Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[LukaTheGOAT]

Could it be that Ben actually rates Hakeem as the more impactful defender by a margin then?

I also have a feeling Ben's 3-10 are probably quite interchangable in his mind.

He has made some changes in his valuations after going through each player again. But based off what we have available to us, he rates Duncan's D is at 3.25 fr 02 and 03. Hakeem's D in 93 is a 3.5, 94 is a 3, and 95 is a 2.75.

[KTM_2813]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

Correct. I've done a post on this before, but it seems like he prefers stars who can play next to other stars and fit "seemlessly," because it exponentially increases a team's championship odds. Even if in reality, teams GSW are rare, the fact that KD could take a team like that from all-time level to GOAT level offense is really special to him, and the same with Bird and his Celtics.

However, more times than not, the #1 on a championship team has neutral port, and positive port stars are relatively rarely dating back to 1991.

[Max123]

Could it be that Ben actually rates Hakeem as the more impactful defender by a margin then?

I also have a feeling Ben's 3-10 are probably quite interchangable in his mind.

Ben released a podcast on the greatest peaks series where he was asked to rank the 10 best offensive players from the series. Iirc Hakeem was left off the list while Garnett and Duncan shared 10. This basically confirms your suspicion that he must feel that Hakeem was the best defender in the series, by a relatively big margin too.

Edit:
The full list looked something like this with some players being closer to each other than others: (e.g. MJ and Curry; Lebron, Bird and Shaq)
10. Duncan/Garnett (coinflip)

9. Kareem
8. Durant
7. Kobe

6. Shaq
5. Bird
4. Lebron

3. Magic
2. Jordan
1. Curry

*The spaces reflect somewhat what could be called his tiers*
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[VanWest82]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

The issue with guys like this is even if you assume their way of playing is better than any system could replicate, if you can't reproduce it when they're not on the court then you're left with nothing in those mins. That's not just a Lebron problem but something we saw with Nash and Magic (post Dirk and Kareem) who I assume are both probably lower on the portability scale.

[Max123]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

Correct. I've done a post on this before, but it seems like he prefers stars who can play next to other stars and fit "seemlessly," because it exponentially increases a team's championship odds. Even if in reality, teams GSW are rare, the fact that KD could take a team like that from all-time level to GOAT level offense is really special to him, and the same with Bird and his Celtics.

However, more times than not, the #1 on a championship team has neutral port, and positive port stars are relatively rarely dating back to 1991.

What do you mean by ”positive port stars”? English is not my first language so I don’t think I quite understand fully.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Djoker]

I won't believe for a second that those Heat teams wouldn't be better with Bird instead of Lebron. Not because Bird is a better player (they are very different and Lebron is honestly probably a bit better in a vacuum) but because Bird's fit with that team would be so much better. Wade could have the ball and Bird would play off of him and stretch the D with his shooting. And boy could he move off the ball.

[Doctor MJ]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

A lot of people are confused by the portability concept for understandable reasons - it's an attempted new sense of an existing word which helps with immediate understanding but tends to lead to ambiguity.

I wouldn't feel comfortable saying you don't understand the concept though. You seem to show some good insight here and I get where you're coming from in terms of "theory" vs "practice".

I think it's useful to recognize that we're using portability along with another term "scalability" wherein portability helps with scalability but you can be scalable without being all that portable. And I'd say LeBron's kind of the definition of a highly scalable but not all that portable type of guy. He can play to the very highest levels, but there's an expectation that this would happen by having other fit in with him rather than the other way around.

And I think you would say, "So what, isn't that what you'd always want in practice with LeBron?", and I don't really disagree with you, but I'm also coming at this from the ultra-modern lens where LeBron-ball has put up considerably better ORtg in the playoffs than Jordan-ball ever did. In theory LeBron's lack of portability would make him fit in in less circumstances than Jordan, but if you'd still play through LeBron in basically any circumstances, then this is effectively moot.

