I don't know that he'll be better than Holmgren. They're similar players.
I liked the idea of the league being dominated by guards and permiter players for a while and I'd like to keep it that way
There was a time (not long ago) when Giannis was also considered a player who couldn't get it done in big spots, and his team couldn't win.
So that's how fast it can change.
That said, Giannis win or lose always had efficient numbers, like a lot of guys on the list, and that counts for quite a...
He hasn't won the title.
And in some of those years, he's lost when he's had the better team.
Eye test wise, he also hasn't been good when it counts.
Being the best player on a goo team will take you pretty far.
I would go...
1) Jokic
2) Giannis
3) Doncic
4) Embiid
5) Durant (assumes healthy)
6) LeBron
7) Curry
And then there's a dropoff. If Durant is in true form, he's higher.
I wasn't doing that.
Doncic is more efficient in every way, at least numbers wise. But just in a basketball sense, he makes players around him better. Tatum, less so.
A good comparison for Tatum is Kobe.
The difference is ... all Kobe did was win and hit big shots.
If Tatum wins a couple...
Certainly not those numbers.
But with the way he plays, he's capable of sustaining LeBron prime type numbers.
Mavs better get him help or they'll be saying goodbye...
I understand why he's ranked high by everyone, but I just think Tatum is overrated.
I mean, if he had a couple of titles, it would be a different story, but he's really primarily only a scorer and he doesn't win.
He's an odd player to rank, but he's definitely not better than Doncic
Bridges...
I think Milwaukee should have stuck with what they had.
More is not always better in today's NBA.
I think the Celtics OTOH should have broken up Brown and Tatum. Holiday helps a little, but if your best players are volume shooters, does it matter?
Also, Miluawkee is a small market team...
I always thought Stockton made that team go.
I think Barkley once said that Malone was the best player on the team, but Stockton was the most valuable player, which ... doesn't make sense really, but ... it does.
Not that it's relevant but I think the odds of the Axis actually winning were like 50-1
Hitler and country by country. That would have been interesting
I don't think that Germany team has played together a bunch either.
The Wagner brothers have, but so have the USA guys from Villanova.
So, I don't think you can use that excuse.