Portability vs. Versatility

[PaulieWal]

CP3 would run it in LA, but James would run it in GS, not Curry. Because that would be utterly unstoppable

A Curry-LeBron led offense would be unreal. Curry can play off the ball himself and also help LeBron play off the ball because he's a good play-maker too.

[young_frogger]

So portable just means "can still make valuable contributions when his usage goes down"?

I don't like this definition, because it causes people to undervalue talent and presume that talented first option players couldn't synergize with each other. So Lebron isn't as portable as Durant because he handles the ball a lot even though he's shown he can play with other ball dominant guards in Wade and Irving? Not to mention, Team USA has shown that you can put a lot of high-usage players together they each still 'make valuable contributions' because they're all incredibly talented, and high basketball IQ players.

Just because somebody handles the ball a lot does not automatically make them 'less portable' than somebody who plays off the ball.

[young_frogger]

CP3 would run it in LA, but James would run it in GS, not Curry. Because that would be utterly unstoppable

A Curry-LeBron led offense would be unreal. Curry can play off the ball himself and also help LeBron play off the ball because he's a good play-maker himself.

The offensive efficiency would be unheard of. Still, Lebron is playing next to arguably the next-best shooting point guard in Irving so we should appreciate that. Still, Steph's lightning quick release makes him a bigger catch and shoot threat than Irving.

A team with Curry, Durant and Lebron would simply be absurd, the GOAT offensive team without a doubt.

[PaulieWal]

CP3 would run it in LA, but James would run it in GS, not Curry. Because that would be utterly unstoppable

A Curry-LeBron led offense would be unreal. Curry can play off the ball himself and also help LeBron play off the ball because he's a good play-maker himself.

The offensive efficiency would be unheard of. Still, Lebron is playing next to arguably the next-best shooting point guard in Irving so we should appreciate that. Still, Steph's lightning quick release makes him a bigger catch and shoot threat than Irving.

A team with Curry, Durant and Lebron would simply be absurd, the GOAT offensive team without a doubt.

My only problem with Irving is that he's not a good play maker and has basically forced LeBron to become the PG. Curry is a much better play maker than Irving and would get him easy buckets like Wade used to. I do think Irving will get better as he gets older and gains more experience from playing on a stacked team but a Curry-LeBron pairing might be the best possible scenario if you are looking to find a superstar PG to put with LeBron.

[young_frogger]

A Curry-LeBron led offense would be unreal. Curry can play off the ball himself and also help LeBron play off the ball because he's a good play-maker himself.

The offensive efficiency would be unheard of. Still, Lebron is playing next to arguably the next-best shooting point guard in Irving so we should appreciate that. Still, Steph's lightning quick release makes him a bigger catch and shoot threat than Irving.

A team with Curry, Durant and Lebron would simply be absurd, the GOAT offensive team without a doubt.

My only problem with Irving is that he's not a good play maker and has basically forced LeBron to become the PG. Curry is a much better play maker than Irving and would get him easy buckets like Wade used to. I do think Irving will get better as he gets older and gains more experience from playing on a stacked team but a Curry-LeBron pairing might be the best possible scenario if you are looking to find a superstar PG to put with LeBron.

Yep, Curry is the best PG in the league and the best shooter of all time, Lebron is the best athlete and overall player in the league, definitely can't go wrong there

It's a shame they never got to play together on Team USA or on All-star teams.

[PaulieWal]

Yep, Curry is the best PG in the league and the best shooter of all time, Lebron is the best athlete and overall player in the league, definitely can't go wrong there

It's a shame they never got to play together on Team USA or on All-star teams.

More than them being the best players in the league it's about a more natural fit because of their offensive skill-sets. If you put LeBron with Paul it will still lead to an amazing offense but it won't be as smooth because Paul's greatest strength is controlling the game and running the offense (something that LeBron also does well). With Curry we have seen him play with other play-makers and thrive off the ball. Just like Wade and LeBron had it figured out by 2012, Paul and LeBron will too, but Curry and LeBron will probably click from day 1.

[G35]

So portable just means "can still make valuable contributions when his usage goes down"?

