KD’s GOAT tier portability

[tsherkin]

I generally think of stretch 4s having always been a thing, it just got lost in the low-talent/expansion riddled 70s before returning.

Dolph Schayes went pro in the 40s for goodness sakes.

There have been outliers across all of league history. But even back then, you had 5s who could do it, right. Bellamy. Jerry Lucas. Even Kareem had some range, though nothing like contemporary range, obviously.

It's the evolution of the idea over decades more than the specific label, and of course the proliferation into a league standard instead of an individual example.

I gave the most iconic early example, but my position is that it has been common for the whole history of the league.

Sort of but also no. Guys having some kind of jump shot at that position has been around for a long time, sure, but not to the degree or strategic purpose we've seen more recently.

[Heej]

There have been outliers across all of league history. But even back then, you had 5s who could do it, right. Bellamy. Jerry Lucas. Even Kareem had some range, though nothing like contemporary range, obviously.

It's the evolution of the idea over decades more than the specific label, and of course the proliferation into a league standard instead of an individual example.

I gave the most iconic early example, but my position is that it has been common for the whole history of the league.

Sort of but also no. Guys having some kind of jump shot at that position has been around for a long time, sure, but not to the degree or strategic purpose we've seen more recently.

Yea I probably should've made that more my point. Bigs with guard skills for their era have always been the class of the league. I think every generational big was more akin to a hybrid than they were to a classic standard big. But there's more bigs with more guard skills now.

[tsherkin]

Yea I probably should've made that more my point. Bigs with guard skills for their era have always been the class of the league. I think every generational big was more akin to a hybrid than they were to a classic standard big. But there's more bigs with more guard skills now.

Yeah, the dominant bigs of most eras have had more than just under-rim/low block skills, for sure, Shaq, Mikan and Wilt notwithstanding. Kareem had a bit more range and could face up a little when he was younger (especially as a Buck). Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, all at least 15 feet of range and some slashing. Even Zo had some range. And that's not even counting some of the other impressive bigs from the 60s and 70s. And then we started to see more of Dirk and KG and so forth, and bigger wings with skills and all that.

They've stood out in earlier eras. It's more standard now, I think is the difference.

[Heej]

Yea I probably should've made that more my point. Bigs with guard skills for their era have always been the class of the league. I think every generational big was more akin to a hybrid than they were to a classic standard big. But there's more bigs with more guard skills now.

Yeah, the dominant bigs of most eras have had more than just under-rim/low block skills, for sure, Shaq, Mikan and Wilt notwithstanding. Kareem had a bit more range and could face up a little when he was younger (especially as a Buck). Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, all at least 15 feet of range and some slashing. Even Zo had some range. And that's not even counting some of the other impressive bigs from the 60s and 70s. And then we started to see more of Dirk and KG and so forth, and bigger wings with skills and all that.

They've stood out in earlier eras. It's more standard now, I think is the difference.

Yup and even those 3 were pretty good pivot passers for their time. But now pivot and short roll passing is basically starting to become part of standard skillsets for playoff centers depending on how PnR vs off-ball screen heavy your offense is.

[tsherkin]

Yup and even those 3 were pretty good pivot passers for their time.

Certainly. And Shaq, particularly in his younger days, was good in transition and particularly good about off-ball movement in and around the key. But yeah, once you got into the circle (even the bottom) or out of the key, he was toast.

But now pivot and short roll passing is basically starting to become part of standard skillsets for playoff centers depending on how PnR vs off-ball screen heavy your offense is.

Yep. It's a far cry from when the Utah offense was one of the most structured and advanced of its time, heh. Corner shooters, heavy PnR, sets that we see in HS now. Groundbreaking in its time, of course, and extremely effective compared to what most other teams were doing. Same same with the triangle. "Aha, actively searching for spacing and good passing with ball reversal!" Good times.

[eminence]

There have been outliers across all of league history. But even back then, you had 5s who could do it, right. Bellamy. Jerry Lucas. Even Kareem had some range, though nothing like contemporary range, obviously.

It's the evolution of the idea over decades more than the specific label, and of course the proliferation into a league standard instead of an individual example.

I gave the most iconic early example, but my position is that it has been common for the whole history of the league.

Sort of but also no. Guys having some kind of jump shot at that position has been around for a long time, sure, but not to the degree or strategic purpose we've seen more recently.

I agree that all strategies are sharper. The addition of the 3 pt line also pulls players further than they otherwise would be. The widening of the lane contributed too. In the 'key' days there were simply fewer incentives to be far from the hoop at any given time.

But I think more of them played on the perimeter than you'd think.

[tsherkin]

I agree that all strategies are sharper. The addition of the 3 pt line also pulls players further than they otherwise would be. The widening of the lane contributed too. In the 'key' days there were simply fewer incentives to be far from the hoop at any given time.

Agreed.

But I think more of them played on the perimeter than you'd think.

Not really. I mean, they played more than the narrative suggests, sure, but I've seen plenty of ball from the 60s onward, I'm reasonably comfortable with my remarks.

[lessthanjake]

Good job, you've finally achieved level 1 in understanding how basketball works. Generating an advantage against a scheme. Yes, you're right those schemes sacrifice an advantage elsewhere on the court in order to take away a primary proficiency.

Lol, this is so didactic, and what’s funny about it is that you seem to think there’s something to be proud of in understanding *extremely* basic concepts. Like, there is no one here who doesn’t understand this stuff. Not everyone posts about X’s and O’s all the time, because there are many other interesting angles from which to discuss basketball—a lot of which are more empirical and therefore often easier to concretely discuss. But basketball is *really* not complicated, and the fact that you take great pride in understanding concepts that a 10-year-old could easily grasp just from watching a few basketball games is perhaps telling. Everyone here understands the extremely basic concepts you talk about. It would be essentially impossible to watch basketball (let alone play it!) and not understand it. You are not saying anything smart, and it is wild that you make posts dripping with a feeling of superiority seemingly caused by your pride at understanding basic things that everyone else inherently grasps. It's like if someone started talking down to people, saying how they know algebra and the people they're talking to do not. And it's like, no, everyone else knows it too, but you're the only one so proud of that that you are shouting from the rooftops with pride about it.

Now I'm gonna need you to take the next step forward in understanding what happens on a basketball court and comprehend that generated advantages now need to ultimately be extended and finished. Players with better ancillary skills like say an on-ball spec'd guy who has enough skill to relocate and get the ball on the move before a defense can load up, or is able to attack the glass and draw in another defender now is able to extend that advantage and hopefully lead to it being finished.

Lol! This is a clearly self-defeating point. You’re stating that, in order to capitalize on an advantage created by a guy on the ball, another “on-ball spec’d” guy should have the “skill to relocate and get the ball on the move before a defense can load up, or is able to attack the glass and draw in another defender.” But those are off-ball skills! If a guy excels at those things then he is excelling at some of the very kinds of off-ball qualities that I’m talking about as things that make a guy more “portable.” You’re essentially arguing that it’s just as good to have two on-ball-focused guys because one of the on-ball guys can also excel as an off-ball guy. I think this should mostly end this discussion, because your own post essentially conceded that I am right.

