Are We Really Bringing Back Rozier?? (Update: Nope! Phew)

[liam]

If I don't have to watch Scary Terry not guarding his man and dropping into the paint to hunt a rebound to pad his stats any more I will be a happy man.

If I don't have to watch Marcus Smart throwing passes out of bounds, dribbling the ball off his foot, getting called for offensive fouls on flop attempts, and hurling contested jumpers from 5 feet behind the three point line - I will be a happy man.

I personally think both Rozier and Smart have their merits and have positive things to offer to the team.  In fact I feel they actually play really when when they are on the court together. 

But if I had to choose one or the other, I'd be re-signing Rozier and trading out Smart in a heartbeat.  I wouldn't even have to think about it.

You would have to do it without thinking....

[gouki88]

If I don't have to watch Scary Terry not guarding his man and dropping into the paint to hunt a rebound to pad his stats any more I will be a happy man.

If I don't have to watch Marcus Smart throwing passes out of bounds, dribbling the ball off his foot, getting called for offensive fouls on flop attempts, and hurling contested jumpers from 5 feet behind the three point line - I will be a happy man.

I personally think both Rozier and Smart have their merits and have positive things to offer to the team.  In fact I feel they actually play really when when they are on the court together. 

But if I had to choose one or the other, I'd be re-signing Rozier and trading out Smart in a heartbeat.  I wouldn't even have to think about it.

You would have to do it without thinking....

Lol. TP.

[Muzzy66]

Anyhow, I am admittedly a little too emotionally involved in this debate, so I will take a bit of a step back.

I've just been watching Rozier closely from the start, and I really feel he is a hard working, high character guy.  He has put in the work (and then some) to improve his game, he's sat quietly and waited for his opportunities without complaining, and when he's finally been given those opportunities he has embraced them and made the most of them.

I feel like this kid has done everything the right way, and proven (the hard way) that he is worthy of a starting role, and yet (through no fault of his own) has constantly been denied that opportunity.

Now that Kyrie is (seemingly) gone that starting spot is finally open, and I feel Rozier deserves a shot at the position he's been working tirelessly (and patiently) over the last 4 years to earn.   

Of course everybody sees things differently, and for those who don't like Rozier (either as a player or as a person), I guess you don't see things the same way, and that's OK. 

[GRADYCOLNON]

Burned bridge argument is weak.  What was unique was that he told his truth even if it didn't lineup with everyone else's.  Wasn't a great idea to air it out, but he just turned 25.  Let's face it, if the Celtics weren't turned off by the sugar and spaghetti, they knew what they were getting.

The performance issues were to be expected, to some degree.  Expectations were definitely overbearing since it was apparent Irving would be starting.  He played exactly how he did prior to his brief promotion.  So faulting him for missing out on playing with better rhythm and players crosses too close to unreasonable. 

All in all, Rozier lost a lot of money from this season.  I would be irate too if the guy who sapped it from you just didn't care and then leaves.  I think, like others have mentioned, whether the price is reasonable so we can sign another big piece, that keeping Rozier isn't a bad idea.

Option-wise, there is Rubio and Beverley and Rondo and Collison.  My preference is someone not past their prime; Rubio is still 28.  Typically, the standard career for point guards ends around 31 years old.  The position takes a beating due to the athleticism required to cover so much court.  Factoring the team is looking to keep competing, this should only give Rubio three reasonable seasons left, likely at a price, no less than 14M annually.  Others may disagree, but he still is a starter and isn't going to settle on a contract.  I think the preference for the majority of the money should go to a big. 

This leaves Rozier, at 25, a reasonable option considering that his price, with his recent escapades and outbursts, has cost himself at least 5M annually.  With an innate understanding of the Celtics offense and defensive schemes, who is a better candidate to compete for the starting point guard position?  Edwards?

Splitting time with Smart may be a problem. But the Celtics are likely to find his ball security favorable to Smart.  The lack of defense has never stopped them from ushering out a scoring point guard.  And while this ideally needs to be corrected, moving Rozier, at a lower price, considering a likely fluffing of statistics and general production, the Celtics can use him as transaction fodder to improve the team. 

The upside to losing him, I can tell, is not dealing with him.  And having to pay him.  I may be missing some.  But how bad do they have to be that we don't keep a player that is serviceable?

