And I think you can do that if you provide the proper context. I mean, in another life I've compared American and British television to each other even though they have vastly different production scopes. Heck, with cable networks being the premiere place for television these days, I think it's fair to compare an HBO/AMC show to a CBS/NBC/ABC show.
Ultimately, whether it's 200+ episodes or 10 episodes, there's still some (subjective, admittedly) qualitative measure of a show's success. I don't know anything about One Piece, but I think if the people who are making that show are good at their jobs, it's not unreasonable to expect that every single one of those 500+ episodes are at least watchable, if not excellent.
Maybe at some point you pull semantic arguments and then piecemeal a show into discrete units (ie, The Simpsons was only good from Seasons 2 to 9 or the director/showrunner of a show changed mid-run so you have two "different" shows, like The West Wing), and I certainly understand that point of view.
I'm not even talking about critiquing individual components of the shows that make them distinct from each other though. I just disagree with the fact that because you think AnoNatsu is "uninspired" in terms of how you perceive it uses tropes and archetypes that it is also somehow disqualified from being "good" despite the fact that it's excellently structured as a television show.
Of course, when I say it is "good television writing", I mean just that. As a serial work split up into 20 minute chunks that is broadcast once a week, AnoNatsu is an example of "good television writing". Maybe it's just a matter of us having a debate when the terms are not properly defined.