LeBron vs. Kawhi on defense: What case does Kawhi have?

[DCasey91]

Kawih has the argument for being a better on ball defender at their best. But at their best LeBron was good in that regard also, but not at the level of Kawih.

LBJ has the case as a help defender. Somehow it gets forgotten that the Heat won with him as the main rim protector, that he had big impact on that end in the 16 finals and that even in the 20 playoffs he was a huge positive defender for the Lakers (with, however, a big help from Caruso, Danny Green and Davis - it also helps being surrounded by good defenders). Actually LA was stupid enough to dismantle a great perimeter defense to bring "stars" like Melo and stuff, who can't guard a god damn rock.

People usually forget LBJ was once a defensive force. But too much coasting, offensive responsability and allowing him not to play defense for large portions of games has hurt his reputation. And from some point on he really lost a step on defense, he's definitely not elite with on ball defense, I'd even say he's probably closer to being average/below average nowadays.

Don’t why the Lakers would even think about breaking up that core. The Lebron blueprint has been set for years. Yes AD never being healthy isn’t good but the way to build a Lebron led team should be pretty easy all things considered. KCP/Caruso are the two biggest ones that should have been auto locked no question once the bubble was over lol.

Thought it’s still amazing that Lebron can carry an out and out scrub team to basically .500 or above at age 38 and all that mileage!

[Joao Saraiva]

Yeah to me it doesn't matter how much of the value is derived from 1v1 defense vs 5v5 defense, especially with the prevalence of screens on and off the ball in today's league. Just matters more what the total impact is and I think it's kinda been shown that LeBron has somehow gotten wildly underrated on that front. Him not making All Defense 1st Team in 2016 is still a travesty to me, just as much as not winning DPOY in 2012 or 2013.

I definitely don't see him winning DPOY in 2013. He was great from half the season to the finish... but I remember he coasted a ton at the begining. In 2012 I don't remember who the vote was against, but that was by far a better defensive year in the RS.

2016... I think you're remembering him for his playoffs too. In the RS dude coooooooooooasted like there was no tomorrow. No way he deserved a 1st team selection.

even in the rs the cavs defense fell off by a pretty big margin when he went off, and he looks like great in adjusted metrics too. Also compared pretty well to kawhi in granular stuff/synergt. I think people get caught in the "coast" narrative too much. Cavs won 57 games with half a season of a underperforming kyrie. This probably applies more to 2018 than 2016 tbh

I think it's more checking what the rest of the team was and who was in when he sat. Or at least that's how I recall it. LBJ was a very good defender from 07 to 13 in my eyes. Then he defended well when he wanted to mostly. Last year he defended with his eyes only tough.

[Joao Saraiva]

Kawih has the argument for being a better on ball defender at their best. But at their best LeBron was good in that regard also, but not at the level of Kawih.

LBJ has the case as a help defender. Somehow it gets forgotten that the Heat won with him as the main rim protector, that he had big impact on that end in the 16 finals and that even in the 20 playoffs he was a huge positive defender for the Lakers (with, however, a big help from Caruso, Danny Green and Davis - it also helps being surrounded by good defenders). Actually LA was stupid enough to dismantle a great perimeter defense to bring "stars" like Melo and stuff, who can't guard a god damn rock.

People usually forget LBJ was once a defensive force. But too much coasting, offensive responsability and allowing him not to play defense for large portions of games has hurt his reputation. And from some point on he really lost a step on defense, he's definitely not elite with on ball defense, I'd even say he's probably closer to being average/below average nowadays.

Don’t why the Lakers would even think about breaking up that core. The Lebron blueprint has been set for years. Yes AD never being healthy isn’t good but the way to build a Lebron led team should be pretty easy all things considered. KCP/Caruso are the two biggest ones that should have been auto locked no question once the bubble was over lol.

Thought it’s still amazing that Lebron can carry an out and out scrub team to basically .500 or above at age 38 and all that mileage!

I also thought despite the shooting struggle Danny Green was super important in the playoffs. Spacing is there even if he misses ten in a row. Also defended very very well. Idk why everyone was so mad at him.

[OhayoKD]

I definitely don't see him winning DPOY in 2013. He was great from half the season to the finish... but I remember he coasted a ton at the begining. In 2012 I don't remember who the vote was against, but that was by far a better defensive year in the RS.

2016... I think you're remembering him for his playoffs too. In the RS dude coooooooooooasted like there was no tomorrow. No way he deserved a 1st team selection.

even in the rs the cavs defense fell off by a pretty big margin when he went off, and he looks like great in adjusted metrics too. Also compared pretty well to kawhi in granular stuff/synergt. I think people get caught in the "coast" narrative too much. Cavs won 57 games with half a season of a underperforming kyrie. This probably applies more to 2018 than 2016 tbh

I think it's more checking what the rest of the team was and who was in when he sat. Or at least that's how I recall it. LBJ was a very good defender from 07 to 13 in my eyes. Then he defended well when he wanted to mostly. Last year he defended with his eyes only tough.

I mean, there's just nothing suggesting the defense wasn't bad without lebron from the second-stint, and that shouldn't really be surprising when the top 3 non-lebron minute getters are kyrie, love, and jr smith(2 negatives and a nuetral?). I don't really see how those defenses would end up being decent(15 and 16, top 10 post vacation for 15) if lebron wasn't playing strong d and all the individual and impact empericals seem to bear that out. 2017 there's a drop-off but I'd still say he's good(and i have statistical support there too fwiw), 2018 is when things fall off I think and then 2019 he's doing fine until everyone gets hurt, 2020 he's back.

[f4p]

Not sure how he gets there, but the destination is similar, and as I've outlined, some of the reasoning in his write-ups are more eloquent versions of what Van has offered here.

This is not true. VanWest's argument is that LeBron was basically never an elite defender. I've seen threads where VanWest has argued that Heatles Ray Allen was a more active defender than LeBron in order to imply that LeBron wasn't really all that impactful as a defender. Ben Taylor would never make a claim like that.

Ben's argument and VanWest's argument are not in the same universe.