I don't like this definition, because it causes people to undervalue talent and presume that talented first option players couldn't synergize with each other. So Lebron isn't as portable as Durant because he handles the ball a lot even though he's shown he can play with other ball dominant guards in Wade and Irving? Not to mention, Team USA has shown that you can put a lot of high-usage players together they each still 'make valuable contributions' because they're all incredibly talented, and high basketball IQ players.

Just because somebody handles the ball a lot does not automatically make them 'less portable' than somebody who plays off the ball.

Well when you are talking portability you are talking in all situations. I kind of like that definition. Can a player still make a strong contribution even when he isn't used in his optimum capacity. That's where I don't like the "Nash should always have the ball because he creates elite offenses".

Also having an elite offense is not the end all for a team. Defense is just as much a consideration as the offense. When you think portability, Nash would not be a one for one exchange with Isiah. Having Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Mark Aguire, Adrian Dantley become spot up shooters around Nash is not the optimum use of their talents. For a PG to be portable I do think he has to have some strong defensive ability because he may be in a situation where the team does not need him to score or be a great facilitator.

The Kobe/Shaq Lakers would not need a Magic or Nash level facilitator; if they had say a prime Gary Payton/Walt Frazier to guard Mike Bibby that would have been more helpful than Nash's shooting or facilitating.

I do think Lebron is very portable but it would depend on his mentality. The question with Lebron is how much he gets marginalized or he marginalizes others......

[magicmerl]

So portable just means "can still make valuable contributions when his usage goes down"?

I don't like this definition, because it causes people to undervalue talent and presume that talented first option players couldn't synergize with each other. So Lebron isn't as portable as Durant because he handles the ball a lot even though he's shown he can play with other ball dominant guards in Wade and Irving? Not to mention, Team USA has shown that you can put a lot of high-usage players together they each still 'make valuable contributions' because they're all incredibly talented, and high basketball IQ players.

Just because somebody handles the ball a lot does not automatically make them 'less portable' than somebody who plays off the ball.

Well, yeah. But with players who are really talented offensively, for them to play with more talented teammates it's not as good for them to shoot so many times, ya know? (p.s. I give a free pass to the players like LeBron and Shaq who aren't necessarily portable but that's because they are the player that everybody else on the team should fit around. The Iversons of the world, not so much).

I was very impressed with Carmelo Anthony playing for team USA. He really managed to maximise what he could do without being a parimary option.

[tsherkin]

Melo is curious. He's waaaaaaay better off-ball and in ensemble casts than as a high-usage on-ball guy. He murders FIBA, so nasty vwish he could find a team that let him play like that in tge NBA.

[Jim Naismith]

Otherwise what you are asking is what superstar makes the best role player.

Durant could be added to high-powered teams and still be the best player without drastically altering the offense.

For example, add Durant to Golden State or Chicago or Memphis. He can be the #1 option on these teams while their offenses remain relatively unchanged.

I don't think the same non-disruptive integration is possible with LeBron.

Ironically, LeBron's extreme versatility actually works against his portability in this case. The optimal offense for LeBron should feature him as both the #1 playmaker and the #1 scorer.

This non-portability is not a "bad thing" per se. In fact, in LeBron's case, it's an inescapable consequence of his multiple talents.

[picc]

In most cases, the players around your stars will need to be capable of fitting in with their talents. You have your Durant with Westbrook and your Dwade with Lebron, but players of their caliber have historically had teams built around them specifically, without other high usage backcourt players at their side. Building a team using portability as a defining metric for what star you pick is somewhat presumptive of attaining another high caliber, high usage wing. Something that NBA teams assembling a roster have generally tried to avoid when pursuing role players, and have found hard to do when pursuing other stars.

Star players naturally make the inferior players around them better by virtue of the defensive attention they draw and the playmaking talent that normally accompanies star wings. So half of their portability works inherently. The other half is incumbent on factors that could easily never affect your respective team.

[MisterHibachi]

Otherwise what you are asking is what superstar makes the best role player.

Durant could be added to high-powered teams and still be the best player without drastically altering the offense.

For example, add Durant to Golden State or Chicago or Memphis. He can be the #1 option on these teams while their offenses remain relatively unchanged.

