CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: trickybilly on July 19, 2018, 10:37:29 PM
-
I guess the re-draft probably looks something like this (I don't want to labour the point, just to say that he probably goes lower than 5 - but that seems fine considering you always have 3 or 4 late first/second rounders who come out of nowhere)..
Embiid
Jokic
Wiggins
Gary Harris
Lavine
Capela
Smart
Gordon
Exum
Nurkic
I guess my feeling is that with rookies, because of the contract scale, notwithstanding bad extensions (ahem, Andrew Wiggins), as long as your high draft pick still goes somewhere in the same range, I think we should call it a hit.
If you look purely at first deal after 4th year, it looks like this
Wiggins
Embiid
Gordon
Parker
Lavine
Harris
Clarkson
Nurkic
TJ Warren
Marcus Smart
(Note: Bogdanovic, Saric, Capela have not been included. Suffice to say that Bogdanovic and Saric will get a higher % increase than Smart did, when they are due up to get paid. I think we can safely say that someone will throw more than Marcus-money at Capela, but maybe not). Also, you need to take into account that the Parker and LaVine deals were unnaturally inflated, possibly the Wiggins deal too, but for the sake of argument, we can say that the market thinks Marcus is somewhere in the 10th-13th best player in that draft.. so is he still a hit pick?
My feeling is that he definitely is because my working theory is that as long as a high draft pick is not a bust, then he is a hit. What's your take?
-
I'd have to rank both Nurkic and Gordon ahead of Smart in a redraft.
That's not a knock though. For a #6 pick to still be considered in the top 10 of his draft class is fine.
-
Still bugs me we didn’t take Gary Harris instead of James Young at 17.
-
Still bugs me we didn’t take Gary Harris instead of James Young at 17.
Yeah, Danny couldn't resist a high risk high reward... sometimes it doesn't work out.
Fingers crossed big Bob works out...
-
What about Rodney Hood? How does he factor in a re-draft?
-
What about Rodney Hood? How does he factor in a re-draft?
Probably about the same place? Maybe lower?
-
Celtics would be a worse team with Wiggins or LaVine than Smart. They score more. They’re not better.
-
Again with the three categories. Yes or no is enough.
-
Again with the three categories. Yes or no is enough.
Ehhhh... I dunno, I voted ‘kind of.’ And I like Smart.
-
Again with the three categories. Yes or no is enough.
Sorta is the perfect answer. On one hand, we got a solid low end starter at the pick. On the hand, you expect more from a lottery talent.
-
Yes. Not every draft pick is going to be a superstar. Some draft picks are glue guys and that is ok. He could have easily ended up being a sullinger type of a player, a guy who shoots too much can’t rebound or defend and out of the league after his rookie contract. He isn’t though, he is a bonafide nba role player and one of the top 5-10 best defenders in the game
Every single contending team would love to have smart in their rotation. They don’t. We do. Go look at rival forums they hate playing against smart cuz of his pestering defense
-
Again with the three categories. Yes or no is enough.
Sorta is the perfect answer. On one hand, we got a solid low end starter at the pick. On the hand, you expect more from a lottery talent.
same, i voted sort, I don't know how to define "hit", so I assume a hit is someone who is an all-star level player
With that said, Smart isn't the type of player who's a star, but he's no bust, his impact on the court is not measurable on a stat sheet, while he is a poor shooter, i think he runs the offense relatively well, elite defense, hustles and is a very good leader
-
Sort of is a complete complete cop out. Make a choice. For my part, I voted yes because he’s a core part of the team. You don’t have to be a star to be a hit.
-
Always difficult to gauge Smart given his unique skill set that goes against the grain of the current NBA. He’ll never be a star, but he’s clearly a high-end role player who makes his team better on both sides of the ball, which makes him a hit to me.
I think you can assess this question in two ways: compare Smart to his immediate pick range competition (4 - 8) or via the context of the team.
He’s clearly a hit via the pick range criteria, as I think he’s the best of that bunch and fits the needs of our team much better than a Gordon, Exum, Randle, or Stauskas ever could.
As for context, I think of which players I would rather have right now given the context of the current team. And honestly, it’s not that many: (1) For sure - Embiid; (2) Probably - Capela, Harris; (3) Maybe - Jokic (not high on him personally). That’d put him at 5 at the lowest on a redraft per context and fit for the team, so that’s a hit for me.
Smart is just a perfect fit for this team and is surrounded by ideal-fitting teammates, which makes him a hot for me. And I think Smart’s effect on this team’s overall character and passion is also undervalued and something that should be considered.
-
Was Olynyk a hit too?
-
Was Olynyk a hit too?
Ask the Heat.
-
Always difficult to gauge Smart given his unique skill set that goes against the grain of the current NBA. He’ll never be a star, but he’s clearly a high-end role player who makes his team better on both sides of the ball, which makes him a hit to me.
I think you can assess this question in two ways: compare Smart to his immediate pick range competition (4 - 8) or via the context of the team.
He’s clearly a hit via the pick range criteria, as I think he’s the best of that bunch and fits the needs of our team much better than a Gordon, Exum, Randle, or Stauskas ever could.
As for context, I think of which players I would rather have right now given the context of the current team. And honestly, it’s not that many: (1) For sure - Embiid; (2) Probably - Capela, Harris; (3) Maybe - Jokic (not high on him personally). That’d put him at 5 at the lowest on a redraft per context and fit for the team, so that’s a hit for me.
Smart is just a perfect fit for this team and is surrounded by ideal-fitting teammates, which makes him a hot for me. And I think Smart’s effect on this team’s overall character and passion is also undervalued and something that should be considered.
You trade Smart for Jokic faster than you can say Banner 18.
-
He's a Key contributor on a team with Championship aspirations.
When he is not on the court you can definitely feel it and
The Guards playing ahead of him are a #1 and a #3 pick respectively.
How is he not a hit?
-
#6 pick who's a top 12 player, though one who would probably be passed over for some of the players drafted behind him in most people's re-drafts. Sure, it's a hit. It's not one I'd do a lot of bragging about, but it's a hit.
-
Here's your list of #6 picks going back to 1990:
Jonathan Isaac
Buddy Hield
Willey Cauley-Stein
Marcus Smart
Nerlens Noel
Damian Lillard
Jan Vesely
Ekpe Udoh
Jonny Flynn
Danilo Gallinari
Yi Jianlian
Brandon Roy
Martell Webster
Josh Childress
Chris Kaman
Dajuan Wagner
Shane Battier
DerMarr Johnson
Wally Szczerbiak
Robert Traylor
Ron Mercer
Antoine Walker
Bryant Reeves
Sharone Wright
Calbert Cheaney
Tom Gugliotta
Doug Smith
Felton Spencer
How many of those guys would you rather have over Smart?
-
A miss in a crappy draft in hindsight becomes a "sort of." I expect starters where he was picked. Pushed to make a hit or miss choice and he's a miss. However, he's a plus player and a specialist and that makes him a playoff rotation player on pretty much any contender.
-
Here's your list of #6 picks going back to 1990:
Jonathan Isaac
Buddy Hield
Willey Cauley-Stein
Marcus Smart
Nerlens Noel
Damian Lillard
Jan Vesely
Ekpe Udoh
Jonny Flynn
Danilo Gallinari
Yi Jianlian
Brandon Roy
Martell Webster
Josh Childress
Chris Kaman
Dajuan Wagner
Shane Battier
DerMarr Johnson
Wally Szczerbiak
Robert Traylor
Ron Mercer
Antoine Walker
Bryant Reeves
Sharone Wright
Calbert Cheaney
Tom Gugliotta
Doug Smith
Felton Spencer
How many of those guys would you rather have over Smart?
What's with the #6 pick producing all these guys who had their career cut short, or otherwise negatively impacted, by injury? Roy, Kaman, Szczerbiak, Gugliotta, Reeves, Mercer, Wagner, Gallinari, Flynn and Nerlens Noel all likely would have had drastically different careers had they been healthy. Especially Brandon Roy
-
Here's your list of #6 picks going back to 1990:
Jonathan Isaac
Buddy Hield
Willey Cauley-Stein
Marcus Smart
Nerlens Noel
Damian Lillard
Jan Vesely
Ekpe Udoh
Jonny Flynn
Danilo Gallinari
Yi Jianlian
Brandon Roy
Martell Webster
Josh Childress
Chris Kaman
Dajuan Wagner
Shane Battier
DerMarr Johnson
Wally Szczerbiak
Robert Traylor
Ron Mercer
Antoine Walker
Bryant Reeves
Sharone Wright
Calbert Cheaney
Tom Gugliotta
Doug Smith
Felton Spencer
How many of those guys would you rather have over Smart?
What's with the #6 pick producing all these guys who had their career cut short, or otherwise negatively impacted, by injury? Roy, Kaman, Szczerbiak, Gugliotta, Reeves, Mercer, Wagner, Gallinari, Flynn and Nerlens Noel all likely would have had drastically different careers had they been healthy. Especially Brandon Roy
Sheer luck
I remember pick 3 is historically better than pick 2.
The OP's list might be better if he included picks 5 and 7 I guess.
-
Here's your list of #6 picks going back to 1990:
Jonathan Isaac
Buddy Hield
Willey Cauley-Stein
Marcus Smart
Nerlens Noel
Damian Lillard
Jan Vesely
Ekpe Udoh
Jonny Flynn
Danilo Gallinari
Yi Jianlian
Brandon Roy
Martell Webster
Josh Childress
Chris Kaman
Dajuan Wagner
Shane Battier
DerMarr Johnson
Wally Szczerbiak
Robert Traylor
Ron Mercer
Antoine Walker
Bryant Reeves
Sharone Wright
Calbert Cheaney
Tom Gugliotta
Doug Smith
Felton Spencer
How many of those guys would you rather have over Smart?
Bolded part are the only players who made the All-Star/All-NBA teams. Although I'm not sure with the notion of All-Star=instant win and I might take Smart over most of them.
Shane Battier was also a solid defensive player like Smart.
-
He is slightly above his "floor" of what I felt he could be. So at least he isn't a bust. I don't call that a hit though. A hit at that high in the draft is an NBA all-star level player.
-
Was Olynyk a hit too?
Yes, obviously with the Greek Freak drafted just behind him there is regret of something better but he was definitely a good pick for where he was picked.