I think his point is there tho that there's some inconsistent bias there against LeBron and it's reasonable to assume that it stems from his natural affinity towards non-heliocentric players. The suspect portability arguments are kind of the smoking gun here imo as LeBron's the one guy that has proven his ability to scale up his impact in a variety of environments compared to most all-timers. The Jordan portability argument itself is weird because he played in one system the majority of his winning years. Not saying that he isn't portable but rather there isn't a ton of evidence of it the way there is with LeBron.

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

[Heej]

This is not true. VanWest's argument is that LeBron was basically never an elite defender. I've seen threads where VanWest has argued that Heatles Ray Allen was a more active defender than LeBron in order to imply that LeBron wasn't really all that impactful as a defender. Ben Taylor would never make a claim like that.

Ben's argument and VanWest's argument are not in the same universe.

I think his point is there tho that there's some inconsistent bias there against LeBron and it's reasonable to assume that it stems from his natural affinity towards non-heliocentric players. The suspect portability arguments are kind of the smoking gun here imo as LeBron's the one guy that has proven his ability to scale up his impact in a variety of environments compared to most all-timers. The Jordan portability argument itself is weird because he played in one system the majority of his winning years. Not saying that he isn't portable but rather there isn't a ton of evidence of it the way there is with LeBron.

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

[uberhikari]

I think his point is there tho that there's some inconsistent bias there against LeBron and it's reasonable to assume that it stems from his natural affinity towards non-heliocentric players. The suspect portability arguments are kind of the smoking gun here imo as LeBron's the one guy that has proven his ability to scale up his impact in a variety of environments compared to most all-timers. The Jordan portability argument itself is weird because he played in one system the majority of his winning years. Not saying that he isn't portable but rather there isn't a ton of evidence of it the way there is with LeBron.

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it? Ben Taylor's ideas of scalability and portability have explanatory adequacy because they help us explain why some players are more impactful in various contexts. And we can sometimes see this in the data.

However, in any fact-based discussion, empirical evidence trumps all. And when the theory and empirical evidence conflict, the empirical evidence takes precedence. The problem Ben Taylor has when it comes to LeBron James is that Ben has a predetermined set of skills that he thinks makes a player more scalable or portable. He doesn't think LeBron excels at those skills, therefore, he concludes that LeBron has lower scalability and portability than other players who excel at those skills.

Except we have a decade of empirical evidence suggesting that LeBron's portability and scalability are apparently not necessarily contingent upon the predetermined skills that Ben Taylor has identified. But instead of changing his theory to fit the evidence, Taylor simply ignores the evidence in favor of his theory. So, he concludes that LeBron is less scalable or portable than other players.

But the evidence is on the side of LeBron being scalable and portable. Therefore, either LeBron has some skills that Taylor is unable to identify that make LeBron more portable and scalable than Taylor is assuming or Taylor's theory of scalability and portability is wrong. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

Now, what's interesting is that I don't think I've ever heard Ben Taylor talk about IQ being a scalable or portable skill. And LeBron has tons of that.

Just to give an example, not all on-ball creators are created equally. In Miami, from 2012-2014 LeBron was an on-ball creator as a passing hub out of the mid-post. That allowed him to optimize Miami's offense.

In Cleveland, from 2015-2018 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated from the perimeter which allowed him to manufacture skip passes and attack the paint from the perimeter.

In LA in 2020 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated as a "do-everything" point guard.

We have 3 completely different contexts where LeBron is an on-ball creator but in each context, LeBron has uniquely modified his game to maximize his effectiveness and the team around him.

But apparently Ben Taylor sees this and just concludes that LeBron is taking up on-ball possessions.

[canada_dry]

I really think kawhi is up at the pippen level

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[capfan33]

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it? Ben Taylor's ideas of scalability and portability have explanatory adequacy because they help us explain why some players are more impactful in various contexts. And we can sometimes see this in the data.

However, in any fact-based discussion, empirical evidence trumps all. And when the theory and empirical evidence conflict, the empirical evidence takes precedence. The problem Ben Taylor has when it comes to LeBron James is that Ben has a predetermined set of skills that he thinks makes a player more scalable or portable. He doesn't think LeBron excels at those skills, therefore, he concludes that LeBron has lower scalability and portability than other players who excel at those skills.

Except we have a decade of empirical evidence suggesting that LeBron's portability and scalability are apparently not necessarily contingent upon the predetermined skills that Ben Taylor has identified. But instead of changing his theory to fit the evidence, Taylor simply ignores the evidence in favor of his theory. So, he concludes that LeBron is less scalable or portable than other players.

But the evidence is on the side of LeBron being scalable and portable. Therefore, either LeBron has some skills that Taylor is unable to identify that make LeBron more portable and scalable than Taylor is assuming or Taylor's theory of scalability and portability is wrong. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

Now, what's interesting is that I don't think I've ever heard Ben Taylor talk about IQ being a scalable or portable skill. And LeBron has tons of that.

Just to give an example, not all on-ball creators are created equally. In Miami, from 2012-2014 LeBron was an on-ball creator as a passing hub out of the mid-post. That allowed him to optimize Miami's offense.

In Cleveland, from 2015-2018 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated from the perimeter which allowed him to manufacture skip passes and attack the paint from the perimeter.

In LA in 2020 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated as a "do-everything" point guard.

We have 3 completely different contexts where LeBron is an on-ball creator but in each context, LeBron has uniquely modified his game to maximize his effectiveness and the team around him.

But apparently Ben Taylor sees this and just concludes that LeBron is taking up on-ball possessions.

Even ignoring team results, Lebron throughout his career has shown excellent pick-and-roll skills as the roll-man, has been in the ~65 percentile on catch and shoot 3 pointers since 2014, of course an incredible passer, great cutter, great at establishing low post position without the ball, one of the smartest players ever, etc.

But somehow, Jordan has meaningfully better portability because....he can shoot mid-range jumpers off the catch better. (And offensive rebounding, but I think that mostly has to do with effort and motivation) This has always made 0 sense to me. I think in essence it punishes Lebron for Jordan's relative lack of ball-handling skills.

[Fadeaway_J]

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it? Ben Taylor's ideas of scalability and portability have explanatory adequacy because they help us explain why some players are more impactful in various contexts. And we can sometimes see this in the data.

