falcolombardi wrote:reading some thinghs in this board got me thinking about how we evaluate the value of a player and i got thinking that the way we evaluate "floor vs ceiling" raising and portability is not as much wrong as it is incomplete
the reason why sometimes we can argue for draymond green or shame Marion over the likes of Carmelo Anthony or iverson (random examples) is the perception that while the latter is more likely to take a bad team to the playoffs the former is more likely to get a team over the top for ring contention
both are better for different thinghs, but championship is the more valued goal. the reasoning la that you wont sin with draymond nor Carmelo as your best players, making draymond better cause he is better as a second or third best
this is discussible but generally consensus and a good way to evaluate portability. the problem is that we dont go to the other Extreme
if a super stacked with great scorers team adds garnett is possible they are better than if they added duncan since he ks theorically more portable in a higher talent team (basically the whole reason elgee prefers garnett)
but at the end of the day any stacked team that adds either will be overwhelming favorites
the 2017 warriors were gonna win whether their forward was durant, kawhi or even paul george ( bit more arguable)
so jusy like draymond vs Carmelo wont be the difference for a ring run in a bad team, garnett portability vs duncan wont make a difference for a stacked team either
the real place where we should look for impact is in the middle, that is where portability should be valued
not in whether curry or harden fit a 70 win team better or who is more likely to carry a bad team to a 6th-8th seed
Okay, so some thoughts:
1st, my problem with a Dray vs Melo conversation here is that only one of these guys has ever shown the ability to be super-impactful in the NBA in any context. This isn't a situation where both guys have strong indicators of impact, but people are making arguments for Green based on portability. Green has for years been one of the most impactful players in the league, Melo's never been close.
Now, you can point out that Green's had the luxury of being with better teammates when contributing the value and that this makes the comparison apples vs oranges. However that dismisses what it is about Green that makes him so valuable: Intelligence. Simply put, Green is one of the most intelligent on-court players in the history of the game. He reads what's going on the court super-quick, makes great decisions, tells teammates what to do.
Melo by contrast just gets buckets, and while he does so on a level that makes it make sense for one of the 30 NBA teams to let him be the best scorer, he's never been able to use his scoring toolkit to achieve the kind of extreme volume/efficiency that makes you elite in today's game, he's not a great passer, he's not a great defender, and he's not the kind of guy who finds little ways to impact.
Hence, when you're talking about contenders, one of these guys is still likely to add impact - better defender than anyone else, even on a good defending team, smarter than everyone else, even on a smart team - and one of these guys isn't - not your best scorer, can't do anything else.
Now, you can argue that Melo's skills are more valuable than what I've stated certainly, but the thing about your post is that you're not actually talking about how these guys actually play, and to me talking about how these actually play so that they can fit in in a team context is THE thing to be talking about here, regardless of whether the "portable" attribute resonates with you.
I'll add that I see clear differences between all of these players in how they fit with stronger talent around them. That difference is more complicated than a one-number metric because it all depends on the type of stronger talent we're talking about - great shooters? great passers? great iso guys? great defenders? - but while you can point to that nuance to indicate that it's not so clear from a one-number portability perspective who should rate where, you cannot deny that the players in question have different skills in different degrees.
To consider Curry vs Harden: It's within the realm of possibility that Harden will next year be the MVP of the greatest team in history...but if he achieves this, it won't be happening because he's out-Currying Curry. He'll be playing a different role than Curry plays, and his value be a result of partially different things
Re: "the real place where we should look for impact is in the middle, that is where portability should be valued not in whether curry or harden fit a 70 win team better or who is more likely to carry a bad team to a 6th-8th seed".
Really disagree with how you're thinking about this. The big thing remains that being able to thrive on elite teams is about having specific elite skill sets that work well with others, but here there's also the matter that the implication of what you say is that if we want to find diamonds in the rough - guys who are literally demonstrating the value you say we should be looking - we should expect to find them on the stars of treadmill teams.
It's fine to look at those teams and ask who could do great things on a contender, but if you've got a guy who is adding value on a mediocre team by volume score with mediocre efficiency while others take on the side roles, how do you expect he's going to be able to add value on a team with scorers better than he is? Maybe he can do it by changing the role he plays - that's something that only can be understood on a player by player basis - but you're not going to plug Melo on the Jordan Bulls and say "Mike get out the way so Melo can do his thing".
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.