But as I say all of this I'm not saying "Ben's definitely wrong" so much as that at present I, like you, am persuaded that this particular point in this particular comparison doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

As I say all of this, when we talk about all around game, I like Ben and most would still have a tendency to side with MJ for the specific reason that LeBron's skills didn't peak at the same time. Combine LeBron's 1st Cavs explosion with his Heat all around came his 2nd Cavs' killer instinct and Laker leadership (in '19-20) and to me you've got a more impressive player than Jordan's best, but LeBron didn't have all of that at once the way Jordan did up to and during the first 3-peat.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Take 5-10 shot attempts per game from MJ so superstar teamnate X can have those shots and you're wasting MJs talent and ending up with the team not doing as well.

Take those possessions from LeBron so teammate X can do whatever his thing is and you're wasting LeBron's talent and ending up with the team not doing as well.

But MJ is more portable and LeBron isn't. Portability seems to boil down to not being an elite distributor so you lose much by farming out distribution to other teammates or a system.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Could it be that Ben actually rates Hakeem as the more impactful defender by a margin then?

I also have a feeling Ben's 3-10 are probably quite interchangable in his mind.

Ben released a podcast on the greatest peaks series where he was asked to rank the 10 best offensive players from the series. Iirc Hakeem was left off the list while Garnett and Duncan shared 10. This basically confirms your suspicion that he must feel that Hakeem was the best defender in the series, by a relatively big margin too.

Edit:
The full list looked something like this with some players being closer to each other than others: (e.g. MJ and Curry; Lebron, Bird and Shaq)
10. Duncan/Garnett (coinflip)

9. Kareem
8. Durant
7. Kobe

6. Shaq
5. Bird
4. Lebron

3. Magic
2. Jordan
1. Curry

*The spaces reflect somewhat what could be called his tiers*
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Link to the podcast
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/76-peaks-finale-playoff-plus-minus/id1428290303?i=1000516818076

[LukaTheGOAT]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

Correct. I've done a post on this before, but it seems like he prefers stars who can play next to other stars and fit "seemlessly," because it exponentially increases a team's championship odds. Even if in reality, teams GSW are rare, the fact that KD could take a team like that from all-time level to GOAT level offense is really special to him, and the same with Bird and his Celtics.

However, more times than not, the #1 on a championship team has neutral port, and positive port stars are relatively rarely dating back to 1991.

What do you mean by ”positive port stars”? English is not my first language so I don’t think I quite understand fully.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Ben has portability go from -2 to 2. -2 is the worst, and 2 is the best. Positive port would be a 1 or a 2.

[Max123]

Correct. I've done a post on this before, but it seems like he prefers stars who can play next to other stars and fit "seemlessly," because it exponentially increases a team's championship odds. Even if in reality, teams GSW are rare, the fact that KD could take a team like that from all-time level to GOAT level offense is really special to him, and the same with Bird and his Celtics.

However, more times than not, the #1 on a championship team has neutral port, and positive port stars are relatively rarely dating back to 1991.

What do you mean by ”positive port stars”? English is not my first language so I don’t think I quite understand fully.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Ben has portability go from -2 to 2. -2 is the worst, and 2 is the best. Positive port would be a 1 or a 2.

I’m dumb. I literally was trying to understand what ”port” means when it’s just short for portability.... lmao. My bad. Anyways, thoughts on his top 10 offensive peaks podcast?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[KTM_2813]

In that podcast, Ben actually addressed the topic of portability and how it has been misinterpreted by some people. He was obviously talking about me!!! Ha.

I appreciated his explanation. The idea seems to be that Player A might improve a 40-win team by 15 wins, but will only improve a 55-win team by 5 wins. Conversely, Player B might only improve a 40-win team by 5 wins, but will improve a 55-win team by 10 wins. In this scenario, Player B is more portable or scalable.

With regards to LeBron specifically, I don't think that we ever saw him truly get an opportunity to simply "raise the ceiling". The only teams he ever played on that may have won 50 games without him were the first three Heat years, but the 2011 version had no depth and the 2012/2013 versions had an injury-hobbled Wade. I guess we'll never really know.

[wickywack]

In that podcast, Ben actually addressed the topic of portability and how it has been misinterpreted by some people. He was obviously talking about me!!! Ha.