However, in any fact-based discussion, empirical evidence trumps all. And when the theory and empirical evidence conflict, the empirical evidence takes precedence. The problem Ben Taylor has when it comes to LeBron James is that Ben has a predetermined set of skills that he thinks makes a player more scalable or portable. He doesn't think LeBron excels at those skills, therefore, he concludes that LeBron has lower scalability and portability than other players who excel at those skills.

Except we have a decade of empirical evidence suggesting that LeBron's portability and scalability are apparently not necessarily contingent upon the predetermined skills that Ben Taylor has identified. But instead of changing his theory to fit the evidence, Taylor simply ignores the evidence in favor of his theory. So, he concludes that LeBron is less scalable or portable than other players.

But the evidence is on the side of LeBron being scalable and portable. Therefore, either LeBron has some skills that Taylor is unable to identify that make LeBron more portable and scalable than Taylor is assuming or Taylor's theory of scalability and portability is wrong. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

Now, what's interesting is that I don't think I've ever heard Ben Taylor talk about IQ being a scalable or portable skill. And LeBron has tons of that.

Just to give an example, not all on-ball creators are created equally. In Miami, from 2012-2014 LeBron was an on-ball creator as a passing hub out of the mid-post. That allowed him to optimize Miami's offense.

In Cleveland, from 2015-2018 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated from the perimeter which allowed him to manufacture skip passes and attack the paint from the perimeter.

In LA in 2020 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated as a "do-everything" point guard.

We have 3 completely different contexts where LeBron is an on-ball creator but in each context, LeBron has uniquely modified his game to maximize his effectiveness and the team around him.

But apparently Ben Taylor sees this and just concludes that LeBron is taking up on-ball possessions.

Not gonna lie, as someone who listens to Ben's podcast... Clearly his knowledge of the game dwarfs mine, but I find a lot of his argumentation super questionable. It's very obvious when he's decided on a position beforehand and is working backwards from that conclusion.

[OhayoKD]

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it? Ben Taylor's ideas of scalability and portability have explanatory adequacy because they help us explain why some players are more impactful in various contexts. And we can sometimes see this in the data.

However, in any fact-based discussion, empirical evidence trumps all. And when the theory and empirical evidence conflict, the empirical evidence takes precedence. The problem Ben Taylor has when it comes to LeBron James is that Ben has a predetermined set of skills that he thinks makes a player more scalable or portable. He doesn't think LeBron excels at those skills, therefore, he concludes that LeBron has lower scalability and portability than other players who excel at those skills.

Except we have a decade of empirical evidence suggesting that LeBron's portability and scalability are apparently not necessarily contingent upon the predetermined skills that Ben Taylor has identified. But instead of changing his theory to fit the evidence, Taylor simply ignores the evidence in favor of his theory. So, he concludes that LeBron is less scalable or portable than other players.

But the evidence is on the side of LeBron being scalable and portable. Therefore, either LeBron has some skills that Taylor is unable to identify that make LeBron more portable and scalable than Taylor is assuming or Taylor's theory of scalability and portability is wrong. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

A man is drafted onto a -9.5 srs,17-win team(-7 offense) and...

Even before he hit his stride in 2009, LeBron kept defensively-inclined rosters afloat. The ’05 Cavs posted a +2.3 relative offensive rating (rORtg) in 70 games with James flanked by Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas — both viable post scorers and mid-range shooters — along with defensive specialists Ira Newble and Eric Snow, and toothless journeyman Jeff McGinnis. This was not a team of 3-point specialists feeding off of James’s gravity, but they still played at a .500 pace with a passable offense orchestrated by 19-year old LeBron.

The ’06 Cavs were even more impressive, thanks to a breakout year from James. With Ilgauskus and Gooden now accompanied by Larry Hughes (a moderate creator and inefficient scorer), the offensively-challenged Snow and two shooters (Donyell Marshall and Damon Jones), Cleveland churned out a 5.1 SRS when healthy (56-win pace) with a +6.6 offensive efficiency in 30 healthy games. A similar rotation ticked along at a 51-win pace in ’07 (3.4 SRS) in a larger sample, but the offense regressed to near-average, meaning the ’06 result was likely an aberration. (LeBron’s offense regressed slightly in ’07 too, likely contributing to the backslide.) Still, the period demonstrated that pre-prime LeBron-ball could buoy offenses while stuffing the court with defenders and a few shooters.

The least impressive sample Ben lists here has a college-aged player leading a team that is 7 points(offense-only) and 34 wins improved.

And ben doesn't mention that 18-year old Lebron sees a 5 point(offense-only) and +6.5 SRS improvement.

All without shooting or the lineups Lebron apparently requires to maximize his value. "Port" criticism seems half-baked to me, even going by Ben's own data

[uberhikari]

Not gonna lie, as someone who listens to Ben's podcast... Clearly his knowledge of the game dwarfs mine, but I find a lot of his argumentation super questionable. It's very obvious when he's decided on a position beforehand and is working backwards from that conclusion.

What I've noticed is that intelligent and knowledgeable people are very good at arguing from their conclusions while convincing themselves that they're being objective, lol. That's why I'm not too hard on him.

[parapooper]

This is faulty premise based on cherry-picked data. There is no one stat that accurately measures defense, and certainly not DRAPM which isn't taking into account defensive usage or responsibility, and definitely not if you're just going to only look at postseason.

Lebron rarely guards the best players, and contrary to what many claim on this forum he's rarely been his team's main rim protector or help defender. There's no basis for it on eye test and these "goat level defense" assertions just aren't backed up when we sort through the last ten years of tracking stats either. If anything, it's the opposite. Not a lot of contested shots, not a lot of deflections, not a lot of traditional steals/blocks one would expect to see from an active help defender. Lots of 4th/5th option match ups. He's a solid, low usage defender that makes smart reads and turns it up a few games per year when it really counts.

Kawhi guards Giannis for a series. He guards Luka and Jimmy Butler (and doesn't get torched). I think it's fair to say Lebron is a better defensive rebounder and help defender than Kawhi, but is that enough to make up the chasm in on ball defense, usage, and effort? No.

