Least Portable Player in your Top 10 All-Time

[Doctor MJ]

Why don't people look at defense when talking about this? Magic cannot defend PG's at all. Every other player in the top 10 can defend their position. If you put him on a team without another perimeter defender you will have a huge problem. Not every team has a Michael Cooper or someone like that. He is definitely the least "portable" because of this alone. There is no other player of that caliber that will make you as concerned about your defense.

To be clear:

We do look at defense, and this is largely why Bird is only arguably the GOAT at portability among superstars. On offense, it's Bird, but the way guys like Robinson or Garnett were able to transfer more focus to defense and in doing so kick up their impact on that front makes them exceptionally portable as well.

It's important to remember though that what a guy does on offense and what a guy does on defense isn't necessarily connected. If you have a really big guy playing the point on offense, then that means on defense he probably won't guard the point all that much on defense. That isn't necessarily a problem at all, but it does mean that he's taking up defensive space that would typically be taken up by someone other than the point guard, and since other positions are more important for defense than the point guard, that means his responsibilities need to go up in order to have the same impact relative to replacement.

This isn't to say you can't knock Magic's defense then, but it's not necessarily a portability concern simply because he'll have duties other than what a point guard typically has.

Also to be clear: I'm not saying guarding point guards isn't important, but in this day and age you basically don't try to do that by sticking one guy on the point guard so much as you craft your team strategy to funnel such a player into tight places. This has the effect of reducing the amount a player can stand out by guarding point guards.

[juice4080]

Why don't people look at defense when talking about this? Magic cannot defend PG's at all. Every other player in the top 10 can defend their position. If you put him on a team without another perimeter defender you will have a huge problem. Not every team has a Michael Cooper or someone like that. He is definitely the least "portable" because of this alone. There's no other player of that caliber that will make you as concerned about your defense.

i agree defense is almost always portable but if you're an average defender (non C) and you play with great defensive players you won't take too much away from the defense as a whole but on offense if you're not portable and playing with great offensive players you can take a lot from their ability to be firing on all cylinders

How do you value "taking away from great offensive players" from "raising the ceiling" of your team?

For me, if a player joins another "superior" player going from a #1 option on a 40 win team averaged 25/12, and then as a 3rd option averages 18/8 on similar efficiency, yet the team he is on is now a 60 win team, is this really a bad thing?

In other words, if you are a player who has never done anything except put up gawdy stats on a non-playoff team and then join an all-time great and all of a sudden make the finals 2 times, are your abilities that are being "lost" really detrimental to the teams success?

it sure is nice to see you agreeing that certain players are not as good as the stats they put up and are ideally suited for lesser role... to answer you question i don't really look at it in term of stats but more like is the main dog allowing the supporting cast to do the things they well or do they have to be miscast in a role they're not really suited for.....if the players are good and versatile enough you can win with overlapping abilities and diminishing returns

[Bklynborn682]

So, the toughest enemy of portability is that the better your teammates are, the more they could do without any help from you. LIterally no player is immune from issues of redundancy, not even floor generals.

However players who are always trying to make use of their teammates scale better to great teams than those who do it all themselves, and thus a truly great floor general is generally the most straight forward way to achieve a top tier offense. On those most talented team's the floor general may find himself relegated to merely being one of the read & react playmakers, and hence not impactful as he'd be on a dumber, less talented team, but the same would be true of any more individually oriented.

Also to emphasize something I've alluded to in another poster:

There are floor generals who don't function well off-ball. Rondo & Rubio are classic cases because they can't shoot, but others have more subtle issues. As amazing as Chris Paul is, he plays the game as a control freak known more for minimizing turnovers than he is for getting players crazy open shots. I would argue that when players play like this, it's harder for them to really fit with other playmakers.

To me the perfect example of the other end of the spectrum is Larry Bird. There you have a guy who is at his best when he just reads everything that's going on on the floor and then twists it to his advantage. HIs signature play is when he runs to where the rebound will be before anyone else realizes it and then instantly makes a pass to a now open man in a way that makes clear that he know that that teammate was about to be open when the defense scrambled for the rebound. It's this gift that made Bird probably the most valuable rookie in the history of the NBA and arguably the GOAT in portability.

High BBIQ trumps all in other words.

CP3 is playing the Aaron Rodgers role to some degree as the ultimate pure PG in the league today. But would being too risk-adverse have a counter effect on the ceiling one's team can reach?

For example, if you were to put Lebron in the 2014 Spurs or the current 2017 Warriors teams, would thsoe teams be better or worse?Sounds crazy to say that adding someone like Lebron would be a net negative, but the reason I say this is because what makes Lebron great would seemingly hinder the ball movement on these two teams where no one player dominates the ball. This has always been an argument of mine on why Lebron's statistical dominance puts a ceiling on how great his teams can be and why he isn't a clear cut top 3 player of all-time which seems to be the current consensus even if he's clearly not the GOAT. Case in point, every team he leaves is so dependent on him creating for others that these teams (2010 Cavs, 2014 Heat) suffer a lot with his departure.

You would think GSW has enough offensive stars. Overkill to add James or anyone else to that team. Hell, they're kinda dealing with some fit issues with KD despite being so dominant offensively...both he and Steph have "stepped back" offensively at various points to allow the other more primacy. Lebron on the 2014 Spurs would be no issue AT ALL. Judging by the responses in this thread, I may not actually get the concept of portability.

