how often does "floor raising" win rings compared to "ceiling raising"

[falcolombardi]

i am gonna define this based on their playoff runs rather than regular season (they won their rings in the playofffs after all) and use +5.5 or -5.5 as a baseline for elite

i am gonna focus first on offense since that is really what people mean when they talk about floor or ceiling raising or portability, the purposed difference between making a bad team ok on offense or a talented team great in offense

teams that have a elite playoffs offense (better than 5.4 points above average) count as -ceiling raising-

teams that have a worse than -5.4 offfense count as -floor raising-

the 5.4 is because is the distance between the 98 bulls and the 4.7 spurs with no team in between so every offense 4.7 or worse is "floor raising" and every offense 5.4 or better is "ceiling raising

80 lakers: +6.1 offense, -2.0 defense

81 celtics +4.6 offense -5.6 defense

82 lakers +7.4 offense, -2.6 defense

83 sixers +5.9 offense, -4.8 defense

84 celtics +6.4 offense, -0.5 defense

85 lakers +9.8 offense, -2.7 defense

86 celtics +8.2 offense, -4.9 defense

87 lakers +10.5 offense, -2.7 offense

88 lakers *+7.5 offense, +2.2 defense

89 pistons +5.7 offense, -6.4 defense

90 pistons 1.7 offense, -8.8 defense

91 bulls +6.5 offense, +7.9 defense

92 bulls +6.0 offense , -5.5 defense

93 bulls* +8.9 offense , -3.0 defense

94 rockets +5.6 offense, -3.1 defense

95 rockets +7.7 offense, -1.6 defense

96 bulls +7.7 offense, -9.4 defense

97 bulls +5.4 offense, -7.7 defense

98 bulls* +5.4 offense, -8.0 defense

99 spurs +3.5 offense, -7.8 defense

2000 lakers +6 offense, -2 defense

2001 +12.2 offense, -7.5 defense

2002 lakers +5.5 offense, -4.7 defense

2003 spurs +1.8 offense, -8.6 defense

2004 pistons -0.8 offense, -11.4 defense

2005 spurs +4.7 offense, -4.2 defense

2006 heat +2.7 offense, -5.8 defense

2007 spurs +2.2 offense, -6.6 defense

2008 celtics + 3.3 offense, -5.8 defense

2009 lakers +6.4 offense, -6.0 defense

2010 lakers +6.9 offense, -1.7 defense

2011 mavs* +7.2 offense, -4.3 defense

2012 heat *+8.4 offense, -3.5 defense

2013 heat*+8.2 offense, -2.3 defense

2014 spurs +7.7 offense, -6.8 defense

2015 warriors*+4.1 offense, -7.5 defense

2016 cavs +11.4 offense, -3.8 defense

2017 warriors +11.2 offense, -6.8 defense

2018 warriors +6.5 offense, -7.9 defense

2019 raptors +1.7 offense, -8.5 defense

2020 lakers +4.6 offense, -4.2 defense


2021 bucks +1.8 offense, -7.4 defense


notice than

a)dominant offensive teams (or teams with dominant playoffs offense runs) are much more common in the 90's and first half of the 90's, a era of high scoring and offensive approach to the game in spite of the lack of 3 point shooting (illegal D, high pace, great offensive talent, weaker fastbreak defense amd mpre emphasis om offensive rebounding at risk of fast break points)

b) dominant defensive teams or at least teams without a truly great offense start winning more and more rings in the aughts and late 90's, this coincides with the defensive explosion of the era

c) the 2010's are a era of new offensive explosions in the playoffs and offensively dominant teams winning most rings, this makes sense for the small ball and 3-ball explosion of the late 2010's and while the 09-16 was not proper 3-ball era yet, is clear thst teams that evolved to have more modern 3-ball heavy offense startes dominating rings agains

d) then the 2020's era comes amd from 2019-2022 (including this year top 4 teams) we start seeing again defensive teams win and reacj the top stages again

i just found interesting how the high offense/less defense 80's were doninated by offense, the low scoring aughts by defense, but the somewhat average scoring 2010's by offense too (teams ahead of the curve taking advantage?) and the ultra high scoring 20's by defense so far (teams ahead of the curve in defense?)

