Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[PistolPeteJR]

I thought I understood how Ben Taylor analyzes portability but I really don't. I looked at some of his grades... Why is prime Steve Nash a large negative for portability? Wouldn't his incredible passing and shooting scale really well on good teams? Like I can't imagine a team that doesn't get better adding Nash.

The real problem (I infer) is that Nash *must* have the ball in his hands for 80% of his value. He's not an off-ball passer like Bird (or more accurately, never needed to be). If he doesn't have the ball he's not much of a rebounder or defender. He becomes an excellent spot-up shooter and that's it, which is good but it's a massive step down in value from being one of the best ball-dominant offensive players ever. If you pair Nash with Kobe/LeBron/Wade/Jordan/Iverson/Carmelo/TMac or any of the other strong 30%+ usage ball-dominant players you lose out (some) because all of those players need the ball to generate most of their value.

Basically, I read his portability as a "How much of this player's value would he retain if added to a 55-60 win team?" And a 55-60 win team likely already has a ball-dominant player that drives the offense. That's how a Ben Wallace can be more 'portable' than a Steve Nash, even if Nash is the better player, because Wallace retains a larger amount of his value when added to a strong roster than a Nash might.

I think the concerns are slightly overstated, but I think I understand where they come from.

Yeah this whole notion of portability that Ben's defined and how he gives it so much weight really bothers me as well. I think it's beneficial in some ways, but significantly flawed in others.

1) To penalize a guy because he's MUCH better than most of his competition on-ball and it is winning basketball makes no sense.

2) The dominant style of on-ball play by one player assumes that the player is limited when it comes to playing off the ball. However, that might not be the case at all. What may be as equally true is that that is simply the offense his team and coach are running, regardless of whether it is significantly better than him also splitting time playing off-ball or if the team is worse due to roster construction for example when he is playing off-ball.

[Djoker]

Dallas' offenses without Nash did drop off very significantly though. In the absolute sense their ORtg didn't drop much but the league as a whole became much more offensive-minded starting from 04-05.

if we look at the Mavs' rORtg (relative ORtg to league average)

01-02 Mavs: +7.7
02-03 Mavs: +7.1
03-04 Mavs: +9.2

Nash Leaves

04-05 Mavs: +4.2
05-06 Mavs: +5.6
06-07 Mavs: +4.8
07-08 Mavs: +3.6
08-09 Mavs: +2.2
09-10 Mavs: +1.6
10-11 Mavs: +2.4

It's clear the Mavs never reached the offensive heights that they had with Nash. They were still a good offensive team from 04-05 to 07-08 but nowhere near the offensive juggernaut they were with Nash.



I appreciate all of your responses. What you are saying makes sense. I just don't understand how a guy who is one of the greatest shooters ever and also one of the greatest passers even and could definitely be more of an off-ball passer because he had a lot of Kodak moments. Nash could make very quick passes. Taking that into account I can't understand how he doesn't have one of the best portabilities let alone a terrible one. Defense is his weak suit sure but Curry is also a poor defender. A weak defensive guard can be hidden quite easily not to mention that it isn't a big stretch that with a lower workload on offense assuming he's a secondary ball handler, Nash can also play better defense.

I mean even if we say that he wouldn't bring a ton of value outside of spot-up shooting, spot-up shooting still brings enormous value. If he turned into a Reggie Miller type player who will occasionally throw Bird-like savant level passes is that really so bad?

[Odinn21]

Dallas' offenses without Nash did drop off very significantly though. In the absolute sense their ORtg didn't drop much but the league as a whole became much more offensive-minded starting from 04-05.

if we look at the Mavs' rORtg (relative ORtg to league average)

01-02 Mavs: +7.7
02-03 Mavs: +7.1
03-04 Mavs: +9.2

Nash Leaves

04-05 Mavs: +4.2
05-06 Mavs: +5.6
06-07 Mavs: +4.8
07-08 Mavs: +3.6
08-09 Mavs: +2.2
09-10 Mavs: +1.6
10-11 Mavs: +2.4

It's clear the Mavs never reached the offensive heights that they had with Nash.