I don't think the same non-disruptive integration is possible with LeBron.

Ironically, LeBron's extreme versatility actually works against his portability in this case. The optimal offense for LeBron should feature him as both the #1 playmaker and the #1 scorer.

This non-portability is not a "bad thing" per se. In fact, in LeBron's case, it's an inescapable consequence of his multiple talents.

If you add LeBron to the Warriors and don't alter the offense and just tell him to fit in wherever he can, he has the skill and talent to focus on marginal roles and still make a huge impact. He is capable of that. His versatility does not work against him at all.

Tbh, I'm not sure what you mean exactly by make a guy a number 1 option and not change the offense. Making Durant or LeBron the #1 option by definition changes the offense, because now Curry is changing his role and becoming the secondary scorer.

[Dr Spaceman]

Put another way: why would I give someone else the ball, when Nash is better at it than anyone else? Why is ball dominance an issue?

I wondered the same thing when Lebron was discussed earlier. How many situations is either guy realistically going to find themselves in where you want to give them the ball less?

Ironically both guys sort of found themselves in that situation--Nash with Dirk and Lebron with Wade. And what we found was both guys still having the ball a ton of the time while being quite effective off the ball.

But since people automatically assume that a defensive-oriented, more well-rounded player is more portable. This came up a lot in Dirk v KG threads which never made sense to me since we have actually seen Dirk play on so many different teams(I think people don't stop to realize this since the jersey always says Mavs) and have great success. The Nasty/Dirty/Filthy Mavs. The Avery/Damp/JHo Mavs, the Kidd/Jet/Rick Mavs, then with Tyson, then with the remnants in 2012, the horrible hodgepodge in 2013. Monta/Calderon last year. He couldn't be more portable.

I really can't imagine a realistic scenario where Nash doesn't fit in beautifully.

Well to be clear: I don't think this logic should apply to LeBron James. This is something I've been doing quite a lot of thought on lately, and truth be told at this point I don't view James as that kind of player. I'm gonna expound a little bit.

So the reason we talk about portability is because in basketball you want to win championships. And in order to win championships, you want to be as good as possible on both sides of the ball. This is where the term ceiling comes in, and if we're going to give LeBron this exception it should only be because he's capable of leading a GOAT offense already with the way he plays currently (ie. the team ceiling is as high as it would be if he were a more portable player).

So what's the problem? Well, James has had several opportunities to do something like that and he just hasn't. Compare how the Heat perform with LeBron on the floor during his peak season to that of Nash: (all numbers relative to league average)

2013 Heat, James ON
Reg. Season: +10.6 ORTG
Playoffs: +6.0 ORTG

2006 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +8.0 ORTG
Playoffs: +10.2 ORTG

There's something seriously wrong with this picture. Nash was leading an offense that was on par with James' Heatles, featuring Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Ray Allen, and Mario Chalmers as the next 4 guys in minutes played. For Nash? We're looking at Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion, and one of James Jones/Tim Thomas. Not only did Nash's teams perform at a similar level to a team with wholly superior talent, it then went on to perform at best-in-league level in the playoffs while the Heat offense dropped off considerably. This is not a joke, Nash was taking a team of (let's be honest) wally unimpressive offensive players to heights that a star studded cast was only reaching with the best player in the world at his peak.

What happens when Nash actually has all of his weapons?

2005 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +14.2 ORTG
Playoffs: +12.6 ORTG

2007 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +13.1 ORTG
Playoffs: +6.0 ORTG

2010 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +10.1 ORTG
Playoffs: +12.9 ORTG

Look, we need to call this what it is: Nash was lapping the field, and other than Magic there just isn't a player who has ever approached this type of sustained dominance. All of the traditional criticisms of SSOL do not hold water here: the Heat were a team that played up-tempo and spaced the floor with shooters (just like the Suns), and more importantly they did the same smallball thing as the Suns, playing LeBron at PF and Bosh at C just to get more offense on the floor. That was their identity.

Honestly, there's an obvious conclusion to draw from this: the Heat decided to give LeBron all the tools needed to deliver a truly GOAT offense, even if it came at the expense of defense and interior play, and he fell drastically short of Nash. If James is not capable of leading a GOAT offense with the type of talent he had around him, why would he be someone we just tear everything down for?