[playdream]

No lol we don't, why is this even a question?

[liam]

Anyhow, I am admittedly a little too emotionally involved in this debate, so I will take a bit of a step back.

I've just been watching Rozier closely from the start, and I really feel he is a hard working, high character guy.  He has put in the work (and then some) to improve his game, he's sat quietly and waited for his opportunities without complaining, and when he's finally been given those opportunities he has embraced them and made the most of them.

I feel like this kid has done everything the right way, and proven (the hard way) that he is worthy of a starting role, and yet (through no fault of his own) has constantly been denied that opportunity.

Now that Kyrie is (seemingly) gone that starting spot is finally open, and I feel Rozier deserves a shot at the position he's been working tirelessly (and patiently) over the last 4 years to earn.   

Of course everybody sees things differently, and for those who don't like Rozier (either as a player or as a person), I guess you don't see things the same way, and that's OK.

I do hope Rozier succeeds as well. I was just really frustrated with him this last year. He deserves a chance  either here or elsewhere....

[CelticsElite]

Ainge didn't really draft a PG high. I feel like if we were moving on from rozier, that would have been a priority to have a prospect PG on the pipeline

Waters and Struss look good but theyre g-league bound, and Edwards will be more of a scorer and less of a PG

[obnoxiousmime]

Re: Smart, nobody is complaining anymore because our expectations have been calibrated lower and he signed for a deal that is more or less his market value. He wasn't signed to be "the missing piece" or given some unfair deal based on unfulfilled potential. He is what he is and fans are accustomed to it. If you buy something with full knowledge of the flaws ahead of time, you can't be upset when those flaws arise later. Also, I think that it's easier to accept Smart's limitations because he at least does one thing really well: defense. Rozier is very well rounded, but he doesn't shoot well and isn't elite in any one category other than that.

Also, if you're going to gripe about your role, it always helps if you are actually playing well. It's easy to have some sympathy for a player who outplays their role. He didn't play well and he wanted a bigger role!

The First Take appearance was a really bad look because the season had just ended and the fanbase was probably at its low point. Doing the "burn bridges" thing is already going to make you unpopular, but to do it when he did was the worst. It also, fairly or unfairly, reinforced the suspicion that Rozier cared more about his upcoming free agency than he did about team success and the playoffs.

[Muzzy66]

Some weird somewhat revisionist takes here let's look by the number.

1. Rozier was never on a team with Rondo. This is completely made up fiction.

Mental error on my part.  It was the trio of Avery Bradley (33 MPG), Isaiah Thomas (32 MPG) and Marcus Smart (27 MPG) who were taking up all the minutes that first season - I knew there was somebody but got it mixed up, so i will concede that one.  There was also Evan Turner (27 MPG) who also filled in a point-forward quite a bit. 

In Rozier's second year it was again Thomas (34 MPG), Bradley (33 MPG) and Smart (30 MPG) taking up pretty much all the available guard minutes.

Either way, given how established those three players were, Rozier never really had a chance to get on the court - no matter how good he was / wasn't (and the coaches constantly raved about how good he was in practice) he was never taking minutes away from either one of those guys.

2. He didn't receive playing time behind IT and Smart for two years because IT and Smart were much better players. Rozier was God awful his first two years in the league. If he had complained of playing time, he would have been instantly sent off to some awful team.

Marcus Smart was awful when he first started with the Celtics - but he was force fed minutes regardless, likely for two key reasons:

1. Boston was coming off a rebuild and a bottom 6 finish, so here was no real expectation to win
2. Smart was a top 5 pick, so there was an expectation for him to play

Regardless of the reason, it took Smart at least around half a season of consistent starter/6th-man minutes before he started to look like anything resembling a starting calibre NBA player.  But despite how green he was, the coaching staff stuck by hi and gave him the reps.

When Rozier came long Boston were suddenly playing competitive basketball again and were trying to win, Smart had already earned his role (pretty much by default) the prior season, and the Trio of Bradley/Smart/Thomas were eating up all of the minutes available at the guard spots. 

The same was true in Rozier's second season. 

