RealGM

That term has been used a lot around here, but I don't think there's a lot agreement.

Here's how I see portability:
-The ability to fit onto any number of random teams and through his play will help maximize the surrounding players by not interfering.

What I mean is, most players derive their value from a couple skills. Carmelo, for example, derives his value from scoring and having the ball in his hands. Thus, he's often not a good fit on many teams because there's only one ball on offense.

If you throw Carmelo onto every team in the league and see how it fits, you can judge his portability. The Bobcats would love to have him, but he'd be a terrible fit in Miami. Miami already has scorers, and they're more efficient than him. Given that his playing style doesn't help others -- doesn't really space the floor, doesn't pass, etc. -- I think it's safe to safe he has low portability.

A guy with high portability is someone who can fit on a great number of teams without interference. Garnett is a great example. Even the best teams in the league would love to have his defense. On offense, he's an unselfish guy with long range on his jump shot with great accuracy along with fantastic passing. Defense/outside shooting/passing are three of the basic building blocks of portability, though of course there are other factors. Versatility in general is extremely important.

Let's see how these two guys fit on the top teams in the league:
-Thunder
Carmelo and Durant would be an awkward fit, especially when Westbrook comes back. Honestly, I think the Thunder would be better with Ibaka at PF than Carmelo.

Garnett, however, would be a terrifyingly good fit. He'd replace the crumbling Perkins offering up better defense and very useful offense.

-Rockets
I don't know about Harden, Howard, and Carmelo coexisting. Add in Asik trying to get minutes at power forward, and the floor is suddenly crowded. It wouldn't be a pretty fit.

Even though the Rockets have two very good centers, I think they could really use Garnett who could play PF for them pretty easily without the zero spacing that Asik provides.

-Spurs
Carmelo's defense wouldn't be welcome on the Spurs, and on offense it's still Tony Parker's team. They had a wonderful offense last year, and I'm not sure how much Carmelo could improve that. He'd add isolation scoring, but that's not how their offense is constructed.

Garnett could replace Splitter's role and would be fine taking a backseat to the stars on the team. I think they could really use his jump shot because besides Duncan their big men either shoot well (Bonner) without much defense or don't have a reliable jump shot. Garnett could start at PF and play some backup C minutes.

-Grizzlies
Here Carmelo fits pretty well. The Grizzlies would lose some defense, but they desperately need scoring. They want to push the pace, but doesn't really suit Carmelo, and they still need more outside shooting. Yet I think he fits pretty well here: he's an uber-version of Rudy Gay, oddly enough.

Garnett actually replicates a lot of what Marc Gasol does, but rebounds better. Fortunately, there aren't steep diminishing returns for their overlapping skills: defense, passing, midrange jump shooting. They'd also be able to keep an elite defensive big man on the court for the entire game.

-Heat
Carmelo doesn't work well here. They like using Battier as a stretch four. And you wouldn't want to take the ball out of LeBron's hands. Heck, poor Bosh needs more touches much less sharing with Carmelo....

I honestly think they could make a run at 70 wins and above if Wade is healthy. This is like a perfect fit. Big man rotation of Bosh/Garnett/Chris Anderson/Oden? Yikes. The Heat lack rebounding and interior defense, and Garnett would replicate Bosh's midrange shot for floor-stretching.

-Nets
How much would they even improve with Carmelo? Honestly.... I guess a Deron/Carmelo/Lopez trio is pretty intriguing on offense. But I think for a lot of situations Pierce/Kirilenko would be better out there.

Garnett's team. I think he works really well. His rebounding complements Lopez. They need defense. He's unselfish. Yada yada.

-Pacers
Pacers are the eastern conference version of the Grizzlies, so yeah, they wouldn't mind giving the keys to Carmelo because their offense wasn't scoring. Paul George/Carmelo is a cool duo, actually. Along with West and Hibbert, Carmelo could help bully smaller opponents.

They have West and Hibbert, but it's not like they'd say no to Garnett. They could shorten their rotation to a fantastic three-man one in the frontcourt (I personally wouldn't want to play Scola much if I had Garnett.) I think he could fit into the culture of the team well and they'd want his veteran experience.