The question is obvious at this point, so yes, I do believe Nash is a superior offensive player to James, and I think the gap is clear. James is the better overall player, and that's why the Heat won titles: his defensive presence allowed the team to make the sacrifices it did and still had a very effective defense playing small. Obviously Nash couldn't do that.

But no, there are actually plenty of scenarios where I'd want LeBron to drop his scoring and ball-dominance to levels substantially below where it typically is, and he's spent the last 5 years playing on such teams. LeBron just isn't someone you "tear it all down" for and just let have total control the offense, because he is not a good enough offensive player.

Honestly I don't feel very good about volume scorers in general, to me there's little inherent value to scoring, what is truly valuable is the degree to which your scoring distorts the defense. In particular, this is why I'm so crazy high on Nowitzki and Curry's offensive games, because they just cause more problems for defense than players in the perimeter slasher role.

I expand upon my thoughts a lot more in this thread from a week ago if you want to read: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1379892#p43126024

[young_frogger]

So portable just means "can still make valuable contributions when his usage goes down"?

I don't like this definition, because it causes people to undervalue talent and presume that talented first option players couldn't synergize with each other. So Lebron isn't as portable as Durant because he handles the ball a lot even though he's shown he can play with other ball dominant guards in Wade and Irving? Not to mention, Team USA has shown that you can put a lot of high-usage players together they each still 'make valuable contributions' because they're all incredibly talented, and high basketball IQ players.

Just because somebody handles the ball a lot does not automatically make them 'less portable' than somebody who plays off the ball.

Well, yeah. But with players who are really talented offensively, for them to play with more talented teammates it's not as good for them to shoot so many times, ya know? (p.s. I give a free pass to the players like LeBron and Shaq who aren't necessarily portable but that's because they are the player that everybody else on the team should fit around. The Iversons of the world, not so much).

I was very impressed with Carmelo Anthony playing for team USA. He really managed to maximise what he could do without being a parimary option.

My point is that Lebron, Kobe, Melo, Chris Paul, Wade etc would all be considered non-portable by the definitions we've been discussing but with Team USA you see that if you throw them all together you still have a team that is vastly superior to the competition just through talent and ability alone. Obviously Team USA is an extreme example and there aren't that many good national teams, but I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that Team USA would be the runaway favorites for the NBA title over any other 'balanced' team in the NBA that has good off-ball players, defensive stoppers etc and chemistry. Defense in particular becomes much easier when you no longer have to expend too much energy on offense. Harden was considered a decent defender who did a good job on Kobe when he was on the Thunder. When he got to Houston he was considered a slouch. Same thing happened with guys like Ray Allen, he was considered a poor defender but when he got to Boston his defense suddenly 'improved'. This wasn't due solely to Boston having a 'winning culture' or because Tom Thibodeau is a magician. It's because when a team has several great players, these great players can use their energy more efficiently on both ends. Sometimes people get too wrapped up in finding the perfect formula for players, and I know chemistry plays a factor and talent doesn't always mesh, the 2012 Lakers come to mind there. But I still think its a little bit silly to call a Lebron James 'less portable' than someone like Kyle Korver(as much as I love the guy), or frankly anybody in the league.

A vast majority of time, the more talented player is going to have a bigger positive impact than the less talented player, therefore he's 'more portable'. Obviously somebody like Kyle is going to have a positive impact on any team he plays for, but it's foolish to think that there's any team in the NBA that would be better off with Kyle than Lebron. Chris Paul + Kyle Korver is a perfect match on paper, but every GM would take Chris Paul + Lebron 100% of the time. Even if you consider teams that found success in ball movement and system offenses, such as the Spurs, Lebron would still make them significantly better, so its meaningless to call him 'not portable'. Iverson is a worse player to build around because he's smaller, less efficient, less athletic, lower basketball IQ and just worse at basketball. It has nothing to do with portability.

[young_frogger]

Put another way: why would I give someone else the ball, when Nash is better at it than anyone else? Why is ball dominance an issue?

