Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[70sFan]

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.

It doesn't make much sense to me then, Hakeem peaked defensively in 1989-93 period and he regressed significantly in 1995.

Even in 1994 he wasn't at his defensive peak anymore - KJ torched him on P&Rs during 1994 Suns WCSF, which wouldn't happen with younger Hakeem. He was visibly more athletic and had higher motor before 1994 and he simply wasn't great P&R defender in terms of positioning and reading guard decisions - Hakeem relied heavily on athleticism and quickness to guard two-man actions. That's why he was far better in 1993 when Rockets used different defensive strategy and Hakeem switched on guards instead of using show or drop coverages.

I remember trex talking about Hakeem (relatively) underwhelming P&R defense compared to other great centers. When I started trakcing Hakeem from 1992/93 season, I thought "What? He looks amazing against P&Rs..." but then I started watching 1993/94 games as well and Olajuwon didn't look that great there and then I got trex points. Hakeem was perfect center to switch onto perimeter defenders, but once he lost some of his quickness and overall motor, his P&R defense also declined. It doesn't mean that it was huge weakness, but the difference between younger Hakeem switching onto guards and shutting them down and older Hakeem playing conservative (and often mediocre) show coverages is pretty significant in my opinion.

Of course he was still amazing defender in these years, but if his defense is what drives his overall impact so much, then I don't agree with Ben's choices about his peak.

[Max123]

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.

It doesn't make much sense to me then, Hakeem peaked defensively in 1989-93 period and he regressed significantly in 1995.

Even in 1994 he wasn't at his defensive peak anymore - KJ torched him on P&Rs during 1994 Suns WCSF, which wouldn't happen with younger Hakeem. He was visibly more athletic and had higher motor before 1994 and he simply wasn't great P&R defender in terms of positioning and reading guard decisions - Hakeem relied heavily on athleticism and quickness to guard two-man actions. That's why he was far better in 1993 when Rockets used different defensive strategy and Hakeem switched on guards instead of using show or drop coverages.

I remember trex talking about Hakeem (relatively) underwhelming P&R defense compared to other great centers. When I started trakcing Hakeem from 1992/93 season, I thought "What? He looks amazing against P&Rs..." but then I started watching 1993/94 games as well and Olajuwon didn't look that great there and then I got trex points. Hakeem was perfect center to switch onto perimeter defenders, but once he lost some of his quickness and overall motor, his P&R defense also declined. It doesn't mean that it was huge weakness, but the difference between younger Hakeem switching onto guards and shutting them down and older Hakeem playing conservative (and often mediocre) show coverages is pretty significant in my opinion.

Of course he was still amazing defender in these years, but if his defense is what drives his overall impact so much, then I don't agree with Ben's choices about his peak.

It’s too bad he skipped over the top 10 defensive peaks in the series because that also came up on the podcast; maybe that could’ve thrown more light on the Hakeem ranking. If we say that he thinks Hakeem is the 12th best offensive player in the series, just behind Duncan and Garnett, and the no contest 1st defensive player in the series would that be enough to justify the #4 ranking. He does say in the Hakeem profile that he thinks Olajuwon was the GOAT rim protector and if you add a horizontal game and awareness that isn’t quite Garnett level but approaching it then I wonder if the gap is big enough defensively.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[70sFan]

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

It doesn't make much sense to me then, Hakeem peaked defensively in 1989-93 period and he regressed significantly in 1995.

Even in 1994 he wasn't at his defensive peak anymore - KJ torched him on P&Rs during 1994 Suns WCSF, which wouldn't happen with younger Hakeem. He was visibly more athletic and had higher motor before 1994 and he simply wasn't great P&R defender in terms of positioning and reading guard decisions - Hakeem relied heavily on athleticism and quickness to guard two-man actions. That's why he was far better in 1993 when Rockets used different defensive strategy and Hakeem switched on guards instead of using show or drop coverages.

I remember trex talking about Hakeem (relatively) underwhelming P&R defense compared to other great centers. When I started trakcing Hakeem from 1992/93 season, I thought "What? He looks amazing against P&Rs..." but then I started watching 1993/94 games as well and Olajuwon didn't look that great there and then I got trex points. Hakeem was perfect center to switch onto perimeter defenders, but once he lost some of his quickness and overall motor, his P&R defense also declined. It doesn't mean that it was huge weakness, but the difference between younger Hakeem switching onto guards and shutting them down and older Hakeem playing conservative (and often mediocre) show coverages is pretty significant in my opinion.