And your example about the on-ball and off-ball players are precisely why I say you don't really understand Xs and Os because there's a very simple coverage people use nowadays to deal with guys like that who can't create anything off the bounce... switching LMFAO. Or just keeping it simple and chasing the guy over top and having the 4 or 5 dropped in the paint.

Yeah, no. Switching doesn’t adequately deal with a player who is genuinely good off the ball, for a whole ton of reasons that I shouldn't have to explain to a tactical guru such as yourself. For now, I'll just note that players are easier to beat off the ball than on it (because the offensive player is not encumbered by having a ball to dribble), so a single defender (switched or not) is typically not going to be enough to deal with a great off-ball threat. I'll also note that it is very easy off ball to get a head of steam and be traveling with much greater speed than the person who switches onto you (and that's particularly bad for the defense if it's a big), so merely switching on an off-ball screen can often give the off-ball guy a clear advantage over his new defender. These sorts of reasons are why you don't see a player like Steph merely being defended with switches. Switching usually helps, but more attention is required than just that. And that's not even getting into the fact that if the defense switches everything because of the off-ball guy, then it becomes even easier for the offense to get the on-ball-focused guy the ball with an easy matchup. Just run off-ball screens and/or a fake DHO and, if the other team is always switching on that off-ball guy, then you can get your on-ball-focused guy whatever matchup you want. Of course, you could potentially get the favorable switch in other ways, but if you’ve got a supreme off-ball threat that the other team is always switching on then it makes it even easier, and thereby potentially makes your on-ball guy even more effective. Another example of the relationship between the two types of players being symbiotic because of their ability to extract value at the same time.

Overall, it seems clear that you have a very one-dimensional way of thinking about basketball. You do seem to understand what a defense can do to try to counter something the offense does, but then you apparently just stop thinking about it and don’t get to the second-order thoughts—which involve how what the defense is doing makes things easier for others, and how you want players that can optimally exploit what the defense is giving up (which, I’ll note, is an odd second-order thought to fail to get to in such an offensively-slanted era of basketball). Like, yes, you can blitz a great on-ball player, and you can switch on a great off-ball player. But, when you’ve got both a great on-ball and great off-ball player, doing either of those things makes it easier for the other person to immediately play to their strengths and optimally exploit the defense. This becomes a lot harder when you’ve got players with redundant strengths and weaknesses. It’s much easier to scheme against and actually force the offense into weaknesses, rather than strengths.

Of course, to be fair to you, your point in part has been that having versatility is good. And of course that’s true! Being good at everything is better than being good at less than everything! But real basketball teams aren’t just filled with 2K players with 99 in every attribute. Even really good players have relative strengths and weaknesses in their game. For some players, that weakness is really bad, while for the best players it’s usually just relatively less good. Either way, though, the defense will always try to force players onto their relative weakness. But if you have players that complement each other well by being able to simultaneously pressure the defense with their strengths, you can force the defense to have to choose to give up one of the player’s strengths, rather than being able to force the offense into a weakness. And it’s teams that can do that (and do it with really good players—since the relative strength of a mediocre player still isn't that good) that are the very best and most unstoppable offensively.

[Heej]

Good job, you've finally achieved level 1 in understanding how basketball works. Generating an advantage against a scheme. Yes, you're right those schemes sacrifice an advantage elsewhere on the court in order to take away a primary proficiency.

Lol, this is so didactic, and what’s funny about it is that you seem to think there’s something to be proud of in understanding *extremely* basic concepts. Like, there is no one here who doesn’t understand this stuff. Not everyone posts about X’s and O’s all the time, because there are many other interesting angles from which to discuss basketball—a lot of which are more empirical and therefore often easier to concretely discuss. But basketball is *really* not complicated, and the fact that you take great pride in understanding concepts that a 10-year-old could easily grasp just from watching a few basketball games is perhaps telling. Everyone here understands the extremely basic concepts you talk about. It would be essentially impossible to watch basketball (let alone play it!) and not understand it. You are not saying anything smart, and it is wild that you make posts dripping with a feeling of superiority seemingly caused by your pride at understanding basic things that everyone else inherently grasps. It's like if someone started talking down to people, saying how they know algebra and the people they're talking to do not. And it's like, no, everyone else knows it too, but you're the only one so proud of that that you are shouting from the rooftops with pride about it.

Now I'm gonna need you to take the next step forward in understanding what happens on a basketball court and comprehend that generated advantages now need to ultimately be extended and finished. Players with better ancillary skills like say an on-ball spec'd guy who has enough skill to relocate and get the ball on the move before a defense can load up, or is able to attack the glass and draw in another defender now is able to extend that advantage and hopefully lead to it being finished.

Lol! This is a clearly self-defeating point. You’re stating that, in order to capitalize on an advantage created by a guy on the ball, another “on-ball spec’d” guy should have the “skill to relocate and get the ball on the move before a defense can load up, or is able to attack the glass and draw in another defender.” But those are off-ball skills! If a guy excels at those things then he is excelling at some of the very kinds of off-ball qualities that I’m talking about as things that make a guy more “portable.” You’re essentially arguing that it’s just as good to have two on-ball-focused guys because one of the on-ball guys can also excel as an off-ball guy. I think this should mostly end this discussion, because your own post essentially conceded that I am right.

And your example about the on-ball and off-ball players are precisely why I say you don't really understand Xs and Os because there's a very simple coverage people use nowadays to deal with guys like that who can't create anything off the bounce... switching LMFAO. Or just keeping it simple and chasing the guy over top and having the 4 or 5 dropped in the paint.

Yeah, no. Switching doesn’t adequately deal with a player who is genuinely good off the ball, for a whole ton of reasons that I shouldn't have to explain to a tactical guru such as yourself. For now, I'll just note that players are easier to beat off the ball than on it (because the offensive player is not encumbered by having a ball to dribble), so a single defender (switched or not) is typically not going to be enough to deal with a great off-ball threat. I'll also note that it is very easy off ball to get a head of steam and be traveling with much greater speed than the person who switches onto you (and that's particularly bad for the defense if it's a big), so merely switching on an off-ball screen can often give the off-ball guy a clear advantage over his new defender. These sorts of reasons are why you don't see a player like Steph merely being defended with switches. Switching usually helps, but more attention is required than just that. And that's not even getting into the fact that if the defense switches everything because of the off-ball guy, then it becomes even easier for the offense to get the on-ball-focused guy the ball with an easy matchup. Just run off-ball screens and/or a fake DHO and, if the other team is always switching on that off-ball guy, then you can get your on-ball-focused guy whatever matchup you want. Of course, you could potentially get the favorable switch in other ways, but if you’ve got a supreme off-ball threat that the other team is always switching on then it makes it even easier, and thereby potentially makes your on-ball guy even more effective. Another example of the relationship between the two types of players being symbiotic because of their ability to extract value at the same time.