In terms of not picking GA, remember that in what was a historically weak draft, he wasn't even considered in the top 10. No one can debate what he has become, but there weren't many believers in GM circles back then.
-
He is slightly above his "floor" of what I felt he could be. So at least he isn't a bust. I don't call that a hit though. A hit at that high in the draft is an NBA all-star level player.
Take a look at the list in the post above yours. In a strong draft you can get an all star, in most drafts you'll get a starter if they pan out.
-
He is slightly above his "floor" of what I felt he could be. So at least he isn't a bust. I don't call that a hit though. A hit at that high in the draft is an NBA all-star level player.
I used to think that way but at least lately top picks seem to become busts far too often
2011
Derrick Williams
Enes Kanter
Tristan Thompson
Jonas Valančiūnas
Jan Veselý
Bismack Biyombo
Brandon Knight
Kemba Walker
Jimmer Fredette
2012
Anthony Davis
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Bradley Beal
Dion Waiters
Thomas Robinson
Damian Lillard
Harrison Barnes
Terrence Ross
Andre Drummond
2013
Anthony Bennett
Victor Oladipo
Otto Porter
Cody Zeller
Alex Len
Nerlens Noel
Ben McLemore
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
Trey Burke
C. J. McCollum
2014
Andrew Wiggins
Jabari Parker
Joel Embiid
Aaron Gordon
Dante Exum
Marcus Smart
Julius Randle
Nik Stauskas
Noah Vonleh
Elfrid Payton
not a big sample size but almost half of them are clearly worse than Smart and i don't think that more than 10 are better than him. So although is not a Lillard type of star he was o good pick
-
Let's wait for one more year. The one I believe we will hang banner no 18. Then I will be able to evaluate correctly. For now he is below expectations. A non starter on a playoff team, may start on bad teams. Normally at 6th pick you hope to get a longterm starter. I still love that he is back though.
As I wrote after we win the chip, we can realistically say.
-
Smart is absolutely a "hit" for the Celtics. A redraft places him in a similar spot and he means a lot to THIS team. The context is extremely important. For example, in a vacuum most of us would place Lavine above Smart. Does this mean we would prefer Lavine on our current team at $18 million per year?
Lavine is a skilled scorer but where does he rank among players with similar skill sets? I argue that his actual impact on winning is minimal. His defense is also atrocious. Opportunity cost needs to come into play at some point. I'd rather have Smart in a redraft because I can find a close approximation to Lavine.
Clint Capela is another interesting case. He has a couple of elite skills that are maximized in D'Antoni's system. Despite this he is actually a minus offensive player for the Rockets. Capella was unable to have a consistent positive impact against Golden State because his entire offensive game comes from rim running and rebounds. He recently turned down $17 million per year from the Rockets. If he get's $20 million or more in the future would we say that this is better value than Smart at $13 million regardless of team? I don't think the answer is an easy yes.
Embiid, Jokic, and Harris are the only players who I would be comfortable paying big money to regardless of the team. Wiggins still easily goes above Smart in a redraft but his poor attitude makes me wonder if he was always destined to become an overpaid volume scorer. I don't like the idea of $25+ million per year for a player who doesn't impact winning.
-
Yes he is a "hit." I think most people want an All-Star level player when drafting in the top 8-10 in the draft, but the reality is that those guys are quite rare and some luck plays into who achieves that and who does not.
Smart is an All-Star level talent on defense and has really turned out to be a good point guard, which I do not think many of us expected. I was hoping for a Gary Payton type upside but he many never have that offensive skillset.
There is still time though, and we now have him during his peak.
-
Yes he is a "hit." I think most people want an All-Star level player when drafting in the top 8-10 in the draft, but the reality is that those guys are quite rare and some luck plays into who achieves that and who does not.
Smart is an All-Star level talent on defense and has really turned out to be a good point guard, which I do not think many of us expected. I was hoping for a Gary Payton type upside but he many never have that offensive skillset.
There is still time though, and we now have him during his peak.
The other factor with drafting "All-Stars" is that some of them fill the box score without having an impact on winning. How many teams end up paying $25+ million to players who are unable to elevate their teams. Harrison Barnes is a nice example even though he isn't an All-Star. Barnes is absolutely a better player than Smart but is his actual impact worth the additional money? Shave off $7 million per year and I will argue that his value is in line with his true impact.
Despite Smart's flaws I am comfortable that he would have a positive impact on most playoff teams. His value ($13 million) is perfectly in line with his impact on the court. I would hate to be paying guys like Barnes, Parsons, Batum, Ibaka, Ryan Anderson, Lavine, Bazemore, etc.
-
He is slightly above his "floor" of what I felt he could be. So at least he isn't a bust. I don't call that a hit though. A hit at that high in the draft is an NBA all-star level player.
Take a look at the list in the post above yours. In a strong draft you can get an all star, in most drafts you'll get a starter if they pan out.
Problem with looking at a specific #pick that is its the odds of a pick making it. You have to see things as level of talent at his pick range when a guy is successful. A guy making it is not hitting in the draft. It's talent level.
-
If you can contribute positively in a meaningful role for a contender you're a "hit" at any draft pick, just maybe not a home run. Marcus can do that.
-
When Marcus steals the ball from Durant in game 6 of the finals this year leading to our 4-2 upset of the Champions, his status will go to hit pick. 8)
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
-
Was Olynyk a hit too?
Ask the Heat.
It's hard to consider a role player a hit at #6. If Tony Allen had been picked at #6 instead of #25, I wouldn't call him a hit.
-
If you compare Smart with players in his range, he's doing p well
3. Embiid
4. A. Gordon
5. Exum
6. Smart
7. J. Randle
8. Nik Stauskas
9. Vonleh
If you compare him with all the players drafted (eg Jokic at 41) it starts looking much worse, but I'm OK with our FO not being omniscient.
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
Not trolling honest question, what's your top 10 in a redraft?
-
Was Olynyk a hit too?
Ask the Heat.
It's hard to consider a role player a hit at #6. If Tony Allen had been picked at #6 instead of #25, I wouldn't call him a hit.
why? Smart is a key role player for a contending team . Without his defense, we wouldn’t have achieved what we did last season
-
If you compare Smart with players in his range, he's doing p well
3. Embiid
4. A. Gordon
5. Exum
6. Smart
7. J. Randle
8. Nik Stauskas
9. Vonleh
If you compare him with all the players drafted (eg Jokic at 41) it starts looking much worse, but I'm OK with our FO not being omniscient.
Other than Embiid, who Ainge also desperately wanted to move up to draft, is there anyone else you could suggest has had a better career/productive season in terms of importance/involvement to the team's success? Jokic is an outlier, because he was overweight, and out of shape and not even fully conditioned, which is why he fell so far. In fact in one interview a while ago, Jokic was almost considering not even bothering to go to the NBA, because while he believed he was an excellent player, his agent was actually considering withdrawing him from the NBA draft. Were it not for the fact that the Nuggets somehow ended up with a stroke of luck at him dropping so far, and deterring off scouts/developmental pundits, he wouldn't ever have been drafted, most likely still undiscovered until a team like the Spurs might've gone after him.
Getting to training camp in condition to make a difference required work. Eating isn’t nearly as much fun now for Jokic as it was back home in Serbia. Jokic likes flavor in his food, lots of it. And he likes food. Never was that more evident than when he arrived in Denver. He tipped the scales at 291 pounds, and had just turned 20 years old four months earlier. Even if he didn’t get enough touches to put his full game on display in Las Vegas, his size was.
But a plan to lose the weight was already in place.
Jokic’s agent, Misko Raznatovic, had designs on pulling him out of the draft. On June 16, Raznatovic even went so far as to tweet that Jokic would not be available to be selected.
“Nikola Jokic, 95, withdraw his name from the draft. He will play next year for Mega Vizura!” Raznatovic wrote.
-
I voted sort of. Because he is a not a limit star like some of the others but lordly can he impact a game. Some day his photo will be next to intangibles in the dictionary!
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
can you list your re draft?
i'm genuinely curious
i think he's good at 6
obviously jokic goes higher....but who else?
-
i looked at the draft list and i think he's the 6th best pick
embiid, jokic, wiggins, capela, maybe aaron gordon, maybe saric
then smart
and i'm being kind of generous here to the other players
-
@monkhouse my point was simpler than this
only compare a pick to picks in a similar range.
-
@monkhouse my point was simpler than this
only compare a pick to picks in a similar range.
I know, I know, it just annoys me greatly whenever people bring up Draymond Green, DeAndre Jordan, Giannis, or Jokic to refute their point of arguing Ainge isn't a good drafter. :P :P :P :P
-
@monkhouse my point was simpler than this
only compare a pick to picks in a similar range.
I know, I know, it just annoys me greatly whenever people bring up Draymond Green, DeAndre Jordan, Giannis, or Jokic to refute their point of arguing Ainge isn't a good drafter. :P :P :P :P
i think jaylen and jayson are perfect examples of him being a good drafter
especially tatum. he swindled another team
also lest we forget rondo at 21, bradley at 19, tony allen at 25
sure there are the gabe pruit's and giddens of the world, but man, he has NAILED some cornerstone franchise players when he gets the chance
-
He hasn't exactly lived up to what I thought he'd be coming out of college but I'd mark him down in the hit category. Important role player on a strong basketball team and one of the best defenders in the league. Just secured a 2nd contract of 4 years/$52 million.
That's not a miss.
-
He hasn't exactly lived up to what I thought he'd be coming out of college but I'd mark him down in the hit category. Important role player on a strong basketball team and one of the best defenders in the league. Just secured a 2nd contract of 4 years/$52 million.
That's not a miss.
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/history-of-the-nba-draft-by-pick/history-of-the-nba-draft-pick-number-6/
Not even close to a miss. The amount of times you don't even get a rotation player out of high pick like 6 is shocking.
-
for this coach and team yes .
he needed a certain enviroment
-
He hasn't exactly lived up to what I thought he'd be coming out of college but I'd mark him down in the hit category. Important role player on a strong basketball team and one of the best defenders in the league. Just secured a 2nd contract of 4 years/$52 million.
That's not a miss.
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/history-of-the-nba-draft-by-pick/history-of-the-nba-draft-pick-number-6/
Not even close to a miss. The amount of times you don't even get a rotation player out of high pick like 6 is shocking.