-Knicks
Carmelo's team ... but the Knicks are such a weird mess I have no idea how to judge this. Carmelo/Bargnani/Amare is a terrible idea. That's not really Carmelo's fault though. The Knicks should been a defensive team with outside shooters around Carmelo.

With Chandler's injury problems, I think they'd really need Garnett to pick up the defense in his absence. It's a strange, nearly crowded frontcourt, but I don't see how he fits worse than Carmelo.

(One problem here is that a lot of people loathe Garnett, so just replace his name and keep his strengths as a player, and I think you'll agree he fits on a lot of teams.)


For one contentious topic, I don't think Kobe has high portability, and I can't understand why some people think he does. He demands the ball a lot, and he doesn't appear to want to accept a smaller role. Obviously, you can still be a great player if you have lower portability (Jordan's not a perfect fit for many teams because he's such a ball dominant guy, but obviously they'd want him on team.) Also, Kobe's defensive effort has waned so much over the years (did he learn from Shaq?) that I think it hurts his rating here. Again, this is not the ultimate indictment -- he's still a great player.


I'm not sure how to evaluate rebounding. There are high diminishing returns for defensive rebounding, but obviously rebounding is extremely important to winning games. This is my thinking: it's more about being a liability than being elite. As for offensive rebounding, I think it might actually be correlated with portability but it's often determined by team strategy (like the Celtics) and position. Plus, you can't have everyone crash the boards inside, can you?


Point guards are tough to judge here. Many great point guards obviously need the ball in their hands. Nash, for example, has high portability in many areas -- unselfish, elite floor-spacer, can step in and fill roles -- but if you put him next to a high volume, ball dominant scorer (oh hm let me think of an example...) his value diminishes. But there are, of course, highly portable point guards, like Mike Conley.


Some of the problems here are due to how you judge portability. I think there are two underlying components: interference and amplification (yeah, I'm just making up terms here.) Does your game interfere others? (Some may cite Carmelo; Dantley is a historical example.) As for amplitude, the praise behind Nash is that he "makes his teammates better," and he does this through his passing and the constant threat of his amazing shooting. You can probably slide in arguments for Jordan here (or use that against him, depending on your point of view) and great teammates like David Robinson.


As a final note, it is possible to have high portability and retain a top 10 or 20 status. Bird, for example, checks off most of the boxes (his defense is underrated) and he can play two positions (versatility) at a high level. He's great off the ball, and is not ball dominant like, say, Jordan. Walton's peak is really high, and he doesn't get in the way on offense; he helps elevate teammates. He also has enough of a jumper to keep defenses honest. Think of an MVP level Joakim Noah.

All portable team

Stockton
Miller
Bird
Malone
Shaq

Agreed on the definition, but to add on I'd say it also applies across time, ie. does someone's skillset/game fit not only now but in the 80s/90s/00s, etc.

colts18 wrote:All portable team

Stockton
Miller
Bird
Malone
Shaq

Garnett and PF and Robinson/Hakeem at center
Your big guys would need the ball and are too slow on the perimeter

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

colts18 wrote:All portable team

Stockton
Miller
Bird
Malone
Shaq

Why Karl Malone? I'd probably choose Garnett for most portable PF ever (of a star caliber.)

Shaq doesn't strike me as portable. He has no range (i.e. he needs to be surrounded by shooters) and his defense is inconsistent. Though otherwise I agree. I personally prefer Ray Allen because of his passing though.

bondom34 wrote:Agreed on the definition, but to add on I'd say it also applies across time, ie. does someone's skillset/game fit not only now but in the 80s/90s/00s, etc.

Oh that's a really good point I didn't cover. Era definitely matters. So many scorers from the past look different now because they can't hit a three. And I think post scoring isn't as valuable anymore.

I think Ray Allen is more portable than Reggie Miller. He can play Reggie's role, but Reggie can't play all the roles Ray can. If a team needs a secondary ball-handler and creator, Miller isn't your guy, but Ray is. His ball-handling and passing set him apart here.