We've seen good five year stretches from guys like Patty Mills and JJ Reddick that's reflected in high ORAPM (which is quite a bit more reliable than DRAPM imo). If I made a case that either of those guys were better offensive players in the late 2010s than say Giannis, I'd get laughed out of the thread, and yet this seems to be what you're doing on the defensive side.

Edit: I do think 09-13 Lebron was at times closer to Kawhi's level. Way more consistent effort and impact.

How exactly is the entirety of 2 decades of impact data cherrypicking? Especially compared to your own argument of selective random-internet-guy-opinions presented as facts?

For defensive impact who cares who had what usage or role? I mean even if what you say about Kawhis role is correct, how is having less impact despite being in a more important role a positive?
If player A is casually strolling around whistling and doing his nails while player B is non-stop chasing the opposing star player then player A is still more valuable defensively if his defensive impact over decades is consistently higher - just because it's not obvious to everyone how he does it doesn't make the effect less valuable.
And LeBron does the same thing on offense, strolls around while others are running, seems to be having a meh game and then averages just about the best box-score and impact stats of all time.

[dooki667]

Whenever the topic of best perimeter or non-big defender comes up the first names mentioned are usually Scottie Pippen, Ron Artest, AK47, and… Kawhi Leonard. I’m just wondering why Kawhi’s name continues to come up over LeBron when—besides one season—there’s very little evidence to support that he’s up there with the other guys.

Even those who haven’t fallen prey to social media narratives and are willing to entertain LeBron over Kawhi on D do so reluctantly with a heavy emphasis on longevity, and typically with the qualifier “when he’s trying.” LeBron is just a better, more impactful defender, over a larger sample size than Kawhi, full stop. No need for qualifiers.

To show this I’ll turn to to DRAPM. Here are the top perimeter defenders by PS DRAPM from 1997-2019.

Among qualifying players (2000+ MP):
1. Manu Ginobili (3.52)
2. LeBron James (2.28)
3. Kawhi Leonard ( 2.09)
4. Tony Allen (2.09)
5. Josh Howard (2.00)
6. Shawn Marion (1.84)
7. Paul George (1.72)
8. Jason Kidd (1.70)
9. Tayshaun Prince (1.67)
10. Rajon Rondo (1.64)
11. Bruce Bowen (1.53)
12. Danny Green (1.50)
13. Mike Conley (1.40)
14. Dwyane Wade (1.37)
15. Luol Deng (1.25)
16. Metta World Peace (1.23)

Besides Ginobili, who appears to be a clear case of collinearity due to playing heavy minutes with Duncan, LeBron leads the competition. And he does so with 10049 minutes played, far more than anyone else on the list. Kawhi only has 3806 minutes. This is important because more minutes typically suppresses career averages since it’s pulling from pre-prime and post-prime samples.
What about the regular season? LeBron’s often criticized for not giving full effort year-round and coasting but is this actually true or just the product of lazy analysis?

At first glance, RS DRAPM appears to support the LeCoast narrative. However, there's something very important to consider here. One issue with comparing non-big defenders, particularly small forwards, through a statistical lens is that some of them spend significant time at the 4 spot, which hurts them since they’re usually playing with less rim protection as the second biggest defender on the court. The ability to place your SF at the 4 can be a luxury offensively because it allows for better spaced lineups. But it often comes at a cost to your defense that I don't believe should be factored when trying to decide the best non-big defender(s), since you're essentially assigning them responsibilities that are typically reserved for a big man.

I did a rough adjustment of scaled Goldstein DRAPM which attempts to account for discrepancies in rim protection and find the average quality of a player’s prime defensive season on the perimeter. It’s a simple calculation and the methodology isn’t flawless, but it passes my smell test a lot better than the raw numbers. To calculate it I simply took the years which I interpreted to be the player’s defensive prime and used bballref’s position estimates to weigh DRAPM proportionately to how much time they actually spent on the perimeter. If they exceeded 40% of their minutes played at PF/C I scrapped the season altogether, since it made for some big outliers.

I included some notable guard defenders to show that—besides standouts like Tony Allen and Ron Harper (limited sample)—there is clearer separation between small forwards and guards with this model as well.

Shane Battier: 2.22
LeBron James: 2.21
Andrei Kirilenko: 1.99
Bruce Bowen: 1.99
Metta World Peace: 1.95
Ron Harper: 1.95*
Tony Allen: 1.88
Shawn Marion: 1.87
Kawhi Leonard: 1.72
Thabo Sefolosha: 1.64
Andre Iguodala: 1.50
Michael Jordan: 1.32*
Paul George: 1.30
Chris Paul: 1.22
Kyle Lowry: 1.16
Danny Green: 1.15
Jason Kidd: 1.13

Full results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ce25iFkdcfNb2ZRfszCLxmQ4uxrNlyBHObqhJhCB-VM/edit?usp=sharing

Again, LeBron is head and shoulders ahead with a sample size about twice that of Kawhi's. I tried to be generous by evening out Kawhi’s down years in 2017 and 2019 with the inclusion of LeBron’s 2007 and 2008 seasons, and he still comes out far ahead. This was the best solution I could come up with since Kawhi’s actual defensive prime was such a tiny flash in the pan. If I start LeBron’s defensive prime in 09, he actually jumps out ahead of the pack to +2.5.


***It’s also worth mentioning that this data does not include LeBron’s 2020 RS/PS or his 2021 RS, which would likely increase his career averages. In 2020 he finished 2nd in the league in a different RS DRAPM dataset just behind Giannis and 2nd in PS DPIPM to AD. In 2021 he was 7th in DRAPM prior to his injury (2nd among “anchors”).***

Interestingly enough LeBron's weighted 2016 season actually comes out as his peak, and rivals Kawhi's DPOY season that very same year. This tracks well with their tracking data (credit to homecourtloss):

Spoiler:

The more and more I look at it, Lebron’s 2016 defensive season looks to be one the best ever for a #1 scoring option who’s not a center and one of the best wing defensive years regardless.