Of course he was still amazing defender in these years, but if his defense is what drives his overall impact so much, then I don't agree with Ben's choices about his peak.

It’s too bad he skipped over the top 10 defensive peaks in the series because that also came up on the podcast; maybe that could’ve thrown more light on the Hakeem ranking. If we say that he thinks Hakeem is the 12th best offensive player in the series, just behind Duncan and Garnett, and the no contest 1st defensive player in the series would that be enough to justify the #4 ranking. He does say in the Hakeem profile that he thinks Olajuwon was the GOAT rim protector and if you add a horizontal game and awareness that isn’t quite Garnett level but approaching it then I wonder if the gap is big enough defensively.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Just to be clear - I do think that peak Hakeem was superior defensive player than Garnett. I just don't agree with Ben's choice as Hakeem's peak because he wasn't on that level anymore in 1995.

[KTM_2813]

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.

It's possible but I personally doubt it. The main reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better defensive player than Bird. The second reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better transition player than Bird (and probably the best transition scorer ever, as Thinking Basketball observed). The final reason is that there were a lot of stretches where LeBron had to pick up the slack for an injured Wade, who missed a meaningful number of regular season games in 2012 and 2014, and wasn't himself in the 2013 or 2014 playoffs despite technically being available every night. I think most would agree that LeBron is preferable to Bird in those kind of "floor raising" scenarios.

While I agree that Bird may have been more valuable than LeBron in certain half-court situations, I'm not quite comfortable discounting the defensive, transition, and floor-raising edge that LeBron brought to the table.

[Max123]

It doesn't make much sense to me then, Hakeem peaked defensively in 1989-93 period and he regressed significantly in 1995.

Even in 1994 he wasn't at his defensive peak anymore - KJ torched him on P&Rs during 1994 Suns WCSF, which wouldn't happen with younger Hakeem. He was visibly more athletic and had higher motor before 1994 and he simply wasn't great P&R defender in terms of positioning and reading guard decisions - Hakeem relied heavily on athleticism and quickness to guard two-man actions. That's why he was far better in 1993 when Rockets used different defensive strategy and Hakeem switched on guards instead of using show or drop coverages.

I remember trex talking about Hakeem (relatively) underwhelming P&R defense compared to other great centers. When I started trakcing Hakeem from 1992/93 season, I thought "What? He looks amazing against P&Rs..." but then I started watching 1993/94 games as well and Olajuwon didn't look that great there and then I got trex points. Hakeem was perfect center to switch onto perimeter defenders, but once he lost some of his quickness and overall motor, his P&R defense also declined. It doesn't mean that it was huge weakness, but the difference between younger Hakeem switching onto guards and shutting them down and older Hakeem playing conservative (and often mediocre) show coverages is pretty significant in my opinion.

Of course he was still amazing defender in these years, but if his defense is what drives his overall impact so much, then I don't agree with Ben's choices about his peak.

It’s too bad he skipped over the top 10 defensive peaks in the series because that also came up on the podcast; maybe that could’ve thrown more light on the Hakeem ranking. If we say that he thinks Hakeem is the 12th best offensive player in the series, just behind Duncan and Garnett, and the no contest 1st defensive player in the series would that be enough to justify the #4 ranking. He does say in the Hakeem profile that he thinks Olajuwon was the GOAT rim protector and if you add a horizontal game and awareness that isn’t quite Garnett level but approaching it then I wonder if the gap is big enough defensively.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Just to be clear - I do think that peak Hakeem was superior defensive player than Garnett. I just don't agree with Ben's choice as Hakeem's peak because he wasn't on that level anymore in 1995.

Yeah, I understood that. Should’ve made my message more clear. Ben did also mention in his video about Hakeem that his motor and speed/agility were weaker in 1995 but I guess he just doesn’t put too much weight on it. For what it’s worth he also did mention that he wouldn’t really trust Hakeem in today’s era to switch high pick and rolls on guards.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Max123]

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.

