Is draymond being exposed?

[celticsclay]

When Draymond was making All-NBA teams he was one of the best 4 players on the best team in the league and he was a DPOY candidate.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The nature of basketball is such that for the vast majority of players, even many of the most talented ones, the team context determines a great deal of a player's value.  Only a handful of players in the best league in the world can really claim that their value is not dependent on the players, system, coach, etc around them.

For that reason, the fact that Draymond no longer looks like a star when he doesn't have star teammates (and by the way he's got significantly more miles on a body that he's never taken great care of), doesn't lead me to the conclusion that he never should have been considered a star in the first place.

Why do you think Smart has never even received real votes for all-NBA teams or all-star games even when he was a star role player on teams with really big win totals and/or making the conference finals. Is it just the difference between us making the finals versus conference finals? We could maybe throw out the one DPOY year for Green cause obviously Smart has never been there, or in that conversation. He was making all-star games when he was a first team all defense.

[Moranis]

When Draymond was making All-NBA teams he was one of the best 4 players on the best team in the league and he was a DPOY candidate.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The nature of basketball is such that for the vast majority of players, even many of the most talented ones, the team context determines a great deal of a player's value.  Only a handful of players in the best league in the world can really claim that their value is not dependent on the players, system, coach, etc around them.

For that reason, the fact that Draymond no longer looks like a star when he doesn't have star teammates (and by the way he's got significantly more miles on a body that he's never taken great care of), doesn't lead me to the conclusion that he never should have been considered a star in the first place.

Why do you think Smart has never even received real votes for all-NBA teams or all-star games even when he was a star role player on teams with really big win totals and/or making the conference finals. Is it just the difference between us making the finals versus conference finals? We could maybe throw out the one DPOY year for Green cause obviously Smart has never been there, or in that conversation. He was making all-star games when he was a first team all defense.

Smart isn't as good a defender as Green was and Smart had no where near the counting stats that Green did.  I mean in 15-16 when Green was 2nd Team All NBA, he averaged 14 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 7.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.4 bpg, shot 38.8% from 3, 53.7% from 2, and 69.6% from the FT with a TS% 58.7.  Green played just under 35 mpg and started 81 games that year and the Warriors won 73 games (way more than the low 50's the C's have been winning of late).  Smart has quite simply never come close to any of those numbers (except the SPG and FT%).  Green could then carry that peak year and live off of it for years (so to speak).  Heck Smart is mostly a bench player.  An elite bench player, but still a guy that generally doesn't even start for the team. 

At the end of the day Draymond Green was quite simply a significantly better player than Marcus Smart has ever been.

[celticsclay]

When Draymond was making All-NBA teams he was one of the best 4 players on the best team in the league and he was a DPOY candidate.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The nature of basketball is such that for the vast majority of players, even many of the most talented ones, the team context determines a great deal of a player's value.  Only a handful of players in the best league in the world can really claim that their value is not dependent on the players, system, coach, etc around them.

For that reason, the fact that Draymond no longer looks like a star when he doesn't have star teammates (and by the way he's got significantly more miles on a body that he's never taken great care of), doesn't lead me to the conclusion that he never should have been considered a star in the first place.

Why do you think Smart has never even received real votes for all-NBA teams or all-star games even when he was a star role player on teams with really big win totals and/or making the conference finals. Is it just the difference between us making the finals versus conference finals? We could maybe throw out the one DPOY year for Green cause obviously Smart has never been there, or in that conversation. He was making all-star games when he was a first team all defense.

Smart isn't as good a defender as Green was and Smart had no where near the counting stats that Green did.  I mean in 15-16 when Green was 2nd Team All NBA, he averaged 14 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 7.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.4 bpg, shot 38.8% from 3, 53.7% from 2, and 69.6% from the FT with a TS% 58.7.  Green played just under 35 mpg and started 81 games that year and the Warriors won 73 games (way more than the low 50's the C's have been winning of late).  Smart has quite simply never come close to any of those numbers (except the SPG and FT%). Green could then carry that peak year and live off of it for years (so to speak).  Heck Smart is mostly a bench player.  An elite bench player, but still a guy that generally doesn't even start for the team. 

