Portability vs. Versatility

[G35]

This is why it gets frustrating when people say "Of course Nash was successful in Phoenix, that team was built around his strengths!" (I know this isn't your argument, but people have done this in this very thread) It's exactly true that Phoenix was built to maximize Nash as a player- and it's also true that the resulting team was better on offense than anything else ever achieved in the sport. So at least in my mind, the question shouldn't be "why wasn't Nash more effective in Dallas?" instead, it should be "Why didn't the Mavs play like Phoenix?"

I think that is a confusing statement because Dallas went to the finals two years after letting Nash go to Phoenix.

Now there are two points of contention on this board and in this topic. If you only want to build the best offense you can then Nash should be one of the top picks for portability.

However, looking at the whole team concept, where defense is just as important or more important to team building Nash is one of the last players you want to build around. Nash has never been on a defensive team. Whether that's by the team's management/coaching but Nash led teams typically cannot stop the opposition when the playoffs come around. That's enough for me to question his portability.......

[Volcano]

A Curry-LeBron led offense would be unreal. Curry can play off the ball himself and also help LeBron play off the ball because he's a good play-maker himself.

The offensive efficiency would be unheard of. Still, Lebron is playing next to arguably the next-best shooting point guard in Irving so we should appreciate that. Still, Steph's lightning quick release makes him a bigger catch and shoot threat than Irving.

A team with Curry, Durant and Lebron would simply be absurd, the GOAT offensive team without a doubt.

Let me just emphasize the point in bold. If LeBron is on your team, then the ability to catch & shoot is VASTLY more valuable than the ability to drive one on one. The Curry-LeBron combo would orders of magnitude more dangerous than the Irving-LeBron combo is.

what's weird about this portability vs versatility thing is that doesn't some of the arguments in this thread work the other way around too? Kyle Korver would be much better paired off with a slasher like Wade versus a shooter like Ray.

I don't see how specialists/role players are more portable. If you add Korver to GSW versus adding Iggy (like a poor man's LBJ), Iggy would be the better fit..making Korver "less portable". Adding Tyson Chandler on an already defensive oriented team or on a team with another pure C also doesn't make him very portable. Whereas someone with more versatility in his game and/or ability to play multiple positions might be considered more portable in that situation. It's essentially based on team needs.

To me, versatility off the ball and ability to impact the game without the ball helps you become more portable, but being smart/effective with the ball also adds to it. I'd be inclined just to call them better players than someone who can only impact the game with the ball in their hands (and isn't elite at it). When it comes to high usage players, it depends on their level of play with the ball and their willingness to sacrifice dominating the ball when necessary. I would say someone like Lebron is very portable considering he brings value with and without the ball, despite not sacrificing his ball dominance..not that he should. He's been on a variety of teams and had a high level of success on each one while they've completely dropped off without him or were nothing before him (Irving/Love).

[G35]

I don't like this definition, because it causes people to undervalue talent and presume that talented first option players couldn't synergize with each other. So Lebron isn't as portable as Durant because he handles the ball a lot even though he's shown he can play with other ball dominant guards in Wade and Irving? Not to mention, Team USA has shown that you can put a lot of high-usage players together they each still 'make valuable contributions' because they're all incredibly talented, and high basketball IQ players.

Just because somebody handles the ball a lot does not automatically make them 'less portable' than somebody who plays off the ball.

Well when you are talking portability you are talking in all situations. I kind of like that definition. Can a player still make a strong contribution even when he isn't used in his optimum capacity. That's where I don't like the "Nash should always have the ball because he creates elite offenses".

You've basically just defined classic versatility. We wouldn't have created the new term if that's all it was.

Respectfully I disagree. When I speak of versatility, I'm referring to the myriad of skills you can display on the court:

Shooting (which can be further broken down into perimeter/interior shooting, hand in the face, shooting with contact, left/right)
FT shooting
Rebounding
Passing
Setting Picks
Transitioning from offense to defense and back to offense
Moving without the ball
On ball facilitating
Post defense
Perimeter defense
BBIQ
Talking on the court

There can be other things added but to me the most versatile players fill more of these boxes at high level.

Portability is being able adjust to any situation and produce. It can be by becoming the primary option (Lebron), it can be by being a primary facilitator (Nash), a defensive anchor (Garnett with the Celtics), a defensive stopper (Bowen/Artest), being a zone buster/floor spreader (Kevin Love/Ryan Anderson). Not only is portability judged on different roles a player can assume but under different settings (rule changes) i.e. how would said player perform in prior years under various rule implementation.....

[Dr Spaceman]

This is why it gets frustrating when people say "Of course Nash was successful in Phoenix, that team was built around his strengths!" (I know this isn't your argument, but people have done this in this very thread) It's exactly true that Phoenix was built to maximize Nash as a player- and it's also true that the resulting team was better on offense than anything else ever achieved in the sport. So at least in my mind, the question shouldn't be "why wasn't Nash more effective in Dallas?" instead, it should be "Why didn't the Mavs play like Phoenix?"

