KD’s GOAT tier portability

[lessthanjake]

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.

That may be “presumably” the case, but it certainly isn’t always the case. No one is talking about catch-and-shoot role players, when it comes to portability and ceiling raising. We are talking about star players. So, for instance, Steph Curry sure can handle the ball, but he’s also a gamebreaking force off the ball, and the latter is a big factor in making him “portable.”

And yes, I agree with you that teams with shooters and no ball-handlers are in trouble and not in need of an off-ball-focused player. If you notice, that’s exactly why I said just a few posts ago: “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.” If your team has a bunch of good players that aren’t good ball handlers, then the most “portable” player for that particular team actually probably would be a ball-dominant player! However, the assumption behind “portability” as a concept is generally that that’s not the most likely scenario for a player to be on in an actually good team, because a good team will have good players and the most common skill set for good players will involve being effective with the ball. But, as I said, it is a probabilistic exercise, because one could hypothetically conceive of a good team where that’s not the case.

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.

Yes, that’s all true, but at a broader level, for purposes of this discussion, that’s all just part of having the skill sets we’re talking about as “portable.” Regardless of shooting ability, Dame is not as good an off-ball player as Steph, because his off-ball movement is nowhere near as good. That makes his off-ball game a lot easier to scheme against, which makes it less effective. And with a less effective off-ball game he is likely to be less “portable” than Steph, because he needs the ball more to get his impact. Of course, we may *also* think he’s less good on the ball too, but I think that gets outside the confines of talking about “portability” and more is just about Steph being a better player. As I said, to me, “portability” is only really a useful and non-redundant concept when it comes to having skill sets that are generally going to be more valuable the better the team you’re on. And I think that that often (but not necessarily always, as I mentioned above) comes in the form of being effective off the ball. It’s not a perfect dividing line, because it’s possible to imagine a good team that actually is lacking in ball-handling and would be most improved by getting a ball-dominant player that can fill that gap, but I think that it’s usually going to be harder to form a genuinely good team where that’s the gap that needs filling.

I think you’re wanting to get into the weeds of scheming and counter-scheming, but I don’t think that is particularly important to the concept of “portability,” at least as I conceptualize it. Again, I’m talking about skill sets and player types that generally are *more valuable the better the team.* I don’t think you’re really getting at that concept. Which is fine, if you define “portability” differently than I do. After all, it’s a squishy concept. But when I talk about it, that’s what I’m thinking of.

[Heej]

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.

That may be “presumably” the case, but it certainly isn’t always the case. No one is talking about catch-and-shoot role players, when it comes to portability and ceiling raising. We are talking about star players. So, for instance, Steph Curry sure can handle the ball, but he’s also a gamebreaking force off the ball, and the latter is a big factor in making him “portable.”

And yes, I agree with you that teams with shooters and no ball-handlers are in trouble and not in need of an off-ball-focused player. If you notice, that’s exactly why I said just a few posts ago: “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.” If your team has a bunch of good players that aren’t good ball handlers, then the most “portable” player for that particular team actually probably would be a ball-dominant player! However, the assumption behind “portability” as a concept is generally that that’s not the most likely scenario for a player to be on in an actually good team, because a good team will have good players and the most common skill set for good players will involve being effective with the ball. But, as I said, it is a probabilistic exercise, because one could hypothetically conceive of a good team where that’s not the case.

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.

Yes, that’s all true, but at a broader level, for purposes of this discussion, that’s all just part of having the skill sets we’re talking about as “portable.” Regardless of shooting ability, Dame is not as good an off-ball player as Steph, because his off-ball movement is nowhere near as good. That makes his off-ball game a lot easier to scheme against, which makes it less effective. And with a less effective off-ball game he is likely to be less “portable” than Steph, because he needs the ball more to get his impact. Of course, we may *also* think he’s less good on the ball too, but I think that gets outside the confines of talking about “portability” and more is just about Steph being a better player. As I said, to me, “portability” is only really a useful and non-redundant concept when it comes to having skill sets that are generally going to be more valuable the better the team you’re on. And I think that that often (but not necessarily always, as I mentioned above) comes in the form of being effective off the ball. It’s not a perfect dividing line, because it’s possible to imagine a good team that actually is lacking in ball-handling and would be most improved by getting a ball-dominant player that can fill that gap, but I think that it’s usually going to be harder to form a genuinely good team where that’s the gap that needs filling.