At the end of the day Draymond Green was quite simply a significantly better player than Marcus Smart has ever been.

I think this is more the part of it that is relevant. Right now Smart is averaging more points, one less assist, similar steals and blocks (obviously less rebounds) with similar shooting splits. They should both theoretically be in their primes given their age. Green used to have some better counting stats but I am surprised he is not able to get more points now with all the shots opened up by Klay, Steph and Durant being gone.

[Moranis]

When Draymond was making All-NBA teams he was one of the best 4 players on the best team in the league and he was a DPOY candidate.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The nature of basketball is such that for the vast majority of players, even many of the most talented ones, the team context determines a great deal of a player's value.  Only a handful of players in the best league in the world can really claim that their value is not dependent on the players, system, coach, etc around them.

For that reason, the fact that Draymond no longer looks like a star when he doesn't have star teammates (and by the way he's got significantly more miles on a body that he's never taken great care of), doesn't lead me to the conclusion that he never should have been considered a star in the first place.

Why do you think Smart has never even received real votes for all-NBA teams or all-star games even when he was a star role player on teams with really big win totals and/or making the conference finals. Is it just the difference between us making the finals versus conference finals? We could maybe throw out the one DPOY year for Green cause obviously Smart has never been there, or in that conversation. He was making all-star games when he was a first team all defense.

Smart isn't as good a defender as Green was and Smart had no where near the counting stats that Green did.  I mean in 15-16 when Green was 2nd Team All NBA, he averaged 14 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 7.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.4 bpg, shot 38.8% from 3, 53.7% from 2, and 69.6% from the FT with a TS% 58.7.  Green played just under 35 mpg and started 81 games that year and the Warriors won 73 games (way more than the low 50's the C's have been winning of late).  Smart has quite simply never come close to any of those numbers (except the SPG and FT%). Green could then carry that peak year and live off of it for years (so to speak).  Heck Smart is mostly a bench player.  An elite bench player, but still a guy that generally doesn't even start for the team. 

At the end of the day Draymond Green was quite simply a significantly better player than Marcus Smart has ever been.

I think this is more the part of it that is relevant. Right now Smart is averaging more points, one less assist, similar steals and blocks (obviously less rebounds) with similar shooting splits. They should both theoretically be in their primes given their age. Green used to have some better counting stats but I am surprised he is not able to get more points now with all the shots opened up by Klay, Steph and Durant being gone.

But Green isn't an All NBA guy or All Star this year and neither is Smart.  Your question was why doesn't Smart get All NBA votes or All Star appearances, and that is because he didn't have the counting stats and never has.  Green, however, did at one time which is why he got those accolades at one point in time.

[fairweatherfan]

He wasn't exposed at all, since he's exactly what I thought he was; a fantastic role player. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hmm my question for this would be (and other posters have been saying this also) if he is just a fantastic role player, how has he made an all-nba second team and all-nba third team? Those means he was viewed by those that cover the league as a top 10 play and a top 15 player.

Those aren't the same thing, though saying they thought he had a top 10/15 season is closer to accurate. I mean people think Kevin Durant is a top 10 player but he will not be making an All NBA team. Doesn't mean the players that do are thought to definitely be better than him.

But the real answer is because his stats were very good, his defense recognized as among the best in the league, and of course the team was phenomenonally successful and that's used as a cue for "deserving" individual accolades.

[celticsclay]

When Draymond was making All-NBA teams he was one of the best 4 players on the best team in the league and he was a DPOY candidate.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The nature of basketball is such that for the vast majority of players, even many of the most talented ones, the team context determines a great deal of a player's value.  Only a handful of players in the best league in the world can really claim that their value is not dependent on the players, system, coach, etc around them.

For that reason, the fact that Draymond no longer looks like a star when he doesn't have star teammates (and by the way he's got significantly more miles on a body that he's never taken great care of), doesn't lead me to the conclusion that he never should have been considered a star in the first place.