Overall, it seems clear that you have a very one-dimensional way of thinking about basketball. You do seem to understand what a defense can do to try to counter something the offense does, but then you apparently just stop thinking about it and don’t get to the second-order thoughts—which involve how what the defense is doing makes things easier for others, and how you want players that can optimally exploit what the defense is giving up (which, I’ll note, is an odd second-order thought to fail to get to in such an offensively-slanted era of basketball). Like, yes, you can blitz a great on-ball player, and you can switch on a great off-ball player. But, when you’ve got both a great on-ball and great off-ball player, doing either of those things makes it easier for the other person to immediately play to their strengths and optimally exploit the defense. This becomes a lot harder when you’ve got players with redundant strengths and weaknesses. It’s much easier to scheme against and actually force the offense into weaknesses, rather than strengths.

Of course, to be fair to you, your point in part has been that having versatility is good. And of course that’s true! Being good at everything is better than being good at less than everything! But real basketball teams aren’t just filled with 2K players with 99 in every attribute. Even really good players have relative strengths and weaknesses in their game. For some players, that weakness is really bad, while for the best players it’s usually just relatively less good. Either way, though, the defense will always try to force players onto their relative weakness. But if you have players that complement each other well by being able to simultaneously pressure the defense with their strengths, you can force the defense to have to choose to give up one of the player’s strengths, rather than being able to force the offense into a weakness. And it’s teams that can do that (and do it with really good players—since the relative strength of a mediocre player still isn't that good) that are the very best and most unstoppable offensively.

No s*** it's simple. That's why I'm telling you that you guys overthink it by saying teams are better off getting specialists that through a laborious process of mixing and matching can cover eachother's weakness rather than just understanding the obvious truth that it's easier to play basketball with guys who can do more on the floor.

And I love how you fall right into my point of going through this dialectical thinking process of either/or when it comes to on-ball and off-ball skills when in reality you're better off having a guy who can do a bit of both vs a guy who's super specialized in one and below par at another. What I'm actually arguing is that on-ball skill scales just as much as off-ball skill despite how much it hurts for the overthinkers to read that.

And it's even more telling that you don't even understand the point I'm making and tried to pawn it off by saying "your post essentially conceded I am right" while completely missing what I'm saying. There's a great quote from Game of Thrones that relates to this: "Any man who must say, 'I am the king' is no true king." If you feel flustered enough to tell people that you're right, then you're probably not right. And you're especially not right by saying teams haven't been able to effectively switch on Steph. I can count 2 Lebron series' alone ('16 and '23) where the teams employed that strategy on him.

Good switching absolutely can beat players that are only good off-ball as long as it's communicated early and the guy switching onto the screener is able to get under the screener and prevent getting pinned on their back for a rim roll, and the guy switching out is able to deny the action. But this is why I say your actual basketball knowledge beyond a spreadsheet is laughably low because I'm sure you don't even understand any of the requisite detailed fundamentals to execute any of these schemes properly.

Maybe it's easier to generate an advantage off-ball than on-ball (arguable because the pass still needs to get you on time and on target adding another variable), too bad if you're not actually versatile enough to extend that advantage once you get the ball on the move it's all for naught. And your examples of running stuff off-ball while the guy on-ball is attacking is hilarious because it clearly speaks to someone who really only looks at basketball how it's played on paper.

Let's go through your suggestions: if you're setting screens on the strongside for your primary shooter then the ballhandler needs to at least wait for it to play out otherwise you risk running your actions into eachother and causing a record scratch, seeing as how a true off-ball mover is going to be hunting for the opportunities to cut into the paint on a botched switch. If you're setting them on the weakside it's fairly easily switched with one guy coming to take the low man and the other guy staying high. Defenses are too good now and just having gravity isn't enough in most cases as those shooters can easily be run off the line, so there's no true advantage generated like that anymore.

Instead as a playoff series goes more games you'll more often see shooters getting open off roll gravity than from simple screening actions, and it's why one dimensional shooters tend to get their water shut off as a series progresses.

If you're running a DHO for the shooter, presumably it must be with the big man because if it's just between your main ballhandler and the shooter defenses can easily switch that and neuter the action. If it's with the big man they can just chase the shooter over the top and force them to create and turn them over, or more likely just record scratch and reset the offense.

The projection is laughable hear calling my view of basketball when the only thing you can talk about is what players are strong at on the court without any understanding of why the weaknesses matter even more; nor barely acknowledging the existence of said weaknesses.

Also it's hilarious that you project your inability to think through second order thoughts (these are called "progressions" in basketball btw lil guy, might wanna brush up on your bball parlance ) when the basis of this point is that guys need to shore up their ancillary skills in the modern NBA now such that they can leverage their primary ones. You don't think defenses take this into account?

The whole point is that when you have one dimensional guys you're easily able to live with the math being in your favor by sacrificing an advantage taking away one guy's strength and betting that the other players will be unable to extend or finish that advantage often enough for their team to win.

It's also hilarious how you seem so focused on forcing this idea that opposing skillsets work with eachother the best when we've seen time and time again how 2 lead ballhandlers can easily set eachother up for driving opportunities by collapsing and kicking or how 2 elite shooters like Steph and Klay are able to leverage eachothers' gravity off-ball to generate open looks. All the overthinkers just can't possibly conceive of the fact that it's more about the quality of players and their myriad skillsets that matter more than just trying to fit the perfect oddly shaped puzzle pieces together

And I disagree that if teams see 2 one-dimensional guys that they have to choose between letting one of them shine. There's 5 people on a basketball court and modern rules allow you to use any wacky combination of alignments you can think of as long as you're not in the paint for 3 seconds without guarding anyone.

I truly do understand why you think that it's just better to have opposing strengths because it looks good on paper. And I'd even go so far as to say that vs bottom feeder teams with poor attention to detail in the regular season that might be enough to generate +EV on its own. But I really only care about the playoffs and we can see a pretty recent example of this idea being flipped on its head during the Lakers-Warriors 2nd round series last season.

These were 2 evenly matched teams going into the series, despite what revisionist history would have you believe. Steve Kerr decided to throw all caution to the wind after Game 1 and spam Steph PnR, so this is about as perfect an analogue I can think of recently to the point you're trying to argue. Theoretically the Lakers should not have been able to take away both Steph's on-ball play and Klay's off-ball mastery right? That's the real pick your poison after all.

But what did we actually see happen? The Lakers were able to completely nerf Klay by top locking him on off-ball screens, and allowing the back cut funnel him into the paint. Surely this must have taken out the entire help Defense on that side for Steph to cook right? Wrong. Instead Steph was forced to try and go at a late switching AD in space and often 1v1. Steph ultimately ended up having a series marred by middling efficiency, relatively poor turnover economy, and sub-par execution down the stretch of games (likely due to to fatigue).

Whereas if that team wasn't built with so many one dimensional specialists, but rather multifaced players who can extend and finish generated advantages then maybe Steve Kerr could've played classic Warriors-ball instead of forcing Steph into hero-ball.

