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

[Fierce1]

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.

Come on, Smart was 1st team All-Defense last season.

Marcus Smart is an elite defender.
I think that's the reason why he got in the top 100.

[Somebody]

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.

Come on, Smart was 1st team All-Defense last season.

Marcus Smart is an elite defender.
I think that's the reason why he got in the top 100.

Agreed, but he is worse than the guys Moranis listed.

[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.

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.

I'll admit, I haven't read any of the preambles to these lists (ESPN or SI), so if they explained their overall methodology and I'm off I apologize, that being said I always think it's wrong to look at these lists and assume equal distribution of talent across the league, because there's never equal distribution of talent.  These aren't the top 100 players you should draft on your fantasy team, these are the top 100 players who will bring the most value to their teams this year (and maybe to a lesser extent the value they could bring to other teams).

Draymond Green for example, ranked 37 this year, but over the last 4 years he's been 16, 10, 14, 19, which were all fair enough to me, but I don't think Draymond has ever in his career been able to be the best guy on half of the teams in the NBA.    But his value of being the 2nd or 3rd or 4th best player on a great team far outweighs his value of being the best player on a lottery team, so there he was ranked 10-20.

Same thing with Andre Iguodala (ranked 73, 43, 55, 56 the previous 4 years).  He hasn't been capable of being the 2nd best player on a team in a long time, but there he was constantly in the range of where the 2nd/3rd best player would be with equal distribution, and I'm okay with that because of the value he brought to a great team.

Prime Jeff Green (whatever year you think that was) was a better basketball player than current Marcus Smart.  Heck you can argue current Jeff Green is a better basketball player than current Marcus Smart (he was based on PER last year).  But I think most teams (at least good teams) would be better off if you added current Marcus Smart to their team rather than prime Jeff Green.  But maybe Jeff Green is a poor example due to positional differences/needs, but then just use players like Dennis Schroder or Reggie Jackson or Rodney Hood instead.  Individually, they're probably better than Smart, but most already good teams are probably better off adding Smart.  That's how a guy like Smart ranks so high (also why PJ Tucker ranks so high, probably should have compared him to Jeff Green).



And I just want to get this out there, because my original comment started this mini-thread.  I'm okay with where Smart is ranked now (for the reasons I laid out above).  Last year I think he was ranked way too high.  My problem is with the inconsistencies in the rankings (Smart outperformed and moved down), not where Smart is ranked this year, but maybe ESPN thought he'd be the Andre Iguodala on the C's 67-win championship team 

[gouki88]

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.

Come on, Smart was 1st team All-Defense last season.

Marcus Smart is an elite defender.
I think that's the reason why he got in the top 100.

Agreed, but he is worse than the guys Moranis listed.

So basically, ESPN sucks?

[mr. dee]

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.

Covington was nowhere to be found the last playoffs we met. Smart was also the one who sealed the deal in that series.  I find Covington's defense to be overrated as Jaylen torched him also in the series.

[nostar]

Heck you can argue current Jeff Green is a better basketball player than current Marcus Smart (he was based on PER last year).

You could, but that would make you sound pretty silly. Per is a garbage stat that inflates counting stats, especially offensive ones.

For example, last year judging on per alone Jonas Valenciunas was better than Steph Curry, Boban Marjanovic was better than Dame Lillard, and Hassan Whiteside was better than Paul George.

I like Jeff Green. Always have. Putting him in the same breath with Marcus is pure lunacy. Smart would put a smart-shaped hole in Jeff Green for a loose ball...in a regular season game...in November....in a blow out...while fighting a cold.

[Somebody]

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.

Come on, Smart was 1st team All-Defense last season.

Marcus Smart is an elite defender.
I think that's the reason why he got in the top 100.

Agreed, but he is worse than the guys Moranis listed.

So basically, ESPN sucks?

hey its All-Time list was used as the holy grail in the historical draft (purely a joke, not slating people who took part)!

[IDreamCeltics]

I mean... Celtics fans who watch the Celtics religiously are arguing Smart shouldn't be in the top 100.   That should tell you every thing you need to know considering we are the same fans that argued Jeff Green was a franchise player, and that Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk had all-star potential.

[Somebody]

I mean... Celtics fans who watch the Celtics religiously are arguing Smart shouldn't be in the top 100.   That should tell you every thing you need to know considering we are the same fans that argued Jeff Green was a franchise player, and that Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk had all-star potential.

I think he's at the periphery of the top 100 even though I agreed with Moranis on the players he listed being better than Smart. Anyways Sully and Olynyk were quite promising in their first couple of seasons so I think it wasn't way off base to say they had all-star potential. As for Jeff Green I thought he was a fringe all star when he was a reliable 16-18 PPG scorer for us every night.       

[Androslav]

Why do people even bother with these lists?

[footey]

Why do people even bother with these lists?

Our technology-driven age has given us a lot of free time to overthink such things, sadly.

[nickagneta]

Kemba 17
Kyrie 11

[SHAQATTACK]

Mr Fall is alwys #1






on Tacko Tuesdays  !

[Moranis]

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

Next set out.  Walker is 17.  higher than I would have thought, but I guess they like the change of scenery for him.

[Somebody]

Kemba 17
Kyrie 11

There's a six slot difference between them? Not sure about that tbh.