RealGM

In latest Q&A on Ben's Patreon site, one of Taylor's patrons asked the question related to these two concepts. I've been thinking about it lately - what would you call more important and why?

Portability is so much less important than we make it out to be. In fact I hate the whole concept and how it gets misused. Especially since only certain players get credit for it, despite other players having played in a bunch of vastly different situations and being highly successful yet whenever portability comes up, they are docked for it.

Like if we have to ignore reality, of what value is the theory?

I mean we have a discussion ongoing right now that Steph Curry can play anywhere and everywhere but Paul and Draymond can't. Except we've actually seen Paul in a bunch of different team constructs and be a dominant player.

Or the most classic example is probably KG versus Dirk except despite never leaving Dallas, Dallas had no less than 4 vastly differently cores around Dirk in his prime and he dominated with all of them. But Dirk is considered not a portable player because he's not as defensively versatile as KG.

So yeah give me resiliency. Please and thank you.

70sFan wrote:In latest Q&A on Ben's Patreon site, one of Taylor's patrons asked the question related to these two concepts. I've been thinking about it lately - what would you call more important and why?

I think folks are going to need definitions for these or else they're going to talk past each other. I don't know if my definitions precisely match yours or Ben.

Are you thinking of portability as the ability to fit in with different team contexts?
Are you thinking of resiliency as the ability to do your thing with similar efficiency as opposition improves?

Texas Chuck wrote:Portability is so much less important than we make it out to be. In fact I hate the whole concept and how it gets misused. Especially since only certain players get credit for it, despite other players having played in a bunch of vastly different situations and being highly successful yet whenever portability comes up, they are docked for it.

Like if we have to ignore reality, of what value is the theory?

I mean we have a discussion ongoing right now that Steph Curry can play anywhere and everywhere but Paul and Draymond can't. Except we've actually seen Paul in a bunch of different team constructs and be a dominant player.

Or the most classic example is probably KG versus Dirk except despite never leaving Dallas, Dallas had no less than 4 vastly differently cores around Dirk in his prime and he dominated with all of them. But Dirk is considered not a portable player because he's not as defensively versatile as KG.

So yeah give me resiliency. Please and thank you.

i think there is a certain dogma in the analytics community that certain archetypes and styles of player are "better" in a specific kind of theory

so when a player fits those profiles they get extra points for it and those who dont fit the profile get points docked instead

is the only explanation i could come up with for ben taylor calling magic the greatest offensive player ever and the best offensive results ever and still criticize his offense portability

"Portability" is an empty buzzword that was only created to bash LeBron. It's Skip Bayless-style trolling dressed up in the language of analytics.

It all falls apart when you realize it only goes one way. Like, I'm pretty sure even Curry's biggest fanboys would admit he'd never be able to drag Ira Newble and Boobie Gibson to the Finals if you swapped LeBron out for him on the 2007 Cavs, but somehow that's never used as evidence that Curry isn't "portable," while the myth that LeBron somehow wouldn't be able to play in a more team-oriented offense is used against him by the "portability" crowd.

I think portability refers to the ability to play different roles in different systems. The knock on Lebron's portability is that he can't play off the ball. He has to play a certain style with a certain types of players to be successful.

Stalwart wrote:I think portability refers to the ability to play different roles in different systems. The knock on Lebron's portability is that he can't play off the ball. He has to play a certain style with a certain types of players to be successful.

"certain style of players" often just means good players

falcolombardi wrote:

Stalwart wrote:I think portability refers to the ability to play different roles in different systems. The knock on Lebron's portability is that he can't play off the ball. He has to play a certain style with a certain types of players to be successful.

"certain style of players" often just means good players

He needs shooters and stretch bigs

Stalwart wrote:I think portability refers to the ability to play different roles in different systems. The knock on Lebron's portability is that he can't play off the ball. He has to play a certain style with a certain types of players to be successful.

That "knock" is incorrect. LeBron played off the ball in Miami and was great at it. He has just never had the luxury of being able to play off the ball outside of Miami because he's been saddled with awful rosters that can't win without him playing heliocentric.

It's easy to play off-ball all the time and look like an unselfish player when you spend almost your entire career on mega-stacked teams like Curry has. Again, I'd love to see how he would have done on those awful Cavs teams LeBron started out with. Something tells me he wouldn't be very "portable."

Stalwart wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

Stalwart wrote:I think portability refers to the ability to play different roles in different systems. The knock on Lebron's portability is that he can't play off the ball. He has to play a certain style with a certain types of players to be successful.