Seriously. Looking at that list, going back to 2000 the only player taken at 6 I would for sure take over Smart is Lillard. He’s already far surpassed half of them. There are a few who are ahead for now that Smart could pass over time (like Brandon Roy due to longevity issues) and obviously the jury is still out on the players drafted since Smart, but really it looks like Smart could easily be in the top 2-3 players picked at 6 between 2000-2019. Certainly at worst he’s an average result.
-
He's simply not a hit, because a hit at #6 would be Lillard. That's what a hit is. But he's definitely not a miss either. He's extremely valuable. Hence... sort of!
-
He's simply not a hit, because a hit at #6 would be Lillard. That's what a hit is. But he's definitely not a miss either. He's extremely valuable. Hence... sort of!
At #6 all-star or all-nba player is a home-run. Getting a good rotation player is definitely a hit.
Only at #1 and #2 does the expectation of an all-star level reflect what you can expect based on draft history.
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
Not trolling honest question, what's your top 10 in a redraft?
In order by original draft position (not redraft position)
Clearly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Wiggins
Embiid
Gordon
Saric
Capela
Jokic
Likely ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Parker
Warren
Nurkic
G. Harris
Possibly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Randle
LaVine
Hood
Bogdanovic
Grant
Clarkson
So I'd have him anywhere from 11-17 as being a reasonable spot right now. When you are drafted 6 that is a miss. I'm not saying it is a bust, but he should absolutely land higher than at best 11 to be considered a hit.
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
Not trolling honest question, what's your top 10 in a redraft?
In order by original draft position (not redraft position)
Clearly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Wiggins
Embiid
Gordon
Saric
Capela
Jokic
Likely ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Parker
Warren
Nurkic
G. Harris
Possibly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Randle
LaVine
Hood
Bogdanovic
Grant
Clarkson
So I'd have him anywhere from 11-17 as being a reasonable spot. When you are drafted 6 that is a miss. I'm not saying it is a bust, but he should absolutely land higher than at best 11 to be considered a hit.
Looking at your list, and I'm seriously confused, but okay.
-
He's simply not a hit, because a hit at #6 would be Lillard. That's what a hit is. But he's definitely not a miss either. He's extremely valuable. Hence... sort of!
At #6 all-star or all-nba player is a home-run. Getting a good rotation player is definitely a hit.
Only at #1 and #2 does the expectation of an all-star level reflect what you can expect based on draft history.
'Getting what you expect' isn't a hit, that would more aptly describe Marcus Smart.
A hit, taken from baseball, would be considered good if it happened 3 in 10 times. I'm sure guys in the #5-7 range become good starters 3 out of 10 times, Smart isn't at that level yet.
Lillard might be a home run, so ok, by that logic, Smart is a single or a walk. And I like Smart.
-
Smart is a single or a walk.
So a hit? ;)
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
Not trolling honest question, what's your top 10 in a redraft?
In order by original draft position (not redraft position)
Clearly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Wiggins
Embiid
Gordon
Saric
Capela
Jokic
Likely ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Parker
Warren
Nurkic
G. Harris
Possibly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Randle
LaVine
Hood
Bogdanovic
Grant
Clarkson
So I'd have him anywhere from 11-17 as being a reasonable spot. When you are drafted 6 that is a miss. I'm not saying it is a bust, but he should absolutely land higher than at best 11 to be considered a hit.
Looking at your list, and I'm seriously confused, but okay.
If you polled 30 GMs, there are at least 8 guys definitely ahead of Smart, maybe 10:
Embiid
Wiggins
Jokic
Harris
Gordon
Capela
Saric
LaVine
Nurkic
Warren
I'm not saying he's a miss, but you can't be a 'hit' if you don't outproduce your draft position or come very close, because if that's a hit, what is someone that actually becomes great or elite?
-
Smart is a single or a walk.
So a hit? ;)
Anyone thinking he's a hit is reaching.
-
Smart is a single or a walk.
So a hit? ;)
Anyone thinking he's a hit is reaching.
I'd say that the people who think freaking TJ Warren and Rodney Hood are better than him are reaching lol.
The average outcome of the 6th pick in the draft is pretty well in line with what Smart is, I'm happy to consider than a hit. A miss is a bust like Nik Stauskis, Alex Len, or Anthony Bennet. A home run is Dame Lillard, CJ McCollum, Giannis, etc.
That's my personal way to grade picks, getting someone who can play matters quite a bit.
-
This seems a little like silly business. The guy just got 52 with no leverage at all.
Any pick you want to stick around that bad is a great pick.
-
This seems a little like silly business. The guy just got 52 with no leverage at all.
The more I see about how his teammates reacted to him resigning and how much the team values him as a leader from reporters the more I see that aspect as "the leverage" that got him the deal in the end.
It seems to be the same money as was offered prior to this season, they could have turned the screws and lowered it.
-
Smart is a single or a walk.
So a hit? ;)
Anyone thinking he's a hit is reaching.
I'd say that the people who think freaking TJ Warren and Rodney Hood are better than him are reaching lol.
The average outcome of the 6th pick in the draft is pretty well in line with what Smart is, I'm happy to consider than a hit. A miss is a bust like Nik Stauskis, Alex Len, or Anthony Bennet. A home run is Dame Lillard, CJ McCollum, Giannis, etc.
That's my personal way to grade picks, getting someone who can play matters quite a bit.
I expect a starter with a pick in the 6-10 range. Rotation player 10-20. A wish and a prayer thereafter. I don't think Smart's a starter on a good team
I also think there's an element of insurance in Smart's contract with possibly KI and TR gone.
-
He hasn't exactly lived up to what I thought he'd be coming out of college but I'd mark him down in the hit category. Important role player on a strong basketball team and one of the best defenders in the league. Just secured a 2nd contract of 4 years/$52 million.
That's not a miss.
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/history-of-the-nba-draft-by-pick/history-of-the-nba-draft-pick-number-6/
Not even close to a miss. The amount of times you don't even get a rotation player out of high pick like 6 is shocking.
Wow! From that list, basically other than Larry Bird and Damien Lillard, everyone drafted at #6 in the history of the NBA would be considered a bust by some people on here based on how they are rating Smart.
-
I said no. I just don't think you go for a backup with the 6th pick. He's not even really a 6th man.
-
Was Olynyk a hit too?
Ask the Heat.
It's hard to consider a role player a hit at #6. If Tony Allen had been picked at #6 instead of #25, I wouldn't call him a hit.
why? Smart is a key role player for a contending team . Without his defense, we wouldn’t have achieved what we did last season
How high then would a player of Smart's caliber have to be picked to be considered NOT a hit? Is Evan Turner or Marvin Williams a hit at #2? Both have had long successful careers. Jeff Green at #5? In this thread, lots of differing expectations for what is considered a hit, such as borderline all-star+, good starter, or good role player. A miss isn't the same as a bust IMO...the #6 list posted above shows how a large % of picks don't meet our expectations.
-
Was Olynyk a hit too?
Ask the Heat.
It's hard to consider a role player a hit at #6. If Tony Allen had been picked at #6 instead of #25, I wouldn't call him a hit.
why? Smart is a key role player for a contending team . Without his defense, we wouldn’t have achieved what we did last season
How high then would a player of Smart's caliber have to be picked to be considered NOT a hit? Is Evan Turner or Marvin Williams a hit at #2? Both have had long successful careers. Jeff Green at #5? In this thread, lots of differing expectations for what is considered a hit, such as borderline all-star+, good starter, or good role player. A miss isn't the same as a bust IMO...the #6 list posted above shows how a large % of picks don't meet our expectations.
i think draft position is meaningless. Smart could have easily been a bust like 70% of those chosen at the 6 spot. We got a rotation player and one of the best defenders in the game. That’s a hit. Its not a homerun but it is very good
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
Not trolling honest question, what's your top 10 in a redraft?
In order by original draft position (not redraft position)
Clearly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Wiggins
Embiid
Gordon
Saric
Capela
Jokic
Likely ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Parker
Warren
Nurkic
G. Harris
Possibly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Randle
LaVine
Hood
Bogdanovic
Grant
Clarkson
So I'd have him anywhere from 11-17 as being a reasonable spot. When you are drafted 6 that is a miss. I'm not saying it is a bust, but he should absolutely land higher than at best 11 to be considered a hit.
Looking at your list, and I'm seriously confused, but okay.
If you polled 30 GMs, there are at least 8 guys definitely ahead of Smart, maybe 10:
Embiid
Wiggins
Jokic
Harris
Gordon
Capela
Saric
LaVine
Nurkic
Warren
I'm not saying he's a miss, but you can't be a 'hit' if you don't outproduce your draft position or come very close, because if that's a hit, what is someone that actually becomes great or elite?
And this is why their team sucks, at least most of them. Since Smart was drafted, Celtics never looked back at the lottery. Not saying he's the main factor, but he certainly impacts team record.
-
He was a miss. In a redraft he doesn't go 6 or better and probably doesn't even go in the top 10. He is a fine player and will have a fine career, but whether a draft pick hits or misses depends entirely on the draft and said player's position in the draft (his draft position compared to his re-draft position). In that Smart was a miss.
Not trolling honest question, what's your top 10 in a redraft?
In order by original draft position (not redraft position)
Clearly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Wiggins
Embiid
Gordon
Saric
Capela
Jokic
Likely ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Parker
Warren
Nurkic
G. Harris
Possibly ahead of Smart in a redraft
- Randle
LaVine
Hood
Bogdanovic
Grant
Clarkson
So I'd have him anywhere from 11-17 as being a reasonable spot. When you are drafted 6 that is a miss. I'm not saying it is a bust, but he should absolutely land higher than at best 11 to be considered a hit.
Looking at your list, and I'm seriously confused, but okay.
If you polled 30 GMs, there are at least 8 guys definitely ahead of Smart, maybe 10:
Embiid
Wiggins
Jokic
Harris
Gordon
Capela
Saric
LaVine
Nurkic
Warren
I'm not saying he's a miss, but you can't be a 'hit' if you don't outproduce your draft position or come very close, because if that's a hit, what is someone that actually becomes great or elite?