1. First of all, I know there has to be other seasons in which a player was in the top 40%-50% of each of the defensive play types but I have’t seen one other than LeBron. I haven’t looked extensively, but have looked at 2019 PG13, Giannis, Kawhi, Siakam, KD (not that I thought he was a DPOY type defensive force [he’s improved greatly] but for comparisons to LeBron and his supposed horrid defense), 2018 RoCo and Roberson, 2016 Kawhi, Draymond, and LeBron.

LeBron, 2016 was not only top 50% in everything but at worst was top 27% in post up defense. Yes, there may not be many possessions in certain play types so there’s less meaning there, but every other player falls short somewhere.

Top 12% in defending the pick and roll ball handler
Top 3% in defending hand offs
Top 16% in defending the roll man in pick and roll
Top 15% in defending off of screens
Top 7% in defending in ISO
Top 27% in post up defense
Top 13% in spot up defense

Compare these numbers with these:

Kawhi, 2016—DPOY on a GOATy defensive team and maybe co-#1 option with LMA

Top 10% in defending the pick and roll ball handler
Top 22% in defending hand offs
Top 2% in defending the roll man in pick and roll
Bottom 31% in defending off of screens
Top 17% in defending in ISO
Top 29% in post up defense
Top 25% in spot up defense

Draymond, 2016—2nd in DPOY voting on a GOAT team and not the #1 option on offense

Top 29% in defending the pick and roll ball handler
Bottom 43% in defending hand offs
Top 25% in defending the roll man in pick and roll
Top 2% in defending off of screens
Top 15% in defending in ISO
Top 11% in post up defense
Top 34% in spot up defense

PG13—2019 considered a DPOY candidate and co-#1 option with Westbrook

Top 12% in defending the pick and roll ball handler
Top 23% in defending hand offs
Bottom 16% in defending the roll man in pick and roll
Bottom 27% in defending off of screens
Top 13% in defending in ISO
Top 5% in post up defense
Top 19% in spot up defense

ISO defense

LeBron: .59 points per possession (PPP), 93rd percentile
Draymond: .68, 85th percentile
Kawhi: .69 PPP, 83rd percentile

Pick and roll ball handler

Kawhi: .65 PPP, 90th percentile
LeBron: .66 PPP, 88th percentile
Draymond: .88, 71st percentile

Pick and roll roll man

Kawhi: .50 PPP, 98th percentile
LeBron: .70 PPP, 84th percentile
Draymond: .77 PPP, 75th percentile

Post defense

Draymond: .65 PPP, 89th percentile
LeBron: .77 PPP, 73rd percentile
Kawhi: .77 PPP, 71st percentile (numbers are rounded so James might have been at .772 and Kawhi at .768 or something)

Spot up defense

LeBron: .80 PPP, 87th percentile
Kawhi: .88 PPP, 75th percentile
Draymond: .91 PPP, 66th percentile

Off screens defense

Draymond: .45 PPP, 98th percentile
LeBron: .74PPP, 85th percentile
Kawhi: 1.05 PPP, 31st percentile

Hand offs defense

LeBron: .49 97th percentile
Kawhi: .72 PPP, 78th percentile
Draymond: .91 PPP, 43rd percentile

No data available for transition defense, defense on cuts, and defense on offensive rebound out backs. In his thirteenth season playing on a team that's otherwise not that good defensively, James quietly out together a great, great defensive season because he had to since his team really had maybe three other plus defenders. Unlike Kawhi and Draymond who were subpar in some categories, James was at worst in the 73rd percentile.

The argument, “well, LeBron didn’t match up against the opposition’s best scorers doesn’t really hold water because look at the overall FG% of Dray’s, Kawhi’s, and LeBron’s opposition.

Players Draymond defended: 45.5%
Players Kawhi defended: 44.8%
Players LeBron defunded: 44.7%

Regular season

Draymond Green:

Overall: 39.4 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 45.5%, -6.1%
Threes: 29.4 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 34.6%, -5.1%
Twos: 42.9 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 49.2%, -6.3%
<6ft: 51.9 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 60.6%, -8.7%

Kawhi

Overall: 39.2 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 44.8%, -5.6%
Threes: 33.7 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 34.9, -1.2%
Twos: 41.7 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 48.8%, -7.2%
<6ft: 53.5 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 60.5%, -7.0%

LeBron:

Overall: 37.4 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 44.7%, -7.3%
Threes: 32.1 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 34.6%, -2.6%
Twos: 40.8 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 49.0%, -8.2%
<6ft: 48.6 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 59.9%, -11.3%

Though you addressed the playoffs, LeBron’s defense alone in those playoffs/Finals are noteworthy because it indicates peak possible defense. Combine that with his offense and it’s the greatest of all time Finals performance.

Sideshow had an RPM estimate of +8 to +9 on offense and +5 to +6 on defense. That’s a +15 player and that’s bonkers. It’s like one of the crazy “How good would Magic Pippen” or “How good would Hakeem Curry” creations come to life.

LeBron’s defense In the playoffs was ridiculous:

Overall: 31.9 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 45.9%, -14.0%
Threes: 24.1 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 36.7%, -12. 6%
Twos: 36.6 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 50.5%, -13.9%
<6ft: 37.9 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 61.3%, -23.5%

LeBron In the finals was utterly ridiculous:

Overall: 31.6 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 47.9%, -16.3%
Threes: 29.0 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 39.6%, -10.6%
Twos: 33.3 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 53.6%, -20.3%
<6ft: 38.5 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 63.6%, -25.1%

LeBron In the finals’ last three games was I don’t know what:

Overall: 19.4 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 47.4, -28.4%
Threes: 12.5 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 40.7%, -28.2%
Twos: 25 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 52.4%, -27.4%
<6ft: 15.4 DFG%, opponents usually shoot 60.6%, -45.2

This was game 5 defense https://stats.nba.com/player/2544/defense-dash/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Playoffs&DateTo=06%2F13%2F2016&DateFrom=06%2F13%2F2016&PORound=4

This was game 6 defense https://stats.nba.com/player/2544/defense-dash/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Playoffs&DateTo=06%2F16%2F2016&DateFrom=06%2F16%2F2016&PORound=4

The Warriors shot 4 for 28 overall (3/17 in game 5, 1/11 in game 6) in those two games (14.3%) when going against LeBron and that doesn’t include his team defense, defensive rebounding, rotations, etc,

The Warriors shot 2/13 AT THE RIM against LeBron during the final three games. Had James not stopped those shots (everyone knows the blocked shot on Iggy), Warriors win.