It's possible but I personally doubt it. The main reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better defensive player than Bird. The second reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better transition player than Bird (and probably the best transition scorer ever, as Thinking Basketball observed). The final reason is that there were a lot of stretches where LeBron had to pick up the slack for an injured Wade, who missed a meaningful number of regular season games in 2012 and 2014, and wasn't himself in the 2013 or 2014 playoffs despite technically being available every night. I think most would agree that LeBron is preferable to Bird in those kind of "floor raising" scenarios.

While I agree that Bird may have been more valuable than LeBron in certain half-court situations, I'm not quite comfortable discounting the defensive, transition, and floor-raising edge that LeBron brought to the table.

I won’t in anyways contest Lebron being a superior transition player to Bird but I’ll say that I do think Bird had some all time level strengths in transition play also. For example his arguably GOAT level outlet passing which would have amazing synergy with someone like Wade (think about the full-court lobs from Lebron to Wade). Additionally, the man was an excellent decision-maker in the fastbreak and his touch passng in those situations is also GOAT level. Finally, if we think about Bird on those Heat teams we would also need to account for the modern era adjustments and I don’t think it would require too much imagination that Bird could be pulling fastbreak threes, not like Steph Curry, but perhaps as a trailer like Dirk Nowitzki.

All in all I will probably agree that Lebron was the superior transition player, GOAT level there with someone like Magic Johnson, but I would remove the word ”significantly”. Any comments perhaps from someone who is more of an expert on Bird or Lebron than I am?

Edit: I think Bird’s lackluster handle and speed perhaps limited him from reaching the likes of Magic and Lebron as a transition player as he couldn’t push the ball down the defense’s throat as they did. However Bird playing either the role of a break starter or as a fastbreak finisher (with his touch passing, shooting and cutting to the rim) would allow Wade to shine in transition more who himself is a great fastbreak player himself.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[70sFan]

For what it’s worth he also did mention that he wouldn’t really trust Hakeem in today’s era to switch high pick and rolls on guards.

I don't agree with him then, young Hakeem was a nightmare to face on perimeter. It's another matter if you look at 1995 Hakeem, who definitely could be exploitable against the best iso guards in the league.

[Max123]

For what it’s worth he also did mention that he wouldn’t really trust Hakeem in today’s era to switch high pick and rolls on guards.

I don't agree with him then, young Hakeem was a nightmare to face on perimeter. It's another matter if you look at 1995 Hakeem, who definitely could be exploitable against the best iso guards in the league.

By the way emphasis is on high pick and rolls, not the usual 80s/90s side pick and rolls. For some perspective, how would you rate peak defensive Hakeem in those switch situations compared to players like peak Draymond Green, 2020 playoffs AD, Bam Adebayo and peak KG?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[KTM_2813]

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.

It's possible but I personally doubt it. The main reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better defensive player than Bird. The second reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better transition player than Bird (and probably the best transition scorer ever, as Thinking Basketball observed). The final reason is that there were a lot of stretches where LeBron had to pick up the slack for an injured Wade, who missed a meaningful number of regular season games in 2012 and 2014, and wasn't himself in the 2013 or 2014 playoffs despite technically being available every night. I think most would agree that LeBron is preferable to Bird in those kind of "floor raising" scenarios.

While I agree that Bird may have been more valuable than LeBron in certain half-court situations, I'm not quite comfortable discounting the defensive, transition, and floor-raising edge that LeBron brought to the table.

I won’t in anyways contest Lebron being a superior transition player to Bird but I’ll say that I do think Bird had some all time level strengths in transition play also. For example his arguably GOAT level outlet passing which would have amazing synergy with someone like Wade (think about the full-court lobs from Lebron to Wade). Additionally, the man was an excellent decision-maker in the fastbreak and his touch passng in those situations is also GOAT level. Finally, if we think about Bird on those Heat teams we would also need to account for the modern era adjustments and I don’t think it would require too much imagination that Bird could be pulling fastbreak threes, not like Steph Curry, but perhaps as a trailer like Dirk Nowitzki.

All in all I will probably agree that Lebron was the superior transition player, GOAT level there with someone like Magic Johnson, but I would remove the word ”significantly”. Any comments perhaps from someone who is more of an expert on Bird or Lebron than I am?

Edit: I think Bird’s lackluster handle and speed perhaps limited him from reaching the likes of Magic and Lebron as a transition player as he couldn’t push the ball down the defense’s throat as they did. However Bird playing either the role of a break starter or as a fastbreak finisher (with his touch passing, shooting and cutting to the rim) would allow Wade to shine in transition more who himself is a great fastbreak player himself.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

All great points! Perhaps it is more accurate to say that LeBron was likely better in transition but maybe not an entire tier above.