And this is why their team sucks, at least most of them. Since Smart was drafted, Celtics never looked back at the lottery. Not saying he's the main factor, but he certainly impacts team record.
These are the only guys who imo would be ahead of Smart in a redraft:
1) Embiid
2) Jokic
3) Wiggins
4) Capella (maybe)
That's it. 4 guys.
-
Making the whole thing binary "hit" or "miss" makes the argument pretty impossible IMO.
Redraft logic is pretty flawed. It would result in reporting a lot more misses than hits in the lottery, because every draft has a few guys that were never ranked in the top-14 that end up being quality players. The valid expectation at #6 actually is NOT to get one of the top 6 players in the draft, on average.
If hit/miss = pass/fail, then it's a hit.
If hit/miss = top 6 player in the draft, then it's borderline.
If hit/miss = high level starter/ top-50 player, then it's probably a miss.
-
Lavine or Wiggins over Smart sounds like a really good litmus test of your level of sophistication as a basketball fan.
Players from the 2014 draft I'd rather have on my team if I want to win games this year, setting aside salary:
Embiid
Jokic
Capela
Gary Harris
Dario Saric
Players I'd rather have over the next 4-5 years on a reasonable annual salary:
All of the above
Aaron Gordon
Bogdan Bogdanovic
Everybody else is either an empty calories guy right now (Warren, Wiggins, Lavine, Parker) with no guarantee of becoming a winning player, or is more of a 15-20 minute per game type of player.
I went with Gordon because of his potential as a versatile defensive stretch 4, and I went with Bogdan because of skilled wings that can shoot and get to the line are so valuable.
-
Only guys I'd unquestionably take over Smart in a re-draft are Embiid, Gordon, Saric, Gary Harris and Jokic. In other words, he'd still go 6th for me - which is where the Celtics picked. So I'd absolutely consider him a hit at that spot.
-
I said no. I just don't think you go for a backup with the 6th pick. He's not even really a 6th man.
“Not even really a sixth man?”
He was fifth in minutes, and while he came off the bench he was always playing in late-game situations. He’s the quintessential sixth man.
-
I said no. I just don't think you go for a backup with the 6th pick. He's not even really a 6th man.
“Not even really a sixth man?”
He was fifth in minutes, and while he came off the bench he was always playing in late-game situations. He’s the quintessential sixth man.
He's not one of the 6 best or most essential Celtics. Or if he is it's by the skin of his teeth.
-
Of all the players we realistically would have picked with the 6th pick he is easily the best.
-
Of all the players we realistically would have picked with the 6th pick he is easily the best.
Yeah. Realistically there weren't very many good players that were going to be picked 6th. Although Ainge was going to pick Durant first (wink wink) and he picked Jaylen over the field, so....here we are
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
-
i think he was a hit, especially when you look at stauskas, vonleh etc. Exum could still turn it around, but he could be another one too
-
i think he was a hit, especially when you look at stauskas, vonleh etc. Exum could still turn it around, but he could be another one too
Vonleh is still a weird one to me. Has all the physical tools (6'10", 240lbs, 7'4" wingspan, decent vertical leap) yet has just never put it all together. He was playing pretty solid ball with Chicago at the end of the year though.
-
I'd look at it like this - for the 6th pick, from the available pool, who would have been a better to pick for the C's team other than Smart?
-
i think he was a hit, especially when you look at stauskas, vonleh etc. Exum could still turn it around, but he could be another one too
Vonleh is still a weird one to me. Has all the physical tools (6'10", 240lbs, 7'4" wingspan, decent vertical leap) yet has just never put it all together. He was playing pretty solid ball with Chicago at the end of the year though.
Yeah, I had Vonleh pretty high on my draft board in 2014, although I started to sour in him during the workout process when there were rumors he was being recalcitrant during interviews and workouts (which seemed to be borne out by being selected 9th and then not doing much as a pro).
-
I'm tempted to put up a poll to further gauge people's attitude to the Smart deal, but no.
I remember when the Avery 4 year ~32million deal dropped in 2014, and people lost their mind. By year 4 it was one of the best contracts in the NBA. Avery struggled in Detroit, but so do a lot of guys.
So my question is how can it be compared to that deal?
11.2million or whatever it is reaaally isn't that much more, especially by 2018.
SO.. 1) Is Marcus more useful to this team (his heart and Celticsishness aside)
2) Would you trade him straight up for Avery's 2 year deal (chemistry building aside)
3) Are you confident that by the end of year one, the remaining three years will look stupidly cheap?
-
Marcus Smart is a 'hit' in the same way that if you went fishing and you caught a few legal sized fish, enough for a good dinner with your family.
Yeah, it was a success, but not the monster you'd hoped for.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
He’s better than 2 of the 5 players picked ahead of him, and all of the 5 players picked immediately after him.
-
I'm tempted to put up a poll to further gauge people's attitude to the Smart deal, but no.
I remember when the Avery 4 year ~32million deal dropped in 2014, and people lost their mind. By year 4 it was one of the best contracts in the NBA. Avery struggled in Detroit, but so do a lot of guys.
So my question is how can it be compared to that deal?
11.2million or whatever it is reaaally isn't that much more, especially by 2018.
SO.. 1) Is Marcus more useful to this team (his heart and Celticsishness aside)
2) Would you trade him straight up for Avery's 2 year deal (chemistry building aside)
3) Are you confident that by the end of year one, the remaining three years will look stupidly cheap?
Great questions!
1) Yes. For this specific team, Smart is more useful. Bradley is a better shooter, but he had slowed down imo in terms of his defensive tenacity after he signed his contract. He got exploited by Kyrie and others in big games, and was a poor ball handler and passer. Smart is the most tenacious defender by far on the team, his attitude drives the rest of our defense, similar to KG. His ball handling and passing also is the better compliment to Kyrie, Jaylen and Rozier.
2) No way.
3) Yes, easily, as long as he avoids serious injury. Smarts deal will look like a bargain by next summer. My only concern is that with his style of play and injury history, his body may not hold up.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
He’s better than 2 of the 5 players picked ahead of him, and all of the 5 players picked immediately after him.
Yep, but he isn't a top 10 player from his draft class. Just because other GM's also failed that year doesn't make Smart a hit.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
He’s better than 2 of the 5 players picked ahead of him, and all of the 5 players picked immediately after him.
Yep, but he isn't a top 10 player from his draft class. Just because other GM's also failed that year doesn't make Smart a hit.
It doesn’t make him not a hit either. Even if I stipulate that you are correct that he’s not a top 10 player from that year (and I’ve seen your list and there are some very debatable choices ahead of him), he has been an incredibly valuable player to this team, which is why he was just re-signed to a new 4-year contract. It feels like the anti-Smarters around here are continuing to ignore what many of us have said, that the Celtics very much value Smart, even after his signing of a new deal that some feel is over market rate. Can it not be that, in fact, the Celtics have a heck of a lot better info as to what constitutes value than you? If you make a pick, and he works out to get starter level minutes from you for all four years of his rookie deal, while you make the playoffs all four of those years, AND you are able to keep him beyond that rookie contract for another four years, then yes, he’s a straight up hit, no qualifications or silly redraft exercises needed.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
He’s better than 2 of the 5 players picked ahead of him, and all of the 5 players picked immediately after him.
Yep, but he isn't a top 10 player from his draft class. Just because other GM's also failed that year doesn't make Smart a hit.
It doesn’t make him not a hit either. Even if I stipulate that you are correct that he’s not a top 10 player from that year (and I’ve seen your list and there are some very debatable choices ahead of him), he has been an incredibly valuable player to this team, which is why he was just re-signed to a new 4-year contract. It feels like the anti-Smarters around here are continuing to ignore what many of us have said, that the Celtics very much value Smart, even after his signing of a new deal that some feel is over market rate. Can it not be that, in fact, the Celtics have a heck of a lot better info as to what constitutes value than you? If you make a pick, and he works out to get starter level minutes from you for all four years of his rookie deal, while you make the playoffs all four of those years, AND you are able to keep him beyond that rookie contract for another four years, then yes, he’s a straight up hit, no qualifications or silly redraft exercises needed.
Absolutely spot-on.
It certainly takes more mental gymnastics to try and label Smart a "miss" than it is to label him a "hit". Lot of silly stretching going on.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
so by your definition, Kyrie would be a miss since it's likely Kawhi would be considered the top player in their draft class? I think you'll find that a hard sell labelling Kyrie a "miss".
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
so by your definition, Kyrie would be a miss since it's likely Kawhi would be considered the top player in their draft class? I think you'll find that a hard sell labelling Kyrie a "miss".
Those are always tricky, but Kyrie would most definitely be 2 in a redraft so not quite the same thing.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
He’s better than 2 of the 5 players picked ahead of him, and all of the 5 players picked immediately after him.
Yep, but he isn't a top 10 player from his draft class. Just because other GM's also failed that year doesn't make Smart a hit.
There are two ways to evaluate this.
a) Was Smart a good draft choice by Danny Ainge at the time he made the decision? Saltlover's point supports that he was. Because he clearly is better than all the "reasonable alternatives" at the time of the decision.
b) Is Smart, in hindsight, worth his draft slot relative to other players from his draft? That is more debatable. It depends on how you value different things you get from the players.
On (b) I personally have Smart as right around the 10th most valuable player from that draft. Definitely below #6, but not like he's dropped off the table. I don't consider it a "miss" just because you are a few slots below where you were drafted. There's too much uncertainty and things can change season-to-season. He's still within a couple of strong seasons of climbing right back up.
The problem is, the trends haven't favored that. Smart came out of the gate getting minutes and establishing value on the court well ahead of most of his classmates. But since then, he hasn't really improved much each year while others in his class have started to take significant leaps and several have caught and passed him by. And others -- including guys who missed whole seasons -- have basically caught up to him in terms of total value returned.
Unless Smart starts to show some serious improvement in the areas that he has struggled, he will probably drop well out of the top 10 in value for his draft class by the end of this next season.
Sheesh. Looking at the list of guys in that draft, one guy who we had our hands on briefly that I kinda wish we hadn't let slip through was Dwight Powell. He's very quietly proven to be a really, really good NBA player.
-
If the standard for a "hit" is to pick the best player available from a historical career respective, almost every player ever drafted wasn't a "hit".
