Least Portable Player in your Top 10 All-Time

Matt15 · Post #1 » by **Matt15** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:25 pm

Who would you say is the least portable player in your top 10 all-time?

juice4080 · Post #2 » by **juice4080** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:31 pm

there's only one right answer and you may not like it

Matt15 · Post #3 » by **Matt15** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:40 pm

juice4080 wrote:there's only one right answer and you may not like it

???

Post #4 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:12 pm

Matt15 wrote:Who would you say is the least portable player in your top 10 all-time?

Would you clarify how you'd like us to define portable? Do you want us to consider how well they might do in other eras or just with different teammates/coaches/management that they had?

If we are including eras I'd probably say Shaq. I think he'd not be as dominant if he played right now for instance because I think defenses have gotten smarter, hack-a-shaq would happen every game, and I think most teams wouldn't try to match him with power which was futile but rather attack him defensively with a big who can stretch the floor. And going backwards to the 60's I don't think he'd be able to keep up with the pace of the game. I think he'd get run off the floor and be a liability in transition. He was an underrated athlete in addition to his size/strength, but he couldn't do what Wilt did in terms of ironman play.

The most portable for me would be Tim Duncan. He showed he could play with varied casts and on defensive-centered teams, and offense-first teams and nothing about his game doesn't fit in any era ever. Bird a very close 2nd here. Bird was great in the 80's, but imagining what he would be doing in the current NBA is just scary. He'd be the best PF in the game by a long ways, probably the best player in the league. And he could go backwards in time just as readily.

I always think the players who were really high IQ guys would do the best, So guys like Magic, Lebron, Russell would also be extremely portable.

edit: I kinda expect a lot of people to say Russell because of his offense, but I maintain my strong belief that he would not be the offensive liability many others thing he would be.

Dr Positivity · Post #5 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:22 pm

Jordan: Boxes in the PG position to an extent, a ball dominant PG wouldn't work as well. Is an egotistical a-hole so possible chemistry concerns if he's paired with the wrong guy. His portability is not bad just lower than the other 9.

eminence · Post #6 » by **eminence** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:24 pm

Shaq would be my pick from my top 10(#8). At his peak he was enough of a force that being portable didn't really matter though.

Colbinii · Post #7 » by **Colbinii** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:47 pm

Shaq or MJ.

I feel like elite passers like Lebron and Magic would thrive on any team. Elite defensive anchors like KG, Hakeem, Russell and Duncan are also shoe ins because of the portability of elite defense. Then Wilt and Kareem have proven to play with multiple players. The same could be said for Shaq to be in this group as well.

GSP · Post #8 » by **GSP** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:23 pm

Clearly Shaq dont see how its much of a debate either

mischievous · Post #9 » by **mischievous** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:51 pm

Colbinii wrote:Shaq or MJ.

I feel like elite passers like Lebron and Magic would thrive on any team. Elite defensive anchors like KG, Hakeem, Russell and Duncan are also shoe ins because of the portability of elite defense. Then Wilt and Kareem have proven to play with multiple players. The same could be said for Shaq to be in this group as well.

What makes Lebron more portable than Mj? Don't think you can say passing, because the gap isn't very big there.

Bklynborn682 · Post #10 » by **Bklynborn682** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:08 pm

I think it's Shaq as well but I believe his portability is extremely underrated he's proven he can play with multiple different teams coaches and styles while also being capable of fulfilling different roles and also making all different types of players with different skill sets better. people forget but initially Shaq was a defensive anchor and rebounder not to mention a top 5 athlete coming out of college Im sure he could have maintained that if it was asked of him or if he didn't experience so much success early on being a offensive player also he was arguably the suns best player a 3rd team all NBA player at 37 and at least 350 lbs. and this was in 2009 so it's not like it was eons ago, and in a limited role as a enforcer rebounder and rim protector the Celtics looked absolutely amazing with him and all the advanced stats in reguards to plus/minus and things of the like represent that not to mention he was still clearly superior at 39 to guys like Jermaine O'Neal (33) and Kendrick Perkins (27) and this was Shaq at his worst physically in his last year. And these are all things Shaq was doing at his earliest (rookie year 1992-93) or at his eldest (Phoenix 2009 & Boston 2011) at no point did I mention what he was doing from 94-2006 just because if he could do those things then I could only imagine the impact he'd have on any number of teams while in his actual prime or just after it.

PCProductions · Post #11 » by **PCProductions** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:26 pm

Magic.

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #12 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:26 pm

Magic

juice4080 · Post #13 » by **juice4080** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:57 pm

mischievous wrote:
Colbinii wrote:Shaq or MJ.

I feel like elite passers like Lebron and Magic would thrive on any team. Elite defensive anchors like KG, Hakeem, Russell and Duncan are also shoe ins because of the portability of elite defense. Then Wilt and Kareem have proven to play with multiple players. The same could be said for Shaq to be in this group as well.