And I disagree with your last statement. The best teams are the ones that have the most answers to the most schemes that are literally unstoppable offensively.

[lessthanjake]

.

Your post is genuinely too long for me to fully respond to. Not a criticism of you there (though, as a sidenote, the post still was didactic in a silly way), since I know my post was pretty long too, but it’s definitely spiraled into something larger than my willingness to respond. There’s a lot of minor points I could respond to—where I think you’re either wrong or misunderstanding what I’ve said—but I don’t really think it’s worth it to go through them all.

I will just make one more foundational point that I think you’re really misunderstanding about what I’m saying, though:

I am not talking about actually “one-dimensional” players. All this discussion has been explicitly conditional on the idea that we are talking about really good players (because “portability” is about what happens on really good teams, and you need really good players to have a really good team). And, as I said, it’s about the *relative* strengths and weaknesses of the players. I’m not talking about an off-ball-focused player that can’t put the ball on the floor. That’s typically not a really good player at all (and, please note that I don’t think Klay Thompson is really good), and if your very best players are guys like that, then you’re likely not a really good team for which ceiling raising is relevant in the first place. What I’m talking about is a great player whose *relative* strength is off the ball, not some one-dimensional guy who can only play off the ball. As an example, I’m talking much more about a guy like Steph than a guy like Klay.

In a sense, then, I’m not even sure that we’re really all that far apart here (or at least I think you may be mostly talking past me). You seem to primarily be saying that having hyper-specialists isn’t good. And what I’m saying is that, conditional on having really good players, I think a guy is more “portable” when he has a relative strength off the ball, because I think that’s a rarer relative strength. I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. That “conditional on having really good players” part of what I’m saying essentially takes away the hyper-specialists from the equation, since those just aren’t really good players IMO. I’m talking about teams with really good players, and really good players obviously have a good degree of versatility! It’s just that, as I said, really good players still have relative strengths and relative weaknesses. And I think it’s best when those relative strengths complement each other as much as possible, in a way that makes it as difficult as possible for the defense to take both strengths away at once. That doesn’t mean I want someone with such a huge weakness in his game that it’s a disaster if/when he actually is forced to go to it! It just means that I’d generally want someone with the less common relative strength, because I think that’s more likely to add to the multi-dimensionality of the offense.

The one counterpoint you seem to make to that being ideal is to bring up Steph and Klay leveraging each others’ off-ball gravity, but I think that gets to a key point—which is that players whose relative strength is off the ball don’t step on each others’ toes as much as ones whose relative strengths are both on the ball. And that’s for the obvious reason that there’s only one ball, whereas there’s no artificial limit to how many people can be doing their off-ball thing at the same time. Indeed, multiple off-ball threats can actually compound on each other in their effectiveness, similar to how an on-ball and off-ball guy can (note: to some degree, multiple on-ball threats can potentially makes things easier on each other too, but it’s less naturally done and less effective, due to the whole only-one-ball thing)! This is another reason, beyond scarcity of on-ball vs. off-ball focused guys, that a guy with a relative strength off-ball is more “portable” than one whose relative strength is on-ball—overlap in relative strengths is actually still genuinely good with that sort of guy! That said, if your team is invested in having multiple guys who prefer being off the ball, it does run the risk of the team not having anyone who is proficient on the ball when those guys are operating off it. But, of course, that’s part of why Draymond—with his great passing ability—always fit so well with them.

[Heej]

.

Your post is genuinely too long for me to fully respond to. Not a criticism of you there (though, as a sidenote, the post still was didactic in a silly way), since I know my post was pretty long too, but it’s definitely spiraled into something larger than my willingness to respond. There’s a lot of minor points I could respond to—where I think you’re either wrong or misunderstanding what I’ve said—but I don’t really think it’s worth it to go through them all.

I will just make one more foundational point that I think you’re really misunderstanding about what I’m saying, though:

I am not talking about actually “one-dimensional” players. All this discussion has been explicitly conditional on the idea that we are talking about really good players (because “portability” is about what happens on really good teams, and you need really good players to have a really good team). And, as I said, it’s about the *relative* strengths and weaknesses of the players. I’m not talking about an off-ball-focused player that can’t put the ball on the floor. That’s typically not a really good player at all (and, please note that I don’t think Klay Thompson is really good), and if your very best players are guys like that, then you’re likely not a really good team for which ceiling raising is relevant in the first place. What I’m talking about is a great player whose *relative* strength is off the ball, not some one-dimensional guy who can only play off the ball. As an example, I’m talking much more about a guy like Steph than a guy like Klay.

In a sense, then, I’m not even sure that we’re really all that far apart here (or at least I think you may be mostly talking past me). You seem to primarily be saying that having hyper-specialists isn’t good. And what I’m saying is that, conditional on having really good players, I think a guy is more “portable” when he has a relative strength off the ball, because I think that’s a rarer relative strength. I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. That “conditional on having really good players” part of what I’m saying essentially takes away the hyper-specialists from the equation, since those just aren’t really good players IMO. I’m talking about teams with really good players, and really good players obviously have a good degree of versatility! It’s just that, as I said, really good players still have relative strengths and relative weaknesses. And I think it’s best when those relative strengths complement each other as much as possible, in a way that makes it as difficult as possible for the defense to take both strengths away at once. That doesn’t mean I want someone with such a huge weakness in his game that it’s a disaster if/when he actually is forced to go to it! It just means that I’d generally want someone with the less common relative strength, because I think that’s more likely to add to the multi-dimensionality of the offense.

The one counterpoint you seem to make to that being ideal is to bring up Steph and Klay leveraging each others’ off-ball gravity, but I think that gets to a key point—which is that players whose relative strength is off the ball don’t step on each others’ toes as much as ones whose relative strengths are both on the ball. And that’s for the obvious reason that there’s only one ball, whereas there’s no artificial limit to how many people can be doing their off-ball thing at the same time. Indeed, multiple off-ball threats can actually compound on each other in their effectiveness, similar to how an on-ball and off-ball guy can (note: to some degree, multiple on-ball threats can potentially makes things easier on each other too, but it’s less naturally done and less effective, due to the whole only-one-ball thing)! This is another reason, beyond scarcity of on-ball vs. off-ball focused guys, that a guy with a relative strength off-ball is more “portable” than one whose relative strength is on-ball—overlap in relative strengths is actually still genuinely good with that sort of guy! That said, if your team is invested in having multiple guys who prefer being off the ball, it does run the risk of the team not having anyone who is proficient on the ball when those guys are operating off it. But, of course, that’s part of why Draymond—with his great passing ability—always fit so well with them.

Well yea man clearly there's a sliding scale of different attributes we're talking about here. But at a high level in the playoffs vs equivalent competition there's a clear threshold one must clear in various attributes to maintain efficacy against specific schemes. Better defenders and coaches raise the bar you need to clear so even from a relative sense everything I've said is true regarding to certain archetypes getting schemed out.