Yeah, the guy with 5 titles and 7 finals appearances with two completely different teams in two completely different roles isn't portable. The guy who has consistently shifted and adapted his game from year to year isn't portable. Good one.

mojay641 wrote:Yeah, the guy with 5 titles and 7 finals appearances with two completely different teams in two completely different roles isn't portable. The guy who has consistently shifted and adapted his game from year to year isn't portable. Good one.

Eh, this is a little disingenuous. For one thing, the last 2 titles and 3 finals appearances came with a team that was specifically designed to complement his skillset. Noting that he thrives in a situation designed around him his hardly arguing for his portability. The better argument would point to the teams that were built more around someone else--Shaq. But even then, his role on that team was not really appreciably different than it was in the Gasol/Bynum/Odom years. The team ran the triangle offense in all 7 of those Finals appearances, and his often occupied the same spot(s) in the triangle throughout that stint, though the balance was probably different.

He did take a noticeably different role in the first title, when he had a lower usage % and played more a stopper role on defense. That his willingness to embrace that role was as much a function of his age as anything else. Could you imagine a team stacked enough for him to accept a sub-28 USG% in his prime? I can't.

... Melo thrives off ball guy. His best years all came when he had a ball handler on his team. ..

Anyway your definition is fine. Your evaluation of talent might be off but your definition is fine.

I think an important question is: how vital is portability, if you intend to build around a player anyhow?

acrossthecourt wrote:Why Karl Malone? I'd probably choose Garnett for most portable PF ever (of a star caliber.)

I meant Moses Malone He is a low usage guy that played as the man (81 Rockets) or part of a good team (83 sixers). His skills fit all offenses.

Karl Malone is another portable guy. Karl Malone can play on almost any kind of team. He can play fastbreak (80's) or slowdown (late 90's). I like his portability more than Garnett because he is a better option as the #1 guy on offense. If Malone replaced Bosh on the Heat, I think the Heat are a better team.

Shaq doesn't strike me as portable. He has no range (i.e. he needs to be surrounded by shooters) and his defense is inconsistent. Though otherwise I agree.

In Shaq's peak season, his team was the 5th worst 3P%. He proved he could dominate with little 3 point shooting. Only 1 guy on the team shot better than 33 3P% (Glen Rice). Everyone else was a mediocre shooter.

mopper8 wrote: For one thing, the last 2 titles and 3 finals appearances came with a team that was specifically designed to complement his skillset.

A team that has no play-makers on the perimeter other than himself and mediocre outside shooting isn't "complimenting" his skill-set.

The better argument would point to the teams that were built more around someone else--Shaq. But even then, his role on that team was not really appreciably different than it was in the Gasol/Bynum/Odom years.

lol @ including Bynum. He was a non-factor. And yes, his role was different.

Could you imagine a team stacked enough for him to accept a sub-28 USG% in his prime? I can't.

Who cares?The chances of getting a team that "stacked" is slim to none. The entire discussion is pointless. If I have prime Kobe Bryant on my team, I'm getting one of the 10 best offensive players in history. I'm not going to be worried about him dominating the ball.

mojay641 wrote:

mopper8 wrote: For one thing, the last 2 titles and 3 finals appearances came with a team that was specifically designed to complement his skillset.

A team that has no play-makers on the perimeter other than himself and mediocre outside shooting isn't "complimenting" his skill-set.

I don't get why you're highlighting the "no playmakers" aspect. We've seen consistently the Kobe thrives next to off-ball points guards, not playmakers. Steve Nash and Gary Payton were both woefully underutilized next to him and did not work nearly as well with him as guys like Blake and Fisher.

As for shooters, the guards weren't great but he had plenty of guys in the 35-40% range, which is enough, and more importantly, he had two stretch bigs with great passing, who allowed him to occupy his favorite spots on the floor.

The better argument would point to the teams that were built more around someone else--Shaq. But even then, his role on that team was not really appreciably different than it was in the Gasol/Bynum/Odom years.

lol @ including Bynum. He was a non-factor. And yes, his role was different.

This is such a weird complaint. I was simply marking the era, which was clearly defined by the Lakers' huge, deep frontcourt, of which Bynum was very much a piece, even if he was an oft-injured piece.

