KD’s GOAT tier portability

[Dr Positivity]

He is still a portable player overall but not GOAT level as he is not a full off ball player.

I mainly think he is just overrated as a player even before getting to not really being much of a leader, I honestly feel like half the reason the Suns with Paul are going to end up more successful than Durant version is that they were more of a team.

[jojo4341]

IMO Durant's isolation scoring style isn't a detriment to the team offense because he doesn't overdribble or overshoot, but his passing limitations cap his ability to create for his teammates.

I think Bird fits this archetype better than KD. He's also a great shooter but more active off-ball and pairs his scoring with top tier passing. KD is the better perimeter defender and can elevate more at the rim, but Bird does have an advantage in physical man defense and fighting for rebounds.

Kevin Garnett and David Robinson are at the top of my list for overall portability/scalability. KG the better shooter; D-Rob the better finisher, though both could shoot and finish. Excellent passers and rebounders. Willing and effective screeners. The top tier defense translates anywhere. Proven as both focal points and complimentary pieces (high level impact data from start to finish.)

Was waiting for someone to mention Bird's portability. Another advantage Bird has over KD is his passing. He can rack up 6 apg while primarily playing off-ball. That's insane! Also agree with KG and DRob. DRob can lead the league in scoring but could defer to a more alpha scorer or playmaker to focus on defense or being the "hussle" guy.

[Doctor MJ]

I think the portability narrative is overrated with not only him but Garnett.

I think a lot of lower tier SFs(peak Havlicek) would go 2-1 in terms of titles with those Warriors teams.

So, I don't want to get into a strident debate, but I would emphasize that I don't see Garnett & Durant as similar players.

[EmpireFalls]

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

I liked this post, could you expand on some of the features which are typically overlooked in portability discussions?

I’ve always been disappointed in KD’s ability to interact with other players on court, and his immense versatility on paper not translating that well to actual versatility in actions. If he was a better screen setter and a better roller for example he might be the ultimate PnR/PnP weapon ever but that’s never been something he really did. And indeed his PnR ball handling has always been susceptible to traps and hedges.

[Heej]

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

I liked this post, could you expand on some of the features which are typically overlooked in portability discussions?

I’ve always been disappointed in KD’s ability to interact with other players on court, and his immense versatility on paper not translating that well to actual versatility in actions. If he was a better screen setter and a better roller for example he might be the ultimate PnR/PnP weapon ever but that’s never been something he really did. And indeed his PnR ball handling has always been susceptible to traps and hedges.

Damn you. Already shouted two of my most underrated ones in screening and passing. I think some things not generally accounted for in portability but have outsized effects are:

- IQ (#1 above anything else)
- communication (on both ends of the floor)
- scouting and gameplan contributions in the film room/film study (part of IQ but important enough to be its own category)
- weakside defensive rotations (aka how well and consistently can you "help the helper")
- gang rebounding
- defensive switchability
- motor
- ballhandling

I think KDs biggest portability weaknesses are screen setting and passing as you said, but also motor and communication/organization on the floor. His biggest strengths imo are his shooting, defensive versatility, and IQ. Relative to position I think his ballhandling, rebounding, and weakside rotations are in line with what you'd expect but he's certainly not a primary guy in any of those the way say LeBron has been.

[McBubbles]

1. Portability from the best player on your team is pretty much meaningless on account of teams being built around this player anyway.

2. KD even in his prime was never as impactful as the superstar peers he gets mentioned with. Combine that with the fact he's very much not in his prime anymore and being able to maintain that impact on another team doesn't really move the needle much.

3. KD just isn't THAT portable lol. As least as not as much as he's made out to be. Needing to play next to an ATG playmaker to maintain your impact is an issue, especially when this flaw is usually reserved for big men who are extremely impactful and portable on defence which helps make up for their codependency on offence.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

It’s been a widely accepted talking point (between both casual fans, TV media, and high level thinkers and data analysts like Ben Taylor) that KD is the ultimate plug and play guy. His portability is constantly brought up as the platonic ideal of fitting into every team.

?

Long time Warrior Fan here. Old guy who grew up in the Boston area. Loved hockey more than Basketball in 1970s. Bobby Orr, Espo, Terry O’Reilly don Cherry. I mostly ignored Cowens championship Celtics because you could cook dinner while waiting for 1970s NBA players to line up at the free throw line.