Also I disagree about off-ball skill being uncommon. 80% of players in the NBA aren't good enough to see significant ballhandling duties so by necessity people have to work on their off-ball game. You can see it right now on the Phoenix Suns where theoretically their big 3 had enough off-ball and on-ball skills to function offensively, but there's a threshold you need to clear to be a playoff/contender level lead ballhandler. And imo that threshold is a lot higher than the threshold you need to clear to generate advantages off-ball imo, but on the flip side once you clear that threshold you're way more of a consistent threat to breakdown defenses.

There's a reason why LeBron has led better playoff offenses than a lot of the portability darlings, and there's a reason why his teams don't run into the same brick wall of stagnation next to high quality talent the way Durant repeatedly has. He's versatile because he clears those efficacy thresholds in multiple categories which makes him more resilient and gives his teams a higher ceiling when you look at the numbers despite what the Overthinking Basketball crowd tries to gaslight people into believing.

[lessthanjake]

Well yea man clearly there's a sliding scale of different attributes we're talking about here. But at a high level in the playoffs vs equivalent competition there's a clear threshold one must clear in various attributes to maintain efficacy against specific schemes. Better defenders and coaches raise the bar you need to clear so even from a relative sense everything I've said is true regarding to certain archetypes getting schemed out.

Also I disagree about off-ball skill being uncommon. 80% of players in the NBA aren't good enough to see significant ballhandling duties so by necessity people have to work on their off-ball game. You can see it right now on the Phoenix Suns where theoretically their big 3 had enough off-ball and on-ball skills to function offensively, but there's a threshold you need to clear to be a playoff/contender level lead ballhandler. And imo that threshold is a lot higher than the threshold you need to clear to generate advantages off-ball imo, but on the flip side once you clear that threshold you're way more of a consistent threat to breakdown defenses.

There's a reason why LeBron has led better playoff offenses than a lot of the portability darlings, and there's a reason why his teams don't run into the same brick wall of stagnation next to high quality talent the way Durant repeatedly has. He's versatile because he clears those efficacy thresholds in multiple categories which makes him more resilient and gives his teams a higher ceiling when you look at the numbers despite what the Overthinking Basketball crowd tries to gaslight people into believing.

Two quick things, since I think we’ve mostly narrowed things such that there’s not much meaningful disagreement:

1. I didn’t suggest off-ball skill is uncommon in an absolute sense. In an absolute sense, all skills are common in NBA players! Rather, I think really good NBA players are more likely to have their *relative* strength come on the ball, rather than off it. There’s probably a lot of reasons for this, but I think a big one is just that when you’re someone who will become an NBA player, you are miles better than everyone around you growing up and it just makes sense for any team you’re on to give you the ball a ton, so those skills naturally get developed more. Maybe this factor will go down as kids start playing really organized basketball at a younger and younger age now. Or maybe that’s not the right explanation. But I do intuitively think I’m right that, in relative terms, really good players tend to excel more on the ball than off it.

2. I think the main reason why LeBron’s teams generally do better than Durant’s teams is that LeBron is a substantially better basketball player than Durant. A player can be more “portable” and a worse NBA player such that the other guy still would be expected to have better teams if they’re both the best guy on their team.

[itsxtray]

KD is not that portable when you can't build your offense around the guy...He can't win without a prime Curry or Westbrook.

Shouldn't a player with "GOAT tier portability" be able to win anywhere other than the most stacked team in NBA history?

I've posted before about my distaste for "portability" as a concept in general, but it really breaks down when trying to apply it to KD. It's like people have forgotten his last couple years on the Warriors when he gave up on playing within the system and went back to his old familiar isoball. There were entire playoff games where he'd have 0 or 1 assists while playing with Curry and Klay in their primes. That shouldn't even be possible, but somehow he managed to do it. His griping about being uncomfortable playing with Booker and Beal is kind of the same issue.

KD has demonstrated throughout his career that he's only willing to play one specific way and the rest of the team has to adjust to him, not the other way around. I don't know how that fits into any definition of portability.

So, I think we need a better talk on the idea of portability.

A star player can't retain impact when he isn't the focal player. He can continue to provide value, which is why off-ball guys with nasty shots are considered quite portable vs. helio guys, but they won't exert the same level of impact as when they were the focus.

So to circle back to your Golden State example... if they are running the ball through Draymond and emphasizing Steph and Klay, how often is KD actually going to have an opportunity to produce box score stats other than catch-and-shoots and other play-finishing results? So griefing him over assist production seems pointless.

Golden State used to spam the Steph-KD PnR and all KD did was float after the screen and try to post up the switch. He could've racked up hella assists in that system just as a short roller or even just plain catching and attacking in space then kicking early vs the collapse instead of uselessly floating.

This definitely isn't true and any Warriors fan would tell you. Kerr isn't one to spam pick & rolls unless he absolutely has to and with that team he rarely had to.

Kerr on Lowe's podcast:
"We could go Steph - KD pick and roll all season and get open shots, and I understand that. But if you think about our team, if we were built like Cleveland, if we had Kyle Korver, Frye and Love, that makes perfect sense. Now you’ve got the floor spaced, you just have three-point shooters everywhere but we have playmakers everywhere. Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, Shaun Livingston. I want those guys making plays. I want them with the ball in their hands. I learned this from Phil Jackson and the Triangle. When everyone is involved, touching the ball, and cutting and screening, there’s a magic that happens, there’s something special, where guys feel empowered. Their defense gets better because they’re involved. What’s important for me as a coach is to play the style we do. Draymond getting 8 assists a game makes his defense better. When he’s making a play, we’ve got Steph and Klay on the perimeter spacing the floor, it works. We had the greatest offensive rating in the history of the league this year, so it obviously works."

It was also insanely effective when they used it regardless of any of Durant's perceived limitations.

Zach Lowe:
"The Warriors kept this bad boy under wraps last season until crisis moments in the playoffs, including the closing stretch of their clinching NBA Finals victory. They ran only 5.8 per 100 possessions, according to Second Spectrum tracking data via NBA Advanced Stats. In January, they busted it out at almost double that rate -- 11 times per 100 possessions. The Warriors have scored an insane 1.33 points per possession when that Curry-Durant dance leads to a shot from one of those two, or an attempt from a teammate one pass away, per Second Spectrum. That is the best figure among 301 duos who have run at least 100 pick-and-rolls together."

Also, note that 11 times per 100 possessions is still tiny compared to what most pick & roll heavy teams use.
How is Durant gonna rack up "hella assists" on an action they used 11 times per 100 possessions at it's peak usage? Finally, if an action is scoring you 1.33 ppp there’s no issue of portability, that's a perfect, gamebreaking fit.

[Heej]

Well yea man clearly there's a sliding scale of different attributes we're talking about here. But at a high level in the playoffs vs equivalent competition there's a clear threshold one must clear in various attributes to maintain efficacy against specific schemes. Better defenders and coaches raise the bar you need to clear so even from a relative sense everything I've said is true regarding to certain archetypes getting schemed out.