I wondered the same thing when Lebron was discussed earlier. How many situations is either guy realistically going to find themselves in where you want to give them the ball less?

Ironically both guys sort of found themselves in that situation--Nash with Dirk and Lebron with Wade. And what we found was both guys still having the ball a ton of the time while being quite effective off the ball.

But since people automatically assume that a defensive-oriented, more well-rounded player is more portable. This came up a lot in Dirk v KG threads which never made sense to me since we have actually seen Dirk play on so many different teams(I think people don't stop to realize this since the jersey always says Mavs) and have great success. The Nasty/Dirty/Filthy Mavs. The Avery/Damp/JHo Mavs, the Kidd/Jet/Rick Mavs, then with Tyson, then with the remnants in 2012, the horrible hodgepodge in 2013. Monta/Calderon last year. He couldn't be more portable.

I really can't imagine a realistic scenario where Nash doesn't fit in beautifully.

Well to be clear: I don't think this logic should apply to LeBron James. This is something I've been doing quite a lot of thought on lately, and truth be told at this point I don't view James as that kind of player. I'm gonna expound a little bit.

So the reason we talk about portability is because in basketball you want to win championships. And in order to win championships, you want to be as good as possible on both sides of the ball. This is where the term ceiling comes in, and if we're going to give LeBron this exception it should only be because he's capable of leading a GOAT offense already with the way he plays currently (ie. the team ceiling is as high as it would be if he were a more portable player).

So what's the problem? Well, James has had several opportunities to do something like that and he just hasn't. Compare how the Heat perform with LeBron on the floor during his peak season to that of Nash: (all numbers relative to league average)

2013 Heat, James ON
Reg. Season: +10.6 ORTG
Playoffs: +6.0 ORTG

2006 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +8.0 ORTG
Playoffs: +10.2 ORTG

There's something seriously wrong with this picture. Nash was leading an offense that was on par with James' Heatles, featuring Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Ray Allen, and Mario Chalmers as the next 4 guys in minutes played. For Nash? We're looking at Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion, and one of James Jones/Tim Thomas. Not only did Nash's teams perform at a similar level to a team with wholly superior talent, it then went on to perform at best-in-league level in the playoffs while the Heat offense dropped off considerably. This is not a joke, Nash was taking a team of (let's be honest) wally unimpressive offensive players to heights that a star studded cast was only reaching with the best player in the world at his peak.

What happens when Nash actually has all of his weapons?

2005 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +14.2 ORTG
Playoffs: +12.6 ORTG

2007 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +13.1 ORTG
Playoffs: +6.0 ORTG

2010 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +10.1 ORTG
Playoffs: +12.9 ORTG

Look, we need to call this what it is: Nash was lapping the field, and other than Magic there just isn't a player who has ever approached this type of sustained dominance. All of the traditional criticisms of SSOL do not hold water here: the Heat were a team that played up-tempo and spaced the floor with shooters (just like the Suns), and more importantly they did the same smallball thing as the Suns, playing LeBron at PF and Bosh at C just to get more offense on the floor. That was their identity.

Honestly, there's an obvious conclusion to draw from this: the Heat decided to give LeBron all the tools needed to deliver a truly GOAT offense, even if it came at the expense of defense and interior play, and he fell drastically short of Nash. If James is not capable of leading a GOAT offense with the type of talent he had around him, why would he be someone we just tear everything down for?

The question is obvious at this point, so yes, I do believe Nash is a superior offensive player to James, and I think the gap is clear. James is the better overall player, and that's why the Heat won titles: his defensive presence allowed the team to make the sacrifices it did and still had a very effective defense playing small. Obviously Nash couldn't do that.

But no, there are actually plenty of scenarios where I'd want LeBron to drop his scoring and ball-dominance to levels substantially below where it typically is, and he's spent the last 5 years playing on such teams. LeBron just isn't someone you "tear it all down" for and just let have total control the offense, because he is not a good enough offensive player.

Honestly I don't feel very good about volume scorers in general, to me there's little inherent value to scoring, what is truly valuable is the degree to which your scoring distorts the defense. In particular, this is why I'm so crazy high on Nowitzki and Curry's offensive games, because they just cause more problems for defense than players in the perimeter slasher role.

