RealGM

Suns put 3 top jumpshooters and jumpshooters are supposed to be portable but they just got stomped. Does shooting really give u high PORT?

Depends.

Bird, yes.

Others, maybe.

If they can do other things to impact the game ie. Rebounding, defense, dribbling, playmaking....... Like a Donte Divicenzo is a top level portable role player who is a shooter but he does other things at a high level......we saw him have a big impact in Milwaukee, Golden State and now Ny 3 completely different teams and systems.........or Larry Bird at a superstar level

Luke Kennard
Joe Harris
Kevin Huerter
Grayson Allen
Duncan Robinson
Doug McDermott
Davis Bertans

None of these shooters are "portable" unless your definition of portable is to be a liability and unplayable come playoffs.

In the sense of being able to slot into offenses easily, someone who can move well without the ball and who is a very good shooter is quite portable. Klay, for example.

But what else do they do? Are they worth heavy minutes and high volume? That is a separate question.

I think the era of guys having high stretch impact by just spotting up in the corners or above the break is over. Teams defend space way better now and aren't completely thrown off by a 38% shooter standing in the corner.

Therefor the minimum requirements for portable shooters have gone up, and also other things are increasingly important if you want to see the floor in meaningful games, outside of just shooting ability.

It's very much as case by case basis, I don't think there's any universal portable player/shooter. Even Steph Curry would be less than optimal spotting up for Luka Doncic kick outs or in an offense like Phoenix tried to run. Does that mean their less portable, or just not being used properly? Hard to say where that line starts and ends honestly.

RCM88x wrote:I think the era of guys having high stretch impact by just spotting up in the corners or above the break is over. Teams defend space way better now and aren't completely thrown off buy a 38% shooter standing in the corner.

Sure, we've seen that with Steph too. He's still a very high-impact guy but not quite the same as he was even 5 years ago. Some of that is him tailing off in other areas, of course, but some is (as you note later) improvement in how teams manage the three on D.

You can build helio and you can build off-ball and whatever. Ultimately, you need a blend of stuff and we have a lot of talent in the league right now. The idea of PORT was always a little... underwhelming to me.

Versatility > pOrTaBiLiTy

Heej wrote:Versatility > pOrTaBiLiTy

lol

Heej wrote:Versatility > pOrTaBiLiTy

What is the difference?

When compared to non-shooters? Is this a serious question?

You need some smarts like Bogdan Bogdanovic, to fit in seamlessly within an offense. It really depends which shooter we're talking about. Bogi has good portability and is matured at 31. Unfortunately he plays with Trae Young and Murray.

EmpireFalls wrote:

Heej wrote:Versatility > pOrTaBiLiTy

What is the difference?

Portability on this board is just another term for shooting and off-ball movement. You'd rather have guys who can do it all in today's league, not specialists. And guys who can do a bit of everything scale better than guys who are good at one thing and heavily flawed in another. It can clearly be seen from championship level roster construction over the years and what player types have become more effective and important (wings and bigs who can do a bit of everything on offense, switch on defense, and contribute on the glass)

Heej wrote:

EmpireFalls wrote:

Heej wrote:Versatility > pOrTaBiLiTy

What is the difference?

Portability on this board is just another term for shooting and off-ball movement. You'd rather have guys who can do it all in today's league, not specialists. And guys who can do a bit of everything scale better than guys who are good at one thing and heavily flawed in another. It can clearly be seen from championship level roster construction over the years and what player types have become more effective and important (wings and bigs who can do a bit of everything on offense, switch on defense, and contribute on the glass)

Isn't shooting/providing offensive value without the ball part of "doing it all"? I don't really see how a portability vs versatility dichotomy makes any sense - it's not like the two are mutually exclusive in any way

Portability has become a meaningless phrase on here - it's basically just a signal to flip to the 2016 file and whip out your favorite LeBron vs Steph argument.

It's just too loaded of a term to do anything but restart the same arguments that have been had 1,000 times

parsnips33 wrote:

Heej wrote:

EmpireFalls wrote:What is the difference?