"certain style of players" often just means good players

He needs shooters and stretch bigs

everyone needs and benefits from good shooting around them

MartinToVaught wrote:

Stalwart wrote:I think portability refers to the ability to play different roles in different systems. The knock on Lebron's portability is that he can't play off the ball. He has to play a certain style with a certain types of players to be successful.

That "knock" is incorrect. LeBron played off the ball in Miami and was great at it. He has just never had the luxury of being able to play off the ball outside of Miami because he's been saddled with awful rosters that can't win without him playing heliocentric.

It's easy to play off-ball all the time and look like an unselfish player when you spend almost your entire career on mega-stacked teams like Curry has. Again, I'd love to see how he would have done on those awful Cavs teams LeBron started out with. Something tells me he wouldn't be very "portable."

The “he can’t play off ball” comments always make me chuckle.

(1) we’re talking about one of the greatest playmakers in nba history. In what world does taking the ball out of his hands make the team better? Should the 2018 Cavs have taken the ball out of his hands and let Jose Calderon run the show?

(2) he literally did play off ball in Miami and he won 2 titles in 4 seasons. He’s won titles on 3 different teams with 3 different coaches/play styles. Yet he’s not ‘portable’….

Stalwart wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

Stalwart wrote:I think portability refers to the ability to play different roles in different systems. The knock on Lebron's portability is that he can't play off the ball. He has to play a certain style with a certain types of players to be successful.

"certain style of players" often just means good players

He needs shooters and stretch bigs

This has been disproven a dozens of times on this board. Lakers played with two bigs in 2020, and as a team were a bottom tier 3 point shooting team in a year when teams were shooting in open gyms, i.e., playing at a huge disadvantage.

Regular season: #22 in three point attempt rate, #21 in 3 point %.
Playoffs: #11 out of 16 in three point attempt rate, #12 out of 16 in 3 point %.

They utterly dominated anyway. LeBron 29/11/8 on 65% TS, and 62% eFG.

2020 Lakers’ Playoffs

Game 2 vs. Blazers: +33, 7:58 left
Game 4 vs. Blazers, +38, 8:38 left in 3rd quarter
Game 4 vs. Rockets, +23, 7:21 left
Game 5 vs. Rockets, +29, 4:33 left
Game 1 vs. Nuggets, +27, 5:03 left
Game 1 vs. Heat, +30, 4:25 left in 3rd; +24, 6:08 left in the game
Game 6 vs. Heat, +36, 3:29 left in 3rd; +22, 2:05 left in the game

Look at these margins. If not for historically bad garbage time minutes, the Lakers would have had a top 5ish all time playoff run in terms of dominance in an absolutely equal playing environment with James directing an offense with relatively weak spacing.

Early Cavs played two non-shooting (3 pt at least) bigs and created good offenses. In 2009, vs. a great ORL defense (-6.4 rDRtg), Cavs and LeBron performed incredibly well offensively (+8.7 rORtg, LeBron with a great series of 38/8/8 on 59% TS) but were beaten by Howard and three point shooting; 2012 Heat played two bigs who didn’t shoot (Bosh couldn’t shoot threes yet); LeBron played off the ball a great deal in 2013 as well; second stint Cavs had Mozgov and TT at the 5. Cavs had just as high an ORtg with TT at the 5 and LeBron on the court as they did with Love on the court. And so on and so on.

homecourtloss wrote:

Stalwart wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:
"certain style of players" often just means good players

He needs shooters and stretch bigs

This has been disproven a dozens of times on this board. Lakers played with two bigs in 2020, and as a team were a bottom tier 3 point shooting team in a year when teams were shooting in open gyms, i.e., playing at a huge disadvantage. They utterly dominated.