Why do you think Smart has never even received real votes for all-NBA teams or all-star games even when he was a star role player on teams with really big win totals and/or making the conference finals. Is it just the difference between us making the finals versus conference finals? We could maybe throw out the one DPOY year for Green cause obviously Smart has never been there, or in that conversation. He was making all-star games when he was a first team all defense.

Smart isn't as good a defender as Green was and Smart had no where near the counting stats that Green did.  I mean in 15-16 when Green was 2nd Team All NBA, he averaged 14 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 7.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.4 bpg, shot 38.8% from 3, 53.7% from 2, and 69.6% from the FT with a TS% 58.7.  Green played just under 35 mpg and started 81 games that year and the Warriors won 73 games (way more than the low 50's the C's have been winning of late).  Smart has quite simply never come close to any of those numbers (except the SPG and FT%). Green could then carry that peak year and live off of it for years (so to speak).  Heck Smart is mostly a bench player.  An elite bench player, but still a guy that generally doesn't even start for the team. 

At the end of the day Draymond Green was quite simply a significantly better player than Marcus Smart has ever been.

I think this is more the part of it that is relevant. Right now Smart is averaging more points, one less assist, similar steals and blocks (obviously less rebounds) with similar shooting splits. They should both theoretically be in their primes given their age. Green used to have some better counting stats but I am surprised he is not able to get more points now with all the shots opened up by Klay, Steph and Durant being gone.

But Green isn't an All NBA guy or All Star this year and neither is Smart.  Your question was why doesn't Smart get All NBA votes or All Star appearances, and that is because he didn't have the counting stats and never has.  Green, however, did at one time which is why he got those accolades at one point in time.

He did still make the all-star games in his age 26 and 27 season when he was putting up lower counting stats (11 points per game one year, 10 ppg the other year, 6.5 rebounds one of the year) that is in the ballpark of what smart is averaging right now. However, I think your point that he may have lived off his one career year for a few years and still got some hints of accolades from it.

[Somebody]

His qualities just aren't great at carrying poor teams. KG had a similar (but much more minor) problem when he was stuck with poor personnel in Minnesota, his passing, defence and shooting unlocked the potential of his teammates, but he couldn't ramp up his scoring if his teams needed a big time scorer who could score oodles of moderate to high efficiency points.

I think Draymond has declined from his 2015-2016 season (that year was nuts, he was a DPOY calibre defender who provided great complementary offensive value with efficient outside shooting on high volume and great passing), but he's still an All-NBA frontcourt player due to his defence (still insane) and passing (hasn't really declined).

This is crap. KG was an all-nba type of player even with mediocre teammates. The one season in minnesota where he got some borderline all-star teammates? He got MVP. Green is nowhere that.

That's why I said much more minor (Garnett could score really well, but he couldn't be an offensive anchor like Dirk/Duncan). What you're saying is crap if you don't see the similarities between prime Draymond and KG: both provided floor spacing, elite defence, great passing but imperfect scoring (obviously Draymond is much worse at scoring, that's why Garnett is an MVP player while Draymond is an All-NBA guy).

KG had difficulties in leading some Wolves teams that needed resilient playoff scoring to deep playoff runs while his contemporaries that had more floor-raising friendly games (Duncan, Dirk) lead some similar teams to deep playoff runs (eg. 03 Spurs, 06 Mavs). This is similar (although to a much larger degree) to what Draymond is experiencing right now: he's fantastic as a third/fourth banana in terms of scoring (KG would ideally be second, he's way better than Green at scoring) that'll raise the ceiling of teams through the roof, but will struggle to raise the floor of subpar teams that need a floor raiser who can do the heavy lifting, and in Draymond's case he can't do any significant floor raising at all due to his scoring regressing to craprastic levels (jumpshot is gone). This isn't Draymond getting exposed, this is him in the worst situation possible for his skillset. It doesnt change the fact that he's still an All-NBA calibre player (maybe All-Star if you look at him in a more negative light) due to his unique skillset, even after his regression into a non-shooter.

Disagree. KG was very hard to guard, its just that he wasn't that too willing to shoot. The difference between the two is huge. He is inferior to KG in almost every tangible stat there is.