I think you’re wanting to get into the weeds of scheming and counter-scheming, but I don’t think that is particularly important to the concept of “portability,” at least as I conceptualize it. Again, I’m talking about skill sets and player types that generally are *more valuable the better the team.* I don’t think you’re really getting at that concept. Which is fine, if you define “portability” differently than I do. After all, it’s a squishy concept. But when I talk about it, that’s what I’m thinking of.

Your whole point is that some skills like shooting are more portable because good teams have ballhandling which is interesting because one can just as easily say that good teams often have shooting and cutting as well so guys who can draw 2 to the ball consistently are actually what's more valuable. See how dumb this concept is? It's literally just wielded as a cudgel to punish guys people dislike or as a crutch to support guys they like.

What you don't realize you're actually getting at is that you're presupposing the guys who are stacked in one attribute are deficient in the "opposing" one which is what's actually holding the team back.

But yes I agree it's about roster construction. However I fundamentally disagree that ideal roster construction revolves around stacking specialists vs stacking all rounders. That's some 1990s mentality. We have years of evidence that with exotic zone schemes now, teams win by exploiting weaknesses. Back in the caveman eras you could get by a little easier hammering strengths due to it being a more iso-focused game with far less movement than teams have now.

[lessthanjake]

Your whole point is that some skills like shooting are more portable because good teams have ballhandling which is interesting because one can just as easily say that good teams often have shooting and cutting as well so guys who can draw 2 to the ball consistently are actually what's more valuable. See how dumb this concept is? It's literally just wielded as a cudgel to punish guys people dislike or as a crutch to support guys they like.

As I said, the point I am making operates under a baseline assumption that genuinely really good NBA players (which you need in order to have a good team) are more likely to have really good on-ball skills, compared to other offensive skill sets. That seems intuitively right to me, and I think it is ultimately what people like Ben Taylor are also assuming when they talk about this concept. But, as I said, it is possible to conceive of roster construction in which you have a really good team and are lacking in on-ball skills. In that case, a guy with great on-ball skills would be really “portable” in that scenario, IMO. Personally, that seems less likely than the flip side, so I’d wager that a guy with great off-ball skills would be more likely to end up being really “portable.” If you disagree with that underlying assumption, then that’s fine.

I will note, however, that you’re oversimplifying what I’m saying to try to boil it down to “skills like shooting are more portable.” I’m really talking about a player’s off-ball game *as a whole.* Shooting can be a big part of that, of course, but off-ball movement is a huge factor, and there’s other things like screening ability as well. Someone can be a great shooter and not be a great off-ball player. In any event, overall, it’s more about how much value a player can have without the ball, because I’m assuming that a really good NBA team is likely to have other really good players who may be less "portable" and need the ball to get even close to maximizing their value. In that sense, I also tend to think players who make quick decisions with the ball are likely more "portable" because that tends to get others involved in the possession more (which is more and more important the better the teammates are, and therefore probably has even more value the better the team—though obviously it's a good trait no matter what).

What you don't realize you're actually getting at is that you're presupposing the guys who are stacked in one attribute are deficient in the "opposing" one which is what's actually holding the team back.

Yes, I think this is actually a good point for you to make. I actually *am* making that kind of assumption about a superstar player’s teammates. The reason for that is that I’m assuming the guy whose “portability” we are evaluating is the best player on his team, and therefore that his teammates have flaws, at least in relative terms (even if they’re really good players overall). And I am assuming that someone is more likely to have really good teammates that are great on the ball and relatively less good off the ball, rather than vice versa (i.e. that they’re players who need to the ball to get close to maximizing their value). If the opposite is true on a particular team, or if the really good teammates are actually equally good at both, then the intuition I’m talking about with regards to “portability” wouldn’t really logically follow.

In any event, in the scenario I’m outlining (where a player has really good teammates that are much better on the ball than off it), you are right in a sense that that other player’s deficiency is part of what would be holding the team back. But there’s going to be deficiencies for players on any team—even the best ones. My intuition here is that a more “portable” player is one that covers the deficiency that I think is most common amongst other really good players, rather than one that shares that same deficiency (at least in relative terms).

