Portability vs. Versatility

[Jim Naismith]

Often the terms portable and versatile are used interchangeably to describe players. I think the distinction between the two qualities should be maintained.

Portable
A portable player can be added to many different teams while maximizing both the player's ability and the team's synergy.

Versatile
A versatile player can do wider range of things at a higher skill level than expected (given the player's position).

To make this distinction more concrete, here are some examples:

Portable and versatile: Kevin Garnett, Kawhi Leonard

Portable but not versatile: Kyle Korver, Tyson Chandler

Versatile but not as portable: Russell Westbrook, LeBron James

I expect the last entry to be little more controversial, but the triple-double (a sure sign of versatility) may also signal ball-dominance, thus making the player more difficult to incorporate into a team's existing offense.

[Hawk]

Portability not only depends on the player's skills and capabilities, but it also depends on the player's willingness to "sacrifice" himself for the good of the team.

For instance, I'm sure LeBron could play the role of Draymond in the Warriors, but I don't think he would be willing to sacrifice his enormous talent to "simply" fill in that role.

I don't think LeBron is any less portable player than Leonard in terms of skill and talent, but in this case, I think the thing that could differentiate their level of portability, is their will to sacrifice themselves.

[Jim Naismith]

I don't think LeBron is any less portable player than Leonard in terms of skill and talent, but in this case, I think the thing that could differentiate their level of portability, is their will to sacrifice themselves.

If you're cramping yourself (especially the strongest part of your game) to fit in, you're not very portable.

[Hawk]

I don't think LeBron is any less portable player than Leonard in terms of skill and talent, but in this case, I think the thing that could differentiate their level of portability, is their will to sacrifice themselves.

If you're cramping yourself (especially the strongest part of your game) to fit in, you're not very portable.

That doesn't sound right to me though. Aren't you limiting Lebron's portability because of his huge talent? Yeah, to play Draymond's role he would have to limit himself to "simply" do the things Draymond does, instead of his current floor-general role, but, at the end of the day, I think he could do it, if he wanted to, and that is what matters to me.

Wilt also limited his offensive role in the early 70's and he focused more on other things. His talent would allow him to score more if he wanted to, but he (and the coach) chose not to, for the good of the team.

Is not about if you need to cramp yourself to fit in or not, it is about if you will eventually be able and willing to do what you are asked to do.

[Jim Naismith]

I don't think LeBron is any less portable player than Leonard in terms of skill and talent, but in this case, I think the thing that could differentiate their level of portability, is their will to sacrifice themselves.

If you're cramping yourself (especially the strongest part of your game) to fit in, you're not very portable.

That doesn't sound right to me though. Aren't you limiting Lebron's portability because of his huge talent?

Only because LeBron's huge talent requires him to dominate the ball.

Compare LeBron with Durant. Durant's huge talent isn't as predicated upon ball-domination.

So Durant is more portable (despite LeBron being both more versatile and talented).

[SideshowBob]

There is no "official" definition for portability. The term was coined by ElGee when he introduced his SRS/Championship Odds method of evaluation:

Portability is how well a player's skill translate, or travel to, different team situations and still maintain impact.

It was later made clear that what is more relevant is how well skills transfer to strong teams; essentially, more "portable" players are those whose skills show fewer diminishing returns on teams that have personnel that cover conventional staples of offense/defense.

Being overlooked here is that "different" teams are not necessarily important to distinguish because of style, but because of function.

There are a handful of major pillars that make a team successful. To name a few:

-post offense
-isolation wing offense
-outside shooting/spacing
-interior defense
-perimeter defense

Players fill up these attributes. The question with portability is NOT "how much does a player's skillset meet or not meet an attribute on a random team," but instead "how likely is the player to enhance these attributes on a good team...and how good does that make the team?"