Some seem to think its about whose offensive game is the most malleable. Others seem to think its whose offense takes up the least amount off space...i.e Lebron, CP3 and Shaq's games apparently suck up all of the oxygen of a teams offense. A Lot of you seem to put great value on scoring arsenal and the variety of ways a player gets buckets. High volume playmaking is frowned upon. High volume scoring is great, unless its paint centric, then its awful.

I've always thought Portability was rooted in fit, utility and versatility. Some of the responses in this thread has me rethinking this.

In what way do you feel Lebron,CP3, and Shaq (as per your example) suck the energy out of their own offenses? Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[ItsThatEasy]

I think we're doing a diservice to Shaq.

MDE Shaq never makes an appearance in today's game if we were starting from scratch as a rookie. He made a conscious decision to get bigger from his Orlando days.

Orlando Shaq would be tremendous in today's NBA.

[pelifan]

Shaq and Lebron are pretty portable. Lebron weighs 260+ lbs at peak powers. That's unheard of in the early days of the NBA outside of guys like Wilt. He could probably play center in the 60s and 70s.

It's Russell for me. He's great but isn't going to be as impactful on the board in modern basketball, even if he is the same defender I dont see him being the best player in the NBA on that alone outside of his era.

[Texas Chuck]

I think we're doing a diservice to Shaq.

MDE Shaq never makes an appearance in today's game if we were starting from scratch as a rookie. He made a conscious decision to get bigger from his Orlando days.

Orlando Shaq would be tremendous in today's NBA.

Are you sure Shaq would have been able to stay in Orlando shape(and size) over his career? Shaq wasn't exactly known for hard work or denying himself the pleasures he wanted(including food).

But even giving him that benefit of the doubt, would be be willing to defer some of his touches in an effort to have more energy to focus on being a true defensive anchor? This wasn't ever his mentality when playing with Kobe. It was all about feeding the big dog.

Obviously any time we discuss portability, it is mere conjecture on all our parts, so my attention is not to tell you your position is wrong. But rather to give a different perspective. I hope my comments are taken in that light.

Oh, and even tho I picked Shaq, you are probably correct that we are doing him wrong to an extent itt.

[ItsThatEasy]

I think we're doing a diservice to Shaq.

MDE Shaq never makes an appearance in today's game if we were starting from scratch as a rookie. He made a conscious decision to get bigger from his Orlando days.

Orlando Shaq would be tremendous in today's NBA.

Are you sure Shaq would have been able to stay in Orlando shape(and size) over his career? Shaq wasn't exactly known for hard work or denying himself the pleasures he wanted(including food).

But even giving him that benefit of the doubt, would be be willing to defer some of his touches in an effort to have more energy to focus on being a true defensive anchor? This wasn't ever his mentality when playing with Kobe. It was all about feeding the big dog.

Obviously any time we discuss portability, it is mere conjecture on all our parts, so my attention is not to tell you your position is wrong. But rather to give a different perspective. I hope my comments are taken in that light.

Oh, and even tho I picked Shaq, you are probably correct that we are doing him wrong to an extent itt.

Shaq could very well be the least portable for a variety of reasons. I just like to be clear about his size being such a big part of that. He certainly didn't have the best work ethic or conditioning but when it comes to him actually reaching that diesel size from 99-03 it gets lost that he intentionally got bigger to dominate the game, and the Lakers training staff supported it. He instructed his personal chef to up his calorie intake and he hit the weights hard for about 2 off-seasons.

So it's a difficult question to ask if he could "stay" in Orlando shape when he purposely got out of it (ironically due to hard work in the weight room).

If he came in the league today I'm sure he'd want the ball just as much as he did then though.

[Bklynborn682]

I think we're doing a diservice to Shaq.

MDE Shaq never makes an appearance in today's game if we were starting from scratch as a rookie. He made a conscious decision to get bigger from his Orlando days.

Orlando Shaq would be tremendous in today's NBA.

Are you sure Shaq would have been able to stay in Orlando shape(and size) over his career? Shaq wasn't exactly known for hard work or denying himself the pleasures he wanted(including food).

But even giving him that benefit of the doubt, would be be willing to defer some of his touches in an effort to have more energy to focus on being a true defensive anchor? This wasn't ever his mentality when playing with Kobe. It was all about feeding the big dog.

Obviously any time we discuss portability, it is mere conjecture on all our parts, so my attention is not to tell you your position is wrong. But rather to give a different perspective. I hope my comments are taken in that light.

Oh, and even tho I picked Shaq, you are probably correct that we are doing him wrong to an extent itt.

Well truth be told coming into the league Shaq said flat out that he would concentrate on defense and rebounding honestly if he didn't have so much success (team and individual) early on as a offensive anchor starting in his 2nd year and onwards I could very easily see him being capable of being defensive oriented primarily as far as him keeping the weight down I think he'd be able to keep himself from ballooning up to almost 400 lbs but I think he certainly would have been at least the 325-340 he was from 98-00 as he came in as a rookie at 301 lbs. and almost everyone puts on weight throughout their career intentional or otherwise. So I highly doubt he'd stay at his early Orlando weight for the duration of his career.

[homecourtloss]

your basketball understanding is the best on this board bar none..mystic oscar is pretty good too..no use for bull stats just pure basketball theory and education... the fact that you can articulate what i wanna say but somehow am not able to do as good as you is a boon to me.

Thank you for your kind words juice.

Agree about Dr. MJ being up there with SSB, drza and others. I disagree, though, that he has no "use for bull stats." Dr. MJ uses advanced statistics all the time and his use of some of those statistics that you (Juice) deem "bull" have swayed my thinking on more than one player and argument.