Does Bron have the most "PORT"

[Homer38]

No, and Lebron hasn't reinvented his game at all. Lakers are winning when AD shows up, it's that simple. Where was this port when LA had Ingram, Lonzo, Kuz? People were saying LA should shut down Lebron a month ago

Remember the lakers were 4th in the west after 34 games before his groin injury in 2019....Also the lakers were 16-7 when Ball, LBJ and Ingram played in the same game

[SNPA]

He isn’t the MOST portable, if he was they would’ve won the 2011 finals with ease.

That being said the portability concerns have always been highly overblown and he’s always had this off ball ability in his locker. It’s just that LeBron with the ball in his hands is a better option than almost any offensive scheme in NBA history.

Oh come on. Here we go again. It's a black mark on his career yes, but the guy won as the main rim protector on the Heat and playing PF, mainly as a post threat on offense. Then won as a perimeter player in Cleveland with a PG that lacks playmaking skills and is mainly a scorer. Won with the Lakers playing the PG spot and leading the league in assists...

We saw him as a lock down perimeter defender with the Heat in 11 prior to the finals. Rim protector the years after. A help defender on some of the worse offensive guys in Cle 16 and 09...

I mean, what other portability do you want? Dude has literally filled all types of roles.

Lebron has beaten three teams with a higher PSRS than all but two of the opponents "ceiling raisers" jordan and steph have ever vanquished combined(2017 Cavs, 2016 Thunder). Those 3 wins came with less help and less healthy help(2016 is an exception for the latter).

The idea that Lebron is not "portable" is just a bad excuse to ignore what's actually happened. Hikari sums it up rather well:

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.

When conclusions and theories and extrapolations consistently disagree with what can be observed, those conclusions, theories, and extrapolations should be adjusted accordingly.

Lebron is near 40 and has been able to operate largely off-ball to help his team win on what is typically a season-ending injury. He has ramped up his defense to make up for his limited offense and is cutting and spacing the floor to bolster an offense that is sometimes run by dlo and austin reeves. The Lakers are currently up 2-1 on the reigning champs 2 wins away from finishing off one of the sport's greatest dynasties.

If that isn't "ceiling raising", then I'm not sure what is.

The bold isn’t a great argument. It actual works for the opposing view. James is a ball dominant player and not a great shooter. That’s what hurts his portability. The author highlights that and tries to claim because it has slightly different flavors it’s portable, that’s not how portable works.

Portable means you can import a player across eras and team types and he can help them win without having to totally reconfigure the team. Basically he can fit in. The portable argument amongst the GOAT’s starts and end with one name…Bird.

[trex_8063]

No, and Lebron hasn't reinvented his game at all. Lakers are winning when AD shows up, it's that simple. Where was this port when LA had Ingram, Lonzo, Kuz? People were saying LA should shut down Lebron a month ago

Remember the lakers were 4th in the west after 34 games before his groin injury in 2019....Also the lakers were 16-7 when Ball, LBJ and Ingram played in the same game

Hey, let's not muddle the narrative with those pesky factual details.


Also, "Lakers are winning when AD shows up, it's that simple" is barely even tangentially related to the topic. No one itt (or anywhere on the forum, to my knowledge) is saying LeBron is the best or most important player on the Lakers right now. But this doesn't really speak to the topic of this thread anyway.

And "LeBron hasn't reinvented his game at all" is at best grossly hyperbolic and misleading. It is at worst just flat wrong.

[Joao Saraiva]

Oh come on. Here we go again. It's a black mark on his career yes, but the guy won as the main rim protector on the Heat and playing PF, mainly as a post threat on offense. Then won as a perimeter player in Cleveland with a PG that lacks playmaking skills and is mainly a scorer. Won with the Lakers playing the PG spot and leading the league in assists...

We saw him as a lock down perimeter defender with the Heat in 11 prior to the finals. Rim protector the years after. A help defender on some of the worse offensive guys in Cle 16 and 09...

I mean, what other portability do you want? Dude has literally filled all types of roles.

Lebron has beaten three teams with a higher PSRS than all but two of the opponents "ceiling raisers" jordan and steph have ever vanquished combined(2017 Cavs, 2016 Thunder). Those 3 wins came with less help and less healthy help(2016 is an exception for the latter).

The idea that Lebron is not "portable" is just a bad excuse to ignore what's actually happened. Hikari sums it up rather well:

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.

When conclusions and theories and extrapolations consistently disagree with what can be observed, those conclusions, theories, and extrapolations should be adjusted accordingly.

Lebron is near 40 and has been able to operate largely off-ball to help his team win on what is typically a season-ending injury. He has ramped up his defense to make up for his limited offense and is cutting and spacing the floor to bolster an offense that is sometimes run by dlo and austin reeves. The Lakers are currently up 2-1 on the reigning champs 2 wins away from finishing off one of the sport's greatest dynasties.

If that isn't "ceiling raising", then I'm not sure what is.

The bold isn’t a great argument. It actual works for the opposing view. James is a ball dominant player and not a great shooter. That’s what hurts his portability. The author highlights that and tries to claim because it has slightly different flavors it’s portable, that’s not how portable works.