[HadAnEffectHere]

I think Kawhi is massively more portable than KD.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think Kawhi is massively more portable than KD.

I think it depends on which version of Kawhi and how you rate his defense after about 2016. The 2014-2016 version that was probably the best perimeter defender in the league and a lights out 3 pt shooter was really portable because he could be anywhere from a #1-#3 scorer and still provide lots of value in other areas.

[trelos6]

I'd probably give Bird the nod over KD for GOAT for portability, but KD is right there.

Defensively, he's 6'11", and is a decent secondary shot blocker, which is very important as these days, shooting centers will draw the opposing big man out into the perimeter. KD can fill that void to help deter shots in the paint. Offensively, he's an ok passer. Not a black hole like Carmelo, but not the savant that Bird was. Obviously scoring is amazing. Can scale it as the lone man or as a star amongst others.

[OhayoKD]

I'd probably give Bird the nod over KD for GOAT for portability, but KD is right there.

Defensively, he's 6'11", and is a decent secondary shot blocker, which is very important as these days, shooting centers will draw the opposing big man out into the perimeter. KD can fill that void to help deter shots in the paint. Offensively, he's an ok passer. Not a black hole like Carmelo, but not the savant that Bird was. Obviously scoring is amazing. Can scale it as the lone man or as a star amongst others.

You cannot have goat portablity if you cannot carry defenses

[McBubbles]

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.

This is genuinely very interesting. Discovering that Westbrook was likely a better offensive player than KD was one thing, but discovering that Jason Kidd was likely a better offensive player than KD completely changed my basketball values.

GOAT tier scorer with above average passing ≤ ATG but not quite GOAT tier passer with all time abysmal scoring. Who woulda thunk? Not moi.

[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.

This is genuinely very interesting. Discovering that Westbrook was likely a better offensive player than KD was one thing, but discovering that Jason Kidd was likely a better offensive player than KD completely changed my basketball values.

GOAT tier scorer with above average passing ≤ ATG but not quite GOAT tier passer with all time abysmal scoring. Who woulda thunk? Not moi.

What is the basis for the claim that “Jason Kidd was likely a better offensive player than KD”?

[cpower]

KD is not that portable when you can't build your offense around the guy...He can't win without a prime Curry or Westbrook.

[AmIWrongDude]

The last few years have not been kind to KD’s legacy. He hasn’t got close to sniffing a championship while the Warriors got another ring without him. Not a good look for the man.

[Colbinii]

The last few years have not been kind to KD’s legacy. He hasn’t got close to sniffing a championship while the Warriors got another ring without him. Not a good look for the man.

He was inches away in 2021.

[MartinToVaught]

Shouldn't a player with "GOAT tier portability" be able to win anywhere other than the most stacked team in NBA history?

I've posted before about my distaste for "portability" as a concept in general, but it really breaks down when trying to apply it to KD. It's like people have forgotten his last couple years on the Warriors when he gave up on playing within the system and went back to his old familiar isoball. There were entire playoff games where he'd have 0 or 1 assists while playing with Curry and Klay in their primes. That shouldn't even be possible, but somehow he managed to do it. His griping about being uncomfortable playing with Booker and Beal is kind of the same issue.

KD has demonstrated throughout his career that he's only willing to play one specific way and the rest of the team has to adjust to him, not the other way around. I don't know how that fits into any definition of portability.

[Mickey8]

Still the bus passenger

[A_Biased_Fan]

The last few years have not been kind to KD’s legacy. He hasn’t got close to sniffing a championship while the Warriors got another ring without him. Not a good look for the man.

He was inches away in 2021.

That was the 2nd round, are we sure Brooklyn beats that Suns team? Suns were on fire until the end of that finals series with Giannis becoming unstoppable.

[MartinToVaught]

The last few years have not been kind to KD’s legacy. He hasn’t got close to sniffing a championship while the Warriors got another ring without him. Not a good look for the man.

He was inches away in 2021.