Early Cavs played two non-shooting (3 pt at least) bigs and created good offenses. In 2009, vs. a great ORL defense, Cavs and LeBron performed incredibly well offensively but we’re besten by Howard and three point shooting; 2012 Heat played two bigs who didn’t shoot (Bosh couldn’t shoot threes yet); LeBron played off the ball a great deal in 2013 as well; second stint Cavs had Mozgov and TT at the 5. Cavs had just as high an ORtg with TT at the 5 and LeBron on the court as they did with Love on the court. And so on and so on.

portability is too narrowly defined, a lot of time it seems to be restricted to off ball/spot up shooting, sometimes to offensive rebounding but that is it

thinghs like defensive portability are under discussed, portsbility as a roll man or finisher or full court threat or quality passer rim protection are rarely considered part of it

I think you guys are running the risk of derailing this thread by making it too LeBron centric. To get it back on point, I value playoff resiliency above portability by a lot. Russell is criticized a lot by the idea that he wouldn't be nearly as good if he played in the 80's or later but I don't hold that idea against him that much. At the end of the day he was winning nba titles by playing the way he did and so why should be try to take on a bigger role on offense? Portability only becomes an issue for me if I think using a guy in the role he generally played in created a handicap towards winning. Which I might say includes someone like Moses where I'm not sure his play style was as conducive to winning as it might seem by simply mentioning him being a 3x mvp and fmvp.

Texas Chuck wrote:Portability is so much less important than we make it out to be. In fact I hate the whole concept and how it gets misused. Especially since only certain players get credit for it, despite other players having played in a bunch of vastly different situations and being highly successful yet whenever portability comes up, they are docked for it.

Like if we have to ignore reality, of what value is the theory?

I mean we have a discussion ongoing right now that Steph Curry can play anywhere and everywhere but Paul and Draymond can't. Except we've actually seen Paul in a bunch of different team constructs and be a dominant player.

Or the most classic example is probably KG versus Dirk except despite never leaving Dallas, Dallas had no less than 4 vastly differently cores around Dirk in his prime and he dominated with all of them. But Dirk is considered not a portable player because he's not as defensively versatile as KG.

So yeah give me resiliency. Please and thank you.

Dirk! The disrespect is real!

Haha, I think Dirk is super portable. Garnett is "portable" in the sense that you'd like to have other good scorers to help him with the offense, which is being charitable.

Garnett only got out of the First Round twice while scoring at least 20 ppg. He put up about 24 in 2004 and about 20 in 2008. Dirk did it seven times, five of them while averaging over 25 ppg.

Between ages 22 and 33, Dirk put up 26 ppg on .58 TS% in the playoffs. Garnett put up 20 ppg on .52 TS%. They were two different tiers offensively, and those numbers don't even account for Dirk's spacing and positional strangeness as a true seven-footer.

C'mon KG fans, give it up! Change your minds while there's still time! It'll feel great, I promise!

scrabbarista wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Portability is so much less important than we make it out to be. In fact I hate the whole concept and how it gets misused. Especially since only certain players get credit for it, despite other players having played in a bunch of vastly different situations and being highly successful yet whenever portability comes up, they are docked for it.

Like if we have to ignore reality, of what value is the theory?

I mean we have a discussion ongoing right now that Steph Curry can play anywhere and everywhere but Paul and Draymond can't. Except we've actually seen Paul in a bunch of different team constructs and be a dominant player.

Or the most classic example is probably KG versus Dirk except despite never leaving Dallas, Dallas had no less than 4 vastly differently cores around Dirk in his prime and he dominated with all of them. But Dirk is considered not a portable player because he's not as defensively versatile as KG.

So yeah give me resiliency. Please and thank you.

Dirk! The disrespect is real!

Haha, I think Dirk is super portable. Garnett is "portable" in the sense that you'd like to have other good scorers to help him with the offense, which is being charitable.

Garnett only got out of the First Round twice while scoring at least 20 ppg. He put up about 24 in 2004 and about 20 in 2008. Dirk did it seven times, five of them while averaging over 25 ppg.

Between ages 22 and 33, Dirk put up 26 ppg on .58 TS% in the playoffs. Garnett put up 20 ppg on .52 TS%. They were two different tiers offensively, and those numbers don't even account for Dirk's spacing and positional strangeness as a true seven-footer.

C'mon KG fans, give it up! Change your minds while there's still time! It'll feel great, I promise!

i dont think any person who has garnett>dirk does so because he believes garnett is on dirk level as a scorer

falcolombardi wrote:

scrabbarista wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Portability is so much less important than we make it out to be. In fact I hate the whole concept and how it gets misused. Especially since only certain players get credit for it, despite other players having played in a bunch of vastly different situations and being highly successful yet whenever portability comes up, they are docked for it.

Like if we have to ignore reality, of what value is the theory?

I mean we have a discussion ongoing right now that Steph Curry can play anywhere and everywhere but Paul and Draymond can't. Except we've actually seen Paul in a bunch of different team constructs and be a dominant player.