The guy not only led them in scoring and creating offense for others, he led their perimeter defense AND was one of the best “rim protectors” in the 2016 NBA playoffs.

These were the best rim protectors in the 2016 NBA playoffs

https://stats.nba.com/players/defense-dash-lt6/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Playoffs&sort=PLUSMINUS&dir=-1&CF=FGA_LT_06*GE*3

NBA.com has stats going back to the 2014 playoffs. For players who who contested at least 3 shots per game at the rim and played at least 6 games in the playoffs, LeBron is tied with Duncan with the best single season rim protection that we have on record. He did that WHILE being 31, not at his athletic peak AND being tasked with creating his team’s offense.

These were the best defenders of three pointers in the 2016 playoffs (defended at least 3.8 threes per game, played at least 6 games)

https://stats.nba.com/players/defense-dash-3pt/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Playoffs&sort=PLUSMINUS&dir=-1&CF=FG3A*GE*3.8:GP*GE*6

If you prefer Kirilenko’s length and rim protection or Artest and Pippen’s activity and man defense over LeBron then I think that’s defensible, but career-wise I see little reason to rank Kawhi over LeBron. It's a comparison that makes sense only if you restrict the the timetable to two seasons at most.

Not done reading yet but I'm findin this Intresting and enjoyable ty for doing this

[McBubbles]

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it? Ben Taylor's ideas of scalability and portability have explanatory adequacy because they help us explain why some players are more impactful in various contexts. And we can sometimes see this in the data.

However, in any fact-based discussion, empirical evidence trumps all. And when the theory and empirical evidence conflict, the empirical evidence takes precedence. The problem Ben Taylor has when it comes to LeBron James is that Ben has a predetermined set of skills that he thinks makes a player more scalable or portable. He doesn't think LeBron excels at those skills, therefore, he concludes that LeBron has lower scalability and portability than other players who excel at those skills.

Except we have a decade of empirical evidence suggesting that LeBron's portability and scalability are apparently not necessarily contingent upon the predetermined skills that Ben Taylor has identified. But instead of changing his theory to fit the evidence, Taylor simply ignores the evidence in favor of his theory. So, he concludes that LeBron is less scalable or portable than other players.

But the evidence is on the side of LeBron being scalable and portable. Therefore, either LeBron has some skills that Taylor is unable to identify that make LeBron more portable and scalable than Taylor is assuming or Taylor's theory of scalability and portability is wrong. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

Now, what's interesting is that I don't think I've ever heard Ben Taylor talk about IQ being a scalable or portable skill. And LeBron has tons of that.

Just to give an example, not all on-ball creators are created equally. In Miami, from 2012-2014 LeBron was an on-ball creator as a passing hub out of the mid-post. That allowed him to optimize Miami's offense.

In Cleveland, from 2015-2018 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated from the perimeter which allowed him to manufacture skip passes and attack the paint from the perimeter.

In LA in 2020 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated as a "do-everything" point guard.

We have 3 completely different contexts where LeBron is an on-ball creator but in each context, LeBron has uniquely modified his game to maximize his effectiveness and the team around him.

But apparently Ben Taylor sees this and just concludes that LeBron is taking up on-ball possessions.

I think Ben Taylor was a lot of people's first introduction into heavy player analysis via scouting and advanced metrics. He scratched that itch for deeper knowledge that a lot of us were looking for, and so instinctively you take his word for things. But then as one learns more about the game, enough to form their own conclusions, you realise that some of Ben's are sorta wack lol.

I remember when I had the epiphany that sometimes Ben's idea of "portable" can be code for "is capable of less"

If you gave Gobert Magic's ball handling and passing skills, he'd be in the GOAT conversation. He'd also be exponentially less portable in Ben's eyes. If there are situations in which a player becoming much better also makes them less portable then who really cares about portability, how is it valuable?

Imo portability is mostly irrelevant for superstars because teams are meant to build around them in the first place. Portability is extremely valuable for role players however so they don't mess up and detract from the impact of the best players, I.E. I don't give a damn if Lebron has to take the ball out of Lance Stephenson or Westbrick's hands in order to maximise his impact. I do give a damn about the reverse.

Portability imo should be measured by the resilience of your impact when put in different situations, not by how little people have to adjust their game to fit in with you.

MJ, despite incredible box scores was not as impactful as you'd think for a player in the GOAT conversation prior to playing in the triangle offence. Steph was not close to being a top offensive player of all time prior to playing with Kerr. Outside the 2017 post-season, KD, despite being in the most optimal situation in NBA history didn't have a particularly noticeable impact on the Warriors offence. KG had just as many close to zero or negative impact offensive seasons on the Celtics as he did positive ones. These players are considered super scalable and portable however.

But Magic, the person who led excellent offences sharing time with Norm Nixon whilst playing SG, as a super fast paced transition PG, as a slower paced half court post playmaking PG, with and without Kareem? LeBron, the guy who's had ATG offensive impact on 4 extremely different teams from 2009 up to now? Trash. Not particularly scalable or portable, hold the ball too much

Side note, it's weird how in wider basketball discussion the term ball dominant is basically just an insult now. Not only is it an insult but it has less to do with how many possessions you eat up and more with how much you look like you're a winning player / how aesthetic or "skilled" (contested mid-range heavy ) your game is.

Don't typically hear MJ described as ball dominant, yet people call Kobe a ball hog to this very day despite the fact he played a similar off-ball role in an identical offensive system whilst actually averaging less shots a game than MJ in his prime lol.

Chris Paul can take 10 shots all game but if he averages 12 assists then he's ball dominant. Steph can take 25 shots a game but if he averages 5 assists then he's not ball dominant.

Shaq is primarily an off-ball player, yet is thought of as being an extremely ball dominant center, whilst someone like Hakeem who actually handled the ball more than Shaq is considered to be more off-ball oriented.