[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.

It's possible but I personally doubt it. The main reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better defensive player than Bird. The second reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better transition player than Bird (and probably the best transition scorer ever, as Thinking Basketball observed). The final reason is that there were a lot of stretches where LeBron had to pick up the slack for an injured Wade, who missed a meaningful number of regular season games in 2012 and 2014, and wasn't himself in the 2013 or 2014 playoffs despite technically being available every night. I think most would agree that LeBron is preferable to Bird in those kind of "floor raising" scenarios.

While I agree that Bird may have been more valuable than LeBron in certain half-court situations, I'm not quite comfortable discounting the defensive, transition, and floor-raising edge that LeBron brought to the table.

Floor raising isn't what I was talking about though. Besides Bird came as a rookie and dragged a 29-win team the year before to 60 wins. Yes there were some roster changes but he was a major floor raiser too and I don't see why Bird couldn't elevate Bosh plus that Heat cast to a pretty record as well. And besides in the playoffs Wade was there and floor-raising wasn't necessary. I think the fact that Lebron was staying in the corner when Wade had the ball in halfcourt (which even Ben pointed out) is a pretty low standard to beat. Bird would at least use his gravity to pull defenders and give Wade driving lanes and of course is a way better spot up shooter and off-ball passer than Lebron. His game would mesh a lot better with Wade's game. I don't know how this is an argument.

Doesn't mean that there aren't players Lebron would mesh better with. But Bird + Wade look like a better duo than Lebron + Wade.

I don't think Lebron's better defense and transition edge even come close to make up for that kind of halfcourt deficit.

[drza]

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..

Re: portability. Just my 2 cents, but in this thread I think the concept isn't being understood and/or utilized correctly, and it's leading to backlash that I'm not sure is warranted. Portability, as I understand it, can be expressed simply using the concept of diminishing returns. A portable player is one that can be added to any given team, and the team improve by a margin analogous to that player's max impact.

Example using basic (non-ironical) Xs:

Player X has an impact of +6 in a floor raising situation

Add player X to an average team, and they should get better by 6

Add player X to an elite team, and they should get better by 6

If this happens in all possible team scenarios, player X is perfectly portable.

In the case of LeBron, the portability argument isn't that he's ever not the best player on any given team. It's also not that he can't lead teams to championships (which would be clearly and demonstrably false). It's that, the teams he's added to don't always increase by the amount of his max impact. For example, those Heat teams built around a peak Wade and Bosh should have been (conservatively) a top-3 seed, to +5ish SRS conference-contending team. At that time, LeBron was (let's say) a +8 player. When you added him to those Heat, they went from being conference contenders to champions...from +5ish to say +8sh SRS teams. That's a clear improvement...but it's not near a +8 improvement. And part of the reason was the diminishing returns between LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and how they would need to use similar (but limited) resources to each be maximized.

Continuing that example, someone upthread argued the Heat would've been better with Bird in LeBron's place. Not wading into whether or not that take is correct, the reason why that take exists is that even if Bird may not have been as great as LeBron (call him +7 to LeBron's +8 in this example), Bird's ability to wreak havoc in ways that mesh better with what Wade and Bosh like to do could've allowed the Heat team to theoretically improve to (say) +9ish instead of +8ish.

(Don't get caught up in the arbitrary numbers used. Just see if the point I'm trying to make, makes sense)

Look. TL/DR. My whole point here, is, we're making this a more difficult, nebulous concept than it is. Portability is essentially the ability of a player to prevent/minimize diminishing returns in the widest number of circumstances. YMMV as to how valuable that is, but at it's heart it's not a complicated concept. Ben's just one of the first to make the attempt to quantify it.

[70sFan]

For what it’s worth he also did mention that he wouldn’t really trust Hakeem in today’s era to switch high pick and rolls on guards.

I don't agree with him then, young Hakeem was a nightmare to face on perimeter. It's another matter if you look at 1995 Hakeem, who definitely could be exploitable against the best iso guards in the league.