i consider 94 and 95 hakeem a example of a floor raiser archetype which is supposedly tougher to build a elite offense around (weaker passing, tons of isolation, only good efficiency)

and like him there are many teams that won their rings offensively led by a lone superstar or by a superstar shouldering a huge load to lift the offenseor by a superstar being strongly ball dominant, all the thinghs that in theory shouldnt lead to ceiling raising

those seasons: 88 magic, 94 and 95 hakeem, 93 and 98 jordan, 2009 kobe, 2011 dirk, 2012 lebron, 2013 lebron, 2015 curry

alongside the cases of more regular floor raising of making a bad offense good enough as the clear offensive engine

90 thomas , 99 duncan, 2003 duncan, 2004 billups, 2005 ginobili, 2010 kobe, 2019 kawhi, 2020 lebron, 2021 giannis, potentially 2022 curry or tatum

are we sure "floor raising" defined as a on ball/ball dominant star surrounded by shooting and defense or rebounders is such a worse ring winning model than the 2014 spurs or 2017 warriors armonic collection of portable/ceiling raising offeensive talent?

[penbeast0]

These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

At least not the way I usually hear them used. Usually it tends to more of the last sentence you used; a ball dominant on ball offensive star v. someone who can play as an off ball or defensive star (presumably of roughly equal talent).

[falcolombardi]

These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

At least not the way I usually hear them used. Usually it tends to more of the last sentence you used; a ball dominant on ball offensive star v. someone who can play as an off ball or defensive star (presumably of roughly equal talent).

they almost always are used to talk about how good a player makes a offense (a ton of people dont even consider duncan or hakeem portable players because of their offense) which is in itself a issue

and the reason why off-ball/less ball dominant play is given more value theoricslly is that it theorically leads to better offenses by allowing multiple offensive stars to coexists

that is why i highlight how often those great, ring winning, offenses are led by single stars or ball dominant stars

essentially my pet peeves in the ceilimg vs floor raising thingh are

a) defense rarely being included when determining it

b) ball dominant player being underated as ceiling raiser

c)the assumption that you need multiple offense stars to have a great offense and if those stars are on-ball players then they wont be able to make a great offense

d) that making a defensove minded team at least solid on offense cannot lead to rings

[Bad Gatorade]

Although at first I was allured by the prospect of floor raising vs ceiling raising, over time, I've kind of dismissed this implication for star players. I used to buy into it... but I've soured on the stance since.

One example is the 2018 Rockets. They had a 122.2 ORTG with both Harden and Paul on the court. Their overall team ORTG is one of the highest ever in games that both Harden + Paul played. The Warriors is quite arguably the greatest collection of talent ever, and yet, the Rockets were up 3-2 prior to Paul's injury in 2018 and were highly competitive with the Warriors in 2019, even after Chris Paul seemingly aged 5 years in 1. Unless one prescribes incredibly strongly to the "ring or bust" argument, that Rockets team was outstanding.

Which of Paul and Harden (the two iso-heavy, ball dominant playmaking guards) is incredibly "portable?"

There are other examples - Trae Young led the #2 offence in the league this season whilst not only creating almost all of his own points off the dribble, but being so ball dominant that he led in both total points and total assists. He doesn't seem like a portability monster himself, but did that hamper the Hawks offence?

LeBron/Wade were great on the court together in Miami.

We can go back to numerous seasons and find countless examples of teams led by "non-portable" players. falcolombardi said it great in another thread - if we have one player taking a team to 50 wins, and the "ceiling raiser" joins and that team goes to 60 wins, then why shouldn't the first player receive a ton of credit?

This also ignores that a "floor raiser" might actually have greater flexibility in fulfilling roster options - the 2018 Rockets basically had a lot of defensive "finishers" (often not even great finishers - guys like Tucker/Ariza are okay shooters, but they're not exactly Steph Curry) that they filled out the team with, and that's a lineup that might not work if you replace their two ball dominant guards with two Klay Thompson-esque players. Tim Duncan not being "portable" on offence wasn't an issue in 2003 when he helped carry a not-so-talented offensive team to a decent enough offence that they were able to win the entire championship (as a fairly deep + talented defensive team, IMO). Shaq wasn't a floor spacer and occupied the "sweet spot" on offence underneath the rim, but I'm going to feed him as much as possible and watch the other team squirm.

