion. Looking back on it, I should have responded to Barber and not you, but I knew we'd be here, I didn't know that with Barber. I'm not calling you, or anyone a moron for taking a relatively consistent stance on an opinion. Be honest about it, say: "this dude sucks, imo, 82" or whatever. Don't hide behind dumb shit, not saying you Alex but in general. My point was that if you want to tie in the Bucks record to Giannis' rating, it would only help him. And if that is the stance one wants to take, they need to take it with guys like Wall, Lopez, George, Butler, Wade, Cousins, Dame, AD, all players on teams at .500 or worse, and most of those guys have better teammates than Giannis does. I can only hope to try and sway your threat theory by asking what you think a threat is considered. Because I wouldn't consider AD a threat, nor Cousins, nor George. If you really think about it, outside of Toronto, is anyone else in the East a threat to the Cavs? At least the Bucks played them close when the Cavs were in Milwaukee, it was one of the few times this season I saw LeBron "try". I also think a player becoming a threat is a by-product of the team as much as the talent around the player. If he has to be a threat to the Cavs to get to a 90, he isn't hitting it any time soon. If being a 90+ is related to being an absolutely dominant basketball player on a given night, I think he is there now. No one is carrying their team as Giannis is, and they are winning. Not AD, not Cousins, not George, not Wall, not Butler (all guys who aren't beating the Cavs/Spurs/Warriors) and who have worse records. Then the argument becomes, the Bucks played worse teams. The argument against a player getting a certain rating is endless, which is why it is much easier to oppose a stance. It's been 65 games, they're the 6 seed. He's a fuckin beast. I told the PA's Giannis would be mad, and he is. And this will just make him even more furious. He isn't the smoothie loving kid anymore, Giannis wants blood. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 4, 2017 11:51:49 GMT
I based my 88 on two things, I wanna see him in the playoffs this season. I think he's gonna get better. He'll be getting a thread to 90 at the end of the season if he keeps his 2-2 stls and blocks up and that scoring doesn't drop off like crazy.
If we're 50 games into next season and he's essentially become slightly worse 3pt KD with better defense he's a 94. If he fixes his shooting he could be a 97-98.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 4, 2017 13:44:54 GMT
Goes to show that even in the 2013 Draft, which everyone thought was rubbish, you still get a Giannis Antetokounmpo and Rudy Gobert out of it.
|
|
Boston Celtics
Denver Nuggets
Charlotte Hornets
New Orleans Pelicans
Brooklyn Nets
Minnesota Timberwolves