This is precisely why Dennis Rodman is portable -- when he joins your team, he rarely interferes with areas that make a team good while almost always adding significantly in his smaller areas. It's also why Allen Iverson isn't portable -- because when we port his game onto good teams, the "isolation wing offense" thing is usually maxed out. In fact, there are diminishing returns on isolation scoring as a Global Offense function, while there are incredibly high ceilings on maximizing all 5 guys on the court (passing, spacing, shooting, etc.), which is why that wing-type isolation scoring only becomes portable when he can strongly pair with ball-dominant guys (eg can shoot), can defend, and can also dominate the ball himself. (Obviously, the broader the skillset the more likely the player is to be portable...)

Of course, we've seen that in the last 3 years, a lot of folks have developed/added their own nuances to this concept (and that's totally cool), but this, in essence, is what it was meant to mean.

[Dr Pepper]

John Stockton vs Steve Nash is my go-to comparison for this.

Nash is not as portable or as versatile as Stockton. Nash's chronic bad back, ball domination, poor defense, and excelling in a perimeter-oriented/D'Antoni league makes him a significantly worse player than Stockton. You can plug and play Stockton in more eras and teams compared to Nash, and get more defense, minutes, games, etc.

[Jim Naismith]

John Stockton vs Steve Nash is my go-to comparison for this.

Nash is not as portable or as versatile as Stockton. Nash's chronic bad back, ball domination, poor defense, and excelling in a perimeter-oriented/D'Antoni league makes him a significantly worse player than Stockton. You can plug and play Stockton in more eras and teams compared to Nash, and get more defense, minutes, games, etc.

Players that both portable and versatile are easy to find. That's why these qualities are often confused and used interchangeably.

We're focused on the difference between portable and versatile.

I'm contending that some versatile players (LeBron, Westbrook) are not very portable.

[Dr Pepper]

John Stockton vs Steve Nash is my go-to comparison for this.

Nash is not as portable or as versatile as Stockton. Nash's chronic bad back, ball domination, poor defense, and excelling in a perimeter-oriented/D'Antoni league makes him a significantly worse player than Stockton. You can plug and play Stockton in more eras and teams compared to Nash, and get more defense, minutes, games, etc.

Players that both portable and versatile are easy to find. That's why these qualities are often confused and used interchangeably.

We're focused on the difference between portable and versatile.

I'm contending that some versatile players (LeBron, Westbrook) are not very portable.

I would also add Nash to that list of players that are not very portable. His bad back would be a liability in more physical eras (especially without modern medicine), and he is ball dominant while being a negative on defense.

Portability = plug and play in any team/era
Versatility = individual skills that transcend positions like defense

I agree with your definitions

[Dr Spaceman]

John Stockton vs Steve Nash is my go-to comparison for this.

Nash is not as portable or as versatile as Stockton. Nash's chronic bad back, ball domination, poor defense, and excelling in a perimeter-oriented/D'Antoni league makes him a significantly worse player than Stockton. You can plug and play Stockton in more eras and teams compared to Nash, and get more defense, minutes, games, etc.

Portability is about ceilings. The best offenses we've r ever seen were led by Nash, and I think it's reasonable to say that Nash has a higher ceiling than almost any offensive player ever.

Put another way: why would I give someone else the ball, when Nash is better at it than anyone else? Why is ball dominance an issue?

[Texas Chuck]

Put another way: why would I give someone else the ball, when Nash is better at it than anyone else? Why is ball dominance an issue?

I wondered the same thing when Lebron was discussed earlier. How many situations is either guy realistically going to find themselves in where you want to give them the ball less?

Ironically both guys sort of found themselves in that situation--Nash with Dirk and Lebron with Wade. And what we found was both guys still having the ball a ton of the time while being quite effective off the ball.

But since people automatically assume that a defensive-oriented, more well-rounded player is more portable. This came up a lot in Dirk v KG threads which never made sense to me since we have actually seen Dirk play on so many different teams(I think people don't stop to realize this since the jersey always says Mavs) and have great success. The Nasty/Dirty/Filthy Mavs. The Avery/Damp/JHo Mavs, the Kidd/Jet/Rick Mavs, then with Tyson, then with the remnants in 2012, the horrible hodgepodge in 2013. Monta/Calderon last year. He couldn't be more portable.