This is true for only regular seasons.

2002 Mavs +7.7 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +9.0 rORtg in playoffs
2003 Mavs +7.1 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +11.9 rORtg in playoffs
(Let's face it, 2004 should've never happened. )
2005 Mavs +4.2 rORtg in reg. season (4th) & +9.1 rORtg in playoffs
2006 Mavs +5.6 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +7.9 rORtg in playoffs
2007 Mavs +4.8 rORtg in reg. season (2nd) & -0.8 rORtg in playoffs
2008 Mavs +3.6 rORtg in reg. season (8th) & +3.8 rORtg in playoffs
2009 Mavs +2.2 rORtg in reg. season (6th) & +7.4 rORtg in playoffs
2010 Mavs +1.6 rORtg in reg. season (10th) & +1.3 rORtg in playoffs
2011 Mavs +2.4 rORtg in reg. season (8th) & +7.3 rORtg in playoffs

In the playoffs the Mavs were able to get out of the 1st round ('07 being the only banana), they always had +7 or better rORtg offensive efficiency. BTW, in terms of playoffs numbers it might not look much but those seasons account for 80% of the total games.

Also, the way this argument comes off as is also inaccurate because what made Don Nelson's Mavs so good on offense was Nowitzki as the centrepiece and the biggest contributor, not Nash.

Nowitzki showed that he could lead a +7 or better offensive efficiency in the playoffs with 3 different types of coaches and casts. A something that can not be said for Nash or Durant.

[Statlanta]

Ben was thinking of including Wade but I think my final inclusion to this project would be Moses at least for peaks. I'd think I'd consider him over the other players when just thinking peak

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Imagine adding Steve Nash to . . . the 1990 Chicago Bulls (a 55-win borderline-contender). Nash is *not* going to be driving that offense. Jordan's already there and Pippen, while not at his peak yet, is an already capable playmaker. Nash probably becomes the secondary ball-handler within the limitations of the triangle, and does a lot of spot-up shooting off of Jordan. Do the '90 Bulls win the championship with Nash? Yeah, probably. Even with Nash not being D'Antoni Nash, his shooting and creation would still be a big upgrade over Paxson/Armstrong and I think the Bulls' offense gets considerably nastier. I'd guess (and it's literally just a guess) that Nash adds 5-10 wins to the Bulls there, becoming a 60-65 win team with a good shot at beating the '90 Pistons. It's a good thing to have Nash. But now imagine adding Nash to the '90 Timberwolves. How many wins would he be worth? Probably more like 15-20; a garbage team desperately needs someone like Nash to run their offense.

The thing is, should we assume that Nash would be used properly or we assume Nash would be asked to be John Paxson/Steve Kerr next to Pippen and jordon? If used properly, I think Nash would make that team such an offensive juggernaut that it would go over 65 wins and run away with a title, if given the key of the offense.
And that would be true with almost any team.

[sansterre]

Imagine adding Steve Nash to . . . the 1990 Chicago Bulls (a 55-win borderline-contender). Nash is *not* going to be driving that offense. Jordan's already there and Pippen, while not at his peak yet, is an already capable playmaker. Nash probably becomes the secondary ball-handler within the limitations of the triangle, and does a lot of spot-up shooting off of Jordan. Do the '90 Bulls win the championship with Nash? Yeah, probably. Even with Nash not being D'Antoni Nash, his shooting and creation would still be a big upgrade over Paxson/Armstrong and I think the Bulls' offense gets considerably nastier. I'd guess (and it's literally just a guess) that Nash adds 5-10 wins to the Bulls there, becoming a 60-65 win team with a good shot at beating the '90 Pistons. It's a good thing to have Nash. But now imagine adding Nash to the '90 Timberwolves. How many wins would he be worth? Probably more like 15-20; a garbage team desperately needs someone like Nash to run their offense.