Also I disagree about off-ball skill being uncommon. 80% of players in the NBA aren't good enough to see significant ballhandling duties so by necessity people have to work on their off-ball game. You can see it right now on the Phoenix Suns where theoretically their big 3 had enough off-ball and on-ball skills to function offensively, but there's a threshold you need to clear to be a playoff/contender level lead ballhandler. And imo that threshold is a lot higher than the threshold you need to clear to generate advantages off-ball imo, but on the flip side once you clear that threshold you're way more of a consistent threat to breakdown defenses.

There's a reason why LeBron has led better playoff offenses than a lot of the portability darlings, and there's a reason why his teams don't run into the same brick wall of stagnation next to high quality talent the way Durant repeatedly has. He's versatile because he clears those efficacy thresholds in multiple categories which makes him more resilient and gives his teams a higher ceiling when you look at the numbers despite what the Overthinking Basketball crowd tries to gaslight people into believing.

Two quick things, since I think we’ve mostly narrowed things such that there’s not much meaningful disagreement:

1. I didn’t suggest off-ball skill is uncommon in an absolute sense. In an absolute sense, all skills are common in NBA players! Rather, I think really good NBA players are more likely to have their *relative* strength come on the ball, rather than off it. There’s probably a lot of reasons for this, but I think a big one is just that when you’re someone who will become an NBA player, you are miles better than everyone around you growing up and it just makes sense for any team you’re on to give you the ball a ton, so those skills naturally get developed more. Maybe this factor will go down as kids start playing really organized basketball at a younger and younger age now. Or maybe that’s not the right explanation. But I do intuitively think I’m right that, in relative terms, really good players tend to excel more on the ball than off it.

2. I think the main reason why LeBron’s teams generally do better than Durant’s teams is that LeBron is a substantially better basketball player than Durant. A player can be more “portable” and a worse NBA player such that the other guy still would be expected to have better teams if they’re both the best guy on their team.

Yeah I agree that players will tend to develop with ball skills growing up being local standouts, but like I said the threshold for maintaining efficacy as a ballhandler is a lot higher than being effective off-ball. Unless the guy has grown up as a PG or point forward their entire lives, there's been points where they learned how to function off-ball or as a secondary ballhandler as well.

The real problem most great players have, and why so many have had portions of their career needing to have the ball in their hands is because there just aren't that many good ballhandlers around. It's actually the most difficult skill to learn in basketball. Just because it's disproportionately represented in the population of really good players doesn't make it less necessary a skill to have in the hands of others. There's only so much juice one can have in the tank.

I just don't agree with the argument that simply because you think good players have ball skills that it makes off-ball skills any more valuable. I'd consider them equally valuable in their own ways due to the fact that both are needed to be able to exploit all schemes. And realistically, if you had to argue for one it's far more likely that on-ball skills are more valuable due to the high skill bar needing to be cleared to be a contender level lead ballhandler. Which is what we see in championship teams with multiple playmakers that can absorb playmaking duties.

Also, because it takes less relative skill to perform off-ball maneuvers any old Joe Schmoe former high school star that makes it to the NBA like PatBev can learn how to play and cut off-ball. It's not hard to reach the necessary threshold of scalability for that. It takes far less IQ, body control, and spatial awareness to be an off-ball guy lol. In fact that's why so many players say they needed to change their game once they made it to the A and fulfill a role.

As far as LeBron being better sure, but not significantly so to the point that someone who's theoretically a more scalable player shouldn't have offensive impact signals with better teammates that scale higher. We're talking about a guy that when they clash head to head at their peaks will be the best player in a game 3 times out of 7 to Brons 4. This isn't an order of magnitude's worth of difference lol. And yet LeBron has peaked/averaged higher on team playoff offenses than either Durant or Curry AND has had a better offense than what they produced with a superior supporting cast playing together. That really shouldn't happen if the gospel that the Portability truthers have latched on to is actually the truth. But ironically, it seems much of the way high level basketball has evolved and developed over the years contradicts what the Portability truthers have preached for years now in terms of what archetypes should fit better (LOL Suns).

Maybe, just maybe, off ball skill just isn't as big of a deal when it comes to scalability vs other more difficult to acquire skills. Or maybe they're really just all around the same level of value and you need guys who can do them all at a high level to win. I truly just don't see any argument for why it's rarer or more valuable; other than people have a guy they want to prop up who isn't capable of being a Helio and thus we need another way to explain why they're just as good even though the numbers don't really say it.

[Heej]

So, I think we need a better talk on the idea of portability.

A star player can't retain impact when he isn't the focal player. He can continue to provide value, which is why off-ball guys with nasty shots are considered quite portable vs. helio guys, but they won't exert the same level of impact as when they were the focus.

So to circle back to your Golden State example... if they are running the ball through Draymond and emphasizing Steph and Klay, how often is KD actually going to have an opportunity to produce box score stats other than catch-and-shoots and other play-finishing results? So griefing him over assist production seems pointless.

Golden State used to spam the Steph-KD PnR and all KD did was float after the screen and try to post up the switch. He could've racked up hella assists in that system just as a short roller or even just plain catching and attacking in space then kicking early vs the collapse instead of uselessly floating.

This definitely isn't true and any Warriors fan would tell you. Kerr isn't one to spam pick & rolls unless he absolutely has to and with that team he rarely had to.

Kerr on Lowe's podcast:
"We could go Steph - KD pick and roll all season and get open shots, and I understand that. But if you think about our team, if we were built like Cleveland, if we had Kyle Korver, Frye and Love, that makes perfect sense. Now you’ve got the floor spaced, you just have three-point shooters everywhere but we have playmakers everywhere. Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, Shaun Livingston. I want those guys making plays. I want them with the ball in their hands. I learned this from Phil Jackson and the Triangle. When everyone is involved, touching the ball, and cutting and screening, there’s a magic that happens, there’s something special, where guys feel empowered. Their defense gets better because they’re involved. What’s important for me as a coach is to play the style we do. Draymond getting 8 assists a game makes his defense better. When he’s making a play, we’ve got Steph and Klay on the perimeter spacing the floor, it works. We had the greatest offensive rating in the history of the league this year, so it obviously works."

It was also insanely effective when they used it regardless of any of Durant's perceived limitations.

Zach Lowe:
"The Warriors kept this bad boy under wraps last season until crisis moments in the playoffs, including the closing stretch of their clinching NBA Finals victory. They ran only 5.8 per 100 possessions, according to Second Spectrum tracking data via NBA Advanced Stats. In January, they busted it out at almost double that rate -- 11 times per 100 possessions. The Warriors have scored an insane 1.33 points per possession when that Curry-Durant dance leads to a shot from one of those two, or an attempt from a teammate one pass away, per Second Spectrum. That is the best figure among 301 duos who have run at least 100 pick-and-rolls together."