This has become the most mythologized playoff loss in sports history. That Bucks series was only the second round. The Nets blew a 2-0 series lead and got blown out in Game 6. In Game 7, the Nets had a double-digit lead towards the end of the first half and squandered it. They stepped on rakes every time they got a lead in the second half. Most importantly, they still had an entire OT period after Durant's shot where he went scoreless, got swatted by Brook Lopez and threw up an airball that gets swept under the rug because it's KD. Swap KD out for LeBron, PG or Russ and we'd still be hearing about the airball to this day and not their shoe size.

The fact that it even came down to a toe on the line required several massive failures by the Nets and KD, and the toe on the line isn't even what cost them the series, KD's meltdown in overtime is.

[Heej]

Your whole point is that some skills like shooting are more portable because good teams have ballhandling which is interesting because one can just as easily say that good teams often have shooting and cutting as well so guys who can draw 2 to the ball consistently are actually what's more valuable. See how dumb this concept is? It's literally just wielded as a cudgel to punish guys people dislike or as a crutch to support guys they like.

As I said, the point I am making operates under a baseline assumption that genuinely really good NBA players (which you need in order to have a good team) are more likely to have really good on-ball skills, compared to other offensive skill sets. That seems intuitively right to me, and I think it is ultimately what people like Ben Taylor are also assuming when they talk about this concept. But, as I said, it is possible to conceive of roster construction in which you have a really good team and are lacking in on-ball skills. In that case, a guy with great on-ball skills would be really “portable” in that scenario, IMO. Personally, that seems less likely than the flip side, so I’d wager that a guy with great off-ball skills would be more likely to end up being really “portable.” If you disagree with that underlying assumption, then that’s fine.

I will note, however, that you’re oversimplifying what I’m saying to try to boil it down to “skills like shooting are more portable.” I’m really talking about a player’s off-ball game *as a whole.* Shooting can be a big part of that, of course, but off-ball movement is a huge factor, and there’s other things like screening ability as well. Someone can be a great shooter and not be a great off-ball player. In any event, overall, it’s more about how much value a player can have without the ball, because I’m assuming that a really good NBA team is likely to have other really good players who may be less "portable" and need the ball to get even close to maximizing their value. In that sense, I also tend to think players who make quick decisions with the ball are likely more "portable" because that tends to get others involved in the possession more (which is more and more important the better the teammates are, and therefore probably has even more value the better the team—though obviously it's a good trait no matter what).

What you don't realize you're actually getting at is that you're presupposing the guys who are stacked in one attribute are deficient in the "opposing" one which is what's actually holding the team back.

Yes, I think this is actually a good point for you to make. I actually *am* making that kind of assumption about a superstar player’s teammates. The reason for that is that I’m assuming the guy whose “portability” we are evaluating is the best player on his team, and therefore that his teammates have flaws, at least in relative terms (even if they’re really good players overall). And I am assuming that someone is more likely to have really good teammates that are great on the ball and relatively less good off the ball, rather than vice versa (i.e. that they’re players who need to the ball to get close to maximizing their value). If the opposite is true on a particular team, or if the really good teammates are actually equally good at both, then the intuition I’m talking about with regards to “portability” wouldn’t really logically follow.

In any event, in the scenario I’m outlining (where a player has really good teammates that are much better on the ball than off it), you are right in a sense that that other player’s deficiency is part of what would be holding the team back. But there’s going to be deficiencies for players on any team—even the best ones. My intuition here is that a more “portable” player is one that covers the deficiency that I think is most common amongst other really good players, rather than one that shares that same deficiency (at least in relative terms).

Since you want to simplify it to on-ball vs off-ball and assume that most good players will spec towards on-ball; what you fail to understand here is that it's not as simple as one guy's deficiency being covered by another's proficiency lmao.

In reality what happens is that schemes accentuate both players deficiencies until the ancillary skills are able to break the scheme and allow players to unleash their proficiencies. If you have a guy you consider to be more portable because he specs towards off ball, teams will just blitz the on-ball guy and get it out of his hands while forcing the off-ball guy to make the plays.

Phoenix is a fairly clear example of this where their big 3 were all theoretically portable players on paper who should have all been able to cover for the other's on-ball skills as great off-ball guys. Instead the Wolves were just able to attack all of their creating deficiency such that their proficiencies were unable to be utilized enough.