It also ignores that not every league is exactly the same, and that the "floor raiser" might not be creating 65+ win rosters yearly, but that even being a floor raiser on a not-so-great team has opportunities to win a ring when the league doesn't have a 4 All Star superpower running the show. After all, Wade wasn't seen as a "ceiling raiser", he didn't have a superb team, but the cards fell his way just enough that his incredible performance in 2006 was enough to win a championship. That performance isn't enough to win every year, but it was enough to win that year, and it would have been enough to win in numerous other years.

I think that portability is far better served by actually asking, "what is a player's expected impact in numerous scenarios", rather than simply saying, "how well do they play off ball?" It borderline feels like portability is simply a "correcting" factor for aesthetics, rather than an actual assessment for how well they'd do in different scenarios. One example is how Ben Taylor (arguably the man who has popularised portability more than any other) had allotted maximum portability scores to Curry, Klay and Draymond. Curry, sure, because he's great on ball, and arguably the best ever off ball. Klay... is not an on ball guy, and Draymond clearly thrives off the synergy of elite off ball players since he's a great passer, and a poor scorer.

Are Klay and Dray any more portable than guys like LeBron, who received a maximum "negative" portability score over several prime years, who, even though he is classed as a SF, has been able to mesh well with Irving (an isolation-heavy PG), Wade (ball dominant SG), Anthony Davis (a big man), and has shown great results both as the point guard and as a small-ball big man? That seems like far more "portability" than either of these guys. Alas, it feels like because LeBron hasn't thrived in a Warriors-esque setup, he gets docked on the portability front.

And that's where my problem with the portability argument lies - I think that there's merit to discussing how a player can fit in different setups, i.e., be "portable." I do, however, have a problem with the argument the way that it is often forged, and simply saying that a player is "off ball", ergo he is "portable" doesn't seem right to me at all. Yes, there's only one ball, but that doesn't mean that only one guy needs to be defended, nor that every non-portable player has the exact same skillset as one another.

Sure, a team might benefit from having more than one Khris Middleton rather than having more than one Rudy Gobert, but when we're in a league with 3 point shooting running rampant, we need to be mindful of the fact that a situation where a team is littered with non-shooters (like I don't know, the 2017 Bulls that had Butler/old Wade/Rondo/Lopez/Gibson, which isn't littered with offensive powerhouses anyway), there's just as much of an onus on the GM for building a silly team. If we're crediting a "ceiling raiser" for playing alongside another superstar, then we're also just crediting the GM for being able to form a team with 2-3 superstars in the first place.

I understand the concept a bit more with regard to role players - a Danny Green (who is a ceiling raiser type) is highly valuable for a contender, probably more so than a Lou Williams type. Lou Williams probably isn't carrying a mediocre team to blinding heights. In a case like this, yes, I see where the portability argument comes in. But when we're talking about the best players ever (and I'm not just speaking about offence, but rather, players in general), they're going to be good enough that even if there's some overlap, they'll probably form the key cogs of a really good team either way.

[Dutchball97]

I see floor raisers as one of two archetypes. Lead guards who volume score on average at best efficiency and 20/10 bigs with limited defense. Put guys like that on bottomfeeder teams and you'll probably see a pretty significant improvement in performance. Put them on winning teams and they don't add much and might even be detrimentap, although I believe having floor raiser types leading your bench can definitely be a good thing too if you can get them for a reasonable price.

Ceiling raisers are mainly defensive bigs with so-so offense or 3&D wings. Put either of them on terrible teams and the production won't be there but they're exactly the kind of players you'd want to surround a star with.

I feel like the true star players don't really fit into either category or maybe more accurately they're actually both. Put someone like Giannis or LeBron on a bad team and they'll suddenly become competitive but pop them onto a good team and you've got an immediate top contender.