Now you can't BLAME Boston for not playing him given the circumstances - Rozier was just the beneficiary of bad timing, while Smart was the beneficiary of good timing.  If Rozier and Smart were drafted in opposite seasons, we may well be looking at a totally reversed scenario - Rozier wold have gotten big minutes from day one and probably earned his role s a fringe starter midway through his rookie year, while Smart would have been buried deep on the bench for his first two seasons and would probably still look like he did in his first 2 - 3 months in the league. 

But it's not Rozier's fault either.  He was drafted to a playoff calibre team that was already filled up at the guard position, and as a result he never really got an opportunity to play real NBA minutes until his third season. 

In fact by the time Rozier entered his third NBA season he had logged only 1,574 NBA minutes.  Marcus Smart logged 1,808 minutes in his rookie year alone. 

You can't escape the fact that due to factors outside of his control, Rozier simply never had the same opportunity to develop that Smart had - so it is logical that Rozier struggled immensely in his first two seasons.

3. This is truth, but so what. It's a backup's job to step in and step up when the starter gets hurt.

That's correct. 

But Rozier was also called up in the playoffs in his third season - a year during which he got very few opportunities.  The only time he got more then a handful of minutes on the court was during garbage time in blowouts.  He had very little time to build chemistry with other guys, had barely played any meaningful NBA minutes.  And yet when he was called upon, in the playoffs, on the biggest stage, he came out and made a real contribution and actually helped the team win games.  That's huge coming from a guy who was as green as he was.

Then the following year when Kyrie was lost, he was called upon once again - and for the second time he elevated his game to another level come playoff time and surprised everybody by doing by filling Kyrie's shoes incedibly well and helping to carry the Celtics to the ECF. 

It's rare to find players who elevate their game on the biggest stage like that. A lot of inexperienced guys wold have crumbled under the pressure of having to fill the shoes of a guy like Kyrie.  But Rozier embraced it, and he held his own against high profile guys like Eric Bledsoe and Ben Simmons. 

Then the following year when Kyrie missed games due to injury, and Rozier was given the start, he once again too advance and played very well in the majority of those games.  You can can argue that those games were largely against poor teams, but even poor teams still have good players, and he still turned in solid performances against some quality starters.

You say "so what?". 

I think the point is self explanatory. Rozier has proven time and time again that when he is called upon in times of need, he's capable of stepping up and bearing the load.  It's not a huge sample size, but it's a big enough one to rule it out as just being a "fluke".  He's earned the reputation of being a starting calibre PG. 

4. He proved nothing. He had a good stretch of basketball in the playoffs but he never proved he was deserving of more minutes than Kyrie or Smart. He never proved he was better players than those two. And what did he do? He went and proved, all year long that he was a worse player. Rozier was awful as a whole last year because of his "me first" style of play.

Really?

I would argue that Rozier had a bigger role then Smart in leading Boston to the ECF against the Cavs a year ago. 

I would also argue that Boston had a better win record with Rozier as a starter then they did as Kyrie as a starter this season.  Of course you will bring up the fact that the record was against sub-par teams, but even against sub-par teams a win record of (what was it, 85% or so?) is pretty [dang] impressive.  Did the Celtics win 85% of their games against bad teams with Kyrie as a starter?

I would also argue that out of the 6 categories I would consider important to the PG role (in order: handles, passing/playmaking, decision making, shooting, defense, rebounding) Rozier is better than Smart in every one of those areas except defense.

I certainly wouldn't try to argue Rozier is a better player then Kyrie, but there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest the team played better when Rozier was starting then they did with Kyrie starting.  Maybe Kyrie's toxic relationship with the team had something to do with that.  Maybe it was his ISO heavy ego ball.   

I'd also argue Rozier is an objectively better PG then Marcus Smart.

You clearly disagree, and that's OK.

5. The games that Rozier started were chosen, for the most part, because the team was playing a terrible opponent. Here is who he started against:

@Utah(50-32)
New Orleans(33-49)
Minnesota(36-46)
Dallas(33-49)
@Brooklyn(42-40)
Cleveland(19-63)
Brooklyn(42-40)
Charlotte(39-43)
@Cleveland(19-63)
@Philadelphia(51-31)
@Sacramento(39-43)
@Cleveland(19-63)
@Brooklyn(42-40)
@Washington (32-50)

Just 2 good teams in 14 games. This probably explains his better numbers starting this year.