I really can't imagine a realistic scenario where Nash doesn't fit in beautifully.

[Jim Naismith]

But since people automatically assume that a defensive-oriented, more well-rounded player is more portable.

The "versatility=portability" fallacy is the main target of this thread.

[G35]

Put another way: why would I give someone else the ball, when Nash is better at it than anyone else? Why is ball dominance an issue?

I wondered the same thing when Lebron was discussed earlier. How many situations is either guy realistically going to find themselves in where you want to give them the ball less?

Ironically both guys sort of found themselves in that situation--Nash with Dirk and Lebron with Wade. And what we found was both guys still having the ball a ton of the time while being quite effective off the ball.

But since people automatically assume that a defensive-oriented, more well-rounded player is more portable. This came up a lot in Dirk v KG threads which never made sense to me since we have actually seen Dirk play on so many different teams(I think people don't stop to realize this since the jersey always says Mavs) and have great success. The Nasty/Dirty/Filthy Mavs. The Avery/Damp/JHo Mavs, the Kidd/Jet/Rick Mavs, then with Tyson, then with the remnants in 2012, the horrible hodgepodge in 2013. Monta/Calderon last year. He couldn't be more portable.

I really can't imagine a realistic scenario where Nash doesn't fit in beautifully.

I think portability comes down to temperment/personality.

I have thought about player portability ever since Marshall Faulk was traded from the Colts to the Rams. Faulk went from a good RB to a HoF RB and people were saying he was as good as OJ Simpson, Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown. I disagree, I think Faulk went to a team that made better use of his talents. The Rams were a spread offense, with talent at all skill positions and it gave Faulk all the room he needed. However, I think 10-15 other RB's could have done well in that position.

I actually do not think Rodman is very portable at all. He needs to be in a very specific set of circumstances to excel:

- strong leadership from the coaching staff and the players
- not required to be a scoring threat at all

In Detroit there was Chuck Daly/Isiah/Laimbeer/Dumars to check Rodmans quirkiness and the Pistons had a variety of scorers which allowed Rodman to focus only on defense/rebounding. Same situation in Chicago with Phil Jackson/MJ/Scottie and they gave him Jack Haley to be his personal entourage, and they had plenty of scoring with MJ/Scottie/Kukoc/Kerr/Harper.

In San Antonio is the perfect example of what Rodman can do to a team when left to his own devices. The coaching was horrendous and David Robinson was the polar opposite of Rodman and there was no one left to keep him in check. Then the Spurs did not have a true # 2 option and in the playoffs teams loaded up on DRob; when Rodman is your second best player you are going to have problems scoring in the playoffs.


I believe the more portable players are not necessarily the most talented. They didn't grow up taking the most shots or dominating the ball. They know how to fit in; this is Scottie Pippen and Kevin Garnett all day. I think they could play in any era/rules, on any team and make an impact. I do think KG is extremely versatile, but his mentality is more portable; he can go down in the post and score but he doesn't, he could take more shots but he didn't. That's a good thing for portability, not necessarily for versatility because you can't necessarily make him your #1 option in all situations.

I think an example of why portability/versatility is mental is Kobe. When he first came into the league he was not given a starting position, he earned it through sheer force of talent but it took a few years. The Kobe from 99-2002 was versatile in that he could be a #1 or #2 option, a defensive stopper, facilitator. However, in 2004 ego got in the way of being portable and Kobe wanted to show how much of a #1 option he could be. I think Kobe's skillset allows him to be extremely portable but his mentality would be the one obstacle; pre-2003 Kobe would be down, but post 2004 Kobe to now would not be very portable.

I think the 2008 Celtics are another example of mentality affecting players portability. When the big three got together, they were all willing to subjugate some of their individual talents in order to increase the ceiling of the team......

[Clyde Frazier]

Versatile but not as portable: Russell Westbrook, LeBron James

I expect the last entry to be little more controversial, but the triple-double (a sure sign of versatility) may also signal ball-dominance, thus making the player more difficult to incorporate into a team's existing offense.