By the way emphasis is on high pick and rolls, not the usual 80s/90s side pick and rolls. For some perspective, how would you rate peak defensive Hakeem in those switch situations compared to players like peak Draymond Green, 2020 playoffs AD, Bam Adebayo and peak KG?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Again, it depends on what version of Hakeem you look at. I'll try to make a longer thread about that, but not within a month - I don't have much free time recently.

[KTM_2813]

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.

It's possible but I personally doubt it. The main reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better defensive player than Bird. The second reason is that peak LeBron was a significantly better transition player than Bird (and probably the best transition scorer ever, as Thinking Basketball observed). The final reason is that there were a lot of stretches where LeBron had to pick up the slack for an injured Wade, who missed a meaningful number of regular season games in 2012 and 2014, and wasn't himself in the 2013 or 2014 playoffs despite technically being available every night. I think most would agree that LeBron is preferable to Bird in those kind of "floor raising" scenarios.

While I agree that Bird may have been more valuable than LeBron in certain half-court situations, I'm not quite comfortable discounting the defensive, transition, and floor-raising edge that LeBron brought to the table.

Floor raising isn't what I was talking about though. Besides Bird came as a rookie and dragged a 29-win team the year before to 60 wins. Yes there were some roster changes but he was a major floor raiser too and I don't see why Bird couldn't elevate Bosh plus that Heat cast to a pretty record as well. And besides in the playoffs Wade was there and floor-raising wasn't necessary. I think the fact that Lebron was staying in the corner when Wade had the ball in halfcourt (which even Ben pointed out) is a pretty low standard to beat. Bird would at least use his gravity to pull defenders and give Wade driving lanes and of course is a way better spot up shooter and off-ball passer than Lebron. His game would mesh a lot better with Wade's game. I don't know how this is an argument.

Doesn't mean that there aren't players Lebron would mesh better with. But Bird + Wade look like a better duo than Lebron + Wade.

I don't think Lebron's better defense and transition edge even come close to make up for that kind of halfcourt deficit.

I dunno. That's a large swath of the game to just kind of handwave away.

[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..

Re: portability. Just my 2 cents, but in this thread I think the concept isn't being understood and/or utilized correctly, and it's leading to backlash that I'm not sure is warranted. Portability, as I understand it, can be expressed simply using the concept of diminishing returns. A portable player is one that can be added to any given team, and the team improve by a margin analogous to that player's max impact.

Example using basic (non-ironical) Xs:

Player X has an impact of +6 in a floor raising situation

Add player X to an average team, and they should get better by 6

Add player X to an elite team, and they should get better by 6

If this happens in all possible team scenarios, player X is perfectly portable.

In the case of LeBron, the portability argument isn't that he's ever not the best player on any given team. It's also not that he can't lead teams to championships (which would be clearly and demonstrably false). It's that, the teams he's added to don't always increase by the amount of his max impact. For example, those Heat teams built around a peak Wade and Bosh should have been (conservatively) a top-3 seed, to +5ish SRS conference-contending team. At that time, LeBron was (let's say) a +8 player. When you added him to those Heat, they went from being conference contenders to champions...from +5ish to say +8sh SRS teams. That's a clear improvement...but it's not near a +8 improvement. And part of the reason was the diminishing returns between LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and how they would need to use similar (but limited) resources to each be maximized.

Continuing that example, someone upthread argued the Heat would've been better with Bird in LeBron's place. Not wading into whether or not that take is correct, the reason why that take exists is that even if Bird may not have been as great as LeBron (call him +7 to LeBron's +8 in this example), Bird's ability to wreak havoc in ways that mesh better with what Wade and Bosh like to do could've allowed the Heat team to theoretically improve to (say) +9ish instead of +8ish.

(Don't get caught up in the arbitrary numbers used. Just see if the point I'm trying to make, makes sense)

Look. TL/DR. My whole point here, is, we're making this a more difficult, nebulous concept than it is. Portability is essentially the ability of a player to prevent/minimize diminishing returns in the widest number of circumstances. YMMV as to how valuable that is, but at it's heart it's not a complicated concept. Ben's just one of the first to make the attempt to quantify it.

I like your explanation drza because it focuses on impact rather than qualitative skills. I think Taylor sometimes tends to be more conceptual and less numerical than you.
The problematic bit is applying it to theoretical scenarios (Bird should be highly portable but .....what do we know how that team would perform?). Making a final ranking between players seems an even more ephemeral exercise.
It comes in handy, for sure, when players have actually played in as many teams or configutions as possible (with good results).