4 years down the road, Smart is an integral part of the team, and just re-signed for another 4 years. There isn't a single player taken behind him who is a led pipe cinch all-star caliber player, and only a few that we can definitively say are better players. Guys like Saric, Lavine, etc aren't significantly better players. I can see Capela and maybe Harris, but you can split hairs and favor one over the other, but there isn't a chasm between Marcus and anyone picked later.
As much as I've criticized him and his shooting and shot selection, he's a hit. No question about it.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
so by your definition, Kyrie would be a miss since it's likely Kawhi would be considered the top player in their draft class? I think you'll find that a hard sell labelling Kyrie a "miss".
Those are always tricky, but Kyrie would most definitely be 2 in a redraft so not quite the same thing.
really? I'd thought for sure you'd put him behind Butler and Klay at a minimum.
to me, either your standard applies to everyone or it doesn't. If you're giving a top pick the ability to slide as far back as #4 depending on who you ask for a redraft, why wouldn't Smart as a #6 get a little more leeway and still be a hit if seen as a #10 in a redraft?
on the whole, i think using a 'redraft' to evaluate a hit or miss is a poor premise. a better premise is can the guy play and produce on the court? if yes, he's a hit. whether or not he was good value for the slot he was picked is a different discussion. a perfectly valid discussion but not the same as whether the player is a hit or miss.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
so by your definition, Kyrie would be a miss since it's likely Kawhi would be considered the top player in their draft class? I think you'll find that a hard sell labelling Kyrie a "miss".
Those are always tricky, but Kyrie would most definitely be 2 in a redraft so not quite the same thing.
really? I'd thought for sure you'd put him behind Butler and Klay at a minimum.
to me, either your standard applies to everyone or it doesn't. If you're giving a top pick the ability to slide as far back as #4 depending on who you ask for a redraft, why wouldn't Smart as a #6 get a little more leeway and still be a hit if seen as a #10 in a redraft?
on the whole, i think using a 'redraft' to evaluate a hit or miss is a poor premise. a better premise is can the guy play and produce on the court? if yes, he's a hit. whether or not he was good value for the slot he was picked is a different discussion. a perfectly valid discussion but not the same as whether the player is a hit or miss.
He definitely goes ahead of Klay. Butler is more tricky, but I would expect the vast majority of persons would have Irving ahead of him, why I said 2, though you could at least argue 3. If he went 3 or worse, then he would certainly be a miss.
The value of the pick is what you are measuring by rating the pick as a hit or miss.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
I don't agree with this. There are a lot of guys who score more points, but those are empty calories.
Getting a player like Smart at #6 is a good outcome for any draft, but it's especially good in light of how weak the 2014 class turned out to be.
You obviously want to get an All-Star talent with a top 10 pick, but statistically that's always less likely to happen than to not happen.
If you come away with a valuable nightly contributor, especially one who brings intangible value on and off the court, you can't complain.
I would much rather have Smart than the empty calorie scorers like Parker, Warren, Hood, and Lavine, and I'd rather have him than role players like Dwight Powell, Jusuf Nurkic, and Elfrid Payton.
It's really hard to find defenders like Smart who can also take on playmaking duties and hit timely shots. It's not that hard to find solid role players at backup point and backup center.
This kinda makes me think of Shane Battier, who was also a #6 pick. I bet there were people questioning him as a top 10 pick back then, even though 01 was a weak draft. But you'd rather have Battier than a lot of the guys in that draft who averaged more points.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
I don't agree with this. There are a lot of guys who score more points, but those are empty calories.
Getting a player like Smart at #6 is a good outcome for any draft, but it's especially good in light of how weak the 2014 class turned out to be.
You obviously want to get an All-Star talent with a top 10 pick, but statistically that's always less likely to happen than to not happen.
If you come away with a valuable nightly contributor, especially one who brings intangible value on and off the court, you can't complain.
I would much rather have Smart than the empty calorie scorers like Parker, Warren, Hood, and Lavine, and I'd rather have him than role players like Dwight Powell, Jusuf Nurkic, and Elfrid Payton.
It's really hard to find defenders like Smart who can also take on playmaking duties and hit timely shots. It's not that hard to find solid role players at backup point and backup center.
This kinda makes me think of Shane Battier, who was also a #6 pick. I bet there were people questioning him as a top 10 pick back then, even though 01 was a weak draft. But you'd rather have Battier than a lot of the guys in that draft who averaged more points.
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves, and Smart's winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
so by your definition, Kyrie would be a miss since it's likely Kawhi would be considered the top player in their draft class? I think you'll find that a hard sell labelling Kyrie a "miss".
Those are always tricky, but Kyrie would most definitely be 2 in a redraft so not quite the same thing.
really? I'd thought for sure you'd put him behind Butler and Klay at a minimum.
to me, either your standard applies to everyone or it doesn't. If you're giving a top pick the ability to slide as far back as #4 depending on who you ask for a redraft, why wouldn't Smart as a #6 get a little more leeway and still be a hit if seen as a #10 in a redraft?
on the whole, i think using a 'redraft' to evaluate a hit or miss is a poor premise. a better premise is can the guy play and produce on the court? if yes, he's a hit. whether or not he was good value for the slot he was picked is a different discussion. a perfectly valid discussion but not the same as whether the player is a hit or miss.
He definitely goes ahead of Klay. Butler is more tricky, but I would expect the vast majority of persons would have Irving ahead of him, why I said 2, though you could at least argue 3. If he went 3 or worse, then he would certainly be a miss.
The value of the pick is what you are measuring by rating the pick as a hit or miss.
https://youtu.be/XCSBLR6z5OA
EDIT: similar logic
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
so by your definition, Kyrie would be a miss since it's likely Kawhi would be considered the top player in their draft class? I think you'll find that a hard sell labelling Kyrie a "miss".
Those are always tricky, but Kyrie would most definitely be 2 in a redraft so not quite the same thing.
really? I'd thought for sure you'd put him behind Butler and Klay at a minimum.
to me, either your standard applies to everyone or it doesn't. If you're giving a top pick the ability to slide as far back as #4 depending on who you ask for a redraft, why wouldn't Smart as a #6 get a little more leeway and still be a hit if seen as a #10 in a redraft?
on the whole, i think using a 'redraft' to evaluate a hit or miss is a poor premise. a better premise is can the guy play and produce on the court? if yes, he's a hit. whether or not he was good value for the slot he was picked is a different discussion. a perfectly valid discussion but not the same as whether the player is a hit or miss.
He definitely goes ahead of Klay. Butler is more tricky, but I would expect the vast majority of persons would have Irving ahead of him, why I said 2, though you could at least argue 3. If he went 3 or worse, then he would certainly be a miss.
The value of the pick is what you are measuring by rating the pick as a hit or miss.
https://youtu.be/XCSBLR6z5OA
EDIT: similar logic
I think the 'redraft rule' is important, but to me, it also matters that even if Kyrie would go #3 in a redraft:
-he's a multiple time all-star and ASG MVP. Smart is not close to this, redraft or no redraft.
-he's an Olympic Gold medalist as the best or 2nd best player on that team,
-he was in the MVP mix this year (tho no chance to win) at 25, which is decently young.
-he's an NBA champion as the 2nd best player on his team, and arguably the 3rd best player in that finals, behind LBJ & Curry (tho Curry wasn't elite in those finals).
To date, Smart has received no season accolades or all star appearances, he's just received a smattering of all-defense votes. To say Smart (drafted 6, redrafted, say, 8 ) and Kyrie (drafted 1, redrafted 3rd here) are the same because they would each go 2 spots later in a redraft ignores quite a few big indicators of success that one player has achieved. The other hasn't.
I know comparisons are relative, but to me, Kyrie's accolades matter even if he gets passed by a few players. What has Smart done to equal this, besides difficult to quantify 'winning plays?'
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
-
Stephen Curry was picked at #7 overall.
Marcus Smart was picked at #6 overall.
...
...
What do you think?
Certainly we would have hoped for a bigger impact from Smart.
But I wouldn't call him a miss either. He's an important rotation player. Possibly our 6th man this season.
But you do hope for a starter or an all star caliber player when you are picking at #6 overall in the draft.
We do have to consider the 2014 draft class itself. Were there any players we could have taken who are arguably significantly better than Smart at that draft slot?
Only ones that come readily to mind are Clint Capela and Nikola Jokic.
-
http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm
Look at the chart on this site. Rates the average return of pick #6 as 16.5 i.e. "Solid."
In other words, not a star, but more than your typical role player.
I think we can get into an argument here about what constitutes a "role player" and what constitutes the category between that and a star.
For me, Marcus is more than just a role player because he plays 28+ minutes a game and the role he fills for the team is one that would be difficult to replace.
Whereas to me a role player is somebody who has a valuable skillset and maybe plays starter minutes but is not especially difficult to replace. In other words, somebody who is more of a specialist. A shooter; a rebounder; a backup ballhandler. Smart is a combo guard who can switch 1-5, coordinates the defense, makes hustle plays, operates the pick and roll, and also occasionally gets hot and hits clutch shots. You can't go out and easily find that skillset on the free agent or trade market.
-
Stephen Curry was picked at #7 overall.
Marcus Smart was picked at #6 overall.
Curry is a huge historical outlier in terms of value at #7, so I don't know what you're trying to say here. He was a "grand slam in the bottom of the ninth in the World Series."
Certainly it's fair to say Smart was not a "home run." You hope to get more from #6, especially when you're drafting in that spot because your team is bad and lacking talent, as the Celts were in 2014.
But that's not the same thing as saying the pick was a "miss." It was a good pick. In baseball parlance it was a double, or at least a single.
-
It's hard to complain when you get "key contributor in winning plays, defense, and overall team culture on a contender" with the sixth overall pick in a relatively weak draft.
But in a weak draft you don't "hit" with many picks right?
He isn't even one of the 10 best players in the draft though. Weak or not if you don't live up to your draft position you are a miss.
He’s better than 2 of the 5 players picked ahead of him, and all of the 5 players picked immediately after him.
Yep, but he isn't a top 10 player from his draft class. Just because other GM's also failed that year doesn't make Smart a hit.