I saw enough Jordan, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Curry, Harden, LeBron and KD to assess them as GOAT candidates. He ranks above Kobe on my GOAT list. I have KD tied with Curry.

KD would have been better if he was stronger and more physical and accepted that he was a big man. KD was willing to contribute as big but he wanted to be primarily a small forward. A best of David Robinson best of KD Frankenstein fusion player would be great,

KD was pretty much plug and play on Warriors defense. On offense KD was not really plug and play. KD set up at the 3 point line usually just to the right of center arch on the 3 p point. The previous year the 73 win Warriors had the pretties offense I have ever seen with the possible exception of the Harlem Globetrotters and the 1982 Showtime Lakers with Norm Nixson. KD kind of killed the 73 win Warriors ball movement even though half the time KD was trying to fit the Ball Movement offense. It would have been a waste of KD to put KD in Harrison Barnes catch and shoot corner 3 role. But KD was occupying territory in which Bogut Curry and Klay had done magical things with screens and running off ball in choreographed dance patterns the previous year. KD kind of killed that. KD was so good at being KD that I forgave him for hurting the beauty of the previous year 73 win Warriors.. I think KD wanted to play on the ball movement offense that was so different. from what the KD Westbrook Thunder were doing.

There was a way for KD to fit into the 73 win ball movement offense. KD should have taken the Bogut screen setting and passing role and fused the Bogut role onto KD ball. You do not want Curry and Klay to clear out and stay away from KD’s space while KD is getting ready to do his thing. Curry and Klay should be curling around KD. KD was a willing passer but not as good of a passer as Bogut.

Best of Bogut and KD and combining their games into a new better game in a way that would have required 2 years of practice would have created a Frankenstein fusion player that would have made the 73 win Warriors offense more beautiful and potent instead of making the Warriors offense more stagnant but equally potent because of what KD did individually..

Not my idea of plug and play on offense. KD was not opposite of plug and play but KD is more of an individual star than a team player on offense. What is plug and play is that you can add KD to any offense and the offense will get better because of What KD does as an individual. KD will not fit into the team offense but he will not disrupt the team offense. KD does not need the offense to do anything for him other than stay out of his way because he prefers one on one.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

KD not winning championships without the Warriors is not KD’s fault. KD only had enough talent arround him with the Warriors.

Westbrook hurt an offense as much as he helped an offense when Westbrook was with KD. Harden should not have been traded. KD and Westbrook needed another offensive player better than Ibaka. Ibaka was fine as a 4th option but was not fine as the 3rd option for a champion. Kanter was a good scorer but he hurt the defense some.

Booker is good but the Suns are not that good after KD and Booker. None of KD’s teams were good enough. Replacing KD with LeBron or Jordan does not make those teams champions,

[ShotCreator]

Well, he was probably on the two best offenses I’ve ever seen in 21 Nets and then the 17 Warriors as a small step down.


However he was not the best player on either offense.


I’ve always felt his portability was more hypothetical and never in reality. He’s always been a big time dribbler, a non-screener, a passive cutter in his later prime, and not a high level passer.

Deadeye shooter, decent enough passer to punish weak defensive schemes, but never too good at involving other people in his brilliance.


I find him to be maybe a hair more portable than prime Kawhi Leonard.

[Cavsfansince84]

I like Dirk's portability better than KD's. That's about where I'd leave it.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Apologizing because I am not reading all the comments now, I will come back to it, so I might repeat what others said:
* we must consider that the situations Durant landed to were less then ideal, so he might have been "portable" himself but the ceiling he was raising wasn't super high to begin with. It's not like the Nets and Suns, as they were constructed after trading for him, were going anywhere
* the theory of Durant is extremely portable, but I think the actual player less so, in particular since his second year in GS. He can move the ball, cut, play off ball and all the good stuff, but that's now what he's focusing on. He tends to take his time and elevate for the middy A LOT. He's great at that and it might be a way to conserve energy in his mid 30s, but there are some diminishing returns kicking in then. He still brings you spacing, and extra rim protection, but now we're far from GOAT level portability
* is portability really THAT important for your best player? I mean, it's great if he can make it easier to build a great team around him, but over a certain level it's about a guy being able to defer to top talent and still make an impact. that's not a realistic team construction if not in weird GS like situations, something you cannot plan for

[AmIWrongDude]

KD not winning championships without the Warriors is not KD’s fault. KD only had enough talent arround him with the Warriors.