Portability on this board is just another term for shooting and off-ball movement. You'd rather have guys who can do it all in today's league, not specialists. And guys who can do a bit of everything scale better than guys who are good at one thing and heavily flawed in another. It can clearly be seen from championship level roster construction over the years and what player types have become more effective and important (wings and bigs who can do a bit of everything on offense, switch on defense, and contribute on the glass)

Isn't shooting/providing offensive value without the ball part of "doing it all"? I don't really see how a portability vs versatility dichotomy makes any sense - it's not like the two are mutually exclusive in any way

Oh I agree. I think portability is a derivative of versatility. It's just that on this board portability is a fancy way of specializing. And in the new era you'd much rather have someone versatile than someone who's a specialist.

Not to the degree some people believe. Same way that Kerr was pretty limited in his role in the 90's despite being arguably the greatest spot up 3 pt shooter of all time and says he would be unplayable in today's league.

parsnips33 wrote:Portability has become a meaningless phrase on here - it's basically just a signal to flip to the 2016 file and whip out your favorite LeBron vs Steph argument.

It's just too loaded of a term to do anything but restart the same arguments that have been had 1,000 times

That might be the best portability take I’ve seen on this board, kudos to you

parsnips33 wrote:

Heej wrote:

EmpireFalls wrote:What is the difference?

Portability on this board is just another term for shooting and off-ball movement. You'd rather have guys who can do it all in today's league, not specialists. And guys who can do a bit of everything scale better than guys who are good at one thing and heavily flawed in another. It can clearly be seen from championship level roster construction over the years and what player types have become more effective and important (wings and bigs who can do a bit of everything on offense, switch on defense, and contribute on the glass)

Isn't shooting/providing offensive value without the ball part of "doing it all"? I don't really see how a portability vs versatility dichotomy makes any sense - it's not like the two are mutually exclusive in any way

Portability, when talking about someone other than the top 10 players in the league (who you bend your scheme to fit anyway) is frequently used as a shorthand for 3 and D type players. Versatility implies the ability to take on multiple roles in a team scheme, whether it's on ball scoring or just having the size to guard multiple positions or switchability. A player may certainly be both but isn't necessarily.

penbeast0 wrote:

parsnips33 wrote:

Heej wrote:Portability on this board is just another term for shooting and off-ball movement. You'd rather have guys who can do it all in today's league, not specialists. And guys who can do a bit of everything scale better than guys who are good at one thing and heavily flawed in another. It can clearly be seen from championship level roster construction over the years and what player types have become more effective and important (wings and bigs who can do a bit of everything on offense, switch on defense, and contribute on the glass)

Isn't shooting/providing offensive value without the ball part of "doing it all"? I don't really see how a portability vs versatility dichotomy makes any sense - it's not like the two are mutually exclusive in any way

Portability, when talking about someone other than the top 10 players in the league (who you bend your scheme to fit anyway) is frequently used as a shorthand for 3 and D type players. Versatility implies the ability to take on multiple roles in a team scheme, whether it's on ball scoring or just having the size to guard multiple positions or switchability. A player may certainly be both but isn't necessarily.

I always took Portability to be about some combination off-ball offensive value + defense (3&D works as a rough approximation, but I think something like Offensive Rebounding complicates that archetype), that is when it means anything at all (see my earlier post in the thread for why I'm not crazy about the terminology at all).

Is the comparison here between a player with off-ball offensive value (Portability) versus a player who has that and more (Versatility)? I don't see how the comparison is useful at all, unless we assume that the Versatile Player doesn't have off-ball offensive value - in which case, how versatile could they really be if they have no value off the ball?

Take the Wizards. Corey Kispert has easily the best 3 point shooting on the team, but does very little else. With good size, he's very portable. Kyle Kuzma has meh 3 point shooting (though he does a lot of it so he still forces coverage outside), good playmaking, good rebounding (for a wing), and an ability to get his shot without requiring help from a pass, screen, etc. IN a pinch you can play him anywhere from 1-5; Kispert is a wing, period. Much more versatile player but with his tendency to think he's a primary option scorer, not as portable. (Kuzma is the better defender too but neither have been strong at that end the last two years.)