Utah was a playoff team.
Brooklyn was a playoff team.
Charlotte was a fringe playoff team.
Sacramento was a fringe playoff team.
Philadelphia was a top 4 seed in the east

Out of those 14 games, 7 of them were against teams that were either playoff teams or fringe playoff teams.  Only three of those games (the three Cleveland ones) were against true bottom feeders.

Given how chaotic and inconsistent this team was last season, I would argue that at least around 10 of those 14 games would have been very lose-able with Kyrie in the starting lineup.

6. In what alternate reality did Rozier often play better than Smart last year? Certainly not on the defensive end as Smart was a 1st Team All-Defense and Rozier wasn't close to his level of defense. Clearly it wasn't at shooting the ball as Smart had better, in some instances much better, shooting percentages across the board(FG%, FT%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG% and TS%). It wasn't at passing the ball as Smart had better APG, Per36 APG and Assist%. And just about every advanced metric says Smart was better(PER, WS, OWS, DWS, WS/48, BPM, OBPM, DBPM, VORP...all with Smart with better numbers). All Rozier did better is rebound the ball. That is it. Smart was tremendously better as a player than Rozier all last year.

Cherry picking stats...

APG, Assist Per 36, Assist % - ultimately all tell the same story.  They are all measures of the rate at which a player can generate assists.  I already listed that Smart has had a slightly higher assist rate then Rozier.

BUT

There is more to being a PG then simply generating assists.  It's perceived by many that a turnover can be every bit as costsly as an assist is helpful - so a players ability to general assists is only as helpful as his tendancy to turnover the ball is hurtful.

Rozier's Assist to turnover ratio last year?  3.4
Smart's Assist to turnover ratio?  2.0

Rozier's Turnover rate? 8.8%
Smart's Turnover rate?  16.5%

Rozier's Turnovers due to bad passes? 35 (0.44 per game / 0.70 per 36 minutes)
Smart's Turnovers due to bad passes? 81 (1.01 per game /1.3 Per 36 Minutes)

Smart did shoot better percentages then Rozier last season, this I will give you - but it was also the first time in their careers that Smart did so.

So if you single out JUST last season, you can give Smart two wins - defense and shooting.

You really cannot consider Smart the better playmaker when he is averaging a smidgen higher assist % while also throwing twice as many bad passes - the turnovers more than make up for the miniscule edge Smart has in outright assists.

If you look at their career body of work, then defense is the ONLY area where Smart is winning this comparison.

Also, you are saying that Rozier had a HORRIBLE season last season.  Are you also of the opinion that Smart had the best season of his career?  Because if so, I'd like to do a direct statistical comparison from last year alone:

Smart: 8.9 PPG, 4.0 APG, 2.9 RPG, 1.8 SPG, 0.4 BPG, 1.5 TOPG, 42% FG, 36% 3PT, 81% FT, 27.5 MPG
Rozier: 9.0 PPG, 2.9 APG, 3.9 RPG, 0.9 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 0.9 TOPG, 39% FG, 35% 3PT, 79% FT, 22.7 MPG

Is it just me - those numbers do not look drastically different. 

If this is what it looks like when you compare Rozier's supposedly "horrendous" year against Marcus Smart's "best season" of his career....it doesn't seem to make an especially strong case against Rozier. He put up comparable stats to Smart in 5 less minutes...

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Smart didn't luck into minutes, he defensed his way into them. If Smart played without being the defender he has been, he wouldn't be getting minutes at any time either. We have had teams hobbling through seasons and CBS wouldn't give people minutes. Smart wouldn't still be a Cs without that defense IMO. Smart has been injured a LOT over the years, there have been plenty of minutes for Rozier to earn. Doesn't mean he's bad, it could just mean he hasn't grown into his full potential.

[Muzzy66]

Re: Smart, nobody is complaining anymore because our expectations have been calibrated lower and he signed for a deal that is more or less his market value. He wasn't signed to be "the missing piece" or given some unfair deal based on unfulfilled potential. He is what he is and fans are accustomed to it. If you buy something with full knowledge of the flaws ahead of time, you can't be upset when those flaws arise later. Also, I think that it's easier to accept Smart's limitations because he at least does one thing really well: defense. Rozier is very well rounded, but he doesn't shoot well and isn't elite in any one category other than that.

