ESPN Rank - Smart 87, Hayward 65, Brown 51, Tatum 35, Walker 17

[Moranis]

Ranking the best players in the NBA this season, from 100 to 51 https://es.pn/30eVW7a


Top 50 not out yet but Tatum and Walker should be there obviously.
w
EDIT: 50 t0 31 released.  Tatum is 35.  Kemba is in the top 30 somewhere

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27685472/ranking-best-players-nba-season-50-31

EDIT: 30-11 out now.  Walker is 17.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27691396/ranking-best-players-nba-season-30-11

EDIT: 10-Lebron (i.e. 3).  https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27698894/ranking-nba-best-players-no-10-lebron

Giannis and Kawhi will be ranked tomorrow.

[bdm860]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

[jambr380]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

55 seems awfully high for Smart - what could they possibly have been expecting from him last year? With 30 teams in the league, each team should have, on average, 3 1/3 players in the top 100. The Cs having 5 players shows that we should be quite competitive.

But Smart at 55 assumes he could be the 2nd best player on a team - which just doesn't seem right at all. Having him at 87 sounds better given that he is hitting his prime and the intangibles he adds to a team.

[Neurotic Guy]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

55 seems awfully high for Smart - what could they possibly have been expecting from him last year? With 30 teams in the league, each team should have, on average, 3 1/3 players in the top 100. The Cs having 5 players shows that we should be quite competitive.

But Smart at 55 assumes he could be the 2nd best player on a team - which just doesn't seem right at all. Having him at 87 sounds better given that he is hitting his prime and the intangibles he adds to a team.

Generally, I agree -- but Smart is one of those players who may not be among the best players on a team, but who may very well be among the most valuable.   There were times at the end of games last year that I thought Smart was THE most important Celtic to be on the court.   

I have no idea where should be ranked, but I might put him top 20 in terms of ability to impact a game.

[nickagneta]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

55 seems awfully high for Smart - what could they possibly have been expecting from him last year? With 30 teams in the league, each team should have, on average, 3 1/3 players in the top 100. The Cs having 5 players shows that we should be quite competitive.

But Smart at 55 assumes he could be the 2nd best player on a team - which just doesn't seem right at all. Having him at 87 sounds better given that he is hitting his prime and the intangibles he adds to a team.

Generally, I agree -- but Smart is one of those players who may not be among the best players on a team, but who may very well be among the most valuable.   There were times at the end of games last year that I thought Smart was THE most important Celtic to be on the court.   

I have no idea where should be ranked, but I might put him top 20 in terms of ability to impact a game.

Do not agree at all with that last statement.

LeBron
AD
Kawhi
Paul George
Steph
Klay
KD
Harden
Chris Paul
Giannis
Embiid
Jimmy Butler
Jokic
Gobert
Lillard
KAT
Beal
Griffin
Westbrook
Kyrie

That's an easy 20. I could go farther. Heck, Al Horford impacts a game more than Smart. There's a whole bunch more I could name, too. McCollum, Booker, Kemba, Middleton, Doncic, Jrue, Conley, Simmons, Siakem, etc. Heck, Tatum may impact a game more than Smart.

Smart is great, but he is not a top 20 player in how he impacts a game. Let's not forget, he still has lots of nights were he is a net negative because he can't hit a shot but keeps taking early in the clock bad shots. Because he was a main ballhandler this then set the tone and suddenly the whole team was doing the same thing. It's happened a lot over the years and still does.

I think Smart in the 80's or 90's is about right.

[Celtics4ever]

Smart can affect a game but putting up consistent stats has always impressed me more than timely hustle.  He definitely wins a game here or there for us though.   I too, agree he is rated properly as you really can't define what he does with a stat unless they create a winning plays stat for him.

[footey]

I think Hayward's ranking will move up significantly after the season plays. 

[gpap]

Jaylen's stock is rising!!

[keevsnick]

Ya I think a lot of people forget tat these lists are projecting what people think the player will be this year. That means guys like Tatum, Brown get a bump because they are young and expected to improve year over year. That will continue until they show thats not the case.

Whereas a guy like Smart who is very good is probably more or less what he is, with the added negative that most statistical projections probably don't buy his improved shooting numbers completely because he's only done it for a year. Meanwhile most scouts will see he averaged 8 points a game and you are gonna have a hard time moving much higher than 80th at that number.

Hayward gets a "health" bump the same way  the young guys get a "youth" bump. You expect him to be better, if he doesnt improve this year he probably loses the "health" bump going forward.

[PhoSita]

These rankings serve mostly to rile people up in advance of the season.

Best ignored.


National media is going to dismiss this Celtics team as cute yet disappointing until they exceed expectations.

Between last season and the way things went for Team USA at FIBA, there's plenty of ammunition for national media types to treat the Celts as an afterthought team that isn't relevant to the NBA landscape except as a cautionary tale of how having great assets doesn't guarantee title contention.


Hopefully Brad and co. can turn that narrative around.