Kyrie Irving typically held onto the ball longer than Lebron and eventually ended up holding onto the ball longer than Lebron whilst simultaneously taking more shots than Lebron, yet when did you ever heard someone refer to Kyrie being the ball dominant player when they played together? It was usually people talking about (or if we're being honest, complaining about) the reverse.

[OhayoKD]

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it? Ben Taylor's ideas of scalability and portability have explanatory adequacy because they help us explain why some players are more impactful in various contexts. And we can sometimes see this in the data.

However, in any fact-based discussion, empirical evidence trumps all. And when the theory and empirical evidence conflict, the empirical evidence takes precedence. The problem Ben Taylor has when it comes to LeBron James is that Ben has a predetermined set of skills that he thinks makes a player more scalable or portable. He doesn't think LeBron excels at those skills, therefore, he concludes that LeBron has lower scalability and portability than other players who excel at those skills.

Except we have a decade of empirical evidence suggesting that LeBron's portability and scalability are apparently not necessarily contingent upon the predetermined skills that Ben Taylor has identified. But instead of changing his theory to fit the evidence, Taylor simply ignores the evidence in favor of his theory. So, he concludes that LeBron is less scalable or portable than other players.

But the evidence is on the side of LeBron being scalable and portable. Therefore, either LeBron has some skills that Taylor is unable to identify that make LeBron more portable and scalable than Taylor is assuming or Taylor's theory of scalability and portability is wrong. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

Now, what's interesting is that I don't think I've ever heard Ben Taylor talk about IQ being a scalable or portable skill. And LeBron has tons of that.

Just to give an example, not all on-ball creators are created equally. In Miami, from 2012-2014 LeBron was an on-ball creator as a passing hub out of the mid-post. That allowed him to optimize Miami's offense.

In Cleveland, from 2015-2018 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated from the perimeter which allowed him to manufacture skip passes and attack the paint from the perimeter.

In LA in 2020 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated as a "do-everything" point guard.

We have 3 completely different contexts where LeBron is an on-ball creator but in each context, LeBron has uniquely modified his game to maximize his effectiveness and the team around him.

But apparently Ben Taylor sees this and just concludes that LeBron is taking up on-ball possessions.

I think Ben Taylor was a lot of people's first introduction into heavy player analysis via scouting and advanced metrics. He scratched that itch for deeper knowledge that a lot of us were looking for, and so instinctively you take his word for things. But then as one learns more about the game, enough to form their own conclusions, you realise that some of Ben's are sorta wack lol.

I remember when I had the epiphany that sometimes Ben's idea of "portable" can be code for "is capable of less"

If you gave Gobert Magic's ball handling and passing skills, he'd be in the GOAT conversation. He'd also be exponentially less portable in Ben's eyes. If there are situations in which a player becoming much better also makes them less portable then who really cares about portability, how is it valuable?

Imo portability is mostly irrelevant for superstars because teams are meant to build around them in the first place. Portability is extremely valuable for role players however so they don't mess up and detract from the impact of the best players, I.E. I don't give a damn if Lebron has to take the ball out of Lance Stephenson or Westbrick's hands in order to maximise his impact. I do give a damn about the reverse.

Portability imo should be measured by the resilience of your impact when put in different situations, not by how little people have to adjust their game to fit in with you.

Agree with this though I don't think it only has potential application with non-stars. While it may not necessarily be that important for a Lebron or Kareem who can lead contenders with little. For players like durant or westbrook(peak) you are probably going to need another superstar or near superstar to compete so port has some relevance there. Westbrook was probably a more valuable playoff player than durant to OKC at his apex but I think KD's "resiliency in different" situations offers him a advantage in some situations.

I do have some quibbles with some of your counter-examples.

MJ, despite incredible box scores was not as impactful as you'd think for a player in the GOAT conversation prior to playing in the triangle offence. Steph was not close to being a top offensive player of all time prior to playing with Kerr.

I'd say MJ was probably at his most impactful in 1988. And at least, by the impact stuff we have(partial rapm, playoff on/off) there's a downward trend in his influence from 88 onward. I guess if you focused in on offensive impact you could extrapolate a rise based on increased box-impact hybrids but, that may well just be a result of playing weaker versions of the defenses he ran into earlier with better help.

KG had just as many close to zero or negative impact offensive seasons on the Celtics as he did positive ones. These players are considered super scalable and portable however.

This is a fair to note, but from a human stand-point, bad situations naturally lead to inconsistency...

But then the Wolves spiraled into an historically unmatched stretch of personnel corrosion. First, they were stripped of three first-round draft picks for illegal contract shenanigans with Joe Smith. Then Brandon was forced into early retirement due to knee problems, playing his last full season in 2001. Two years later, Wally Szczerbiak, Minnesota’s only notable addition between 2000 and 2003, missed 30 games and hobbled around for 28 more in ’04. After the ’02 season, the Wolves couldn’t afford to re-sign their best young asset, Chauncey Billups, and even worse, guard Malik Sealy died tragically in a car accident.

In the first half of the ’06 season, Minnesota hovered around .500 before panic-trading for flotsam, and in 2007, again floated at .500 before a coaching change formally derailed the year. In those two seasons, they were outscored with Garnett off the court by 11.9 points per 48 in 2,021 minutes, approaching some of the extreme lows in history.

How much of that fluctuation in impact do we put to skillset/on-court factors? Think there was also lockeroom beef because KG got the biggest contract ever which ends up triggering a league-wide lockout. You would expect players to have off-years with all this going on, even if their theoretical capability was identical. Unsure how much of those "negative" or "no impact years" are for purely "basketball" or "fit/port" reasons. Speaking of which...

Outside the 2017 post-season, KD, despite being in the most optimal situation in NBA history didn't have a particularly noticeable impact on the Warriors offence.

...sure, but that's probably a more by-product of KD clashing with Kerr rather than KD's skillset not being sufficient for sustaining impact..
https://sports.yahoo.com/kevin-durant-steve-kerr-odds-much-passing-warriors-004853603.html
I'm not saying we shouldn't hold it against a KD or whoever when they refuse to play the way that makes sense for them, but that's different from a player with the specific skills KD has not getting some sort of boost in certain situations relative to comparably valuable guys.