I think that is a confusing statement because Dallas went to the finals two years after letting Nash go to Phoenix.

Now there are two points of contention on this board and in this topic. If you only want to build the best offense you can then Nash should be one of the top picks for portability.

However, looking at the whole team concept, where defense is just as important or more important to team building Nash is one of the last players you want to build around. Nash has never been on a defensive team. Whether that's by the team's management/coaching but Nash led teams typically cannot stop the opposition when the playoffs come around. That's enough for me to question his portability.......

You and I have had this conversation enough times that I'm pretty loathe to have it again, as we never get any closer to a resolution.

Look, there shouldn't be any confusion. Nash's team beat Dallas in 2005, and then lost in 2006 because they were starting their 3rd string center and their backup Small Forward. If you're going to seriously use that to say Dallas improved without Nash then I can't stop you, I can only point out that it's entirely illogical, as Phoenix beat Dallas when both teams were at full strength.

You also have repeated many times that "Nash has never been on a defensive team, thus Nash cannot be on a defensive team". That is also completely fallacious, and it should be evident just from reading that statement. But you should look at GSW, who actually play at a faster pace and play a more reckless style of ball than Phoenix, and yet they're the best defensive team in the league. The difference is personnel. If Nash had Iguodala, Green, Thonpson, and Bogut on his team we don't even need to have this exchange because Phoenix would be a great defensive team.

I know you believe Nash is fundamentally incapable of contributing to a team that is capable defensively, but this is a very fringe belief and you've yet to provide anything remotely convincing on that front.

[G35]

This is why it gets frustrating when people say "Of course Nash was successful in Phoenix, that team was built around his strengths!" (I know this isn't your argument, but people have done this in this very thread) It's exactly true that Phoenix was built to maximize Nash as a player- and it's also true that the resulting team was better on offense than anything else ever achieved in the sport. So at least in my mind, the question shouldn't be "why wasn't Nash more effective in Dallas?" instead, it should be "Why didn't the Mavs play like Phoenix?"

I think that is a confusing statement because Dallas went to the finals two years after letting Nash go to Phoenix.

Now there are two points of contention on this board and in this topic. If you only want to build the best offense you can then Nash should be one of the top picks for portability.

However, looking at the whole team concept, where defense is just as important or more important to team building Nash is one of the last players you want to build around. Nash has never been on a defensive team. Whether that's by the team's management/coaching but Nash led teams typically cannot stop the opposition when the playoffs come around. That's enough for me to question his portability.......

You and I have had this conversation enough times that I'm pretty loathe to have it again, as we never get any closer to a resolution.

Look, there shouldn't be any confusion. Nash's team beat Dallas in 2005, and then lost in 2006 because they were starting their 3rd string center and their backup Small Forward. If you're going to seriously use that to say Dallas improved without Nash then I can't stop you, I can only point out that it's entirely illogical, as Phoenix beat Dallas when both teams were at full strength.

You also have repeated many times that "Nash has never been on a defensive team, thus Nash cannot be on a defensive team". That is also completely fallacious, and it should be evident just from reading that statement. But you should look at GSW, who actually play at a faster pace and play a more reckless style of ball than Phoenix, and yet they're the best defensive team in the league. The difference is personnel. If Nash had Iguodala, Green, Thonpson, and Bogut on his team we don't even need to have this exchange because Phoenix would be a great defensive team.

I know you believe Nash is fundamentally incapable of contributing to a team that is capable defensively, but this is a very fringe belief and you've yet to provide anything remotely convincing on that front.

Name one team Nash has been on that was a strong defensive team. We can set that bar at a top 5 Defensive team; a good defensive team would be top 10; a poor team would be 20th or worse.

Nash's teams DRtg career:
1997 PHX 20th
1998 PHX 6th
1999 DAL 25th
2000 DAL 24th
2001 DAL 13th
2002 DAL 25th
2003 DAL 9th
2004 DAL 26th
2005 PHX 17th
2006 PHX 16th
2007 PHX 13th
2008 PHX 14th
2009 PHX 26th
2010 PHX 23rd
2011 PHX 25th
2012 PHX 24th
2013 LAL 20th
2014 LAL 28th

Out of 18 years, 11 years you could say the team was poor, and 8 of those years they were especially poor. Five years you could say his teams were average and one year it was above average. In 1997 he was a rookie so you can't expect much but the next year (1998) was the best defensive team he has ever been on. That team was led by Jason Kidd who played the most minutes by far of any Suns player and had the most DWS. So in my mind this is key year in that Nash did see what it took to be a good defensive PG playing behind Kidd. It just was never his forte and it shows because of how his teams performed on defense throughout his career.