The thing is, should we assume that Nash would be used properly or we assume Nash would be asked to be John Paxson/Steve Kerr next to Pippen and jordon? If used properly, I think Nash would make that team such an offensive juggernaut that it would go over 65 wins and run away with a title, if given the key of the offense.
And that would be true with almost any team.

1) Giving Nash the keys to the offense is basically killing the triangle, around which the entire team is based. Not saying it'd be worse, but you're *completely* changing how that offense functioned.
2) You can be the guy that tells Jordan that somebody else is going to be running the offense and Jordan can work off-ball for his points. I'll be over here.
3) Don Nelson didn't figure out how to get full use out of Nash. Quite possibly nobody who isn't Mike D'Antoni would have. It may be a little cavalier to assume that Phil Jackson would intuit what it took the NBA many years to figure out. Just because we know it now doesn't mean it would be obvious then.
4) Even if you are right (and you may be) it has *nothing* to do with portability. It's not about whether or not Nash would help the Bulls; of course he would. It's that adding Nash to run the offense takes away some of the value of Jordan and Pippen doing it. Jordan and Pippen become less valuable because of Nash taking over their role. Because Nash coming on board takes away from somebody else's role even if he does it better it is a considerably more zero-sum addition than the addition of somebody like Ben Wallace who generates his value off-ball.

[Odinn21]

Don Nelson didn't figure out how to get full use out of Nash. Quite possibly nobody who isn't Mike D'Antoni would have.

Don Nelson was all for experimental and analytics based approaches. He wanted to create less refined positions in the game for a better flow. The issue with Nash at the time was his back. No one could trust him enough to rely on him. Phoenix threw a hail mary with a very young core for Nash to lead and it stuck. It was more about having a young core and Nash's back not giving out. Signing Nash was a huge risk. I doubt if Nash's results would turn out with such quality in any else where and it was more about those things than coaching.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

1) Giving Nash the keys to the offense is basically killing the triangle, around which the entire team is based. Not saying it'd be worse, but you're *completely* changing how that offense functioned.
2) You can be the guy that tells Jordan that somebody else is going to be running the offense and Jordan can work off-ball for his points. I'll be over here.
3) Don Nelson didn't figure out how to get full use out of Nash. Quite possibly nobody who isn't Mike D'Antoni would have. It may be a little cavalier to assume that Phil Jackson would intuit what it took the NBA many years to figure out. Just because we know it now doesn't mean it would be obvious then.
4) Even if you are right (and you may be) it has *nothing* to do with portability. It's not about whether or not Nash would help the Bulls; of course he would. It's that adding Nash to run the offense takes away some of the value of Jordan and Pippen doing it. Jordan and Pippen become less valuable because of Nash taking over their role. Because Nash coming on board takes away from somebody else's role even if he does it better it is a considerably more zero-sum addition than the addition of somebody like Ben Wallace who generates his value off-ball.

The issue is that I see this concept being brought way too far.
Some comments on my side, in no particular order:
- Nash in Dallas was good enough that the Mavs were still the best offensive team in the league, even with that version of Nash that had serious durability issues. Not sure that using Nash differently would have made that team any better than that, also because (before his last season, when they brought Walker in) Nash did actually have the keys of the offense, just he was less ball dominant than what he was later in Phoenix
- I don't know how Jackson could have used Nash, and I am not going to pretend I could. But the key elements that would allow a guard to scale up on every offense are catch and shooting, off ball movement, quick decision making, ability to attack a closeout, punish a switch and great passing. These are all things Nash excelled on, and we saw in Dallas (but in Phoenix as well) that he could do all of that. Just for reference, here is a video from Coach Nick about how Chris Paul could be used in the triangle, what he shows is even more true for Nash