[tsherkin]

I see floor raisers as one of two archetypes. Lead guards who volume score on average at best efficiency and 20/10 bigs with limited defense. Put guys like that on bottomfeeder teams and you'll probably see a pretty significant improvement in performance. Put them on winning teams and they don't add much and might even be detrimentap, although I believe having floor raiser types leading your bench can definitely be a good thing too if you can get them for a reasonable price.

Ceiling raisers are mainly defensive bigs with so-so offense or 3&D wings. Put either of them on terrible teams and the production won't be there but they're exactly the kind of players you'd want to surround a star with.

I feel like the true star players don't really fit into either category or maybe more accurately they're actually both. Put someone like Giannis or LeBron on a bad team and they'll suddenly become competitive but pop them onto a good team and you've got an immediate top contender.

That's a good way of looking at it, I like that.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Per Ben Taylor's evaluations, here are the port ratings of the best player on every championship team since 1980.

*Edit made after original post, as he updated some things

80: 0
81: 2
82: 0
83: 1
84: 2
85: 0
86: 2
87: 0
88: 0
89: -1 (If you think Thomas)
90: -1 (If you think Thomas)
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: -1
95: -1
96: 0
97: 0
98: 0
99: -1
00: 1
01: 1
02: 1
03: 0
04: 0 (Only has Ben Wallace's Corp Eval up, so idk what the others would be)
05: -1 (Updated evals might have Duncan at a 0 but, this is the case as of now)
06: -1
07: -1
08: 2
09: 0
10: 0
11: 0
12: -2
13: -1
14: 0 (if Duncan, no Kawhi or Parker eval)
15: 2
16: 0
17: 2
18: 2
19: 0
20: 0
21: Hasn't done evaluations for 21, but Giannis was a -2 in 2020, and a -1 in 18 and 19)

[falcolombardi]

Per Ben Taylor's evaluations, here are the port ratings of the best player on every championship team since 1980.

80: 0
81: 2
82: 0
83: 1
84: 2
85: 0
86: 2
87: 0
88: 0
89: -1 (If you think Thomas)
90: -1 (If you think Thomas)
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: -2
95: -2
96: 0
97: 0
98: 0
99: -1
00: 0
01: 0
02: 0
03: -1
04: 0 (Only has Ben Wallace's Corp Eval up, so idk what the others would be)
05: -1
06: -1
07: -1
08: 2
09: 0
10: 0
11: 0
12: -2
13: -1
14: 0 (if Duncan, no Kawhi or Parker eval)
15: 2
16: 0
17: 2
18: 2
19: 0
20: 0
21: Hasn't done evaluations for 21, but Giannis was a -2 in 2020, and a -1 in 18 and 19)

so essentially bird, garnett and curry are the only ring winning best players who fit the archetype for him?

i am also very confused how hakeem and duncan, two guys who made most of their impact in defense, and a ton of their offense impact with rebounding negative portability?

if anythingh, a defense player like them should be the most portable ones, as defense doesnt have the same diminishing returns as offense

why are they less portable than ben wallace, ben was essentially duncan or hakeem without the scoring, how is a more limited version of duncan (kind of) more portable than duncan?

[letskissbro]

Portability is just Ben’s way to boost players who play his preferred brand of basketball (heavy ball movement, egalitarian “team ball”). He grew up a Boston fan and he very actively roots for the Warriors with his wife. Point blank period.

[letskissbro]

Per Ben Taylor's evaluations, here are the port ratings of the best player on every championship team since 1980.

80: 0
81: 2
82: 0
83: 1
84: 2
85: 0
86: 2
87: 0
88: 0
89: -1 (If you think Thomas)
90: -1 (If you think Thomas)
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: -2
95: -2
96: 0
97: 0
98: 0
99: -1
00: 0
01: 0
02: 0
03: -1
04: 0 (Only has Ben Wallace's Corp Eval up, so idk what the others would be)
05: -1
06: -1
07: -1
08: 2
09: 0
10: 0
11: 0
12: -2
13: -1
14: 0 (if Duncan, no Kawhi or Parker eval)
15: 2
16: 0
17: 2
18: 2
19: 0
20: 0
21: Hasn't done evaluations for 21, but Giannis was a -2 in 2020, and a -1 in 18 and 19)

Unsurprisingly the only players with positive portability evaluations played for Ben’s two favorite teams lol.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Per Ben Taylor's evaluations, here are the port ratings of the best player on every championship team since 1980.