Also, note that 11 times per 100 possessions is still tiny compared to what most pick & roll heavy teams use.
How is Durant gonna rack up "hella assists" on an action they used 11 times per 100 possessions at it's peak usage? Finally, if an action is scoring you 1.33 ppp there’s no issue of portability, that's a perfect, gamebreaking fit.

Yea except for the fact that like any new team you never show off your pet play the first year until it's winning time. Just like the Lakers using the LeBron-AD pick and roll sparingly in the bubble until the playoffs. Then they ramp up its usage over time. This reads like quotes during the 2018 season where the Warriors built that more into their playbook as the year went on. Press X to doubt 11/100 possessions was anywhere near the peak usage in the playoffs when it was necessitated to break schemes which is what this is about mate. Racking up 3-5 assists isn't an outlandish ask lmao. And not all of those need be out of the PnR. Just swing the f***in rock

Alternately, one can just say those 2 are extremely f***ing good. Maybe even 2 of the 3 best players in the NBA at the time one might say. Did it ever occur to you that Durant never managed to find the same level of effectiveness running PnR with other star ballhandlers? They averaged 1.33PPP despite the fact that Durant was one dimensional in how he handled those; and that speaks to just how insanely good those two were at the time. Something truly gamebreaking would've been LeBron as a roller seeing as how he could either short roll or do what Durant did and post the switch.

[itsxtray]

Golden State used to spam the Steph-KD PnR and all KD did was float after the screen and try to post up the switch. He could've racked up hella assists in that system just as a short roller or even just plain catching and attacking in space then kicking early vs the collapse instead of uselessly floating.

This definitely isn't true and any Warriors fan would tell you. Kerr isn't one to spam pick & rolls unless he absolutely has to and with that team he rarely had to.

Kerr on Lowe's podcast:
"We could go Steph - KD pick and roll all season and get open shots, and I understand that. But if you think about our team, if we were built like Cleveland, if we had Kyle Korver, Frye and Love, that makes perfect sense. Now you’ve got the floor spaced, you just have three-point shooters everywhere but we have playmakers everywhere. Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, Shaun Livingston. I want those guys making plays. I want them with the ball in their hands. I learned this from Phil Jackson and the Triangle. When everyone is involved, touching the ball, and cutting and screening, there’s a magic that happens, there’s something special, where guys feel empowered. Their defense gets better because they’re involved. What’s important for me as a coach is to play the style we do. Draymond getting 8 assists a game makes his defense better. When he’s making a play, we’ve got Steph and Klay on the perimeter spacing the floor, it works. We had the greatest offensive rating in the history of the league this year, so it obviously works."

It was also insanely effective when they used it regardless of any of Durant's perceived limitations.

Zach Lowe:
"The Warriors kept this bad boy under wraps last season until crisis moments in the playoffs, including the closing stretch of their clinching NBA Finals victory. They ran only 5.8 per 100 possessions, according to Second Spectrum tracking data via NBA Advanced Stats. In January, they busted it out at almost double that rate -- 11 times per 100 possessions. The Warriors have scored an insane 1.33 points per possession when that Curry-Durant dance leads to a shot from one of those two, or an attempt from a teammate one pass away, per Second Spectrum. That is the best figure among 301 duos who have run at least 100 pick-and-rolls together."

Also, note that 11 times per 100 possessions is still tiny compared to what most pick & roll heavy teams use.
How is Durant gonna rack up "hella assists" on an action they used 11 times per 100 possessions at it's peak usage? Finally, if an action is scoring you 1.33 ppp there’s no issue of portability, that's a perfect, gamebreaking fit.

Yea except for the fact that like any new team you never show off your pet play the first year until it's winning time. Just like the Lakers using the LeBron-AD pick and roll sparingly in the bubble until the playoffs. Then they ramp up its usage over time. This reads like quotes during the 2018 season where the Warriors built that more into their playbook as the year went on. Press X to doubt 11/100 possessions was anywhere near the peak usage in the playoffs when it was necessitated to break schemes which is what this is about mate. Racking up 3-5 assists isn't an outlandish ask lmao. And not all of those need be out of the PnR. Just swing the f***in rock

Alternately, one can just say those 2 are extremely f***ing good. Maybe even 2 of the 3 best players in the NBA at the time one might say. Did it ever occur to you that Durant never managed to find the same level of effectiveness running PnR with other star ballhandlers? They averaged 1.33PPP despite the fact that Durant was one dimensional in how he handled those; and that speaks to just how insanely good those two were at the time. Something truly gamebreaking would've been LeBron as a roller seeing as how he could either short roll or do what Durant did and post the switch.

You used the word spam, not me. I'm just refuting that cause it's clearly not true. Also, they didn't even spam it in the playoffs, only in clutch time really, and they destroyed teams when they did. Finally, the only time he really struggled passing was against the Rockets in 2018, everything other than that was perfectly fine and he was very good when he bought in.

5.2 assists vs the Spurs, 4.8 vs the Pelicans, 2.7 vs the Rockets, and 7.5 vs the Cavs, who were most aggressive with their coverages which he benefitted from and exploited. Also, lol at saying "something truly gamebreaking" as if the Curry/Durant pick & roll wasn't that. Go ask Lebron if he thinks the Curry/Durant pick & roll was gamebreaking.

[Heej]

This definitely isn't true and any Warriors fan would tell you. Kerr isn't one to spam pick & rolls unless he absolutely has to and with that team he rarely had to.

Kerr on Lowe's podcast:
"We could go Steph - KD pick and roll all season and get open shots, and I understand that. But if you think about our team, if we were built like Cleveland, if we had Kyle Korver, Frye and Love, that makes perfect sense. Now you’ve got the floor spaced, you just have three-point shooters everywhere but we have playmakers everywhere. Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, Shaun Livingston. I want those guys making plays. I want them with the ball in their hands. I learned this from Phil Jackson and the Triangle. When everyone is involved, touching the ball, and cutting and screening, there’s a magic that happens, there’s something special, where guys feel empowered. Their defense gets better because they’re involved. What’s important for me as a coach is to play the style we do. Draymond getting 8 assists a game makes his defense better. When he’s making a play, we’ve got Steph and Klay on the perimeter spacing the floor, it works. We had the greatest offensive rating in the history of the league this year, so it obviously works."

It was also insanely effective when they used it regardless of any of Durant's perceived limitations.

Zach Lowe:
"The Warriors kept this bad boy under wraps last season until crisis moments in the playoffs, including the closing stretch of their clinching NBA Finals victory. They ran only 5.8 per 100 possessions, according to Second Spectrum tracking data via NBA Advanced Stats. In January, they busted it out at almost double that rate -- 11 times per 100 possessions. The Warriors have scored an insane 1.33 points per possession when that Curry-Durant dance leads to a shot from one of those two, or an attempt from a teammate one pass away, per Second Spectrum. That is the best figure among 301 duos who have run at least 100 pick-and-rolls together."