Portable means you can import a player across eras and team types and he can help them win without having to totally reconfigure the team. Basically he can fit in. The portable argument amongst the GOAT’s starts and end with one name…Bird.

He operated with the ball in the perimeter with Cleveland. He changed to PF so Wade could that with the Heat. So he was portable.

He operated as a roll man (C, PF) when playing with Westbrook in the Lakers. And it worked on offense. He doesn't need to be a shooter to be able to play off ball roles.

If you ask him to be a shooter he probably can, but you're not putting him in a good position since he's streaky and you're taking away his ability to playmake and attack the rim, two of his best attributes. If you do that it's not him who isn't portable, you're just a bad coach.

[HeartBreakKid]

Oh come on. Here we go again. It's a black mark on his career yes, but the guy won as the main rim protector on the Heat and playing PF, mainly as a post threat on offense. Then won as a perimeter player in Cleveland with a PG that lacks playmaking skills and is mainly a scorer. Won with the Lakers playing the PG spot and leading the league in assists...

We saw him as a lock down perimeter defender with the Heat in 11 prior to the finals. Rim protector the years after. A help defender on some of the worse offensive guys in Cle 16 and 09...

I mean, what other portability do you want? Dude has literally filled all types of roles.

Lebron has beaten three teams with a higher PSRS than all but two of the opponents "ceiling raisers" jordan and steph have ever vanquished combined(2017 Cavs, 2016 Thunder). Those 3 wins came with less help and less healthy help(2016 is an exception for the latter).

The idea that Lebron is not "portable" is just a bad excuse to ignore what's actually happened. Hikari sums it up rather well:

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.

When conclusions and theories and extrapolations consistently disagree with what can be observed, those conclusions, theories, and extrapolations should be adjusted accordingly.

Lebron is near 40 and has been able to operate largely off-ball to help his team win on what is typically a season-ending injury. He has ramped up his defense to make up for his limited offense and is cutting and spacing the floor to bolster an offense that is sometimes run by dlo and austin reeves. The Lakers are currently up 2-1 on the reigning champs 2 wins away from finishing off one of the sport's greatest dynasties.

If that isn't "ceiling raising", then I'm not sure what is.

The bold isn’t a great argument. It actual works for the opposing view. James is a ball dominant player and not a great shooter. That’s what hurts his portability. The author highlights that and tries to claim because it has slightly different flavors it’s portable, that’s not how portable works.

Portable means you can import a player across eras and team types and he can help them win without having to totally reconfigure the team. Basically he can fit in. The portable argument amongst the GOAT’s starts and end with one name…Bird.

By this notion portability is just another word for shooting.

[Colbinii]

Lebron has beaten three teams with a higher PSRS than all but two of the opponents "ceiling raisers" jordan and steph have ever vanquished combined(2017 Cavs, 2016 Thunder). Those 3 wins came with less help and less healthy help(2016 is an exception for the latter).

The idea that Lebron is not "portable" is just a bad excuse to ignore what's actually happened. Hikari sums it up rather well:

When conclusions and theories and extrapolations consistently disagree with what can be observed, those conclusions, theories, and extrapolations should be adjusted accordingly.

Lebron is near 40 and has been able to operate largely off-ball to help his team win on what is typically a season-ending injury. He has ramped up his defense to make up for his limited offense and is cutting and spacing the floor to bolster an offense that is sometimes run by dlo and austin reeves. The Lakers are currently up 2-1 on the reigning champs 2 wins away from finishing off one of the sport's greatest dynasties.

If that isn't "ceiling raising", then I'm not sure what is.

The bold isn’t a great argument. It actual works for the opposing view. James is a ball dominant player and not a great shooter. That’s what hurts his portability. The author highlights that and tries to claim because it has slightly different flavors it’s portable, that’s not how portable works.

Portable means you can import a player across eras and team types and he can help them win without having to totally reconfigure the team. Basically he can fit in. The portable argument amongst the GOAT’s starts and end with one name…Bird.

By this notion portability is just another word for shooting.

It is typically used that way, yes.

For some reason, defense and playmaking is ignored, as is drawing defenses and making it easier for everyone else [offensive gravity].

[SNPA]

The bold isn’t a great argument. It actual works for the opposing view. James is a ball dominant player and not a great shooter. That’s what hurts his portability. The author highlights that and tries to claim because it has slightly different flavors it’s portable, that’s not how portable works.

Portable means you can import a player across eras and team types and he can help them win without having to totally reconfigure the team. Basically he can fit in. The portable argument amongst the GOAT’s starts and end with one name…Bird.

By this notion portability is just another word for shooting.

It is typically used that way, yes.

For some reason, defense and playmaking is ignored, as is drawing defenses and making it easier for everyone else [offensive gravity].

This describes Bird.

[ShaqAttac]

port debate over? No c no problem.

[falcolombardi]

Maybe not the most, but i think he adds a lot of versatility and non on ball value in ways that go beyond shooting 3's (which he learned to do well anyway in the backhalf of his career) or running off screens for jumpers

We usually dont think of defensive/offensive versatility, fastbreak dominance, cutting ability, being a rolling/lob threat as portability even though they are some of the most useful skills for moderm basketball