PS: some years ago I also found your blog (I think I have it in my bookmarks somehwere ...I think it was a page about Shaq vs Duncan)

[tone wone]

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.

Its all a bunch of nonsense to me.

The entire concept seems to be rooted in the idea of "space". Not spacing, like shooting, but the amount of space one occupies inside an offense....like furniture in a room or items in a closet. That on-ball creators are cumbersome and leave little room for their teammates to do anything but finish plays off their passes. While off-ball creators are lean and light, and leave tons of room for teammates to spread their wings. As a result, we conclude the cumbersome on-ball guys will struggle to maintain impact next to other creators. While the off-ball guys will maintain theirs with little issue. I just don't buy it.

It only makes sense as a theory but once you discuss actually players and actual teams it falls flat. There's no stock 50win team templent. So you can't theorize how adding a certain player-type would move the margins .

Also, why is portability only an offensive concept? What about defense.

[Doctor MJ]

Its all a bunch of nonsense to me.

The entire concept seems to be rooted in the idea of "space". Not spacing, like shooting, but the amount of space one occupies inside an offense....like furniture in a room or items in a closet. That on-ball creators are cumbersome and leave little room for their teammates to do anything but finish plays off their passes. While off-ball creators are lean and light, and leave tons of room for teammates to spread their wings. As a result, we conclude the cumbersome on-ball guys will struggle to maintain impact next to other creators. While the off-ball guys will maintain theirs with little issue. I just don't buy it.

It only makes sense as a theory but once you discuss actually players and actual teams it falls flat. There's no stock 50win team templent. So you can't theorize how adding a certain player-type would move the margins .

Also, why is portability only an offensive concept? What about defense.

I like a lot of your thoughts here - though not all of them.

First thing I'll say is that portability & scalability are not offense-only concepts, it's just that that's where most of the analysis tends to focus. The player who represents something of a gold standard here is KG.

Re: Can't theorize how adding a certain player-type would move the margins. Not only can we, but it's basically a requirement to my mind. I always go back to what John Wooden said to Gail Goodrich (paraphrasing): "At any given time there's 1 guy with the ball and 9 guys without it, if you can't give me anything when you're one of the 9 guys, you're not getting on the court at all."

It's long been known that there's only one ball to go around so any player who demands to be the guy with the ball a lot isn't going to work too well with other guys like himself.

The same is true to varying degree with many roles, including your defensive anchor.

This doesn't mean you never want to have two offensive or defensive alphas on your team, but you have to expect to encounter diminishing returns.

[Outside]

Spoiler:

The one thing I was hoping for was that he'd break the unassailable peak Jordan cliche and go with LeBron at #1. He focused a lot on how their offensive differences and used the portability argument (which I'm a big critic of) to give Jordan the edge. But imo there's far more evidence to support LeBron having a not so insignificant edge on defense than there is for Jordan being the better offensive player.

I'm skeptical of his portability argument as well. For one it wasn't tested with Jordan. He never played with Wade level scorer, so it's all speculative how the two would mesh. Would Wade just defer to 26 year old ringless Jordan when he already had a FMVP. Would Jordan even try to let Wade be a Co #1 that first year. It seems plausible if not likely that Jordan and Wade spend the year vying for control and Wade ends up bitter because Jordan doesn't give him the shot.

But giving Jordan shots to Wade almost certainly lowers the team's offensive ceiling. The best scorer can't score evey possession; there is an equilibrium point where more scoring by the best player is counter productive and another where less scoring by that player is counter productive, and I'm not convinced that transferring Jordan possessions to Wade (or some other premiere scorer) is that great an idea.

When it comes to James it's playmaking not scoring that is at issue, but the same concept applies. Take playmaking opportunities from James and you're almost certainly putting them in the hands of someone who won't be as good as James was in that role. You drop below the equilibrium point with playmakimg volume by James.. Put James next to Paul or Nash instead of Irving or Wade and there's a good chance transferring playmaking to those guys improves the offense. This is because they are elite or maybe better than James in that area.