80: 0
81: 2
82: 0
83: 1
84: 2
85: 0
86: 2
87: 0
88: 0
89: -1 (If you think Thomas)
90: -1 (If you think Thomas)
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: -2
95: -2
96: 0
97: 0
98: 0
99: -1
00: 0
01: 0
02: 0
03: -1
04: 0 (Only has Ben Wallace's Corp Eval up, so idk what the others would be)
05: -1
06: -1
07: -1
08: 2
09: 0
10: 0
11: 0
12: -2
13: -1
14: 0 (if Duncan, no Kawhi or Parker eval)
15: 2
16: 0
17: 2
18: 2
19: 0
20: 0
21: Hasn't done evaluations for 21, but Giannis was a -2 in 2020, and a -1 in 18 and 19)

so essentially bird, garnett and curry are the only ring winning best players who fit the archetype for him?

i am also very confused how hakeem and duncan, two guys who made most of their impact in defense, and a ton of their offense impact with rebounding negative portability?

if anythingh, a defense player like them should be the most portable ones, as defense doesnt have the same diminishing returns as offense

why are they less portable than ben wallace, ben was essentially duncan or hakeem without the scoring, how is a more limited version of duncan (kind of) more portable than duncan?

Well Ben's portability, is offense only. So he is speaking about their offense and how it scales. If you have questions, I would just go back through his scouting reports of them and maybe even their greatest peaks profile to get why he thinks that way specifically, although many people still do not find his explanations sufficient.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Per Ben Taylor's evaluations, here are the port ratings of the best player on every championship team since 1980.

80: 0
81: 2
82: 0
83: 1
84: 2
85: 0
86: 2
87: 0
88: 0
89: -1 (If you think Thomas)
90: -1 (If you think Thomas)
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: -2
95: -2
96: 0
97: 0
98: 0
99: -1
00: 0
01: 0
02: 0
03: -1
04: 0 (Only has Ben Wallace's Corp Eval up, so idk what the others would be)
05: -1
06: -1
07: -1
08: 2
09: 0
10: 0
11: 0
12: -2
13: -1
14: 0 (if Duncan, no Kawhi or Parker eval)
15: 2
16: 0
17: 2
18: 2
19: 0
20: 0
21: Hasn't done evaluations for 21, but Giannis was a -2 in 2020, and a -1 in 18 and 19)

so essentially bird, garnett and curry are the only ring winning best players who fit the archetype for him?

i am also very confused how hakeem and duncan, two guys who made most of their impact in defense, and a ton of their offense impact with rebounding negative portability?

if anythingh, a defense player like them should be the most portable ones, as defense doesnt have the same diminishing returns as offense

why are they less portable than ben wallace, ben was essentially duncan or hakeem without the scoring, how is a more limited version of duncan (kind of) more portable than duncan?

Had to make a few corrections to the original post. Shaq has +1 portability, he upgraded his portability.

[falcolombardi]

Per Ben Taylor's evaluations, here are the port ratings of the best player on every championship team since 1980.

80: 0
81: 2
82: 0
83: 1
84: 2
85: 0
86: 2
87: 0
88: 0
89: -1 (If you think Thomas)
90: -1 (If you think Thomas)
91: 0
92: 0
93: 0
94: -2
95: -2
96: 0
97: 0
98: 0
99: -1
00: 0
01: 0
02: 0
03: -1
04: 0 (Only has Ben Wallace's Corp Eval up, so idk what the others would be)
05: -1
06: -1
07: -1
08: 2
09: 0
10: 0
11: 0
12: -2
13: -1
14: 0 (if Duncan, no Kawhi or Parker eval)
15: 2
16: 0
17: 2
18: 2
19: 0
20: 0
21: Hasn't done evaluations for 21, but Giannis was a -2 in 2020, and a -1 in 18 and 19)

so essentially bird, garnett and curry are the only ring winning best players who fit the archetype for him?

i am also very confused how hakeem and duncan, two guys who made most of their impact in defense, and a ton of their offense impact with rebounding negative portability?

if anythingh, a defense player like them should be the most portable ones, as defense doesnt have the same diminishing returns as offense

why are they less portable than ben wallace, ben was essentially duncan or hakeem without the scoring, how is a more limited version of duncan (kind of) more portable than duncan?