Nice argument by the way. "Yes, his role was different." How? His usage % in the last 2 Shaq titles was 31.1. His usage % in his Gasol/Odom/Bynum titles was 32.2. His ast % in the last 2 Shaq titles was 24.5. His ast in his Gasol/Odom/Bynum titles was 23.8. So, we have Kobe using the same % of his team's possessions, mixing it up between scoring and playmaking at nearly exactly the same ratio, in the very same offense. Explain to me again how is role was appreciably different?

Could you imagine a team stacked enough for him to accept a sub-28 USG% in his prime? I can't.

Who cares?The chances of getting a team that "stacked" is slim to none. The entire discussion is pointless. If I have prime Kobe Bryant on my team, I'm getting one of the 10 best offensive players in history. I'm not going to be worried about him dominating the ball.

I don't think you understood my point. There's a disconnect between a team where Kobe would actually be optimized in lower usage % and a team that Kobe perceives as requiring him to scale back his usage %. My point is precisely that you would never get a team so obviously stacked that Kobe would be willing to accept a smaller role, even if in fact that would benefit the team. Considering the fact that the question is whether or not Kobe is portable, the question of his ability to adapt to different team structures is pretty relevant, and your insistence that he wouldn't need to is pretty telling.

GC Pantalones wrote:... Melo thrives off ball guy. His best years all came when he had a ball handler on his team. ..

Anyway your definition is fine. Your evaluation of talent might be off but your definition is fine.

I meant ball dominant as in shot happy, not just ballhandling. The ultimate point is that if Carmelo isn't shooting the ball, he loses a LOT of value. He can play with a ball dominant guy, sure, but not too much more than that. People also like to use the word ball-stopper with Carmelo, and that wouldn't help a playmaker much.

tsherkin wrote:I think an important question is: how vital is portability, if you intend to build around a player anyhow?

It's important because building a basketball team is imperfect and you never get the opportunity you want. You have to make do with what you have, and improvise. Maybe someone like Harden comes up as an option. It helps if your top guy fits well with basically anyone.


So if you have, say, a fringe-level all-star who's basically a volume shooting wing, and he works a lot in the midrange area (these guys aren't rare), and you add (healthy, younger) Kobe ... obviously you improve and you want to give the ball to him. However, you do disrupt the role of that previous guy. Kobe was so good at his peak that wasn't a large issue (and he won with two fantastic passing, unselfish post guys in Odom/Gasol.) It's why I mentioned interference. Again ... having low portability doesn't make you a bad player. Those high usage guys who dominant the ball are usually harder to fit on teams, especially if they don't like taking a backseat (Iverson.)

Being overlooked here is that "different" teams are not necessarily important to distinguish because of style, but because of function.

There are a handful of major pillars that make a team successful. To name a few:
-post offense
-isolation wing offense
-outside shooting/spacing
-interior defense
-perimeter defense

Players fill up these attributes. The question with portability is NOT "how much does a player's skillset meet or not meet an attribute on a random team," but instead "how likely is the player to enhance these attributes on a good team...and how good does that make the team?"

This is precisely why Dennis Rodman is portable -- when he joins your team, he rarely interferes with areas that make a team good while almost always adding significantly in his smaller areas. It's also why Allen Iverson isn't portable -- because when we port his game onto good teams, the "isolation wing offense" thing is usually maxed out. In fact, there are diminishing returns on isolation scoring as a Global Offense function, while there are incredibly high ceilings on maximizing all 5 guys on the court (passing, spacing, shooting, etc.), which is why that wing-type isolation scoring only becomes portable when he can strongly pair with ball-dominant guys (eg can shoot), can defend, and can also dominate the ball himself. (Obviously, the broader the skillset the more likely the player is to be portable...)

mojay641 wrote:Yeah, the guy with 5 titles and 7 finals appearances with two completely different teams in two completely different roles isn't portable. The guy who has consistently shifted and adapted his game from year to year isn't portable. Good one.

He had like the same role on the 00-04 Lakers as he did on the 08-10 Lakers(dominant scorer/Lead playmaker) I think it adds to his arguement in this case

He's had the same role on two completely different multi title/Finals teams. I think russell is he only other guy to do this.

mopper8 wrote:
I don't get why you're highlighting the "no playmakers" aspect. We've seen consistently the Kobe thrives next to off-ball points guards, not playmakers. Steve Nash and Gary Payton were both woefully underutilized next to him and did not work nearly as well with him as guys like Blake and Fisher.