Westbrook hurt an offense as much as he helped an offense when Westbrook was with KD. Harden should not have been traded. KD and Westbrook needed another offensive player better than Ibaka. Ibaka was fine as a 4th option but was not fine as the 3rd option for a champion. Kanter was a good scorer but he hurt the defense some.

Booker is good but the Suns are not that good after KD and Booker. None of KD’s teams were good enough. Replacing KD with LeBron or Jordan does not make those teams champions,

KD has played with the most talent throughout his entire career out of any star in history. Bron and MJ 100% win rings if they switched places with KD for their careers.

[OhayoKD]

KD not winning championships without the Warriors is not KD’s fault. KD only had enough talent arround him with the Warriors.

Westbrook hurt an offense as much as he helped an offense when Westbrook was with KD. Harden should not have been traded. KD and Westbrook needed another offensive player better than Ibaka. Ibaka was fine as a 4th option but was not fine as the 3rd option for a champion. Kanter was a good scorer but he hurt the defense some.

Booker is good but the Suns are not that good after KD and Booker. None of KD’s teams were good enough. Replacing KD with LeBron or Jordan does not make those teams champions,

KD has played with the most talent throughout his entire career out of any star in history. Bron and MJ 100% win rings if they switched places with KD for their careers.

Not as clear cut with Jordan but the Suns are a significantly better roster outside of Durant than the 16 Cavs were outside of Lebron

[OhayoKD]

KD not winning championships without the Warriors is not KD’s fault. KD only had enough talent arround him with the Warriors.

Westbrook hurt an offense as much as he helped an offense when Westbrook was with KD. Harden should not have been traded. KD and Westbrook needed another offensive player better than Ibaka. Ibaka was fine as a 4th option but was not fine as the 3rd option for a champion. Kanter was a good scorer but he hurt the defense some.

Booker is good but the Suns are not that good after KD and Booker. None of KD’s teams were good enough. Replacing KD with LeBron or Jordan does not make those teams champions,

KD has played with the most talent throughout his entire career out of any star in history. Bron and MJ 100% win rings if they switched places with KD for their careers.

Not as clear cut with Jordan but the Suns are a significantly better roster outside of Durant than the 16 Cavs were outside of Lebron

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

I liked this post, could you expand on some of the features which are typically overlooked in portability discussions?

I’ve always been disappointed in KD’s ability to interact with other players on court, and his immense versatility on paper not translating that well to actual versatility in actions. If he was a better screen setter and a better roller for example he might be the ultimate PnR/PnP weapon ever but that’s never been something he really did. And indeed his PnR ball handling has always been susceptible to traps and hedges.

Damn you. Already shouted two of my most underrated ones in screening and passing. I think some things not generally accounted for in portability but have outsized effects are:

- IQ (#1 above anything else)
- communication (on both ends of the floor)
- scouting and gameplan contributions in the film room/film study (part of IQ but important enough to be its own category)
- weakside defensive rotations (aka how well and consistently can you "help the helper")
- gang rebounding
- defensive switchability
- motor
- ballhandling

I think KDs biggest portability weaknesses are screen setting and passing as you said, but also motor and communication/organization on the floor. His biggest strengths imo are his shooting, defensive versatility, and IQ. Relative to position I think his ballhandling, rebounding, and weakside rotations are in line with what you'd expect but he's certainly not a primary guy in any of those the way say LeBron has been.

Suns are yet another case study in volume scoring not being anywhere near as portable as the ben taylors of the world pretend it is

[lessthanjake]

I think the key with portability is basically just to have a skill set that doesn’t trod on the toes of other good players on the team. This helps the team’s talents be optimally utilized. And I do think it’s important for every player on the team to have this, because it’s important for all the players to step on each others’ toes as little as possible. If anyone’s going to do it, obviously it’s most acceptable for it to be the best player, but ideally you want it as little as possible.