I expand upon my thoughts a lot more in this thread from a week ago if you want to read: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1379892#p43126024

You're underrating the value of an efficient volume scorer. Nash is a phenomenal offensive player and I think he's one of the best ever, he's lead many of the league's best offenses which is no easy feat. But I think you're also undervaluing the offensive talent that he had on his teams with Dirk, Prime Matrix, Amare and some great shooters (I know he did it a couple years without those guys, like I said I'm acknowledging that he's amazing), but we must also take into account that Nash's ability and tendency to push the pace, a strategy less effective in the playoffs, was a big reason for his teams consistently having the best offensive rating. You can also argue that this playing style, is a reason for his teams being consistently mediocre on defense, not just Nash's lack of defensive ability.

I agree that scoring and volume scoring is generally an overrated stat, especially among uneducated fans. I also agree that Nowitzki and Curry are able to distort defenses because they have unprecedented shooting abilities at their respective sizes. But Lebron still distorts a defense with his slashing ability because he's absurdly good at it and is as efficient at scoring as those other two guys. With scoring, everything is relative and efficiency eventually becomes the biggest factor. Having someone like Lebron on your team is incredibly useful because you can give him the ball and get a high percentage bucket when defenses tighten up and the offense isn't clicking, and with Nash even though he's extremely efficient he's not able to get a shot up as easily. In these situations volume is just as important as efficiency.

When it comes to assessing the value of a scorer, the combination of efficiency and volume is key. Efficiency is always valuable, and volume loses value drastically whenever the efficiency isn't there. At the same time, the efficiency can only be as effective as the volume dictates. I understand that with great point guards like Nash, you have a fantastic play-making ability to help others score efficiently. But it's been proven time and time again that when the playoffs come around, it's extremely useful to have someone that can score and carry a team offensively when defenses tighten up and the tempo slows down.

[Dr Spaceman]

Spoiler:

I wondered the same thing when Lebron was discussed earlier. How many situations is either guy realistically going to find themselves in where you want to give them the ball less?

Ironically both guys sort of found themselves in that situation--Nash with Dirk and Lebron with Wade. And what we found was both guys still having the ball a ton of the time while being quite effective off the ball.

But since people automatically assume that a defensive-oriented, more well-rounded player is more portable. This came up a lot in Dirk v KG threads which never made sense to me since we have actually seen Dirk play on so many different teams(I think people don't stop to realize this since the jersey always says Mavs) and have great success. The Nasty/Dirty/Filthy Mavs. The Avery/Damp/JHo Mavs, the Kidd/Jet/Rick Mavs, then with Tyson, then with the remnants in 2012, the horrible hodgepodge in 2013. Monta/Calderon last year. He couldn't be more portable.

I really can't imagine a realistic scenario where Nash doesn't fit in beautifully.

Well to be clear: I don't think this logic should apply to LeBron James. This is something I've been doing quite a lot of thought on lately, and truth be told at this point I don't view James as that kind of player. I'm gonna expound a little bit.

So the reason we talk about portability is because in basketball you want to win championships. And in order to win championships, you want to be as good as possible on both sides of the ball. This is where the term ceiling comes in, and if we're going to give LeBron this exception it should only be because he's capable of leading a GOAT offense already with the way he plays currently (ie. the team ceiling is as high as it would be if he were a more portable player).

So what's the problem? Well, James has had several opportunities to do something like that and he just hasn't. Compare how the Heat perform with LeBron on the floor during his peak season to that of Nash: (all numbers relative to league average)

2013 Heat, James ON
Reg. Season: +10.6 ORTG
Playoffs: +6.0 ORTG

2006 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +8.0 ORTG
Playoffs: +10.2 ORTG

There's something seriously wrong with this picture. Nash was leading an offense that was on par with James' Heatles, featuring Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Ray Allen, and Mario Chalmers as the next 4 guys in minutes played. For Nash? We're looking at Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion, and one of James Jones/Tim Thomas. Not only did Nash's teams perform at a similar level to a team with wholly superior talent, it then went on to perform at best-in-league level in the playoffs while the Heat offense dropped off considerably. This is not a joke, Nash was taking a team of (let's be honest) wally unimpressive offensive players to heights that a star studded cast was only reaching with the best player in the world at his peak.

