drza wrote:"Goodness" may be inherent to some extent (obviously player quality changes over time, but speaking at any given moment) but our evaluation of that goodness is NOT inherent. In your example, The Cavaliers situation is NOT the only basketball situation there is. It's not even the only LIKELY scenario for LeBron. Therefore, you can't necessarily evaluate his global value just by determining how good he is in that one role (I really feel like I should be preaching to the choir with this post, as the kernel is one of the big arguments you've been using against Russell in this thread).
My take on player goodness is not limited to a player's use in one role (which imply value, by the way). I don't focus on roles. Using Russell as an example: I (and others) have stated elsewhere that was perhaps a
better offensive player than his offensive value reflected (note the use of the superlative for goodness there). His skills on offense just weren't needed as much, given the role that he was asked to play in Boston. So, despite playing in one particular role in Boston, I can still rate Russell's basketball goodness on offense appropriately.
Back to your LeBron example, I disagree with your assertion that he didn't help the Heat. In fact, he dramatically helped the Heat. Just not to the extent that he had previously lifted the Cavs. So what seeing LeBron in 2010 on the Cavs and 2011 on the Heat did was to give us two snapshots of what LeBrons value might be in 2 very different situations. His inherent goodness didn't change, but our ability to judge that goodness got more sophisticated.
Thanks, I'll edit that post to avoid ambiguity. Yes, you're correct; he did help his new team, just not as much as his team in Cleveland.
See the above point for my response to your conclusion.
This all ties into the concept of portability. Portability doesn't mean that you make a player play in ways that are contrary to their nature (like your Russell shooting perimeter shots example). No, portability is closer to what you suggested...it's the concept of how many situations and on how many different (but realistic) types of teams can a player make a maximal impact.
I reject the notion of portability simply because it brings value back into the mix (part of this concept includes looking at how many teams
need your skills, which can vary). I do look at a player's versatility, however. And while versatility is part of a basketball player's goodness, it's also important to be dominant in those skills. Take two players, A and B. A is a so-so player in areas such as shooting and posting-up. B can't shoot, but he's an all-time great in the post. I would call B the better player, because B's dominance in his one skill offsets A's fringe talents across more skills. So, I take both versatility and dominance into account.
In your LeBron example, he showed he could have a historical impact in his time in Cleveland and a still league-leading impact in his time in Miami which suggests very good portability. But the fact that pairing him with another high quality ball dominant wing lessens his impact shows that some of his package of goodness might reasonably be replicated on good teams and that thus his portability might not be as good as some others.
And this is exactly why I don't consider the concept of "portablility". In a league full of LeBron Jameses, his package of goodness can be reasonably replicated on good teams. That has nothing to do with James's goodness; it doesn't lessen it.
Think about Bill Russell, and the era he played in. Now think about the modern era, and the relatively larger number of athletic defenders that can more or less protect the rim and cover ground. Do you think he'd be as portable in the modern era, in which his package of goodness can be reasonably replicated on good teams? Do you think I'd rate him as a lesser basketball player because of it?
More later.