[dannyboy35]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

55 seems awfully high for Smart - what could they possibly have been expecting from him last year? With 30 teams in the league, each team should have, on average, 3 1/3 players in the top 100. The Cs having 5 players shows that we should be quite competitive.

But Smart at 55 assumes he could be the 2nd best player on a team - which just doesn't seem right at all. Having him at 87 sounds better given that he is hitting his prime and the intangibles he adds to a team.

   55 is crazy. 30 teams in the league. Is there any nba team where Smart would be the 2nd best player?

[Moranis]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

55 seems awfully high for Smart - what could they possibly have been expecting from him last year? With 30 teams in the league, each team should have, on average, 3 1/3 players in the top 100. The Cs having 5 players shows that we should be quite competitive.

But Smart at 55 assumes he could be the 2nd best player on a team - which just doesn't seem right at all. Having him at 87 sounds better given that he is hitting his prime and the intangibles he adds to a team.

   55 is crazy. 30 teams in the league. Is there any nba team where Smart would be the 2nd best player?

No.  Frankly I'm not sure he is the 3rd best player on any team, which is why I find his ranking in the top 100 to be strange in and of itself.

Smart is a great role player, but that is what he is.  he can't carry a team in any manner.  He is feisty and a superb defender, but he isn't an all time defender that can really alter a game.  He is still a downright terrible offensive player.  He shouldn't have been on the US National Team and he doesn't belong in the top 100 players in the world either.

[nickagneta]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

55 seems awfully high for Smart - what could they possibly have been expecting from him last year? With 30 teams in the league, each team should have, on average, 3 1/3 players in the top 100. The Cs having 5 players shows that we should be quite competitive.

But Smart at 55 assumes he could be the 2nd best player on a team - which just doesn't seem right at all. Having him at 87 sounds better given that he is hitting his prime and the intangibles he adds to a team.

   55 is crazy. 30 teams in the league. Is there any nba team where Smart would be the 2nd best player?

No.  Frankly I'm not sure he is the 3rd best player on any team, which is why I find his ranking in the top 100 to be strange in and of itself.

Smart is a great role player, but that is what he is.  he can't carry a team in any manner.  He is feisty and a superb defender, but he isn't an all time defender that can really alter a game.  He is still a downright terrible offensive player.  He shouldn't have been on the US National Team and he doesn't belong in the top 100 players in the world either.

I agree that Smart probably wouldn't be the third best player on many, if any, teams if the talent and opportunity was distributed evenly. But he would probably be top 3 of the players who would be considered the best top 4 players so I think top 100 is warranted. In the 90's seems right. Maybe low 80's depending on how much you look at the leadership and intangible stuff he brings and you consider that sort of stuff really important.

[Moranis]

I thought the SI list was fair, and consider this one fair too, especially since for C's it's pretty similar so far (SI had Smart at 82, Brown at 68, and Hayward at 59).

My one beef is with Smart's year-over-year ranking.  Last year ESPN had him 55 (current article says last year was 54, but checking last years actual list shows him at 55), then he went out and made 1st Team All-D, 3rd in the league in steals, posted career highs in PER and games played, and improved his TS% by 90 basis points.

While most of the C's played worse then expected last year (Irving, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Rozier), Smart was probably the only one who actually exceeded expectations.  And he drops 32 spots?  C'mon.

55 seems awfully high for Smart - what could they possibly have been expecting from him last year? With 30 teams in the league, each team should have, on average, 3 1/3 players in the top 100. The Cs having 5 players shows that we should be quite competitive.

But Smart at 55 assumes he could be the 2nd best player on a team - which just doesn't seem right at all. Having him at 87 sounds better given that he is hitting his prime and the intangibles he adds to a team.

   55 is crazy. 30 teams in the league. Is there any nba team where Smart would be the 2nd best player?

No.  Frankly I'm not sure he is the 3rd best player on any team, which is why I find his ranking in the top 100 to be strange in and of itself.

Smart is a great role player, but that is what he is.  he can't carry a team in any manner.  He is feisty and a superb defender, but he isn't an all time defender that can really alter a game.  He is still a downright terrible offensive player.  He shouldn't have been on the US National Team and he doesn't belong in the top 100 players in the world either.

I agree that Smart probably wouldn't be the third best player on many, if any, teams if the talent and opportunity was distributed evenly. But he would probably be top 3 of the players who would be considered the best top 4 players so I think top 100 is warranted. In the 90's seems right. Maybe low 80's depending on how much you look at the leadership and intangible stuff he brings and you consider that sort of stuff really important.

They have Covington at 97.  I'd take Covington over him every day of he week.  Jarrett Allen 95.  Much rather have Allen given he plays a harder position to fill.  Randle at 92.  He can actually carry a team for stretches.  Gallinari 91.  I could go on.  I'd be hard pressed to take Smart over a single player on the list that is behind him or several players that aren't even ranked (Kanter for example may very well be a better player).  Smart shouldn't be on this list at all.  He is not a top 100 player in the game. 

[Moranis]

BTW, they have 50 to 31 out.  I updated the first post.  Tatum came in at 35.  Walker made the top 30.