Well Ben's portability, is offense only. So he is speaking about their offense and how it scales. If you have questions, I would just go back through his scouting reports of them and maybe even their greatest peaks profile to get why he thinks that way specifically, although many people still do not find his explanations sufficient.

that is offense only shows the limits of assigning players labels based only on half of the game

but even beyond that i dont think it holds up to scrutiny

if you ask duncan to play like ben wallace and omly defend, rebound, finish dunks he can do it, maybe even better than ben, while still being able to create offense for you if you need it

duncan can do all what ben wallace can and a lot more, but he is less "portable"? how does that make sense?

[LukaTheGOAT]

so essentially bird, garnett and curry are the only ring winning best players who fit the archetype for him?

i am also very confused how hakeem and duncan, two guys who made most of their impact in defense, and a ton of their offense impact with rebounding negative portability?

if anythingh, a defense player like them should be the most portable ones, as defense doesnt have the same diminishing returns as offense

why are they less portable than ben wallace, ben was essentially duncan or hakeem without the scoring, how is a more limited version of duncan (kind of) more portable than duncan?

Well Ben's portability, is offense only. So he is speaking about their offense and how it scales. If you have questions, I would just go back through his scouting reports of them and maybe even their greatest peaks profile to get why he thinks that way specifically, although many people still do not find his explanations sufficient.

that is offense only shows the limits of assigning players labels based only on half of the game

but even beyond that i dont think it holds up to scrutiny

if you ask duncan to play like ben wallace and omly defend, rebound, finish dunks he can do it, maybe even better than ben, while still being able to create offense for you if you need it

duncan can do all what ben wallace can and a lot more, but he is less "portable"? how does that make sense?

He is saying that if Duncan plays like Wallace, he will lose value on offense and likely not bring as much value. He could certainly play like Wallace, but playing like Wallace isn't arguable top 5 peak ever or even close.

[falcolombardi]

Well Ben's portability, is offense only. So he is speaking about their offense and how it scales. If you have questions, I would just go back through his scouting reports of them and maybe even their greatest peaks profile to get why he thinks that way specifically, although many people still do not find his explanations sufficient.

that is offense only shows the limits of assigning players labels based only on half of the game

but even beyond that i dont think it holds up to scrutiny

if you ask duncan to play like ben wallace and omly defend, rebound, finish dunks he can do it, maybe even better than ben, while still being able to create offense for you if you need it

duncan can do all what ben wallace can and a lot more, but he is less "portable"? how does that make sense?

He is saying that if Duncan plays like Wallace, he will lose value on offense and likely not bring as much value. He could certainly play like Wallace, but playing like Wallace isn't arguable top 5 peak ever or even close.

that is still questionable reasoning imo

if duncan being able to do -more- thinghs than ben wallace makes him -less- portable than big ben then somethingh is wrong with the approach

[LukaTheGOAT]

that is offense only shows the limits of assigning players labels based only on half of the game

but even beyond that i dont think it holds up to scrutiny

if you ask duncan to play like ben wallace and omly defend, rebound, finish dunks he can do it, maybe even better than ben, while still being able to create offense for you if you need it

duncan can do all what ben wallace can and a lot more, but he is less "portable"? how does that make sense?

He is saying that if Duncan plays like Wallace, he will lose value on offense and likely not bring as much value. He could certainly play like Wallace, but playing like Wallace isn't arguable top 5 peak ever or even close.

that is still questionable reasoning imo

if duncan being able to do -more- thinghs than ben wallace makes him -less- portable than big ben then somethingh is wrong with the approach

No, it just means that for Duncan to assert his maximum value (say 6.5 points per game or so), he might not be able to do as easily scale that impact with more ball-dominant guys as someone like Garnett could (of this course this is an opinion based on their skillsets).