Your intuition fails to account for how modern zone schemes are able to completely flip the math on guys' skillsets and force them to round out their weaknesses to maintain their baseline efficacy. And this has been a theme in our discussions imo that you just don't seem well versed in the Xs and Os of basketball and tend to look at it through a spreadsheet or what looks good on paper.

Versatility has become the name of the game in every sport now because film study and analytics has become way too advanced at exploiting inefficiencies. This isn't the 90s where you can expect specialists to cancel out. In the new era of basketball all that does is give you a bunch of cracks to exploit.

[Colbinii]

The last few years have not been kind to KD’s legacy. He hasn’t got close to sniffing a championship while the Warriors got another ring without him. Not a good look for the man.

He was inches away in 2021.

That was the 2nd round, are we sure Brooklyn beats that Suns team? Suns were on fire until the end of that finals series with Giannis becoming unstoppable.

Yeah, the Suns sucked. They beat injured teams on their way to the Finals.

[tsherkin]

KD is not that portable when you can't build your offense around the guy...He can't win without a prime Curry or Westbrook.

Shouldn't a player with "GOAT tier portability" be able to win anywhere other than the most stacked team in NBA history?

I've posted before about my distaste for "portability" as a concept in general, but it really breaks down when trying to apply it to KD. It's like people have forgotten his last couple years on the Warriors when he gave up on playing within the system and went back to his old familiar isoball. There were entire playoff games where he'd have 0 or 1 assists while playing with Curry and Klay in their primes. That shouldn't even be possible, but somehow he managed to do it. His griping about being uncomfortable playing with Booker and Beal is kind of the same issue.

KD has demonstrated throughout his career that he's only willing to play one specific way and the rest of the team has to adjust to him, not the other way around. I don't know how that fits into any definition of portability.

So, I think we need a better talk on the idea of portability.

A star player can't retain impact when he isn't the focal player. He can continue to provide value, which is why off-ball guys with nasty shots are considered quite portable vs. helio guys, but they won't exert the same level of impact as when they were the focus.

So to circle back to your Golden State example... if they are running the ball through Draymond and emphasizing Steph and Klay, how often is KD actually going to have an opportunity to produce box score stats other than catch-and-shoots and other play-finishing results? So griefing him over assist production seems pointless.

[Heej]

KD is not that portable when you can't build your offense around the guy...He can't win without a prime Curry or Westbrook.

Shouldn't a player with "GOAT tier portability" be able to win anywhere other than the most stacked team in NBA history?

I've posted before about my distaste for "portability" as a concept in general, but it really breaks down when trying to apply it to KD. It's like people have forgotten his last couple years on the Warriors when he gave up on playing within the system and went back to his old familiar isoball. There were entire playoff games where he'd have 0 or 1 assists while playing with Curry and Klay in their primes. That shouldn't even be possible, but somehow he managed to do it. His griping about being uncomfortable playing with Booker and Beal is kind of the same issue.

KD has demonstrated throughout his career that he's only willing to play one specific way and the rest of the team has to adjust to him, not the other way around. I don't know how that fits into any definition of portability.

So, I think we need a better talk on the idea of portability.

A star player can't retain impact when he isn't the focal player. He can continue to provide value, which is why off-ball guys with nasty shots are considered quite portable vs. helio guys, but they won't exert the same level of impact as when they were the focus.

So to circle back to your Golden State example... if they are running the ball through Draymond and emphasizing Steph and Klay, how often is KD actually going to have an opportunity to produce box score stats other than catch-and-shoots and other play-finishing results? So griefing him over assist production seems pointless.

Golden State used to spam the Steph-KD PnR and all KD did was float after the screen and try to post up the switch. He could've racked up hella assists in that system just as a short roller or even just plain catching and attacking in space then kicking early vs the collapse instead of uselessly floating.

I think KD not racking up assists is a valid criticism for his GS era because they had a multifaceted attack with play finishers littered throughout the lineup. But this is what I mean by guys' weaknesses limiting their offensive ceiling so this idea that portability favors specialists is just stupid. Portability has essentially just become a buzzword used as a cudgel to beat players over the head whose games that poster doesn't like.

Versatility > portability because one precedes the other. But the Overthinking Basketball crowd hates that it could really be so simple.