Watch on YouTube

- we must assume that a coach would use his guys in the best possible way for the TEAM, I don't think it's fair to blame a guy for being misused the way Terry Porter did to Nash. Now, a different topic is the management of the egos inside the locker room, like jordon not willing to adjust his game for the greater good of the team and demanding to iso every time. I am not sure how true is that (he did adjust, especially later in his career), I do think that Jackson of all people would have been able to sell it and, on top of that, I also think Nash had the intelligence to help make it work. I am of course assuming we're having an already established All NBA level Nash there, able to command enough respect. If that would not be enough it would be more an issue about jordon's portability, to be honest
- given that being a great defensive player (in the case of guards, man to man defense and switchability in my view) must be a key element for portability (together with the offensive skills I mentioned above), I think you are really not giving enough weight to what Big Ben would take OUT of any team. No range, poor hands, poor finisher, mediocre passer... especially nowadays, Ben would limit the quality of your offense no less than what Nash would do to your defense.

[Jaivl]

More of those points kinda speak against the portability of Jordan than Nash's. Then again, why are the 90 Bulls are a more representative example than the 90 Rockets?

[sansterre]

More of those points kinda speak against the portability of Jordan than Nash's. Then again, why are the 90 Bulls are a more representative example than the 90 Rockets?

... portability is a measure of how likely a player's value-add skills are to conflict with another player's value-add skills on a borderline-contender team. If Nash and Jordan's value-add skills conflict from different positions, then they *both* have some portability issues. If you think that adding Nash to the team takes more of Jordan's value away than Nash's then you're arguing that Jordan is less portable than Nash.

Adding Nash to play with Jordan -> conflict (implicitly, Nash and Jordan both have some portability issues)
Adding Ben Wallace to play with Tim Duncan -> no conflict (Wallace's strengths are more portable)

The 90s Rockets are a fine example. The problem is that creating a hypothetical where Nash goes to play with Hakeem will guaranteed get me the "We don't know that Hakeem couldn't integrate well with a ball-dominant distributor, he never had the chance" argument. And since *all* I'm trying to do is explain the theory for educational purposes, I wanted to minimize the amount of needless distractions with my example. Apparently I was pretty naive.

All portability theory is trying to say is that some player skills aren't additive. If you have Shaq and Kobe, you already have ATG-level ball-dominant offensive players. So adding an Iverson or whomever to that roster does not give you a direct additive value. Because if you added Iverson to the '01 Lakers *somebody* (or more likely everybody) would need to give up shots, to have the ball less, to distribute less and it would mean that the three players (though unquestionably great) would between them *add* to less total value than the sum of their individual parts.

Iverson on an otherwise mediocre roster brought a pretty respectable amount of value. Putting him on the '01 Lakers brings *less* value (because what he offers is already supplied to some extent by Shaq and Kobe). The whole portability theory is simply that some players will bring a lower percentage of their value to strong teams than others, because what they offer is already supplied in part.

To be clear, I am not taking a position here. It was asked how portability worked and I'm trying to explain it as best I understand it.

[sansterre]

I think you are really not giving enough weight to what Big Ben would take OUT of any team. No range, poor hands, poor finisher, mediocre passer... especially nowadays, Ben would limit the quality of your offense no less than what Nash would do to your defense.

Portability purely deals with value-add skills, not player weaknesses.

Ben Wallace's limited offensive game (offensive rebounding notwithstanding) is a given. Whether he joins a 20-win team, 35-win team or 55-win team, his offensive limitations are a thing. But they become a smaller and smaller thing the better a team he is on. A 20-win team almost certainly lacks playmakers/scorers; adding a limited offensive player would put even more strain on the rest of the roster. But adding Wallace to a 55-win team is much better, because that 55-win team guaranteed already has viable offensive players to carry the load.

You seem to be continuously talking past my points. That Ben Wallace's defense brings more value than his offensive limitations cost is obvious. What it would mean in the present era is irrelevant.

Look. I'm going to say it again because somehow you're stuck on "Would this player help?" and not "How much would this player help?" (not that the first question isn't interesting, just that only the second question has anything to do with portability).

Being added to a 30-win team Steve Nash adds N wins.
Being added to a 30-win team Ben Wallace adds W wins.