In general, there’s a lot of overlap between portability and just being a good player in general, because a lot of things in basketball are almost entirely additive. For instance, being a good defender is essentially entirely additive. It doesn’t step on the toes of others virtually at all. Same with having a high basketball IQ, or making hustle plays, or quite a few other attributes. There’s a lot of things that make a player good that have essentially equal value on a good team as it does on a bad team. In a sense, those all go to portability, but they’re not the type of thing that I find most interesting, because it’s not really an area where there’s a distinction between being portable and simply being good. Where that distinction comes in IMO is largely specifically in the offensive arena, revolving around the fact that there’s one ball and therefore a lot more potential for stepping on each others’ toes. The way I think about it, at least in terms of offense, is that we should think about what skill sets or play styles are most common amongst players that we think are good. And then we can think of the most portable players as ones who play differently from that. Those are the players that are probably easiest to fit other good players around, while optimizing everyone as much as possible (though, note, that this is more a probabilistic exercise than anything—a player who is generally “portable” might actually step on peoples’ toes a lot on certain teams). So that’s why I think of off-ball-heavy guys as more portable—the basic assumption behind that is that good players generally tend to excel on offense with the ball, so someone who doesn’t need the ball much to excel is usually going to be easier for the team to optimize together with other good players.

Under that sort of framework, Kevin Durant is portable because he can excel off the ball on offense. He’s not the most portable in that regard, since there’s other players that tilt even more in that direction (including Steph). But he’s definitely well on the portable side of things. However, there’s other things that are almost purely additive (i.e. the bucket of stuff that I talked about as basically being synonymous with being good) in which Kevin Durant is not exactly elite. For instance, his defense can be good but it is not elite. There are other players that are better overall at that sort of stuff, and therefore they might add more to a great team than Durant would, even if Durant’s offensive style is more portable. In that sense, there’s probably a good number of players more “portable” than Durant, but I think at that point it’s largely about saying there’s a good number of players that are better than Durant. There’s not a ton of superstar guys more “portable” than Durant when it comes to the type of area where “portable” and “good” aren’t exactly synonymous.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

I liked this post, could you expand on some of the features which are typically overlooked in portability discussions?

I’ve always been disappointed in KD’s ability to interact with other players on court, and his immense versatility on paper not translating that well to actual versatility in actions. If he was a better screen setter and a better roller for example he might be the ultimate PnR/PnP weapon ever but that’s never been something he really did. And indeed his PnR ball handling has always been susceptible to traps and hedges.

The way I see it Manu is the portability goat.
1) he has the skills to fit any role. He can space, he shoot off the move, he can cut, he can attack off the catch, he will make the extra pass. But he can aslo be the primary on ball creator. And he wastes no time, actiing immediately and decisively
2) he's totally willing to do it. Whatever it takes to help the team win including taking a backseat and let his teammates shine and collect the awards.

I think Durant is lacking in both, as he was never asuch of fast thinker and cutter and that turned him into more of a spacer when someone else was attacking. And he showed that he wanted to do things his own way, forcing the team to play in a suboptimal way.

[homecourtloss]

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

Wrong. Portability = ability to come off curls and hit 19 ft jumpers.

It’s always funny to note how and why the most portable of things, i.e., team defense, never entered into the original discussion of portability though perhaps it was because team defense’s inherent portability was seen as a given.

Durant’s overall impact provides information about the limited ceiling even the most efficacious volume scoring can provide.

[lessthanjake]

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

Wrong. Portability = ability to come off curls and hit 19 ft jumpers.

It’s always funny to note how and why the most portable of things, i.e., team defense, never entered into the original discussion of portability though perhaps it was because team defense’s inherent portability was seen as a given.

Durant’s overall impact provides information about the limited ceiling even the most efficacious volume scoring can provide.

I think this is a valid point, but the reason it’s not seen the same way is that the concept of “portability” is most interesting where it isn’t just essentially completely synonymous with being good. Like, a really good defender probably adds about as much to a bad team as to a good team. It’s similarly additive either way. So that’s definitely “portable” in the sense that a good defender can get value from that on a really good team. That doesn’t seem like a very interesting fact, though, because it’s completely intuitive—it’s just saying that the thing that makes a player good also makes them “portable.” What is more interesting—and therefore discussed more—are the areas where being “portable” and being good aren’t exactly intuitively synonymous. For instance, the fact that a player doesn’t need the ball that much on offense doesn’t inherently make them good in the same way that being a good defender does. But it might make them more “portable.”

In the end, “portability” as a concept is only really useful to think about to the extent that it is identifying skill sets and player types that tend to have different levels of value depending on their team’s quality. Otherwise, it’s just a redundant concept. So I think it makes sense for the focus regarding “portability” to be more on things where the value of it might be expected to be higher or lower in different quality teams, as opposed to things that hold similar value no matter what.