It doesn’t make him not a hit either. Even if I stipulate that you are correct that he’s not a top 10 player from that year (and I’ve seen your list and there are some very debatable choices ahead of him), he has been an incredibly valuable player to this team, which is why he was just re-signed to a new 4-year contract. It feels like the anti-Smarters around here are continuing to ignore what many of us have said, that the Celtics very much value Smart, even after his signing of a new deal that some feel is over market rate. Can it not be that, in fact, the Celtics have a heck of a lot better info as to what constitutes value than you? If you make a pick, and he works out to get starter level minutes from you for all four years of his rookie deal, while you make the playoffs all four of those years, AND you are able to keep him beyond that rookie contract for another four years, then yes, he’s a straight up hit, no qualifications or silly redraft exercises needed.
Could not have said it better than this. I think at almost all draft slots outside of the top 3, in any draft, you are looking to get a starter-level talent or at least a highly-serviceable bench player who can do one thing really well (or maybe everything above average). Then you are looking to keep that guy on your roster until he hits his peak at 27 or 28. The Celtics did both with Smart.
-
Marcus Smart is only the 10th best player in that draft at best.
But he’s also one of the only guys in that class that is already a big factor in playoff victories. That counts for something. If I’m making that 6th pick knowing what I know now I would take Randle, Jokic, Harris, Saric, Lavine, Capela over Smart. But hindsight is so clear, and I don’t think that makes him a bad pick...also he’s so young that he may play another decade and a half in the league so it’s way too early to call a guy who hasn’t even played a quarter of his career a bust..
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.
The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/warretj01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smartma01.html
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
-
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.
The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
I don't think Win Shares is going to accurately measure Smart's value. It's a box score, counting numbers driven statistic, and Smart, well, he's not a box score guy.
Compare stats like VORP or BPM among Smart, Lavine, Warren -- Smart comes out on top by those measures, easily. That's not to say those are perfect, either. But I think you need something that tries to measure success of the team while the player is on the court rather than counting stats.
Edit --- Saltlover beat me to this analysis. ;D
Warren and Lavine both have a career TS% around 54% and usage rate trending toward the mid to high 20s. That's fine, but it's not particularly great for volume scorers.
Then you look at the fact that they're poor defensively and they don't contribute a lot in terms of rebounds or playmaking relative to their position and they start to look, so far, like high usage bench scorers rather than a major piece on any good team.
I guess we both agree Smart is "solid," but you have different opinions as to the value of guys like Warren and Lavine. I don't think those guys have shown enough to be considered better picks than Smart, to this point. I feel the same way about Jabari Parker, who has had a lot of injury problems and can't play defense yet. Rodney Hood, similarly, has had some flashes / stretches but has yet to establish himself as a reliable contributor to a good team.
Meanwhile Smart has been a huge part of a team that's gone to the Conference Finals two years in a row.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics has 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
Agreed. I think you can make a case for any of them, but to suggest Smart is for sure ranked ahead of specifically Warren and Lavine right now just doesn't seem accurate to me.
Now, if Lavine doesn't improve across the board and Smart improves on offense, I can see Smart emerging clearly ahead of these guys, but it would likely take 2 years for this to play out.
-
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.
The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
I don't think Win Shares is going to accurately measure Smart's value. It's a box score, counting numbers driven statistic, and Smart, well, he's not a box score guy.
Compare stats like VORP or BPM among Smart, Lavine, Warren -- Smart comes out on top by those measures, easily. That's not to say those are perfect, either. But I think you need something that tries to measure success of the team while the player is on the court rather than counting stats.
Edit --- Saltlover beat me to this analysis. ;D
Warren and Lavine both have a career TS% around 54% and usage rate trending toward the mid to high 20s. That's fine, but it's not particularly great for volume scorers.
Then you look at the fact that they're poor defensively and they don't contribute a lot in terms of rebounds or playmaking relative to their position and they start to look, so far, like high usage bench scorers rather than a major piece on any good team.
I guess we both agree Smart is "solid," but you have different opinions as to the value of guys like Warren and Lavine. I don't think those guys have shown enough to be considered better picks than Smart, to this point. I feel the same way about Jabari Parker, who has had a lot of injury problems and can't play defense yet. Rodney Hood, similarly, has had some flashes / stretches but has yet to establish himself as a reliable contributor to a good team.
Meanwhile Smart has been a huge part of a team that's gone to the Conference Finals two years in a row.
The Lavine/Warren talk is just minutia over the redraft conversation, I don't particularly like those guys, I'd rather have Smart, but my team is a contender. For a team picking near the top of the draft, I think they have different needs.
EDIT: You're also not re-drafting players strictly based on stats from age 19-23, though they matter. But so does Lavine's upside, for example, if GMs believe in it.
I think Marcus is solid. He's not a hit, because that's a disservice to actual hits. We can have Celtics hits (Jaylen at #3) and home runs (potentially Tatum at #3), maybe even grand slams (Pierce at #10), but I'd call Smart 'getting value.' Just not a hit. Maybe it's just semantics.
-
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.
The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
I don't think Win Shares is going to accurately measure Smart's value. It's a box score, counting numbers driven statistic, and Smart, well, he's not a box score guy.
Compare stats like VORP or BPM among Smart, Lavine, Warren -- Smart comes out on top by those measures, easily. That's not to say those are perfect, either. But I think you need something that tries to measure success of the team while the player is on the court rather than counting stats.
Edit --- Saltlover beat me to this analysis. ;D
Warren and Lavine both have a career TS% around 54% and usage rate trending toward the mid to high 20s. That's fine, but it's not particularly great for volume scorers.
Then you look at the fact that they're poor defensively and they don't contribute a lot in terms of rebounds or playmaking relative to their position and they start to look, so far, like high usage bench scorers rather than a major piece on any good team.
I guess we both agree Smart is "solid," but you have different opinions as to the value of guys like Warren and Lavine. I don't think those guys have shown enough to be considered better picks than Smart, to this point. I feel the same way about Jabari Parker, who has had a lot of injury problems and can't play defense yet. Rodney Hood, similarly, has had some flashes / stretches but has yet to establish himself as a reliable contributor to a good team.
Meanwhile Smart has been a huge part of a team that's gone to the Conference Finals two years in a row.
The Lavine/Warren talk is just minutia over the redraft conversation, I don't particularly like those guys, I'd rather have Smart, but my team is a contender. For a team picking near the top of the draft, I think they have different needs.
EDIT: You're also not re-drafting players strictly based on stats from age 19-23, though they matter. But so does Lavine's upside, for example, if GMs believe in it.
I think Marcus is solid. He's not a hit, because that's a disservice to actual hits. We can have Celtics hits (Jaylen at #3) and home runs (potentially Tatum at #3), maybe even grand slams (Pierce at #10), but I'd call Smart 'getting value.' Just not a hit. Maybe it's just semantics.
In the end, I think some of the dispute here is about semantics. What do we mean by hit. Personally , I mean you got reasonable value given where the player was drafted, a miss would be betting poor value, and a home run would be getting much better value. By this standard Marcus is clearly a hit.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
While that's true in a technical sense they do tend to correlate reasonably well. I.E., a team will win more games in correlation with it's individual players accruing more win shares. And while it's probably not correct to say that its easier to accrue win shares on a winning team, there are some factors to that effect. A team with good shooters will help a player's assist stats. A team with a great playmaker might help another player get better shots.
While by no means perfect, Win Shares do seem to work as a pretty reasonable proxy for value for the vast majority of NBA players. As good as any other aggregate metric seems to at least. No single measure works great at capturing the value of every possible individual player, of course.
-
Yeah I think we're arguing semantics over the meaning of "hit" at this point as bellerophon said.
A "hit" to me would mean a draft pick that delivers an average or better value for that draft position.
I don't see a good argument for saying Smart hasn't been a "hit" pick by that metric. His value to the Celtics has been around what you could reasonably expect to get on average from a #6 pick historically, even if he probably hasn't turned into the level of player they hoped they were getting when they drafted him.
A very low percentage of top 10 picks become the level of player the team hopes they're getting when they draft the player, because that's how the draft works.
If you get expected or better value from a pick based on historical averages, I think that's a good pick i.e. a "hit", but you're free to define it how you like.
-
While by no means perfect, Win Shares do seem to work as a pretty reasonable proxy for value for the vast majority of NBA players. As good as any other aggregate metric seems to at least.
I agree, but I think Smart is the type of player that isn't accurately assessed by a metric like Win Shares (i.e. not part of the 'vast majority').
If box scores could properly weight steals and timely offensive boards or clutch three pointers, or if things like loose balls and deflections were recorded, then a box score based metric might come closer to describing Smart's impact.
-
I think the Celtics organization is insisting he was a "hit." They literally bid against themselves to resign him to a multi-year contract.
-
While by no means perfect, Win Shares do seem to work as a pretty reasonable proxy for value for the vast majority of NBA players. As good as any other aggregate metric seems to at least.
I agree, but I think Smart is the type of player that isn't accurately assessed by a metric like Win Shares (i.e. not part of the 'vast majority').
If box scores could properly weight steals and timely offensive boards or clutch three pointers, or if things like loose balls and deflections were recorded, then a box score based metric might come closer to describing Smart's impact.
Well, that may be true. But Win Shares 'favored' Smart in his first couple of seasons relative to his draft classmates. He was ranked very high by that metric his first two years compared to his draft class.
Was he not being 'accurately assessed' by Win Shares then?
Whether Win Shares are an accurate measure of Smart's value or not, the real problem seems to be that very few metrics of any kind have changed very much in a positive direction for Smart over the 4 years. Whereas for many of his fellow 2014 draftees, they have started to show large improvements in many measurable areas the last couple of seasons.
There are several names that are currently still ranked below Smart on aggregate value stats such as Win Shares that have played only 2 or 3 seasons compared to his 4 and that are very likely to climb past him soon on such rankings.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
-
Well, that may be true. But Win Shares 'favored' Smart in his first couple of seasons relative to his draft classmates. He was ranked very high by that metric his first two years compared to his draft class.
Was he not being 'accurately assessed' by Win Shares then?
Whether Win Shares are an accurate measure of Smart's value or not, the real problem seems to be that very few metrics of any kind have changed very much in a positive direction for Smart over the 4 years. Whereas for many of his fellow 2014 draftees, they have started to show large improvements in many measurable areas the last couple of seasons.
I would say no, Win Shares has never really captured his value.