What happens when Nash actually has all of his weapons?

2005 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +14.2 ORTG
Playoffs: +12.6 ORTG

2007 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +13.1 ORTG
Playoffs: +6.0 ORTG

2010 Suns, Nash ON
Reg. Season: +10.1 ORTG
Playoffs: +12.9 ORTG

Look, we need to call this what it is: Nash was lapping the field, and other than Magic there just isn't a player who has ever approached this type of sustained dominance. All of the traditional criticisms of SSOL do not hold water here: the Heat were a team that played up-tempo and spaced the floor with shooters (just like the Suns), and more importantly they did the same smallball thing as the Suns, playing LeBron at PF and Bosh at C just to get more offense on the floor. That was their identity.

Honestly, there's an obvious conclusion to draw from this: the Heat decided to give LeBron all the tools needed to deliver a truly GOAT offense, even if it came at the expense of defense and interior play, and he fell drastically short of Nash. If James is not capable of leading a GOAT offense with the type of talent he had around him, why would he be someone we just tear everything down for?

The question is obvious at this point, so yes, I do believe Nash is a superior offensive player to James, and I think the gap is clear. James is the better overall player, and that's why the Heat won titles: his defensive presence allowed the team to make the sacrifices it did and still had a very effective defense playing small. Obviously Nash couldn't do that.

But no, there are actually plenty of scenarios where I'd want LeBron to drop his scoring and ball-dominance to levels substantially below where it typically is, and he's spent the last 5 years playing on such teams. LeBron just isn't someone you "tear it all down" for and just let have total control the offense, because he is not a good enough offensive player.

Honestly I don't feel very good about volume scorers in general, to me there's little inherent value to scoring, what is truly valuable is the degree to which your scoring distorts the defense. In particular, this is why I'm so crazy high on Nowitzki and Curry's offensive games, because they just cause more problems for defense than players in the perimeter slasher role.

I expand upon my thoughts a lot more in this thread from a week ago if you want to read: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1379892#p43126024

But I think you're also undervaluing the offensive talent that he had on his teams with Dirk, Prime Matrix, Amare and some great shooters (I know he did it a couple years without those guys, like I said I'm acknowledging that he's amazing)

I'm comparing Phoenix Nash to Miami LeBron. It doesn't even matter if Nash's offensive talent was the same, because Nash's offenses were leaps and bounds better than LeBron's. The difference between an 120 ORTG and a 116 is so huge as to be incomparable. As you get higher and higher up the scale, it gets exponentially harder to improve a team. Basically, LeBron was leading top 5 in a season offenses while Nash was literally leading the best ever.

Unless you're trying to say Nash's casts were better than LeBron's, in which case, really? Dwayne Wade alone is just far better than Stoudemire.

but we must also take into account that Nash's ability and tendency to push the pace, a strategy less effective in the playoffs,

Go back and read the post you quoted. If this were true, why did Phoenix's offenses improve during the 2005, 2006 and 2010 playoffs? Like, how can those two things possibly be true at the same time?

was a big reason for his teams consistently having the best offensive rating. You can also argue that this playing style, is a reason for his teams being consistently mediocre on defense, not just Nash's lack of defensive ability.

But again, we're comparing them to the Heat, who did the exact same thing, which you'll also note I mentioned in the post you quoted.

I agree that scoring and volume scoring is generally an overrated stat, especially among uneducated fans. I also agree that Nowitzki and Curry are able to distort defenses because they have unprecedented shooting abilities at their respective sizes. But Lebron still distorts a defense with his slashing ability because he's absurdly good at it and is as efficient at scoring as those other two guys. With scoring, everything is relative and efficiency eventually becomes the biggest factor. Having someone like Lebron on your team is incredibly useful because you can give him the ball and get a high percentage bucket when defenses tighten up and the offense isn't clicking, and with Nash even though he's extremely efficient he's not able to get a shot up as easily. In these situations volume is just as important as efficiency.