I see Draymond as a premium Marcus Smart, not as KG-lite. That is an insult to KG who is undoubtedly a top 5 player in his era (which Draymond is nowhere near)

Very difficult to guard doesn't mean that he could socre like an elite centrepiece though. And I guess we'll agree to disagree, I think Draymond's skillset is very similar to KG's when you factor in the massive scoring difference.

[SHAQATTACK]

The Full Monty 

[Monkhouse]

His qualities just aren't great at carrying poor teams. KG had a similar (but much more minor) problem when he was stuck with poor personnel in Minnesota, his passing, defence and shooting unlocked the potential of his teammates, but he couldn't ramp up his scoring if his teams needed a big time scorer who could score oodles of moderate to high efficiency points.

I think Draymond has declined from his 2015-2016 season (that year was nuts, he was a DPOY calibre defender who provided great complementary offensive value with efficient outside shooting on high volume and great passing), but he's still an All-NBA frontcourt player due to his defence (still insane) and passing (hasn't really declined).

This is crap. KG was an all-nba type of player even with mediocre teammates. The one season in minnesota where he got some borderline all-star teammates? He got MVP. Green is nowhere that.

That's why I said much more minor (Garnett could score really well, but he couldn't be an offensive anchor like Dirk/Duncan). What you're saying is crap if you don't see the similarities between prime Draymond and KG: both provided floor spacing, elite defence, great passing but imperfect scoring (obviously Draymond is much worse at scoring, that's why Garnett is an MVP player while Draymond is an All-NBA guy).

KG had difficulties in leading some Wolves teams that needed resilient playoff scoring to deep playoff runs while his contemporaries that had more floor-raising friendly games (Duncan, Dirk) lead some similar teams to deep playoff runs (eg. 03 Spurs, 06 Mavs). This is similar (although to a much larger degree) to what Draymond is experiencing right now: he's fantastic as a third/fourth banana in terms of scoring (KG would ideally be second, he's way better than Green at scoring) that'll raise the ceiling of teams through the roof, but will struggle to raise the floor of subpar teams that need a floor raiser who can do the heavy lifting, and in Draymond's case he can't do any significant floor raising at all due to his scoring regressing to craprastic levels (jumpshot is gone). This isn't Draymond getting exposed, this is him in the worst situation possible for his skillset. It doesnt change the fact that he's still an All-NBA calibre player (maybe All-Star if you look at him in a more negative light) due to his unique skillset, even after his regression into a non-shooter.

Disagree. KG was very hard to guard, its just that he wasn't that too willing to shoot. The difference between the two is huge. He is inferior to KG in almost every tangible stat there is.

I see Draymond as a premium Marcus Smart, not as KG-lite. That is an insult to KG who is undoubtedly a top 5 player in his era (which Draymond is nowhere near)

Very difficult to guard doesn't mean that he could socre like an elite centrepiece though. And I guess we'll agree to disagree, I think Draymond's skillset is very similar to KG's when you factor in the massive scoring difference.

Uhh... What? Lol. How is KG not considered an elite scoring big? Do you consider Tim Duncan an elite scoring centerpiece? Because numbers wise, KG/TD are pretty much close.

Anyways let's agree to disagree... Draymond's defensive skill set is similar to KG, but offensively? Other than passing they really don't share anything in common... Like at all.

[Somebody]

His qualities just aren't great at carrying poor teams. KG had a similar (but much more minor) problem when he was stuck with poor personnel in Minnesota, his passing, defence and shooting unlocked the potential of his teammates, but he couldn't ramp up his scoring if his teams needed a big time scorer who could score oodles of moderate to high efficiency points.

I think Draymond has declined from his 2015-2016 season (that year was nuts, he was a DPOY calibre defender who provided great complementary offensive value with efficient outside shooting on high volume and great passing), but he's still an All-NBA frontcourt player due to his defence (still insane) and passing (hasn't really declined).

This is crap. KG was an all-nba type of player even with mediocre teammates. The one season in minnesota where he got some borderline all-star teammates? He got MVP. Green is nowhere that.