At the same time, I agree with you that Smart hasn't really changed much as a player during his time in the league so far. I'd say he's gotten better as a decision maker passing out of the pick and roll and as a ballhandler he's gotten more controlled I think. But he hasn't shown any lasting or definite improvement in scoring generally or shooting more specifically. That is disappointing.
Some other players in the same draft class have shown more improvement, that's true too. Though I'd say part of that is they started out like most young players do ... rough, not particularly helpful to winning.
Anyways, Smart's upside compared to his peers and whether Smart has shown as much improvement year on year as you'd hope for from a top pick are not really the same discussion as whether the Celts "hit" on the pick, which I interpret as a question of whether the Smart pick has provided value commensurate with the expected yield of a #6 overall pick.
-
Never boring when he is on the court.
throwback player ....fun to watch
d miss him , if he was on another team.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
They’re not based on actual team wins at all. The person who created the metric for basketball found that the total win shares accumulated by the individual players on a team was highly correlated with the total wins a team earned, but that was an after the fact test of his metric to see that it did a good job. But an individual player’s win shares is team neutral.
-
For what it’s worth, CARMELO has TJ Warren at negative value with little upside left (labeled a scrub), LaVine also at negative value, with barely any more growth than Warren (offensive specialist), and Smart at positive value with a little growth left (Up-and-Comer). This is a downgrade for Smart, who was a Future All-Star last year, thanks to a step back in offense (I don’t know what LaVine and Warren looked like).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/tj-warren/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/tj-warren/)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/zach-lavine/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/zach-lavine/)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/marcus-smart/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/marcus-smart/)
-
Well, that may be true. But Win Shares 'favored' Smart in his first couple of seasons relative to his draft classmates. He was ranked very high by that metric his first two years compared to his draft class.
Was he not being 'accurately assessed' by Win Shares then?
Whether Win Shares are an accurate measure of Smart's value or not, the real problem seems to be that very few metrics of any kind have changed very much in a positive direction for Smart over the 4 years. Whereas for many of his fellow 2014 draftees, they have started to show large improvements in many measurable areas the last couple of seasons.
I would say no, Win Shares has never really captured his value.
So WS perhaps overrated him then and underrates him now? That may be true.
At the same time, I agree with you that Smart hasn't really changed much as a player during his time in the league so far. I'd say he's gotten better as a decision maker passing out of the pick and roll and as a ballhandler he's gotten more controlled I think. But he hasn't shown any lasting or definite improvement in scoring generally or shooting more specifically. That is disappointing.
You might think, ... except his turnover rate has increased each of the last two years. And it was really, really especially bad on pick-&-roll plays this last year. Horrifically bad, in fact. Combined with his very poor points-per-play production on P&R plays, there is pretty much zero evidence that he was anything but awful as a ball handler in pick & roll plays these last two years.
Smart desperately needs to show improvement in two key statistics to really turn his value around: Reduce his missed shots and reduce his turnovers. The former he can do by either shooting better or taking fewer shots. The latter he just has to get better in his handle and decision making. But he needs to improve these two things or he's never going to be more than he is right now. He's more than good enough in almost every other aspect of the game. But those two things really drag on him. It completely nullifies the value of him getting a defensive stop if he turns around and gives the ball back via a missed shot or turnover.
Some other players in the same draft class have shown more improvement, that's true too. Though I'd say part of that is they started out like most young players do ... rough, not particularly helpful to winning.
Anyways, Smart's upside compared to his peers and whether Smart has shown as much improvement year on year as you'd hope for from a top pick are not really the same discussion as whether the Celts "hit" on the pick, which I interpret as a question of whether the Smart pick has provided value commensurate with the expected yield of a #6 overall pick.
Yeah, as I stated a while ago in this thread, I see Smart as so far being about the 10th most productive player out of this draft which is fine for a #6 pick. And I totally agree with saltlover's characterization that he was the right choice by Danny given the alternatives at the time (assuming no good trade out deal was workable). And I do think Smart is a wonderful kid. I really like what he does for charity work off the court and all his teammates seem to really like and respect him.
But I am very concerned about his lack of developmental progress in the two areas I mentioned.
-
For what it’s worth, CARMELO has TJ Warren at negative value with little upside left (labeled a scrub), LaVine also at negative value, with barely any more growth than Warren (offensive specialist), and Smart at positive value with a little growth left (Up-and-Comer). This is a downgrade for Smart, who was a Future All-Star last year, thanks to a step back in offense (I don’t know what LaVine and Warren looked like).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/tj-warren/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/tj-warren/)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/zach-lavine/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/zach-lavine/)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/marcus-smart/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/marcus-smart/)
To be brutally honest, it isn't worth much. If folks are not feeling good about Win Shares as an accurate measure for Smart's recorded production, they should run far away from CARMELO. CARMELO every year has missed their projections on Smart by a country mile.
-
For what it’s worth, CARMELO has TJ Warren at negative value with little upside left (labeled a scrub), LaVine also at negative value, with barely any more growth than Warren (offensive specialist), and Smart at positive value with a little growth left (Up-and-Comer). This is a downgrade for Smart, who was a Future All-Star last year, thanks to a step back in offense (I don’t know what LaVine and Warren looked like).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/tj-warren/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/tj-warren/)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/zach-lavine/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/zach-lavine/)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/marcus-smart/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/carmelo/marcus-smart/)
To be brutally honest, it isn't worth much. If folks are not feeling good about Win Shares as an accurate measure for Smart's recorded production, they should run far away from CARMELO. CARMELO every year has missed their projections on Smart by a country mile.
I’m more using it to show the value it has assigned the past three seasons as another datapoint that it is at best arguable whether one should favor LaVine or Warren. In general CARMELO has tested well with projections. Smart took an unexpected (from most everyone) step backwards on offense last season, so sure, it missed that part of the projection. One could argue that it’s projection offensively is again too rosy, but the point is that Smart has consistently had significantly positive value, whereas LaVine and Warren are negative or near zero each of the past three seasons. CARMELO’s WARP is a combo of BPM and RPM, in an effort to mute the effects of one of those system being biased towards a certain player or class of players.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
They’re not based on actual team wins at all. The person who created the metric for basketball found that the total win shares accumulated by the individual players on a team was highly correlated with the total wins a team earned, but that was an after the fact test of his metric to see that it did a good job. But an individual player’s win shares is team neutral.
and yet players with very similar stats have vastly different win shares if one is on a good team and one is on a bad team.
BTW, basketball-reference flat out states they are generally tied to team wins
www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
They’re not based on actual team wins at all. The person who created the metric for basketball found that the total win shares accumulated by the individual players on a team was highly correlated with the total wins a team earned, but that was an after the fact test of his metric to see that it did a good job. But an individual player’s win shares is team neutral.
and yet players with very similar stats have vastly different win shares if one is on a good team and one is on a bad team.
BTW, basketball-reference flat out states they are generally tied to team wins
www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
From your own link:
Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins and the root mean squared error is 3.41 wins.
They don’t start with a team’s wins and then assign players portions of those wins, which is what Bill James does for baseball. They are not “tied” in any way to team wins. It’s just been tested to show that you get very close to team wins, which means the statistic is doing its job.
I can’t explain to you exactly how players with similar stats on will have different win shares, but you’re welcome to buy a book that does. Offensive Win Shares are credited to players based on Dean Oliver's points produced and offensive possessions. The formulas are quite detailed, so I would point you to Oliver's book Basketball on Paper for complete details.
Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details).
-
Smart is a role player. At his draft position, my expectation is a starter. I can't say he was a "hit." Not quite a bust either, though.
-
Smart is a role player. At his draft position, my expectation is a starter. I can't say he was a "hit." Not quite a bust either, though.
In a vacuum I can't disagree with you at all. However, how do we view things if Smart is a clear difference maker in a Finals match up with Golden State at some point over the next few years? I know I'm projecting quite a bit, but I'm curious how people would feel if we win banner 18 with Smart playing a key role in the 4th quarter of some of those wins.
I care more about his fit with our team as opposed to comparisons that are devoid of context. Smart's contract should be evaluated strictly on his ability to contribute to big time playoff wins. The grit, toughness, and intangibles need to be on full display in the most important games.
-
Marcus is my favorite player in the league so I'm bringing that bias with me, but I think he has DPOY potential. If you get a DPOY at #6, I think you have to be happy with that.
-
Smart desperately needs to show improvement in two key statistics to really turn his value around: Reduce his missed shots and reduce his turnovers. The former he can do by either shooting better or taking fewer shots. The latter he just has to get better in his handle and decision making. But he needs to improve these two things or he's never going to be more than he is right now. He's more than good enough in almost every other aspect of the game. But those two things really drag on him. It completely nullifies the value of him getting a defensive stop if he turns around and gives the ball back via a missed shot or turnover.
....
But I am very concerned about his lack of developmental progress in the two areas I mentioned.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really understand the level of concern or hand-wringing here.
I would love it if Smart would become a better shooter. I would love it if he became a better pure ball-handler. I'm mystified by how poor a finisher he is given how good he was in college.
All of that said, in my mind Smart has been a valuable player pretty much from day one. He has consistently helped the team win games, he's a major part of the team culture, and a core piece of their defensive game plan (the defense that was the best in the league last year).
To me, it would be great if Smart showed improvement in some other areas, especially those that show up more in the box score.
But even if he continues to be basically the guy he's been, I think he'll be worth his contract.
The main cause for concern I would have for Smart and his value moving forward is that his style of play will lead to more frequent injuries. I also worry what happens if he loses a step and isn't quite as agile moving his feet laterally, getting around picks, etc.
Your post makes it sound like Smart isn't actually a particularly valuable player right now and he needs to show major improvement in order to become one. I don't agree with that perspective.
I genuinely think Smart is in the 99th percentile or whatever in terms of players whose value is not well captured by the stats we most commonly use to measure player value.
That's not to say he doesn't have games where he hurts the team with missed shots or turnovers, but I think his impact is decidedly in the positive category, much more so than your typical ("replacement level") combo guard.
-
Smart is a role player. At his draft position, my expectation is a starter. I can't say he was a "hit." Not quite a bust either, though.
