4. Portability: Magic vs Curry70sFan wrote:Unlike LeBron, Magic proved consistently that his style of play was very scalable and portable with various different roles.
I really haven't seen any strong evidence suggesting that Curry is more impactful or more portable offensively than Magic. I have seen Curry-led team struggling a lot offensively in 2021 when he played his usual role. Magic transitioned from Showtime fastbreak into slow, grinding HC style in the 1990s effortlessly.
I tend to agree that Magic might be more scalable than LeBron, but I want to be careful here. I think we may be using the same words to talk about different things.
(My definition of) Value: How much they help the team win (either their team or some 'average team)
(My definition of) Resilience: How that value changes with better opponents
(My definition of) Scalability/Portability: How that value changes with better teammates [i.e. how value changes for ceiling raising > floor raising]
(Perhaps your definition of?) Scalability/Portability: How that value changes with different teammates
I prefer to try to rate how much a player helps a team win a championship. Other considerations are absolutely valid, this is just what I personally care about. You'll probably face good opponents and probably need good teammates to win a championship, so this context (which I'm calling resilience and scalability respectively) is important to consider, rather than just flat value.
It's possible in your definition of scalability/portability (e.g. how players value changes fitting on any other team), Magic fairs just as well as Curry. But as teammates get better, certain skills are going to slightly decrease in value.
For example, if we have lots of ball-dominant iso scorer on a team, there won't be as much time or opportunities for these ball dominant scorers vs if each iso scorer had their own offense they could lead alone. Someone's scoring value is going to have to decrease. But not all skills decrease as much as ball-dominant iso scoring when surrounded by better teammates. This skill analysis is how I tend to evaluate portability/scalability.
So what skills retain the most value with good teammates?
Scalability tier: Spacing ~ Finishing ~ Passing > (non spacing/passing) Creation > Iso Scoring
Scalability tier (other skills): Off ball > on ball. Defense is also very scalable (though off-ball defense > on-ball defense).
*Qualifier: this is not to say high portability skills are inherently more valuable on a good team... it's just that they lose less value when in a ceiling-raising role vs a floor-raising role. For example, it's possible that spacing is worth +0.25 on a bad team and+ 0.5 on a good team vs iso scoring which might be +1 on a bad team and +.75 on a good team.
I've argued Curry's skills lose less value next to star teammates than Magic's do. Thinking Basketball's given a similar argument. That doesn't necessarily mean Curry's better (for example, Curry could go from +6.0 on a bad team to +6.25 on a good one, while Magic could go from 6.5 on a bad team to +6.26 on a good one)... but it's at least important to consider.
4a.
So who's more Scalable? In my definition of scalability, I'd argue Curry > Magic. I'm not sure using your definition, but I'd be open to arguments favoring Magic.
Most Scalable Skill 1: Spacing. Curry >> Magic in absolute terms, and relative to era.
I shouldn't need to the defend this much, haha, but you can see my previous post for details if you'd like.
Most Scalable Skill 2: Finishing. I'd argue Curry > Magic.
70sFan wrote: Why do you think Curry is a better finisher?
To me, the ability to finish a play on offense relies a lot on scoring (preferably scoring that benefits from other teammates / other creators).
I think Curry's scoring advantage speaks for itself haha
Curry's an astronomically superior 3 point shooter (including in finishing roles like off-ball relocation or catch and shoot 3s). He's also a superior cutter and scorer at the rim: in Thinking Basketball's Greatest Peaks episode on Curry (see 18:50), Curry has a good argument as a Tier 1/Tier 2 rim scorer all time among point guards, which is better than Magic. These are better finishing skills.
Most Scalable Skill 3: Passing. Magic >> Curry.
Like spacing, I shouldn't need to defend this much haha
You argued that passing works well with other creators:
70sFan wrote:I also don't agree that passing doesn't fit well next to other creators. Having more creators is always extremely beneficial for a team. I don't think it's proven that two shooters are necessarily more impacful than two creators.
Point taken! This is true, so perhaps I underrated Magic there. I think what I was more worried about than Magic's passing alone was the necessity for it to be on-ball, which brings us to...
Most Scalable Skill 4: Off-ball offense. Curry > Magic.
Again, this shouldn't need much justification. Curry's pretty much the consensus GOAY off-ball offensive player. Though you do offer some compelling arguments for Magic:
70sFan wrote: Magic's passing isn't strictly attached to him being ball-dominant though. As I said, Magic played with ball-dominant players in his career and it didn't stop him from giving his team massive boost. Magic was a capable off-ball player, of course not in Curry's league but his passing brings enormous value even without dominating the ball.
This might be true that Magic's underrated as a off-ball player. But he still has much more ball-dominant skills/tendencies than the GOAT off-ball offensive player.
Most Scalable Skill 4: Defense (especially team defense / off-ball defense). Curry ~ Magic.
I've argued they're similar in their era (I've argued Magic would lose more today if you care about time machine, though you've pushed back there). Regardless, both of their strengths as defenders are team defense / off-ball, so I see no major portability/scalability advantage here.
Medium Scalable Skill 5: Creation (non-passing/spacing). Curry > Magic.
See my Creation section in the previous post
In sum: You're right that Magic might be underrated off-ball and show good portability with his clear passing advantage, but Curry as a huge advantage in Spacing, a sizable advantage Finishing and off-bal, and a clear advantage in (non passing/spacing) creation. To me, if scalability is fitting next to better and better star teammates, Curry wins out.
Though if we take your definition instead, Magic may have an argument.
Addressing a few of your Scalability Counters:
Counter 1: LeBron as a case study.
70sFan wrote:I mean, we have seen another player who isn't close to Curry shooting-wise surpassing Curry's value in the very same era. LeBron isn't really a better shooter than Magic and a lot of advanatges he has over Steph are identical to the ones Magic possesses.
Good point! LeBron does beat Curry in raw value. But then again, Jordan beats Magic. Just because LeBron beats Curry doesn't mean Curry isn't over other Magic at his peak in either raw value or scalability.
Your point about LeBron being stylistically similar to Magic is interesting. It's true that there's some similarities as more heliocentric (or photo-heliocentric) stars and with their on-ball passing. And it's possible that Magic may the scalability edge over LeBron.
But there's problems with taking the LeBron comparison as reason for Magic being over Curry from raw value or scalability. From Raw Value: LeBron's scoring advantage over Magic is massive, and the Defensive advantage over Magic is astronomical, so LeBron's raw value beats Magic too. From scalability: LeBron is clearly less scalable than Curry (not to say he's worse... just that he's less scalable), so the fact that Magic might be LeBron in scalability doesn't mean he's necessarily over Curry.
Counter 2: Who cares about Scalability, what about their actual value?
I've argued Curry's skills lose less value next to star teammates than Magic's do. Thinking Basketball's given a similar argument, and while you've pointed out those rankings are arbitrary, they're based on a similar skill analysis to the one above.
You're right that this doesn't necessarily mean Curry's better on good teams (for example, Curry could go from +6.0 on a bad team to +6.25 on a good one, while Magic could go from 6.5 on a bad team to +6.26 on a good one)... but this analysis suggests Curry at least loses less value next to better teammates than Magic, which is at least 1 contextual factor to consider. For an analysis on what their actual value is (not how it changes with teammates), we'd have to go back to my previous post for a more wholistic impact assessment.
If you prefer a different definition for scalability (e.g. value floor raising > ceiling raising), that would be valid. Or if you don't care about how value changes with different teammates, and just care about who has more value in the context they had, that would also be valid! But those would be different discussions, at least from the one I was having.
The question is how much of a value it has in comparison to Magic's advantages. 