I see what you're saying, but someone like lebron doesn't really fit that criteria, because if you add him to a team, you aren't trying to fit him into an existing offense -- he becomes your offense. I think he could fit a complimentary role just fine, but it'd be a waste of his talents.

[Jim Naismith]

I see what you're saying, but someone like lebron doesn't really fit that criteria, because if you add him to a team, you aren't trying to fit him into an existing offense -- he becomes your offense. I think he could fit a complimentary role just fine, but it'd be a waste of his talents.

So you're saying a team with newly added LeBron faces two choices

1) Completely redesign your offense around LeBron

or

2) Waste LeBron's talent in a complementary role

Isn't this the textbook definition of not portable?

[Texas Chuck]

Jim,

Would you ever bring the best player in the world onto a team and not adjust what you were doing to make the best use of him?

That doesn't make him not portable. You could add him to a team like the SSOL Suns and they would get better. You could also add him to the Riley Knicks and they would get better. Would each team do some things differently? Yes.

Otherwise what you are asking is what superstar makes the best role player. That's a different question--and the one G35 seems to be answering. I don't personally want to know which player I can convert to a 3&D or stretch 4 or defensive specialist. I want to know what player can I surround with a variety of different casts and still be very successful.

[Clyde Frazier]

I see what you're saying, but someone like lebron doesn't really fit that criteria, because if you add him to a team, you aren't trying to fit him into an existing offense -- he becomes your offense. I think he could fit a complimentary role just fine, but it'd be a waste of his talents.

So you're saying a team with newly added LeBron faces two choices

1) Completely redesign your offense around LeBron

or

2) Waste LeBron's talent in a complementary role

Isn't this is the textbook definition of not portable?

I'll be more specific with a present day question, then: outside of GSW and maybe LAC, would any other team in the league not run their offense through lebron if he was traded there? And even if you left GSW and LAC's offenses as is, they automatically become favorites if you add lebron regardless of his role. They'd make it work, so no, I don't see that making him "not portable".

[BasketballFan7]

I see what you're saying, but someone like lebron doesn't really fit that criteria, because if you add him to a team, you aren't trying to fit him into an existing offense -- he becomes your offense. I think he could fit a complimentary role just fine, but it'd be a waste of his talents.

So you're saying a team with newly added LeBron faces two choices

1) Completely redesign your offense around LeBron

or

2) Waste LeBron's talent in a complementary role

Isn't this is the textbook definition of not portable?

I'll be more specific with a present day question, then: outside of GSW and maybe LAC, would any other team in the league not run their offense through lebron if he was traded there? And even if you left GSW and LAC's offenses as is, they automatically become favorites if you add lebron regardless of his role. They'd make it work, so no, I don't see that making him "not portable".

CP3 would run it in LA, but James would run it in GS, not Curry. Because that would be utterly unstoppable

[young_frogger]

John Stockton vs Steve Nash is my go-to comparison for this.

Nash is not as portable or as versatile as Stockton. Nash's chronic bad back, ball domination, poor defense, and excelling in a perimeter-oriented/D'Antoni league makes him a significantly worse player than Stockton. You can plug and play Stockton in more eras and teams compared to Nash, and get more defense, minutes, games, etc.

Are we not talking about prime, pre-back injury Nash? Just because he wasn't an iron man like Stockton in his 40's doesn't make him less portable, he's still had a very long and illustrious career. Also, Nash ran league-leading offenses in Dallas as well. If you put Nash on that Jazz team with Malone in an up-tempo era, there's no doubt he would make amazing things happen. Defensively, Stockton is vastly superior, and that's pretty much the strongest argument you can make for him being the better overall player or 'more portable', but if we're talking offense Nash is just as good if not better just from a skills standpoint; most notably, he's a better shooter. You could argue that this makes Nash more portable for spacing purposes.

Also lets be real, neither of them is 'more versatile' than the other. They're both 'pure' point guards.

[magicmerl]

So portable just means "can still make valuable contributions when his usage goes down"?