As has been said, it depends on how you define hit. A guy who plays starter minutes, plays in big moments and is usually in there at the end of games, and a guy who really impacts winning is a hit to me at six. I also disagree with the idea that he's not quite a bust, that suggests he is close to being a bust. I totally disagree with that. Smart is the first guy off the bench and a finisher on a team that could contend for a trip to the finals, that is very far from being a bust.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
They’re not based on actual team wins at all. The person who created the metric for basketball found that the total win shares accumulated by the individual players on a team was highly correlated with the total wins a team earned, but that was an after the fact test of his metric to see that it did a good job. But an individual player’s win shares is team neutral.
and yet players with very similar stats have vastly different win shares if one is on a good team and one is on a bad team.
BTW, basketball-reference flat out states they are generally tied to team wins
www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
From your own link:
Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins and the root mean squared error is 3.41 wins.
They don’t start with a team’s wins and then assign players portions of those wins, which is what Bill James does for baseball. They are not “tied” in any way to team wins. It’s just been tested to show that you get very close to team wins, which means the statistic is doing its job.
I can’t explain to you exactly how players with similar stats on will have different win shares, but you’re welcome to buy a book that does. Offensive Win Shares are credited to players based on Dean Oliver's points produced and offensive possessions. The formulas are quite detailed, so I would point you to Oliver's book Basketball on Paper for complete details.
Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details).
I never said that you started from teams wins and worked back. They absolutely correlate to actual team wins though. That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games. Team wins matter or else you wouldn't see the correlation that you do, even from season to season of the same player who has similar stats.
-
I never said that you started from teams wins and worked back. They absolutely correlate to actual team wins though. That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games. Team wins matter or else you wouldn't see the correlation that you do, even from season to season of the same player who has similar stats.
In 08-09, James had better stats than 07-08. He scored at an elite efficiency of .591 TS% compared to (very good but not elite) .568 TS in 07-08. He played a tiny bit more minutes. He had a higher DRB% and a higher overall TRB%. He also had a slightly higher AST% and BLK%, the same STL% and USG% to go along with a slightly lower TOV%. He scored, rebounded, assisted, blocked at higher per-36 rates while turning the ball over and committing fouls at lower per-36 rates.
In short, pretty much every single rate or efficiency stat was better in 08-09 and he played a handful more minutes. Thus, more Win Shares.
Individual Win Shares do correlate with team wins (because individually they should add up to close to the team total) and there IS some cross-influence because having better shooting / passing teammates will tend to help your own passing / shooting numbers.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
They’re not based on actual team wins at all. The person who created the metric for basketball found that the total win shares accumulated by the individual players on a team was highly correlated with the total wins a team earned, but that was an after the fact test of his metric to see that it did a good job. But an individual player’s win shares is team neutral.
and yet players with very similar stats have vastly different win shares if one is on a good team and one is on a bad team.
BTW, basketball-reference flat out states they are generally tied to team wins
www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
From your own link:
Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins and the root mean squared error is 3.41 wins.
They don’t start with a team’s wins and then assign players portions of those wins, which is what Bill James does for baseball. They are not “tied” in any way to team wins. It’s just been tested to show that you get very close to team wins, which means the statistic is doing its job.
I can’t explain to you exactly how players with similar stats on will have different win shares, but you’re welcome to buy a book that does. Offensive Win Shares are credited to players based on Dean Oliver's points produced and offensive possessions. The formulas are quite detailed, so I would point you to Oliver's book Basketball on Paper for complete details.
Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details).
I never said that you started from teams wins and worked back. They absolutely correlate to actual team wins though. That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games. Team wins matter or else you wouldn't see the correlation that you do, even from season to season of the same player who has similar stats.
Honestly, Moranis, I’m not sure what you’re saying at this point. “Based on team wins”, which you said, means that wins are a starting point for the calculation. Otherwise they are not based on them. Plain and simple.
As for this point:
That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games.
In the calculations for win shares, team wins are absent. It’s a function of “points produced”, a team’s relative pace, average points per possession league wide, and marginal points per win league wide (for offensive win shares). As I said before, go give Dean Oliver some money and buy his book where he comes up with his “points produced” metric, and maybe somewhere in there you’ll see a formula where team success is a factor. I frankly doubt you’ll find that tho. You keep harping that LeBron had similar stats, but without knowing how points produced is calculated, you can’t say what different stats mattered, not to mention that changes in team pace, average league offensive efficiency, and the marginal value of a point can fluctuate from year to year. Saying “the only difference is win totals” is hogwash, and completely belied by the formula at the very link you presented, in which win totals are 100% absent.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
They’re not based on actual team wins at all. The person who created the metric for basketball found that the total win shares accumulated by the individual players on a team was highly correlated with the total wins a team earned, but that was an after the fact test of his metric to see that it did a good job. But an individual player’s win shares is team neutral.
and yet players with very similar stats have vastly different win shares if one is on a good team and one is on a bad team.
BTW, basketball-reference flat out states they are generally tied to team wins
www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
From your own link:
Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins and the root mean squared error is 3.41 wins.
They don’t start with a team’s wins and then assign players portions of those wins, which is what Bill James does for baseball. They are not “tied” in any way to team wins. It’s just been tested to show that you get very close to team wins, which means the statistic is doing its job.
I can’t explain to you exactly how players with similar stats on will have different win shares, but you’re welcome to buy a book that does. Offensive Win Shares are credited to players based on Dean Oliver's points produced and offensive possessions. The formulas are quite detailed, so I would point you to Oliver's book Basketball on Paper for complete details.
Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details).
I never said that you started from teams wins and worked back. They absolutely correlate to actual team wins though. That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games. Team wins matter or else you wouldn't see the correlation that you do, even from season to season of the same player who has similar stats.
Honestly, Moranis, I’m not sure what you’re saying at this point. “Based on team wins”, which you said, means that wins are a starting point for the calculation. Otherwise they are not based on them. Plain and simple.
As for this point:
That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games.
In the calculations for win shares, team wins are absent. It’s a function of “points produced”, a team’s relative pace, average points per possession league wide, and marginal points per win league wide (for offensive win shares). As I said before, go give Dean Oliver some money and buy his book where he comes up with his “points produced” metric, and maybe somewhere in there you’ll see a formula where team success is a factor. I frankly doubt you’ll find that tho. You keep harping that LeBron had similar stats, but without knowing how points produced is calculated, you can’t say what different stats mattered, not to mention that changes in team pace, average league offensive efficiency, and the marginal value of a point can fluctuate from year to year. Saying “the only difference is win totals” is hogwash, and completely belied by the formula at the very link you presented, in which win totals are 100% absent.
The formulas that win shares are based upon are the offensive and defensive rating garbage that Dean Oliver came up with. They can be found in the glossary on BBREF.
-
Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of.
Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins. The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.
For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist. Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'
I don't think I really agree with this, either.
High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities. They don't actually really help you win games.
I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine.
But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.
The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value. The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches. They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).
Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).
Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2). Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.
Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart. You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%.
His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart. Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best. There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.
I also like Smart. You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.
Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record. For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins. If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.
If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP. In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.
They’re not based on actual team wins at all. The person who created the metric for basketball found that the total win shares accumulated by the individual players on a team was highly correlated with the total wins a team earned, but that was an after the fact test of his metric to see that it did a good job. But an individual player’s win shares is team neutral.
and yet players with very similar stats have vastly different win shares if one is on a good team and one is on a bad team.
BTW, basketball-reference flat out states they are generally tied to team wins
www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
From your own link:
Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins and the root mean squared error is 3.41 wins.
They don’t start with a team’s wins and then assign players portions of those wins, which is what Bill James does for baseball. They are not “tied” in any way to team wins. It’s just been tested to show that you get very close to team wins, which means the statistic is doing its job.
I can’t explain to you exactly how players with similar stats on will have different win shares, but you’re welcome to buy a book that does. Offensive Win Shares are credited to players based on Dean Oliver's points produced and offensive possessions. The formulas are quite detailed, so I would point you to Oliver's book Basketball on Paper for complete details.
Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details).
I never said that you started from teams wins and worked back. They absolutely correlate to actual team wins though. That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games. Team wins matter or else you wouldn't see the correlation that you do, even from season to season of the same player who has similar stats.
Honestly, Moranis, I’m not sure what you’re saying at this point. “Based on team wins”, which you said, means that wins are a starting point for the calculation. Otherwise they are not based on them. Plain and simple.
As for this point:
That is why a player like Lebron James can have worse stats in 08-09 and yet have significantly more win shares then he did in 07-08 when he had better stats. Same player, similar stats, the only difference is one year the Cavs won 45 games and the next they won 66 games.
In the calculations for win shares, team wins are absent. It’s a function of “points produced”, a team’s relative pace, average points per possession league wide, and marginal points per win league wide (for offensive win shares). As I said before, go give Dean Oliver some money and buy his book where he comes up with his “points produced” metric, and maybe somewhere in there you’ll see a formula where team success is a factor. I frankly doubt you’ll find that tho. You keep harping that LeBron had similar stats, but without knowing how points produced is calculated, you can’t say what different stats mattered, not to mention that changes in team pace, average league offensive efficiency, and the marginal value of a point can fluctuate from year to year. Saying “the only difference is win totals” is hogwash, and completely belied by the formula at the very link you presented, in which win totals are 100% absent.
The formulas that win shares are based upon are the offensive and defensive rating garbage that Dean Oliver came up with. They can be found in the glossary on BBREF.
Salt knows that and the formulas are on the page I cited above. While they don't have team wins in there, they absolutely correlate to team wins because the formulas include things like team PPG, opponent PPG, etc. All things that correlate to actual team wins. There is a reason that if you add up the WS of players on a team they closely correlate to actual team wins (bbref says the margin of error is 2.74 wins). It isn't exact because they don't start with teams wins, but they absolutely use team statistics which yield the results on the court (i.e. wins and losses). That is why a player can outperform another player on a different team and have less WS and why it is hard to use WS to compare players of similar roles but on vastly different level of team.
-
https://youtu.be/0w9aAutbayY?t=3m48s
Chris Ryan thinks Smart was the best bargain of free agency. I don't know if he really thinks that or if its just an excuse to talk about Smart but I do think we're seeing the beginnings of a narrative that could lead to Smart getting some real respect on defense from the national media.
If he comes out of the gate strong and then Celtics stay one of the best defensive teams in the league, I wouldn't be surprised to see a DPOY narrative unfold.