Now, in 2005 Nash (MVP) had Amare (2nd team All NBA) and Marion (3rd team All NBA) vs Dirk who did not even have another All Star next to him. Many people point to this series as Nash being able to take over offensively, but really this was a series that did not have any defense. When was the last time there were three players on one team that averaged 23PPG in the playoffs. So you can frame that question anyway you want to but an MVP that has two other All NBA teammates should be winning. Dirk had Jason Terry and Josh Howard (rookie) as his two best teammates. In 2006 when Nash did not have an All NBA big man but still had Marion 2nd team All NBA and Dirk once again did not even have an All Star, Dallas won.

So this seems like a case of accolades not translating to playoff success, which is where I tend to disagree with many posters. You can talk all about what should happen, what could happen, how great they are in the regular season, but the playoffs show the truth of a team.

It seems as if people sensitive about that subject but that's the bottom line, the true game changers show their mettle in the playoffs.....

Edit I didn't address your point about the Warriors and surrounding Nash with Green, Thompson, and Bogut. Just because you put Nash on this Warriors team does not mean they would maintain their defensive efficacy. Is Nash as good a defender as Curry? Out of players that have played at least a 1000 minutes Curry is third in DRtg. Nash's career DRtg is 111, while Curry's is 100. There would be some dropoff from Curry to Nash. In fact the Warriors were 4th in DRtg last year. this isn't some big jump in defensive efficiency for the Warriors, they were good when Draymond wasn't a starter, and they had David Lee as the starting PF and he's known as a poor defender.

Further, Curry takes many more shots per game, while facilitating less and being the primary scorer for the Warriors. So Curry takes on more of the offensive responsibility ALLOWING Draymond, Bogut, Iguodola, and Thompson to focus on the defensive end. We all know that it takes a lot of energy to play high level defense, Nash would have to change his game to becoming more of a scorer and not having high level offensive players like Amare. It's not just having good defensive teammates but putting them in positions to succeed on defense.....

[Texas Chuck]

Look, there shouldn't be any confusion. Nash's team beat Dallas in 2005, and then lost in 2006 because they were starting their 3rd string center and their backup Small Forward. If you're going to seriously use that to say Dallas improved without Nash then I can't stop you, I can only point out that it's entirely illogical, as Phoenix beat Dallas when both teams were at full strength.

I'm pretty much with you on this discussion, but this really doesn't address whether or not Dallas improved after Nash left. It simply states that Phoenix improved more than Dallas. I don't think you meant it like that, but its confusing how you worded it. I actually agree with G35 that the Mavs improved as an overall team after Nash left. Please don't take that to mean that I think they improved directly by subtracting Nash because well that would be insane. And it took a year before they got it quite right. But because Nash left, Dallas took a different approach. Out with the offensive coach, out with much of the one-way personnel and surrounded their other elite offensive player with a roster than complemented him far better.

But G35 is neglecting to mention that not only Nash left in the summer of 2004, but so did Antoine and Antawn. And then Finley the following year. Dirk is such a special player that Dallas still had a really good offense(not as good as it would have been with Nash obviously), but now had a team that could compete defensively. Damp/Diop, JHo, Devin, Griffin will now all regular rotation members and all of them were good defenders. A complete contrast to the rotation of Nash, Daniels, Finley, Dirk, Walker,Jamison that ended Nash's last year in Dallas.

I think you can argue 2003 Dallas vs 2006 Dallas. I would take the 06 team, but I know some others here who think the 03 Mavs were better. But I do think the Mavs had the right idea in building the roster around Dirk which they never fully committed to doing until they were scrambling post-Nash. Whether this was intentional by Donnie/Cubes(and Avery--who masterminded the Dampier addition) or dumb luck I can't be sure. But I do believe it was the right thing to do.

[Texas Chuck]

Now, in 2005 Nash (MVP) had Amare (2nd team All NBA) and Marion (3rd team All NBA) vs Dirk who did not even have another All Star next to him. Many people point to this series as Nash being able to take over offensively, but really this was a series that did not have any defense. When was the last time there were three players on one team that averaged 23PPG in the playoffs. So you can frame that question anyway you want to but an MVP that has two other All NBA teammates should be winning. Dirk had Jason Terry and Josh Howard (rookie) as his two best teammates.

Just to clear up one small point. Howard was not a rookie this year. He actually played with Nash in Dallas the year before.

I'd also like to point out that you can talk about quality of teammates in that series if you want to, but Steve Nash was hands down the best player in the series so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

[G35]

Now, in 2005 Nash (MVP) had Amare (2nd team All NBA) and Marion (3rd team All NBA) vs Dirk who did not even have another All Star next to him. Many people point to this series as Nash being able to take over offensively, but really this was a series that did not have any defense. When was the last time there were three players on one team that averaged 23PPG in the playoffs. So you can frame that question anyway you want to but an MVP that has two other All NBA teammates should be winning. Dirk had Jason Terry and Josh Howard (rookie) as his two best teammates.