But Magic, the person who led excellent offences sharing time with Norm Nixon whilst playing SG, as a super fast paced transition PG, as a slower paced half court post playmaking PG, with and without Kareem? LeBron, the guy who's had ATG offensive impact on 4 extremely different teams from 2009 up to now? Trash. Not particularly scalable or portable, hold the ball too much

I think the other issue here is PORT analysis tunnel visions on offense when ultimately it's holistic influence on winning we(or at least people using ben's criteria) should focus on. Me and Doc get into this here fwiw:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=102728737#p102728737


EDIT: I realize you're talking about Celtics KG, so my response really doesn't apply. I imagine injury/age plays a role but def fair to examine.

[f4p]

Imo portability is mostly irrelevant for superstars because teams are meant to build around them in the first place. Portability is extremely valuable for role players however so they don't mess up and detract from the impact of the best players, I.E. I don't give a damn if Lebron has to take the ball out of Lance Stephenson or Westbrick's hands in order to maximise his impact. I do give a damn about the reverse.

that's how i've mostly felt about it. like it could apply to superstars in extreme cases like westbrook, but he mostly is a problem just because he sucks now. but superstars mostly know how to play well in lots of different ways. people wondered if steph could floor raise, despite it seeming obvious with his shot creation and massive efficiency. then we got the 2021 season and it was like, duh. people wondered if harden could ceiling raise, despite it seeming obvious with his passing ability. then we got the 2021 season and it was like, duh.

portability matters much more when i have tmac and yao and am wondering if i should trade rudy gay and his moderately efficient, slightly floor-raising 20 ppg for shane battier and his 8 ppg but floor-spreading capabilities with amazing defense.

Side note, it's weird how in wider basketball discussion the term ball dominant is basically just an insult now.

feels like we've overcorrected in a lot of ways to the previous several decades of "ringz" and "wow, points per game!" analysis that we got. now we realize things like points aren't as great as they seemed, but now it seems like we are closer to almost automatically treating them as guilty until proven innocent, despite the fact that things like scoring a lot have still generally been good things and it's more likely that you need to find out why it's a bad thing before discounting it.

[capfan33]

I honestly think that portability is most relevant in ATG team scenarios, you know where you're trying to make the very best starting 5 of all time. And of course, the general public seems to ignore it in that case.

But otherwise, I think that being in a position where portability is a major factor is an exception, not the rule because it's pretty rare you can just pick and choose two superstars to pair together. Most of the time you have one megastar, and hopefully, if you're lucky a complementary star that ideally should fit next to the main star (which is where portability has some merit). But a lot of teams never even get to that point or have the luxury of really being able to choose.

It's a useful theory that I think Ben has perhaps, at times, overstated the practical application of.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think part of the problem with people who make a living with bb analysis and all these more complicated metrics is that I think it becomes easy to be overwhelmed with all the data and trying to condense it all down to who is better with conflicting data. So a guy has to have some kind of methodology to which data he finds to be superior or a better judge of which player is better at something and there's no guarantees that he is going to come to the correct conclusions. It's just trying to see what the data points towards and bias can easily factor into it as well since someone might be more likely to choose data which goes along with what they want to see.

[PistolPeteJR]

yeah, somehow lebron, who has played on many different teams for many different coaches with many different teammates, who has played on heavy offensive teams, has played off-ball more than normal, has played on heavy defensive teams, and has given his teams exactly what they need at every step, is not portable because he doesn't have a great outside shot and likes to have the ball.

but guys like jordan and steph, who basically spent their primes with one coach, one system, and one set of main teammates (i.e. the non-role players), some of the most stable situations you could possibly hope for, with teammates who already seemed destined to fit them very well based on those teammates' strengths/weaknesses and not some amazing adaptability of the main star, are just given the trait of being portable because it sounds good in theory and they do the things that are aesthetically pleasing like being off-ball.

Lmao sums it up perfectly. It's wild how these narratives take shape while flying completely in the face of reality

What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it? Ben Taylor's ideas of scalability and portability have explanatory adequacy because they help us explain why some players are more impactful in various contexts. And we can sometimes see this in the data.

However, in any fact-based discussion, empirical evidence trumps all. And when the theory and empirical evidence conflict, the empirical evidence takes precedence. The problem Ben Taylor has when it comes to LeBron James is that Ben has a predetermined set of skills that he thinks makes a player more scalable or portable. He doesn't think LeBron excels at those skills, therefore, he concludes that LeBron has lower scalability and portability than other players who excel at those skills.

Except we have a decade of empirical evidence suggesting that LeBron's portability and scalability are apparently not necessarily contingent upon the predetermined skills that Ben Taylor has identified. But instead of changing his theory to fit the evidence, Taylor simply ignores the evidence in favor of his theory. So, he concludes that LeBron is less scalable or portable than other players.

But the evidence is on the side of LeBron being scalable and portable. Therefore, either LeBron has some skills that Taylor is unable to identify that make LeBron more portable and scalable than Taylor is assuming or Taylor's theory of scalability and portability is wrong. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

Now, what's interesting is that I don't think I've ever heard Ben Taylor talk about IQ being a scalable or portable skill. And LeBron has tons of that.

Just to give an example, not all on-ball creators are created equally. In Miami, from 2012-2014 LeBron was an on-ball creator as a passing hub out of the mid-post. That allowed him to optimize Miami's offense.

In Cleveland, from 2015-2018 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated from the perimeter which allowed him to manufacture skip passes and attack the paint from the perimeter.

In LA in 2020 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated as a "do-everything" point guard.

We have 3 completely different contexts where LeBron is an on-ball creator but in each context, LeBron has uniquely modified his game to maximize his effectiveness and the team around him.

But apparently Ben Taylor sees this and just concludes that LeBron is taking up on-ball possessions.

Post of the last two years, and I’m not kidding. Phenomenal post, and I’d love it if someone subscribed to Ben’s Patreon or that communicates with him regularly would please send this post to him and ask him to weigh in, as I’d love to hear his thoughts on this matter. It’s definitely a big topic.