[70sFan]

He is saying that if Duncan plays like Wallace, he will lose value on offense and likely not bring as much value. He could certainly play like Wallace, but playing like Wallace isn't arguable top 5 peak ever or even close.

that is still questionable reasoning imo

if duncan being able to do -more- thinghs than ben wallace makes him -less- portable than big ben then somethingh is wrong with the approach

No, it just means that for Duncan to assert his maximum value (say 6.5 points per game or so), he might not be able to do as easily scale that impact with more ball-dominant guys as someone like Garnett could (of this course this is an opinion based on their skillsets).

This might make sense in theory, but let's be honest - how Garnett is so much more portable then? He was at his best when he took a lot of midrange shots and we all know no team would have him play that way. Unless you assume that he'll have three point range, but then I could assume a lot of things about Duncan as well.

I don't know, it does seem like a stat created by Ben to give credit for players who played the "right way".

[LukaTheGOAT]

that is still questionable reasoning imo

if duncan being able to do -more- thinghs than ben wallace makes him -less- portable than big ben then somethingh is wrong with the approach

No, it just means that for Duncan to assert his maximum value (say 6.5 points per game or so), he might not be able to do as easily scale that impact with more ball-dominant guys as someone like Garnett could (of this course this is an opinion based on their skillsets).

This might make sense in theory, but let's be honest - how Garnett is so much more portable then? He was at his best when he took a lot of midrange shots and we all know no team would have him play that way. Unless you assume that he'll have three point range, but then I could assume a lot of things about Duncan as well.

I don't know, it does seem like a stat created by Ben to give credit for players who played the "right way".

The thinking is that Garnett provides more spacing with shooting, and also being a better passer (which is considered by Ben to maybe a the most scalable skill). Ben thinks isolation scoring, does not scale super well which hurts Duncan in this theory. Therefore, Ben believes, that KG can maintain more value with other ball-dominant guys more so than Duncan.

[TheGOATRises007]

The Bulls' defense in '91 was +7.9?

Is that a typo?

[70sFan]

No, it just means that for Duncan to assert his maximum value (say 6.5 points per game or so), he might not be able to do as easily scale that impact with more ball-dominant guys as someone like Garnett could (of this course this is an opinion based on their skillsets).

This might make sense in theory, but let's be honest - how Garnett is so much more portable then? He was at his best when he took a lot of midrange shots and we all know no team would have him play that way. Unless you assume that he'll have three point range, but then I could assume a lot of things about Duncan as well.

I don't know, it does seem like a stat created by Ben to give credit for players who played the "right way".

The thinking is that Garnett provides more spacing with shooting, and also being a better passer (which is considered by Ben to maybe a the most scalable skill). Ben thinks isolation scoring, does not scale super well which hurts Duncan in this theory. Therefore, Ben believes, that KG can maintain more value with other ball-dominant guys more so than Duncan.

I know that, but this theory doesn't stack up to reality. Duncan worked extremely well with ball-dominant duo of Parker and Manu and his impact remained top notch (which you can see no further than at 2007).

You can say "but they didn't have ATG offense in 2007!", but the truth is that KG never anchored a better offense in Boston. 2007 Spurs had +5.7 offense with Duncan on the floor, while 2008 Celtics had +6.1 offense with KG on the floor.

Duncan didn't carry his whole offensive value through post up isolations. He wasn't as good passer as KG, but was still excellent (after 2001 he reached elite level for a bigman). He was far better inside finisher that made him more of a threat in P&R situations and gave him more inside gravity. He was excellent offensive rebounder which is a very scalable skill. Meanwhile Garnett's shooting is good, but shooting a lot of midrange shots isn't super portable. Most offenses wouldn't like him to take too many of these shots.

I don't know, in this comparison I don't see how Garnett can be seen as super portable guy, while Duncan is seen as negative in this case. I'm aware of Ben's explainations but they aren't convincing to me.