Just to clear up one small point. Howard was not a rookie this year. He actually played with Nash in Dallas the year before.

I'd also like to point out that you can talk about quality of teammates in that series if you want to, but Steve Nash was hands down the best player in the series so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

You're right Chuck, Josh was a 2nd yr player that year and Nash was outstanding in that series. My point is that people take that Dallas series as an example of Nash taking over offensively, when really there was no defense being played. I think there is a difference, like someone taking an All Star game as an example of what a player can do offensively. I do not think Nash is versatile enough to be a #1 scorer like Curry is for the Warriors. Now that may not be because of ability but their different approaches to the game.....

[Doctor MJ]

Now, in 2005 Nash (MVP) had Amare (2nd team All NBA) and Marion (3rd team All NBA) vs Dirk who did not even have another All Star next to him. Many people point to this series as Nash being able to take over offensively, but really this was a series that did not have any defense. When was the last time there were three players on one team that averaged 23PPG in the playoffs. So you can frame that question anyway you want to but an MVP that has two other All NBA teammates should be winning. Dirk had Jason Terry and Josh Howard (rookie) as his two best teammates.

Just to clear up one small point. Howard was not a rookie this year. He actually played with Nash in Dallas the year before.

I'd also like to point out that you can talk about quality of teammates in that series if you want to, but Steve Nash was hands down the best player in the series so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

You're right Chuck, Josh was a 2nd yr player that year and Nash was outstanding in that series. My point is that people take that Dallas series as an example of Nash taking over offensively, when really there was no defense being played. I think there is a difference, like someone taking an All Star game as an example of what a player can do offensively. I do not think Nash is versatile enough to be a #1 scorer like Curry is for the Warriors. Now that may not be because of ability but their different approaches to the game.....

No defense being played? Ridiculous.

After Phoenix tore through the league and the first round Dallas went in to that series focused on defense and decided to use a strategy of denying Nash as a playmaker. This meant a refusal to double Nash in the thought that he could only do so much as a scorer.

They were wrong. Obviously. And everyone at the time was writing about this, and every team there after knew they couldn't use this strategy which is the real reason it never happened again.

It's really quite annoying seeing you try to hyperbolize away this series after all these years of trying to tear Nash down. I mean either you were paying attention then and chose to distort this, or you weren't paying attention and tried to pretend otherwise... Or you are utterly incapable of staying objective and unbiased here. No other explanations work and all of them mean you should just stop talking about Nash at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[picc]

It may be getting lost in the ether that the idea of basketball isn't to score as many points as possible; it's to score more than the other team. The former would seem intrinsically paternal to the latter, but as we've seen, other components of basketball contribute as much to that goal as putting the ball in your end of the hoop.

Every team in the NBA could score more points than they currently do, simply by shifting lineups and/or increasing pace. GS could play Lee instead of Speights. Play Green at center and run all night. Or start Iggy and play him more for Barnes. Dallas could start Dirk at center if they really just wanted to score more. They don't because its understood that for every action, there's a potentially equal or greater reaction elsewhere on the court. One that affects something just as vital to actually attaining a W. The Nash-era Suns, particularly the highest scoring incarnations, were the only teams to outright reject that balance, and it got them exactly what you'd expect. Explosive, high-scoring offenses that were eventually outscored themselves.

Building your team with the idea of creating the best offense you can possibly create is a flawed model that historically doesn't get you as far as building for balance with defense and rebounding. Theoretically, every offensive star could create an incredible team offense so long as their coaching staff committed to totally eschewing the other aspects of basketball. If i'm considering players, my first thought may be who can do the most for my team in offensive circumstances that aren't as conducive to team scoring.

To that end, i'm not sure I understand the OP's distinction between versatile and portable. Being versatile would, by definition, make one portable, no? The NBA team doesn't exist that couldn't use more of something. Even with redundant, high usage NBA stars (Heat, Thunder), we've seen them succeed - both teams were in the finals at one point, so it couldn't have been that much of a problem. One of the versatile-but-not-portable players in the OP (James) teamed with a notoriously high usage player with little off-ball experience this year (Cavs) and once they figured it out, the team played phenomenal. And we've seen with FIBA/Olympics that guys we may not have thought of as portable were able to co-exist seamlessly, even all at once.

Maybe we're not giving enough credit to our players vis a vis their ability to adapt and synthesize. The guys we have seen get together have succeeded to or near the highest level, and a lot of other guys haven't really had the chance.

It may be an interesting exercise to start asking "how could they help each other?" with the same critical analysis through which we ask "how could they hurt?".