I appreciated his explanation. The idea seems to be that Player A might improve a 40-win team by 15 wins, but will only improve a 55-win team by 5 wins. Conversely, Player B might only improve a 40-win team by 5 wins, but will improve a 55-win team by 10 wins. In this scenario, Player B is more portable or scalable.

With regards to LeBron specifically, I don't think that we ever saw him truly get an opportunity to simply "raise the ceiling". The only teams he ever played on that may have won 50 games without him were the first three Heat years, but the 2011 version had no depth and the 2012/2013 versions had an injury-hobbled Wade. I guess we'll never really know.

One, somewhat odd aspect of Lebron's career is the relative lack of great/iconic regular season teams. His teams have met/exceeded a 60 win pace only 3 times in his career. 2 of those occasions were in his first Cleveland stint, when he's generally perceived as having his weakest supporting cast. In contrast, it happened only once in his crazy 8 year finals-making stretch.

In that sense, I do think there is something to the argument that Lebron is the NBA's greatest floor raiser, but not its greatest ceiling raiser.

[Ainosterhaspie]

In that podcast, Ben actually addressed the topic of portability and how it has been misinterpreted by some people. He was obviously talking about me!!! Ha.

I appreciated his explanation. The idea seems to be that Player A might improve a 40-win team by 15 wins, but will only improve a 55-win team by 5 wins. Conversely, Player B might only improve a 40-win team by 5 wins, but will improve a 55-win team by 10 wins. In this scenario, Player B is more portable or scalable.

With regards to LeBron specifically, I don't think that we ever saw him truly get an opportunity to simply "raise the ceiling". The only teams he ever played on that may have won 50 games without him were the first three Heat years, but the 2011 version had no depth and the 2012/2013 versions had an injury-hobbled Wade. I guess we'll never really know.

One, somewhat odd aspect of Lebron's career is the relative lack of great/iconic regular season teams. His teams have met/exceeded a 60 win pace only 3 times in his career. 2 of those occasions were in his first Cleveland stint, when he's generally perceived as having his weakest supporting cast. In contrast, it happened only once in his crazy 8 year finals-making stretch.

In that sense, I do think there is something to the argument that Lebron is the NBA's greatest floor raiser, but not its greatest ceiling raiser.

Part of that is because he notably reduced his effort in the regular season after 2013. The second half of the 2013 season showed us what a well balanced LeBron team could do. They went 38-3 the second half of the season after picking up Chris Anderson who finally gave them a decent 5. The team was balanced and deep for the only time during his Miami tenure and looked like an all time great team. Then Wade got hurt and they never looked the same again.

I think people really underestimate how big a difference one or two role players who fit just right can make.

[Doctor MJ]

In that podcast, Ben actually addressed the topic of portability and how it has been misinterpreted by some people. He was obviously talking about me!!! Ha.

I appreciated his explanation. The idea seems to be that Player A might improve a 40-win team by 15 wins, but will only improve a 55-win team by 5 wins. Conversely, Player B might only improve a 40-win team by 5 wins, but will improve a 55-win team by 10 wins. In this scenario, Player B is more portable or scalable.

With regards to LeBron specifically, I don't think that we ever saw him truly get an opportunity to simply "raise the ceiling". The only teams he ever played on that may have won 50 games without him were the first three Heat years, but the 2011 version had no depth and the 2012/2013 versions had an injury-hobbled Wade. I guess we'll never really know.

So just listened to that podcast and I'd say Ben and I have been thinking about scalability slightly differently.

I was seeing it as a player's ability to stay on the court and thrive against the very toughest competition.

Sounds like he's thinking of it as a kind of "slope" where Player A may always be more valuable than Player B but if the gap gets smaller with better teammates, then Player B is more scalable.

I have no objection to his approach, but it's yet another case where using an existing word allows us to not realize subtle divergences in interpretation.

[70sFan]

Could it be that Ben actually rates Hakeem as the more impactful defender by a margin then?

I also have a feeling Ben's 3-10 are probably quite interchangable in his mind.