Being added to a 55-win team Steve Nash adds 0.8N wins.
Being added to a 55-win team Ben Wallace adds W wins.

Because Nash adds a lower amount of his 30-win value to a 55-win team, he is the less portable player. That's all portability is. It's saying that a player adds *less* of the value that they would offer to a weak team.

The 2009 Cavs without LeBron were probably a 30-win team or worse. Add LeBron and they jump 35 wins.

But add LeBron to a 55-win team and they *won't* gain 35 wins. They'll gain less. Because the '09 Cavs desperately needed LeBron to power the offense and create for them. But add '09 LeBron to, say, the '95 Rockets and the added value is lower, because the '95 Rockets already have an offensive centerpiece (or two). Would the '95 Rockets + '09 LeBron obliterate everyone? Of course! It's just that the '09 Cavs needed him his skills way more than the '95 Rockets do. Because LeBron is a fairly low portability player. Insanely great. Still fairly low portability.

[Outside]

Great discussion. This is why I came to this forum.

My observations regarding portability:

-- It's understandable that there's confusion about it because "portability" has been used to describe different things. For example, there's portability across eras, which is different from the portability being discussed here.

-- Many people put too much emotional emphasis put on it, as if it is heretical to say that a great player wouldn't be a great player in every situation. As shown by the Ben Wallace example, many players with high portability are complementary, not primary stars (edit: regarding the definition of portability discussed on recent pages).

-- Some of the definitions currently being discussed assume that a player wouldn't adapt his playing style to fit with other primary stars or switch from being a ball-dominant player to a more complementary player without losing value. That may be the case for some, perhaps even many, but it is not the case for all, and I consider Nash one of those players. I could easily see Nash adapting into an off-ball player the same way Curry has. Nash has said that he was too unselfish in Phoenix and didn't look to score as much as he should have. Nash in his prime could have the same type of off-ball gravity that Curry exhibits.

Harden is demonstrating a similar adaptability in Brooklyn, able to switch from being the epitome of a ball-dominant player to an incredibly effective complementary one. If all you had to go by is his performance in Houston, you'd say that his value would plummet in Brooklyn and potentially make things worse, which is in fact what many (most?) people predicted, but so far, he's showing remarkably high value being less ball dominant. It's still early, the Durant-Irving-Harden trio has played very little together, and the true test will be the postseason, but so far, Harden has been fantastic.

Those kinds of examples may be the exception, with the Iverson example of not adapting being more common, but they do exist. I see Nash as someone who would adapt with relative ease.

-- Another factor is whether coaches and their offensive and defensive systems are able to take advantage of players' talents -- are their systems limited, requiring a specific type of player, or can they get the most value out of any quality player? A player's presumed lack of portability to other systems may say more about the systems than it does about the player. The ability of a player to go to a different situation and retain value depends on both the player AND the situation. It's not all on the player.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Kevin Durant is here

Watch on YouTube

[Goudelock]

So what I took away from this video is that Durant would probably should've been recognized as a better passer in his prime. And that his handle is sort of overrated (which is a drum many people on this board have been beating for a while now).

[70sFan]

Yeah, I've probably been underrating his passing skills for years because he's not elite passer (but good overall for a volume scorer). I've been vocal about Durant's weaknesses as a ball-handler for years so this part didn't surprise me.

On the other hand, I don't agree with Ben's conclusion about his defense. I know that he improved a great deal since the early 2010s, but I still wouldn't call him a meaningful contributor on that end. His versatility is nice as a man defender, but it's overstated because he can't guard quick perimeter players and he struggles with true bigs. His off-ball defense is also mediocre, as he doesn't provide much rim protection at 4 and his rotations are not sound, but he can't play against perimeter players full time either, as he's weak screen defendee due to his size.

[therealbig3]

Feel like this is going to split a lot of people. Everyone else so far, with the exception of MAYBE Kobe, was probably a consensus pick for greatest peaks on everyone's list. Durant is much more polarizing...and I'm not sure I agree with his inclusion. I would probably take Dirk and Nash over Durant, and Durant has almost notoriously not had the same type of +/- profile as the other guys on this list. I think players like Harden and CP3 also have strong arguments over Durant.