That's why I said much more minor (Garnett could score really well, but he couldn't be an offensive anchor like Dirk/Duncan). What you're saying is crap if you don't see the similarities between prime Draymond and KG: both provided floor spacing, elite defence, great passing but imperfect scoring (obviously Draymond is much worse at scoring, that's why Garnett is an MVP player while Draymond is an All-NBA guy).

KG had difficulties in leading some Wolves teams that needed resilient playoff scoring to deep playoff runs while his contemporaries that had more floor-raising friendly games (Duncan, Dirk) lead some similar teams to deep playoff runs (eg. 03 Spurs, 06 Mavs). This is similar (although to a much larger degree) to what Draymond is experiencing right now: he's fantastic as a third/fourth banana in terms of scoring (KG would ideally be second, he's way better than Green at scoring) that'll raise the ceiling of teams through the roof, but will struggle to raise the floor of subpar teams that need a floor raiser who can do the heavy lifting, and in Draymond's case he can't do any significant floor raising at all due to his scoring regressing to craprastic levels (jumpshot is gone). This isn't Draymond getting exposed, this is him in the worst situation possible for his skillset. It doesnt change the fact that he's still an All-NBA calibre player (maybe All-Star if you look at him in a more negative light) due to his unique skillset, even after his regression into a non-shooter.

Disagree. KG was very hard to guard, its just that he wasn't that too willing to shoot. The difference between the two is huge. He is inferior to KG in almost every tangible stat there is.

I see Draymond as a premium Marcus Smart, not as KG-lite. That is an insult to KG who is undoubtedly a top 5 player in his era (which Draymond is nowhere near)

Very difficult to guard doesn't mean that he could socre like an elite centrepiece though. And I guess we'll agree to disagree, I think Draymond's skillset is very similar to KG's when you factor in the massive scoring difference.

Uhh... What? Lol. How is KG not considered an elite scoring big? Do you consider Tim Duncan an elite scoring centerpiece? Because numbers wise, KG/TD are pretty much close.

Anyways let's agree to disagree... Draymond's defensive skill set is similar to KG, but offensively? Other than passing they really don't share anything in common... Like at all.

He really wasn't as good as Duncan at scoring, especially against stingier playoff defences. Look at his playoff stats and you'll see that his scoring wasn't as resilient. He's not elite when he's compared to the best scoring bigs of all time, he's a rung below those guys.

And I don't think that prime Draymond was all that different from KG offensively. He had a good three point shot and could pass, that's basically KG's skillset without the post game and really good isolation scoring.

[Monkhouse]

His qualities just aren't great at carrying poor teams. KG had a similar (but much more minor) problem when he was stuck with poor personnel in Minnesota, his passing, defence and shooting unlocked the potential of his teammates, but he couldn't ramp up his scoring if his teams needed a big time scorer who could score oodles of moderate to high efficiency points.

I think Draymond has declined from his 2015-2016 season (that year was nuts, he was a DPOY calibre defender who provided great complementary offensive value with efficient outside shooting on high volume and great passing), but he's still an All-NBA frontcourt player due to his defence (still insane) and passing (hasn't really declined).

This is crap. KG was an all-nba type of player even with mediocre teammates. The one season in minnesota where he got some borderline all-star teammates? He got MVP. Green is nowhere that.

That's why I said much more minor (Garnett could score really well, but he couldn't be an offensive anchor like Dirk/Duncan). What you're saying is crap if you don't see the similarities between prime Draymond and KG: both provided floor spacing, elite defence, great passing but imperfect scoring (obviously Draymond is much worse at scoring, that's why Garnett is an MVP player while Draymond is an All-NBA guy).

KG had difficulties in leading some Wolves teams that needed resilient playoff scoring to deep playoff runs while his contemporaries that had more floor-raising friendly games (Duncan, Dirk) lead some similar teams to deep playoff runs (eg. 03 Spurs, 06 Mavs). This is similar (although to a much larger degree) to what Draymond is experiencing right now: he's fantastic as a third/fourth banana in terms of scoring (KG would ideally be second, he's way better than Green at scoring) that'll raise the ceiling of teams through the roof, but will struggle to raise the floor of subpar teams that need a floor raiser who can do the heavy lifting, and in Draymond's case he can't do any significant floor raising at all due to his scoring regressing to craprastic levels (jumpshot is gone). This isn't Draymond getting exposed, this is him in the worst situation possible for his skillset. It doesnt change the fact that he's still an All-NBA calibre player (maybe All-Star if you look at him in a more negative light) due to his unique skillset, even after his regression into a non-shooter.