The biggest issue I have with portability with respect to James is that he is elite at almost everything, above league average at three point shooting (at least in his peak years 2012-14), and only rates low in the least efficient scoring skill set-mid range shooting. That's something you want to avoid anyway most of the time. Put him with an elite distributor or in a well developed offensive system and he would be a highly effective cutter and finisher. He flashes that potential here and there through the years, buy never played in a system or with a player that was great at distributing the ball in those kinds of spots.

You see a little of the flawed mindset when he talks about Magic. It's almost like he's saying that being an elite distributor is a bad thing because no one else can do it as well as the elite distributor so no matter what things get worse when distribution is taken from the elite distributor.

Yeah, the conclusion of Jordan's game being more portable doesn't really sit well with me. I understand the general idea of off-ball, quick-hittling offensive anchors having an easier time assimilating into various offensive environments than their more on-ball decision-making counterparts.... but I reject the idea of MJs specific brand of attack being one of them.

Were not talking about Shaq's insane rim pressure or Steph's bending defenses 30ft out. Nor are we talking about Bird's clever passing. MJs quick-hiting attack was like if you moved Shaq away from the rim and out to 15-20ft. Pretty much everything he did off the ball was in service of him getting a shot. This is devasting and creates insane openings when its done at the rim (like Shaq) or from 28ft out (like Curry) but if done in the midrange I don't see how other star scorers would find it easier playing next to a guy whose hunting shots as much as Jordan did.

IIRC, Ben's discussion about Jordan's portability was specifically in reference to LeBron and which of them to place first vs second, and he made the point that, to be at his best, LeBron required a very specific roster construction and offense, which I do think is true. If you accept that argument, then LeBron has, by definition, less portability than Jordan.

Of course, it's all shading by degrees, as is the whole notion of placing all-time greats in a set order when many of them are so close that the idea of separating them becomes subjective and even arbitrary. I personally think that ranking players in tiers more accurately reflects reality, but the nature of providing content requires creating lists with players in a specific order since establishing that order is often what generates the most discussion, as evidenced by this thread.

[Outside]

There is very little evidence to believe that Hakeem is clearly better scorer than Duncan.

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

1995 playoffs was the season Olajuwon led an extremely successful team offense. It's hard to agree with 1994 Rockets being extremely successful on offense and Duncan did anything like 1995 playoffs of Olajuwon fwiw.

Duncan averaged 25.8 pts per game on a 100.8 ppg team, 37.1 pts per 100 on +9.9 rts and the Spurs had +9.6 rORtg in 2006 playoffs.
This is not far from Olajuwon scoring 33.0 pts per game on a 107.0 ppg team, 40.7 pts per 100 on +2.0 rts and the Rockets having +8.1 rORtg in 1995 playoffs.

And we already know that Duncan's offensive performances and impact in 2002&2003 playoffs are on par with Olajuwon's 1994 playoffs. Even if we look at team rORtg the Spurs had +3.8 rORtg in 2002 playoffs (+5.5 if we account for the game he missed against the Sonics in the 1st round) and +2.6 rORtg in 2003 playoffs. 2002 and 2003 are not too far off of 1994 Rockets' +4.7 rORtg. Especially considering the spacing and the shooting around Olajuwon were definitely better.

In the Duncan/Hakeem debate, or really Duncan vs anyone, the thing is that this series is about peaks. To me, part of what makes Duncan so special is maintaining such a high level of performance over such a long period of time. While you can say he had a peak, his career is more accurately depicted as an exceptionally high plateau that tapered off. That differs from many all-time greats who had a more pronounced peak, and with that, more pronounced relative lows on either side of the peak. Walton would be the extreme example of that, barely having enough to qualify for a three-season peak but reaching spectacular heights during that peak.

I don't consider it a negative that Duncan didn't have a peak that was considerably pronounced, but the fact is that a career like that won't rank as highly when assessing peaks. Duncan played 19 seasons. He averaged 19.0 points for his career, and his season high was 25.5. He averaged 10.8 rebounds for his career, and his season high was 12.5. His PS numbers are somewhat "peakier" but show similar resiliency. Consistency defines his career more than a peak. Given that, it's remarkable that he even broke into the top ten.

[Max123]

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

1995 playoffs was the season Olajuwon led an extremely successful team offense. It's hard to agree with 1994 Rockets being extremely successful on offense and Duncan did anything like 1995 playoffs of Olajuwon fwiw.