What makes Lebron more portable than Mj? Don't think you can say passing, because the gap isn't very big there.

don't bother he's the biggest lebron stan on this board to the point where it clouds his judgment

juice4080 · Post #14 » by **juice4080** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:03 pm

the magic and lebron for wings....being that magic is the better offensive player i will go with lebron being the less portable wing player out of mj bird and magic....

KAJ Shaq and Hakeem for bigs...hakeem is the least efficient offensively but his defense is the best out of the 3.....shaq is the most efficient offensively so i will go with kareem

JordansBulls · Post #15 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:38 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:Jordan: Boxes in the PG position to an extent, a ball dominant PG wouldn't work as well. Is an egotistical a-hole so possible chemistry concerns if he's paired with the wrong guy. His portability is not bad just lower than the other 9.

A Player who brings his "A" game all the time, goes to practice is always portable. Someone not portable is someone who will disappear at stretches and guys who don't stay in shape or don't know when they will bring there effort on both ends.

kabstah · Post #16 » by **kabstah** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:42 pm

JordansBulls wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:Jordan: Boxes in the PG position to an extent, a ball dominant PG wouldn't work as well. Is an egotistical a-hole so possible chemistry concerns if he's paired with the wrong guy. His portability is not bad just lower than the other 9.

A Player who brings his "A" game all the time, goes to practice is always portable. Someone not portable is someone who will disappear at stretches and guys who don't stay in shape or don't know when they will bring there effort on both ends.

Jordan disappeared for nearly two whole seasons in the middle of his prime -- clearly the least portable player ever.

JordansBulls · Post #17 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:44 pm

kabstah wrote:
JordansBulls wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:Jordan: Boxes in the PG position to an extent, a ball dominant PG wouldn't work as well. Is an egotistical a-hole so possible chemistry concerns if he's paired with the wrong guy. His portability is not bad just lower than the other 9.

A Player who brings his "A" game all the time, goes to practice is always portable. Someone not portable is someone who will disappear at stretches and guys who don't stay in shape or don't know when they will bring there effort on both ends.

Jordan disappeared for nearly two whole seasons in the middle of his prime -- clearly the least portable player ever.

Disappears is on the floor. Like guys who got shut down in the finals or other series, etc.

Post #18 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:28 am

mischievous wrote:
Colbinii wrote:Shaq or MJ.

I feel like elite passers like Lebron and Magic would thrive on any team. Elite defensive anchors like KG, Hakeem, Russell and Duncan are also shoe ins because of the portability of elite defense. Then Wilt and Kareem have proven to play with multiple players. The same could be said for Shaq to be in this group as well.

What makes Lebron more portable than Mj? Don't think you can say passing, because the gap isn't very big there.

The gap as playmakers is pretty sizable actually. Mike had some high assist totals but that was much more a function of him being such a scoring threat that he got doubled and guys made open shots. Lebron is a legit playmaker. Clearly has much more vision and instinct in the passing game than Mike did.

ThaRegul8r · Post #19 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:29 am

Since ElGee's the one who coined the term "portability" here and everyone just took it and ran with it afterward as is often the case on the internet, it's important to go back to what he actually said:

Portability is how well a player's skill translate, or travel to, different team situations and still maintain impact.

The majority of all player's only have a relevant impact on good teams.

Only the elite of the elite (8 SIO+ players) will be turning below average teams into title contenders. This means that the ability to turn a 15-win team into a 45-win playoff team is useless. What matters is how well the same player would impact a 45-win team, and even more importantly, how well he'd impact a 50-win team.

This is precisely why portability is so important. The way a player's game scales to better and better teams -- think of the opposite of redundancy -- matters most.

The definition of the term being used by the guy who actually first came up with it here should have been included in the OP. You always define your teams before any meaningful discussion can be had.

juice4080 · Post #20 » by **juice4080** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:34 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
mischievous wrote:
Colbinii wrote:Shaq or MJ.

I feel like elite passers like Lebron and Magic would thrive on any team. Elite defensive anchors like KG, Hakeem, Russell and Duncan are also shoe ins because of the portability of elite defense. Then Wilt and Kareem have proven to play with multiple players. The same could be said for Shaq to be in this group as well.

What makes Lebron more portable than Mj? Don't think you can say passing, because the gap isn't very big there.

The gap as playmakers is pretty sizable actually. Mike had some high assist totals but that was much more a function of him being such a scoring threat that he got doubled and guys made open shots. Lebron is a legit playmaker. Clearly has much more vision and instinct in the passing game than Mike did.

no it's not huge....we've seen jordan in a similar role and he was putting up triple double almost every game........id say lebron is the more willing passer and id probably have lebron slightly better from a pure passing standpoint but the gap is really small