Disagree. KG was very hard to guard, its just that he wasn't that too willing to shoot. The difference between the two is huge. He is inferior to KG in almost every tangible stat there is.

I see Draymond as a premium Marcus Smart, not as KG-lite. That is an insult to KG who is undoubtedly a top 5 player in his era (which Draymond is nowhere near)

Very difficult to guard doesn't mean that he could socre like an elite centrepiece though. And I guess we'll agree to disagree, I think Draymond's skillset is very similar to KG's when you factor in the massive scoring difference.

Uhh... What? Lol. How is KG not considered an elite scoring big? Do you consider Tim Duncan an elite scoring centerpiece? Because numbers wise, KG/TD are pretty much close.

Anyways let's agree to disagree... Draymond's defensive skill set is similar to KG, but offensively? Other than passing they really don't share anything in common... Like at all.

He really wasn't as good as Duncan at scoring, especially against stingier playoff defences. Look at his playoff stats and you'll see that his scoring wasn't as resilient. He's not elite when he's compared to the best scoring bigs of all time, he's a rung below those guys.

And I don't think that prime Draymond was all that different from KG offensively. He had a good three point shot and could pass, that's basically KG's skillset without the post game and really good isolation scoring.

TD benefited from having one of the greatest coaches of all time, and HoFer's/better teammates. It allowed him the ability to post down low, and make defenses suffer double teaming him, something KG didn't have much of a luxury in his Minnesota time. Also the only year Dray shot league average or above was 2015-2016, and that was 38.8% which is pretty solid. But other than passing, Dray has nothing in common with KG offensively, like at all... Lol...

Anyways, let's agree to disagree.

[Humble G]

Ok. Ok .OK.

I wasn't going to even log in but had to.....


Draymond is nowhere near as good as KG was at anything. Draymond is way overrated  and can't do anything by himself.

I like how Draymond is like KG except for this or without that and that skill set or that or really even that either. Lol
KG could literally score on anyone he wanted in his prime. And there is no debate about his defense or effort.

 For me there will never be another player like him.

For fun:
https://youtu.be/ynKnvtNp56c

[Monkhouse]

Ok. Ok .OK.

I wasn't going to even log in but had to.....


Draymond is nowhere near as good as KG was at anything. Draymond is way overrated  and can't do anything by himself.

I like how Draymond is like KG except for this or without that and that skill set or that or really even that either. Lol
KG could literally score on anyone he wanted in his prime. And there is no debate about his defense or effort.

 For me there will never be another player like him.

For fun:
https://youtu.be/ynKnvtNp56c

I guess in terms of motor/defensive intensity you can argue KG and Dray share the same similarities on that end.

But offensively? Absolutely nowhere even close, besides passing, and that's the only part Dray was more advanced than KG at.

[PhoSita]

Why do you think Smart has never even received real votes for all-NBA teams or all-star games even when he was a star role player on teams with really big win totals and/or making the conference finals.

1. Defensive bigs have a bigger impact than defensive guards; no knock on Smart, it's just the way the game works

2. The Warriors were the best team in the league; the Celts have never really been in that conversation.

3. I think it's easier for media people to vote for a guy who has some higher counting stats -- in Dray's case, he averaged a high number of assists and rebounds and frequently got triple doubles.  I think trip-dubs are almost meaningless at this point, but it does make a difference for media voting.

[CelticsWhat35]

He has been exposed as much as Rondo was exposed after the Big 3 we're gone, which is to say, when playing with all-time greats, elite role players will not be able to carry their team when they aren't playing with the truly great players any longer.

Except Rondo was by far the best Celtic in the 2012 playoffs, and there were times he was the best player on the floor in 2010 and 2011.  You would never have said that about Draymond Green.  I agree they both are at their best with great players around them, but who is that NOT true for?