[limbo]

So what I took away from this video is that Durant would probably should've been recognized as a better passer in his prime. And that his handle is sort of overrated (which is a drum many people on this board have been beating for a while now).

The caveat with Durant's handle was always 'for his size'... For his size, his ability to handle the basketball is in the upmost percentile in an all-time scale, and watching this video, i've probably been underrating Durant's footwork as well... A lot of his driving/shooting is in fact set up by his immaculate footwork, especially, again, atypical for someone his size. A lot of acceleration/deceleration, hop skipping, side-to-side lateral gliding on his crossovers, stopping on a dime and setting up his pull up jumper, not getting knocked off-balance despite his lanky giant frame, which usually most players who are tall and kind of skinny get pushed around a lot and have difficulty balancing on their feet, and of course his ability to take crazy long strides and change directions mid stride (although idk if that's part of 'footwork', but i'll allow it)...

His passing is what it is... Good enough to make basic/solid decisions based on the scoring pressure he creates, but not rigorous and imaginative enough to anchor an offense. And there's nothing really wrong with that (lol, imagine if Durant was also elite in terms of driving to the basket and dropping high level dimes... he'd literally be the perfect offensive player), because he doesn't need to have the ball in his hands to be inherently valuable on the court with his elite shooting, especially in catch-and-shoot situations. I mean, if he's on a team with garbage playmaking, then it might be a problem, but usually a guy as talented as him will have the ability to team-select sooner or later, and on contending teams, you'll usually find good playmaking on the roster.

[GSP]

Feel like this is going to split a lot of people. Everyone else so far, with the exception of MAYBE Kobe, was probably a consensus pick for greatest peaks on everyone's list. Durant is much more polarizing...and I'm not sure I agree with his inclusion. I would probably take Dirk and Nash over Durant, and Durant has almost notoriously not had the same type of +/- profile as the other guys on this list. I think players like Harden and CP3 also have strong arguments over Durant.

We already know Elgee isn't high on Harden b/c of bad defense, non existent portability and counters. He doesn't see him on the same tier as the others and more on Kawhi level. He's also lower than Kawhi than most here. I think he barely had him as a top 5 player in that Raptors season when Kawhi won Poy here

He's lower on Dirk due to on ball creation and he lower on his defense despite the metrics. Cp3 and Nash would be interesting to see an evaluation on he seems them on the same level IIRC

I think Kd having 85% of Kobe's onball shot creation is shocking by Elgees evaluation considering that was the weakest area of his offense at least creating for others. I think he did a good job on his defensive evaluation too. Kds been an elite iso defender since like 2014 but has issues in team defense and positioning which is more inconsistency than being bad. And he was one of the better wing options as a rim protector.

Kds 2016 series against the Spurs and Warriors were prolly 2 of the more impressive defensive performances by a wing from this era. He was prolly the best defensive player in general in the 2016 series featuring Klay, Iggy, Roberson, Serge, Draymond, Adams, Bogut even Draymond conceded he was and that was a big factor in recruiting him for their system

Julius Erving and Dwyane Wade seem like the clear 2 hardest players Elgee had to leave off post merger. He even was working on a Wade vid but scrapped it

I think Kds legacy and game will age way better than most prolly like Hakeems had specially if he wins some titles in Brooklyn

[70sFan]

I wonder how much better offensively McAdoo would have been with modern handles. He didn't have Durant's passing skills and I'd not call him as good shooter. His handles were insane though and it was without carrying and traveling all the time like Durant does.

[Odinn21]

Durant video is up for the highest tier on Patreon.

Didn't want to say anything spoiling, but it's public now.

Durant episode is by far the weakest video among player selections to me. Only challenged by that Wilt-Bill intro but they are not for consideration. What I all saw in this episode was "Durant is tall". Also if Durant on defense as good as he presented in the video, he wouldn't make this project just barely.