Please be careful making assertions like this. Here is what Nash was producing in the last 5 minutes of games with +/-5 scoring margin:

Per 48 minutes
40.3 PTS // 12.8 AST // .639 eFG%

And LeBron in his best season

2009 per 48 minutes
55.9 PTS // 12.6 AST // .611 eFG%

Sure, LeBron's better at it, but not by a lot. I think you're underestimate how damn good Nash was at scoring.

When it comes to assessing the value of a scorer, the combination of efficiency and volume is key. Efficiency is always valuable, and volume loses value drastically whenever the efficiency isn't there. At the same time, the efficiency can only be as effective as the volume dictates. I understand that with great point guards like Nash, you have a fantastic play-making ability to help others score efficiently. But it's been proven time and time again that when the playoffs come around, it's extremely useful to have someone that can score and carry a team offensively when defenses tighten up and the tempo slows down.

[/quote]

LeBron's super-efficient scoring comes at the expense of more efficient shots the offense could be getting. If he were more focused on playmaking, his teams would likely have many more spot up and at-rim attempts, which are converted at a far, far higher rate than LeBron's .650 TS%. This is why his teams do not perform as well as the teams of great playmakers do.

Re: your last sentence, when "defenses tighten up and the tempo slows down" Nash's teams get better, while LeBron's get worse. So you don't really have a point there.

[magicmerl]

LeBron's super-efficient scoring comes at the expense of more efficient shots the offense could be getting.

Really? I can understand you making this arguement in the context of a "vs Nash" argument, since you're basically just asserting that Nash was better. What evidence do you have that LeBron cannibalises his team's easy scoring opportunities?

[Doctor MJ]

Often the terms portable and versatile are sometimes used interchangeably to describe players. I think the distinction between the two qualities should be maintained.

Portable
A portable player can be added to many different teams while maximizing both the player's ability and the team's synergy.

Versatile
A versatile player can do wider range of things at a higher skill level than expected (given the player's position).

To make this distinction more concrete, here are some examples:

Portable and versatile: Kevin Garnett, Kawhi Leonard

Portable but not versatile: Kyle Korver, Tyson Chandler

Versatile but not as portable: Russell Westbrook, LeBron James

I expect the last entry to be little more controversial, but the triple-double (a sure sign of versatility) may also signal ball-dominance, thus making the player more difficult to incorporate into a team's existing offense.

I don't think I disagree with anything you say, but I would make a distinction:

It's not so much that there's a danger of us losing the distinction between the terms, as it is that virtually no one is even aware we've (ahem, ElGee) made the distinction.

[Doctor MJ]

Portability not only depends on the player's skills and capabilities, but it also depends on the player's willingness to "sacrifice" himself for the good of the team.

For instance, I'm sure LeBron could play the role of Draymond in the Warriors, but I don't think he would be willing to sacrifice his enormous talent to "simply" fill in that role.

I don't think LeBron is any less portable player than Leonard in terms of skill and talent, but in this case, I think the thing that could differentiate their level of portability, is their will to sacrifice themselves.

There's another component to this however:

Optimal portability for LeBron in Draymond's position would not mean matching Draymond's impact, but matching typical LeBron level impact by playing the Draymond role. Portability thus is a tougher game to win the more talented you get.

[Doctor MJ]

Is not about if you need to cramp yourself to fit in or not, it is about if you will eventually be able and willing to do what you are asked to do.

It's really about ratios, both for portability and versatility.

You're a versatile player if you can play a variety of ways and still achieve similar impact.
You're a portable player if the way you'll best fit into a variety scenarios achieves similar impact, even if that way is always the same.

I can see that you want to refrain from knocking a super-awesome talent, but in practice what that means is that you're trying to define these terms as a kind of hybrid between a player's impact ceiling and something else which requires it's own name...and the name we gave it was portability. Always in development of conceptual ontology, as with the use of statistics for general analysis, we need to be careful about defining terms as compound concepts unless we already have names for the elements that make them up and a clear use for referring to the compound idea without bringing up the elements. To do otherwise is to develop a set of vocabulary that conflates ideas and leaves communication ambiguous.