Also, note that 11 times per 100 possessions is still tiny compared to what most pick & roll heavy teams use.
How is Durant gonna rack up "hella assists" on an action they used 11 times per 100 possessions at it's peak usage? Finally, if an action is scoring you 1.33 ppp there’s no issue of portability, that's a perfect, gamebreaking fit.

Yea except for the fact that like any new team you never show off your pet play the first year until it's winning time. Just like the Lakers using the LeBron-AD pick and roll sparingly in the bubble until the playoffs. Then they ramp up its usage over time. This reads like quotes during the 2018 season where the Warriors built that more into their playbook as the year went on. Press X to doubt 11/100 possessions was anywhere near the peak usage in the playoffs when it was necessitated to break schemes which is what this is about mate. Racking up 3-5 assists isn't an outlandish ask lmao. And not all of those need be out of the PnR. Just swing the f***in rock

Alternately, one can just say those 2 are extremely f***ing good. Maybe even 2 of the 3 best players in the NBA at the time one might say. Did it ever occur to you that Durant never managed to find the same level of effectiveness running PnR with other star ballhandlers? They averaged 1.33PPP despite the fact that Durant was one dimensional in how he handled those; and that speaks to just how insanely good those two were at the time. Something truly gamebreaking would've been LeBron as a roller seeing as how he could either short roll or do what Durant did and post the switch.

You used the word spam, not me. I'm just refuting that cause it's clearly not true. Also, they didn't even spam it in the playoffs, only in clutch time really, and they destroyed teams when they did. Finally, the only time he really struggled passing was against the Rockets in 2018, everything other than that was perfectly fine and he was very good when he bought in.

5.2 assists vs the Spurs, 4.8 vs the Pelicans, 2.7 vs the Rockets, and 7.5 vs the Cavs, who were most aggressive with their coverages which he benefitted from and exploited. Also, lol at saying "something truly gamebreaking" as if the Curry/Durant pick & roll wasn't that. Go ask Lebron if he thinks the Curry/Durant pick & roll was gamebreaking.

Believe me I still have PTSD from that uberteam randomly appearing. I'm definitely recalling the later rounds too closely where the Rockets successfully just forced a switch on every Warriors action and ground their offense into the dirt with KD settling for too many isos, and the Finals where the Warriors went to it every time they needed a bucket down the stretch.

That being said, the same criticisms have held true about KDs "portability" then and now. His below par playmaking and tendency to stop the ball or moving off the ball have consistently held his teams back from fulfilling their expectations. It's a testament to how great the coaching and personnel was on the Warriors that they were able to stomp through the league as easily as they did. Though I do wonder what 2021 would've been like without injuries on that insanely talented Nets team.

[itsxtray]

Yea except for the fact that like any new team you never show off your pet play the first year until it's winning time. Just like the Lakers using the LeBron-AD pick and roll sparingly in the bubble until the playoffs. Then they ramp up its usage over time. This reads like quotes during the 2018 season where the Warriors built that more into their playbook as the year went on. Press X to doubt 11/100 possessions was anywhere near the peak usage in the playoffs when it was necessitated to break schemes which is what this is about mate. Racking up 3-5 assists isn't an outlandish ask lmao. And not all of those need be out of the PnR. Just swing the f***in rock

Alternately, one can just say those 2 are extremely f***ing good. Maybe even 2 of the 3 best players in the NBA at the time one might say. Did it ever occur to you that Durant never managed to find the same level of effectiveness running PnR with other star ballhandlers? They averaged 1.33PPP despite the fact that Durant was one dimensional in how he handled those; and that speaks to just how insanely good those two were at the time. Something truly gamebreaking would've been LeBron as a roller seeing as how he could either short roll or do what Durant did and post the switch.

You used the word spam, not me. I'm just refuting that cause it's clearly not true. Also, they didn't even spam it in the playoffs, only in clutch time really, and they destroyed teams when they did. Finally, the only time he really struggled passing was against the Rockets in 2018, everything other than that was perfectly fine and he was very good when he bought in.

5.2 assists vs the Spurs, 4.8 vs the Pelicans, 2.7 vs the Rockets, and 7.5 vs the Cavs, who were most aggressive with their coverages which he benefitted from and exploited. Also, lol at saying "something truly gamebreaking" as if the Curry/Durant pick & roll wasn't that. Go ask Lebron if he thinks the Curry/Durant pick & roll was gamebreaking.

Believe me I still have PTSD from that uberteam randomly appearing. I'm definitely recalling the later rounds too closely where the Rockets successfully just forced a switch on every Warriors action and ground their offense into the dirt with KD settling for too many isos, and the Finals where the Warriors went to it every time they needed a bucket down the stretch.

That being said, the same criticisms have held true about KDs "portability" then and now. His below par playmaking and tendency to stop the ball or moving off the ball have consistently held his teams back from fulfilling their expectations. It's a testament to how great the coaching and personnel was on the Warriors that they were able to stomp through the league as easily as they did. Though I do wonder what 2021 would've been like without injuries on that insanely talented Nets team.

I definitely agree with this, Durant has clear limitations but he was "good enough" at everything to grease the wheels in golden state and elevate an already great team. The results were phenomenal when the Nets big three did play together but the sample size was just too small to say anything definitive. They did look great against the Celtics in the first round but they were a .500 team so who knows.

[Lou Fan]

I hate to jump into this discussion given how high the tensions are but I think there's a fairly easy in between in this argument that fits with parts of what you are both saying. KD has the skillset to be the sort of ideal portability GOAT or whatever but instead often chose, whether it be due to ego BBall IQ or something else, to be a ball stopper and play outside of the GS system to get his in the way he likes. This is where a lot of his limitations as an on ball threat that Heej is talking about harmed GS and his other teams. However, to jake's point when Durant bought into Kerr ball the results were obviously otherworldly. So, in summary, I think Heej is right to say people who prop up KD and his portability are making a mistake as he has often failed to play in a way that fulfills the idea of Durant that people have in their head but jake is right that when he has done so he was very effective at it.

[Peregrine01]

I hate to jump into this discussion given how high the tensions are but I think there's a fairly easy in between in this argument that fits with parts of what you are both saying. KD has the skillset to be the sort of ideal portability GOAT or whatever but instead often chose, whether it be due to ego BBall IQ or something else, to be a ball stopper and play outside of the GS system to get his in the way he likes. This is where a lot of his limitations as an on ball threat that Heej is talking about harmed GS and his other teams. However, to jake's point when Durant bought into Kerr ball the results were obviously otherworldly. So, in summary, I think Heej is right to say people who prop up KD and his portability are making a mistake as he has often failed to play in a way that fulfills the idea of Durant that people have in their head but jake is right that when he has done so he was very effective at it.

Yeah, I don't know why people are arguing about things that they probably agree with.

KD really just bought into the GSW system for one year (2017) and the Warriors looked like the Greatest Team of All Time. And they were so dominant that year because KD played to his strengths as a play finisher and not to his weaknesses as a ball-dominant guy. In subsequent seasons, perhaps due to ego and/or just bad habits, he reverted back to iso-heavy/ball-dominant guy.