Or the most classic example is probably KG versus Dirk except despite never leaving Dallas, Dallas had no less than 4 vastly differently cores around Dirk in his prime and he dominated with all of them. But Dirk is considered not a portable player because he's not as defensively versatile as KG.

So yeah give me resiliency. Please and thank you.

Dirk! The disrespect is real!

Haha, I think Dirk is super portable. Garnett is "portable" in the sense that you'd like to have other good scorers to help him with the offense, which is being charitable.

Garnett only got out of the First Round twice while scoring at least 20 ppg. He put up about 24 in 2004 and about 20 in 2008. Dirk did it seven times, five of them while averaging over 25 ppg.

Between ages 22 and 33, Dirk put up 26 ppg on .58 TS% in the playoffs. Garnett put up 20 ppg on .52 TS%. They were two different tiers offensively, and those numbers don't even account for Dirk's spacing and positional strangeness as a true seven-footer.

C'mon KG fans, give it up! Change your minds while there's still time! It'll feel great, I promise!

i dont think any person who has garnett>dirk does so because he believes garnett is on dirk level as a scorer

20 ppg on 52% is super blah, though. Antwan Jamison, just a random name that I literally thought of while I was typing the previous sentence, put up 18 ppg on 52% shooting during the same age range in the playoffs. Dirk and KG might not even be one tier apart on offense. It might be more than one. And those are big tiers we're talking at Dirk's level!

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I think you guys are running the risk of derailing this thread by making it too LeBron centric. To get it back on point, I value playoff resiliency above portability by a lot. Russell is criticized a lot by the idea that he wouldn't be nearly as good if he played in the 80's or later but I don't hold that idea against him that much. At the end of the day he was winning nba titles by playing the way he did and so why should be try to take on a bigger role on offense? Portability only becomes an issue for me if I think using a guy in the role he generally played in created a handicap towards winning. Which I might say includes someone like Moses where I'm not sure his play style was as conducive to winning as it might seem by simply mentioning him being a 3x mvp and fmvp.

Though I agree with the bolded and the OP’s original question is an interesting one, I would also argue there’s an implied subtext of Jordan vs. LeBron whenever the term “portability” is brought up since it’s wholly inexact in definition and evaluation. Taylor’s own -1, +0, +1, etc., “portability” scores highlight this inexactness that has been used primarily in Jordan vs. LeBron debates.

homecourtloss wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I think you guys are running the risk of derailing this thread by making it too LeBron centric. To get it back on point, I value playoff resiliency above portability by a lot. Russell is criticized a lot by the idea that he wouldn't be nearly as good if he played in the 80's or later but I don't hold that idea against him that much. At the end of the day he was winning nba titles by playing the way he did and so why should be try to take on a bigger role on offense? Portability only becomes an issue for me if I think using a guy in the role he generally played in created a handicap towards winning. Which I might say includes someone like Moses where I'm not sure his play style was as conducive to winning as it might seem by simply mentioning him being a 3x mvp and fmvp.

Though I agree with the bolded and the OP’s original question is an interesting one, I would also argue there’s an implied subtext of Jordan vs. LeBron whenever the term “portability” is brought up since it’s wholly inexact in definition and evaluation. Taylor’s own -1, +0, +1, etc., “portability” scores highlight this inexactness that has been used primarily in Jordan vs. LeBron debates.

i think it goes a ton further than lebron vs jordan in this case, it has essentislly became about sets of skilss

off ball running, jumpshot, mobility in defense, fewer shots, off ball defense as "portable", vs ballhandling, inside scoring and rim protection, more shots, on ball defense as "less portable"

essentially the essence of the divide in offense is that there is only 1 player with the ball and 4 without it so the first "camp" thinks the most you can do while touching the ball the less or "occupying" the most valuable areas of the court, the more value left for the other 4 players to bring

the second "camp" is often more of a "lets not judge players by style but by results" who thinks that the role of a star is creating the most impact and not how he creates it, and because of this they usually value playoffs resiliency a lot since is the most valuable result

and it frames a lot of the most common debates: wilt vs russel, oscar vs west (kinda), magic vs bird, jordan vs lebron, curry vs other stars of his era, garnett vs duncan, etc

I like 'em both well enough, like most things some value it more than me, some less. Obviously has some value - 2x Paul George is a lot more useful than 2x Rudy Gobert even if one prefers Rudy. Similar for Reggie Bullock and Jordan Clarkson.

Resiliency, it's nice to do well against more varied opponents if all else is equal.