Duncan averaged 25.8 pts per game on a 100.8 ppg team, 37.1 pts per 100 on +9.9 rts and the Spurs had +9.6 rORtg in 2006 playoffs.
This is not far from Olajuwon scoring 33.0 pts per game on a 107.0 ppg team, 40.7 pts per 100 on +2.0 rts and the Rockets having +8.1 rORtg in 1995 playoffs.

And we already know that Duncan's offensive performances and impact in 2002&2003 playoffs are on par with Olajuwon's 1994 playoffs. Even if we look at team rORtg the Spurs had +3.8 rORtg in 2002 playoffs (+5.5 if we account for the game he missed against the Sonics in the 1st round) and +2.6 rORtg in 2003 playoffs. 2002 and 2003 are not too far off of 1994 Rockets' +4.7 rORtg. Especially considering the spacing and the shooting around Olajuwon were definitely better.

In the Duncan/Hakeem debate, or really Duncan vs anyone, the thing is that this series is about peaks. To me, part of what makes Duncan so special is maintaining such a high level of performance over such a long period of time. While you can say he had a peak, his career is more accurately depicted as an exceptionally high plateau that tapered off. That differs from many all-time greats who had a more pronounced peak, and with that, more pronounced relative lows on either side of the peak. Walton would be the extreme example of that, barely having enough to qualify for a three-season peak but reaching spectacular heights during that peak.

I don't consider it a negative that Duncan didn't have a peak that was considerably pronounced, but the fact is that a career like that won't rank as highly when assessing peaks. Duncan played 19 seasons. He averaged 19.0 points for his career, and his season high was 25.5. He averaged 10.8 rebounds for his career, and his season high was 12.5. His PS numbers are somewhat "peakier" but show similar resiliency. Consistency defines his career more than a peak. Given that, it's remarkable that he even broke into the top ten.

I’ve heard people say this same thing about Duncan not having a peak but I don’t really understand it. Don’t almost all things one could possibly look at clearly point at 2003 as an amazing peak with his performance dropping going farther back or forwards in time?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Outside]

1995 playoffs was the season Olajuwon led an extremely successful team offense. It's hard to agree with 1994 Rockets being extremely successful on offense and Duncan did anything like 1995 playoffs of Olajuwon fwiw.

Duncan averaged 25.8 pts per game on a 100.8 ppg team, 37.1 pts per 100 on +9.9 rts and the Spurs had +9.6 rORtg in 2006 playoffs.
This is not far from Olajuwon scoring 33.0 pts per game on a 107.0 ppg team, 40.7 pts per 100 on +2.0 rts and the Rockets having +8.1 rORtg in 1995 playoffs.

And we already know that Duncan's offensive performances and impact in 2002&2003 playoffs are on par with Olajuwon's 1994 playoffs. Even if we look at team rORtg the Spurs had +3.8 rORtg in 2002 playoffs (+5.5 if we account for the game he missed against the Sonics in the 1st round) and +2.6 rORtg in 2003 playoffs. 2002 and 2003 are not too far off of 1994 Rockets' +4.7 rORtg. Especially considering the spacing and the shooting around Olajuwon were definitely better.

In the Duncan/Hakeem debate, or really Duncan vs anyone, the thing is that this series is about peaks. To me, part of what makes Duncan so special is maintaining such a high level of performance over such a long period of time. While you can say he had a peak, his career is more accurately depicted as an exceptionally high plateau that tapered off. That differs from many all-time greats who had a more pronounced peak, and with that, more pronounced relative lows on either side of the peak. Walton would be the extreme example of that, barely having enough to qualify for a three-season peak but reaching spectacular heights during that peak.

I don't consider it a negative that Duncan didn't have a peak that was considerably pronounced, but the fact is that a career like that won't rank as highly when assessing peaks. Duncan played 19 seasons. He averaged 19.0 points for his career, and his season high was 25.5. He averaged 10.8 rebounds for his career, and his season high was 12.5. His PS numbers are somewhat "peakier" but show similar resiliency. Consistency defines his career more than a peak. Given that, it's remarkable that he even broke into the top ten.

I’ve heard people say this same thing about Duncan not having a peak but I don’t really understand it. Don’t almost all things one could possibly look at clearly point at 2003 as an amazing peak with his performance dropping going farther back or forwards in time?

The point is that, compared to other players, the difference between any three-season peak and the surrounding seasons is much less dramatic than it is for others.