Even Giannis Admits He’s Not Batman When the Game Is On The Line

Fans and media both are fascinating in how they talk about certain players. Some think any criticism of a good, even great, player is somehow a “hot take” intended to diminish them, instead of pointing out potential limiting elements/ flaws in a player’s game.

We see this all the time online, and even here at Barstool. People sometimes refuse to see the writing on the wall.

It was never a hot take, for example, that Shaq’s inability to make free throws (he shot 53% for his career) made him a liability at times at the end of games. In fact, the “hack a shaq” technique was such an advantage at the end of games, the NBA had to create a new rule to prevent opposing teams from fouling a player without the ball to send him to the free throw line. 

Speaking of free-throw liabilities, let’s take Giannis. We’ve discussed the possibility on multiple occasions due to Giannis’ mental block regarding his free throws and inability to shoot in general, whether Giannis really could be considered a #1 option. My thought has always been that he’s not. He is a superstar that has to have a Robin that becomes Batman at the end of games. 

I was accused of being a “hot take merchant” that doesn’t even believe what I’m trying to peddle out there, which isn’t true at all. This is a fact. 

How do I know it’s true? After Kris Middleton went absolutely nuts in the 4th quarter of game 4, Giannis said: 

“I have the whole game to be “the guy.” I don’t care about being the guy in the fourth quarter … If Khris asks for the ball, better give him the ball.”  

So not only have I said this, others are saying this, too. You know it’s reached critical mass when Kendrick Perkins is saying the exact same thing.

The thing is? This isn’t a hot take. This is a reality. And it highlights a bigger issue: is a player who by his own admission not THE man in the 4th quarter worth a Supermax contract when you’re going to need another Supermax player to take over when the game is on the line? I think it’s a reasonable question to ask. It depends on how you make the decision. I think Giannis 100% worth the max amount of money that Milwaukee can pay him given the size of the market, and how much monetary value Giannis brings to the franchise. But if it was strictly about basketball? I’m not sure. I think that sort of changes how we should view Giannis. Really great. One of the best athletes of a generation. Completely unguardable when he gets downhill but offensively limited (small bag) who is unusable down the stretch of close games. 

You can disagree with this opinion. After all, Giannis does so many great things over the course of most of the game, it’s easy to not worry about the things he doesn’t do well. But you can’t say it isn’t a reasonable argument to say that if you pay someone the absolute maximum they can get, that part of the responsibility that comes from being one of the very highest paid people in your sport is to be counted on to close out games when it matters. 

And Giannis, for all his greatness, cannot.