[Heej]

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

Wrong. Portability = ability to come off curls and hit 19 ft jumpers.

It’s always funny to note how and why the most portable of things, i.e., team defense, never entered into the original discussion of portability though perhaps it was because team defense’s inherent portability was seen as a given.

Durant’s overall impact provides information about the limited ceiling even the most efficacious volume scoring can provide.

It is ironic how people seem to be so effective at watching people off the ball on offense but find it impossible to watch people off the ball on defense. I think I've gone too deep down the rabbit hole because now when I see guards switched onto a big in PnR I'm more fascinated in seeing whether they can successfully box the big man out while most people wanna see the 1v1 dance happening on the ball.

And funny you mention the limited ceiling. I've seen takes on the GB where people somehow try to mentally twist themselves into pretzels arguing that specialists who are worse at basketball raise ceilings better than all rounders who are better at basketball. In reality every all time team has needed to lean on a roster made up of as few weaknesses as possible to make up for their 1 or 2 guys with glaring weaknesses. These types of insane takes are what I call Ovethinking Basketball LMFAO

Basketball is about synergy and feedback loops on offense and defense. Can't be at your max effectiveness on one side without being at your max effectiveness on the other. Stops lead to early transition offense, and buckets lead to set defense possessions. Buckets don't mean as much if ultimately you're just trading them.

[Heej]

Almost as if there's more to portability than shooting and that somehow the ability to extend and generate advantages via passes alongside the associated defensive application of court mapping acumen with respect to help defense matters more than the typical fare of portability buzzword concepts.

Portability is a cool concept that to me is often misused as a cudgel to punish players whose games offend an individual poster's basketball zeitgeist and vice versa when they enjoy how someone plays.

Wrong. Portability = ability to come off curls and hit 19 ft jumpers.

It’s always funny to note how and why the most portable of things, i.e., team defense, never entered into the original discussion of portability though perhaps it was because team defense’s inherent portability was seen as a given.

Durant’s overall impact provides information about the limited ceiling even the most efficacious volume scoring can provide.

I think this is a valid point, but the reason it’s not seen the same way is that the concept of “portability” is most interesting where it isn’t just essentially completely synonymous with being good. Like, a really good defender probably adds about as much to a bad team as to a good team. It’s similarly additive either way. So that’s definitely “portable” in the sense that a good defender can get value from that on a really good team. That doesn’t seem like a very interesting fact, though, because it’s completely intuitive—it’s just saying that the thing that makes a player good also makes them “portable.” What is more interesting—and therefore discussed more—are the areas where being “portable” and being good aren’t exactly intuitively synonymous. For instance, the fact that a player doesn’t need the ball that much on offense doesn’t inherently make them good in the same way that being a good defender does. But it might make them more “portable.”

In the end, “portability” as a concept is only really useful to think about to the extent that it is identifying skill sets and player types that tend to have different levels of value depending on their team’s quality. Otherwise, it’s just a redundant concept. So I think it makes sense for the focus regarding “portability” to be more on things where the value of it might be expected to be higher or lower in different quality teams, as opposed to things that hold similar value no matter what.

Basketball is a game about mitigating weaknesses. A guy who doesn't need the ball much is presumably a guy who can't handle the rock and absorb playmaking responsibilities. We've seen teams with shooters and not enough ballhandlers absolutely get their water shut off when dialed in defenses scheme to stuff the main guy and force him to give it to the ones that can be run off the line into record scratches.

Likewise we've seen teams with myriad ballhandlers but not enough shooting get walled off. All skills are scalable, as uncomfortable as it may be for the Ovethinking Basketball types to hear. You need guys who can answer as many coverages as possible. Not guys who are really really good against one scheme and then get ass blasted by another. Teams can just spam the last one on you and watch you crumble the way the Lakers threw caution to the wind and put Jokic in PnR nearly every possession to end the game last night lmao

It's called pick your poison for a reason. The game in the playoffs is about being able to shore up your ancillary skills enough that you can generate plus extend advantages on the floor so that your primary skills can be used to capitalize. Think Steph needing to get good enough at his patented hook pass against blitzes and at off-ball moving so that he can finally use his gamebreaking shooting that the defense originally schemed away in the first place. If his development stopped where someone like Dame's has in terms of off-ball movement and passing out of doubles he could have become someone that can get schemed out by traps the way Dame became.