Stop lying. Both Nash and Payton were old and complete shells of themselves. Nash also missed about 35 games. Neither were "severely underutilized". More like "severely carried". Just because he's had the misfortune of playing with garbage on the perimeter his entire career doesn't mean he couldn't excel in a more off-ball role. What a joke.

As for shooters, the guards weren't great but he had plenty of guys in the 35-40% range, which is enough, and more importantly, he had two stretch bigs with great passing, who allowed him to occupy his favorite spots on the floor.

Pau and Odom aren't aren't stretch bigs. Odom is a thoroughly mediocre shooter and Pau is decent, but doesn't have range outside 15-16 feet. WTF? The 09 Lakers were a below-average 3-pt shooting team. The 2010 Lakers were among the worst in the entire league. This isn't some perfectly complimenting supporting cast. Not even close.

This is such a weird complaint. I was simply marking the era, which was clearly defined by the Lakers' huge, deep frontcourt, of which Bynum was very much a piece, even if he was an oft-injured piece.

He wasn't a piece. He was a non-factor. That "era" was defined by Kobe's brilliance with the help of Pau/Odom.

My point is precisely that you would never get a team so obviously stacked that Kobe would be willing to accept a smaller role, even if in fact that would benefit the team.

Except he's already had multiple seasons where he did accept a smaller role for the good of the team, so this is bull.

ElGee wrote:Being overlooked here is that "different" teams are not necessarily important to distinguish because of style, but because of function.

There are a handful of major pillars that make a team successful. To name a few:
-post offense
-isolation wing offense
-outside shooting/spacing
-interior defense
-perimeter defense

Players fill up these attributes. The question with portability is NOT "how much does a player's skillset meet or not meet an attribute on a random team," but instead "how likely is the player to enhance these attributes on a good team...and how good does that make the team?"

This is precisely why Dennis Rodman is portable -- when he joins your team, he rarely interferes with areas that make a team good while almost always adding significantly in his smaller areas. It's also why Allen Iverson isn't portable -- because when we port his game onto good teams, the "isolation wing offense" thing is usually maxed out. In fact, there are diminishing returns on isolation scoring as a Global Offense function, while there are incredibly high ceilings on maximizing all 5 guys on the court (passing, spacing, shooting, etc.), which is why that wing-type isolation scoring only becomes portable when he can strongly pair with ball-dominant guys (eg can shoot), can defend, and can also dominate the ball himself. (Obviously, the broader the skillset the more likely the player is to be portable...)

And yet Rodman's mental issues kept him from being "portable" to one of the 3 teams he played for. He couldn't adjust to the Spurs; he could to the Pistons because he came in before his ego developed into thinking he was a star; he could to the Bulls because Jordan and Phil Jackson kept his idiocy within limits. Like Iverson, he's made noises about making a comeback to the NBA several times and each time no one was interested. His skill set may be portable but his attitude limits it. Someone like Bobby Jones might be a better example.

I'd like to add that I think there are certain players who are better on good teams and sometimes lousy on terrible ones. I have one guy particularly in mind, and some time I'll write a long post/article about him. I can't think of too many other players, however. Marion might be an example. He doesn't create offense for himself well, but he's great playing off of others and cutting to the basket, moving without the ball. On the Kings he'd be cutting to the basket for a pass that won't come, more of his offense would come from awkward shot creation attempts, and his defense would be wasted on a team that didn't care (Marion would probably give up a lot of effort.)

Kobe isn't portable? This past season he has shown more portability than some of the league's best players have throughout their careers, lol

Before Nash returned - Ball-dominant, volume scoring
When Nash returned - Moved off-ball to let Nash run the offense
When it was clear that Nash-ball doesn't work - Became lead playmaker, Nash turned into uber-Kerr
ASG until Ankle sprain - turned into prime Jordan
When he returned, Pau returned and Dwight got healthy - let Pau facilitate more and forced the ball into his hands because he wasn't assertive enough on his own