Ben released a podcast on the greatest peaks series where he was asked to rank the 10 best offensive players from the series. Iirc Hakeem was left off the list while Garnett and Duncan shared 10. This basically confirms your suspicion that he must feel that Hakeem was the best defender in the series, by a relatively big margin too.

Edit:
The full list looked something like this with some players being closer to each other than others: (e.g. MJ and Curry; Lebron, Bird and Shaq)
10. Duncan/Garnett (coinflip)

9. Kareem
8. Durant
7. Kobe

6. Shaq
5. Bird
4. Lebron

3. Magic
2. Jordan
1. Curry

*The spaces reflect somewhat what could be called his tiers*
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I don't understand the gap between Shaq and Kareem on offense. I'm also confused by lack of Hakeem here - does it mean that Ben views Hakeem's defense as much superior to Garnett's? If so, I can't agree with him because of chosen years - 1995 Hakeem was clearly a step below peak Olajuwon on defense and even his 1994 season wasn't nearly as good as 1993 (and some earlier years).

[homecourtloss]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

As mentioned, Ben’s portability/scalibility discussions address something esle, but is still interesting to look at. Look at the Lakers last year. Played two bigs, didnt have the 5 out spacing, were completely unconventional relative to the league but still won the title and still won. Bottom 10 in 3P attempt rate in the regular season, bottom 5 in the playoffs, and still won. LeBron had his highest assist% season, and also had his highest unassisted FG% of his career.

Through Different eras (rough defense less talent on offense in mid 2000s, more spacing, still rough defenses, move towards 3 point revolution, then to 3 pt era and the extra space needed to be covered on defense, to full pace and space to 3 pt spam era. Played with two bigs, no bigs, 1 stretch big on court. Non scoring shooting Pgs, (PhD Snow for example), etc., and was still successful

[AdagioPace]

Am I the only one who feels a bit confused by the "portability" concept? For example, in the case of LeBron, you have a guy who may have low portability in theory (e.g. likes the ball in his hands, inconsistent outside shooter, isn't especially active off the ball, prefers the four-out offense) but in reality has excelled in basically every basketball situation imaginable (e.g. bad teams without anyone good, good teams with star wings, a good team with a star big, etc.). So he may have a specific way he wants to play in most situations, but it's extremely effective and he has adjusted his game as needed in the past. I dunno... I feel like there may be a bit of a "theory versus practice" conflict happening.

exactly, we've talked about this some pages ago. It's based on the possibility of X player (or his team) performing at X level in X situation, based on the X profiling of the player somebody made which is based on X skills considered more or less portable by some people. As you notice my use of the Xs is a bit ironical. I only did it to show that everything revolving around some concepts is highly speculative, and, most importantly, concerns ideal scenarios.
It's certainly a new refreshing way to look at things, but not my cup of tea, especially when certain considerations end up acquiring too much weight..

[HeartBreakKid]

Could it be that Ben actually rates Hakeem as the more impactful defender by a margin then?

I also have a feeling Ben's 3-10 are probably quite interchangable in his mind.

Ben released a podcast on the greatest peaks series where he was asked to rank the 10 best offensive players from the series. Iirc Hakeem was left off the list while Garnett and Duncan shared 10. This basically confirms your suspicion that he must feel that Hakeem was the best defender in the series, by a relatively big margin too.

Edit:
The full list looked something like this with some players being closer to each other than others: (e.g. MJ and Curry; Lebron, Bird and Shaq)
10. Duncan/Garnett (coinflip)

9. Kareem
8. Durant
7. Kobe

6. Shaq
5. Bird
4. Lebron

3. Magic
2. Jordan
1. Curry

*The spaces reflect somewhat what could be called his tiers*
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I don't understand the gap between Shaq and Kareem on offense. I'm also confused by lack of Hakeem here - does it mean that Ben views Hakeem's defense as much superior to Garnett's? If so, I can't agree with him because of chosen years - 1995 Hakeem was clearly a step below peak Olajuwon on defense and even his 1994 season wasn't nearly as good as 1993 (and some earlier years).

We've talked about this a few times in the past few pages, and yes.