Also, if you're going to gripe about your role, it always helps if you are actually playing well. It's easy to have some sympathy for a player who outplays their role. He didn't play well and he wanted a bigger role!

The First Take appearance was a really bad look because the season had just ended and the fanbase was probably at its low point. Doing the "burn bridges" thing is already going to make you unpopular, but to do it when he did was the worst. It also, fairly or unfairly, reinforced the suspicion that Rozier cared more about his upcoming free agency than he did about team success and the playoffs.

These are fair arguments.

But if this is the argument, then isn't it also a bit hypocritical to be so hard on Rozier?

I mean you say we aren't so critical of Smart because we know what he is, and we've adjusted our expectations.  To read between the lines, that would suggest we are critical of Rozier because we have yet to see what his ceiling is - perhaps he could be more, and hence we are frustrated that he hasn't become more.

BUT

At the same time, I would argue that a big reason why he hasn't become more is because he really hasn't been given the opportunity to be any more.   How much can you possibly show when you are limited to ~20 MPG as a third string backup PG?

The only time he's really had an opportunity to show much more is when somebody has gotten hurt and he's been temporarily pushed into a bigger role, and for the most part anytime that has happened Rozier has responded and played very well.

I agree with you 100% that his interview on First Take was ill advised.  The timing was bad sure, but even if he did that interview now it would be taken poorly.  At the same time, I can't help but feel that he was just being real, and that he simply came out and said what pretty much everybody else on the team was already thinking and probably WANTING to say. 

I won't deny that it was a poor move, but then I also shouldn't his agent be stepping in and stopping him from engaging in something like that?

I sure as hell can't blame him for feeling the way he does.  I mean we know for a fact that Rozier wasn't the only guy out there with the concerns he expressed - it's been made pretty clear from media comments that Brown and Tatum came into the year with increased expectations after their role in the Celtics playoff run the season before, and that they were somewhat unhappy that Kyrie and Gordon Hayward were hogging the spotlight. 

If those guys felt this way, why is it so wrong for Rozier to feel the same thing?

If you adjust Rozier's and Brown's stats on a per 31 minute basis (to compare with Tatum) here is what you would get:

Rozier: 12.3 points, 5.3 Rebounds, 4 Assists, 1.2 steals, 39% FG, 35% 3PT, 79% FT
Brown: 15.5 points, 5.0 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 1.1 steals, 46% FG, 34% 3PT, 66% FT
Tatum: 15.7 points, 6.0 rebounds, 2.1 assists, 1.1 steals, 45% FG, 37% 3PT, 85% FT

Rozier's stats are obviously below that of Brown and Tatum, but it's not exactly day and night.  His overall stats are still somewhere in the same stratosphere, with PPG and FG% being really the only statistic that really jump out as being below those two guys.

So I don't think it's that unreasonable for Rozier to feel he deserves of a starting role [dang] near as much as those guys do - especially when he contributed just as much as they did to the Celtics ECF run against the Cavs.

I don't think there is anything overly wrong with Rozier's expectations, and as far as the First Take thing - yeah that was stupid.  He's like 25 though, he's a young guy.  Young guys do stupid things sometimes. I don't think that alone should be effectively boycott the guy.  if anything I think it's a good reason for Rozier to fire his agent.

[RockinRyA]

Some weird somewhat revisionist takes here let's look by the number.

1. Rozier was never on a team with Rondo. This is completely made up fiction.

Mental error on my part.  It was the trio of Avery Bradley (33 MPG), Isaiah Thomas (32 MPG) and Marcus Smart (27 MPG) who were taking up all the minutes that first season - I knew there was somebody but got it mixed up, so i will concede that one.  There was also Evan Turner (27 MPG) who also filled in a point-forward quite a bit. 

In Rozier's second year it was again Thomas (34 MPG), Bradley (33 MPG) and Smart (30 MPG) taking up pretty much all the available guard minutes.

Either way, given how established those three players were, Rozier never really had a chance to get on the court - no matter how good he was / wasn't (and the coaches constantly raved about how good he was in practice) he was never taking minutes away from either one of those guys.

2. He didn't receive playing time behind IT and Smart for two years because IT and Smart were much better players. Rozier was God awful his first two years in the league. If he had complained of playing time, he would have been instantly sent off to some awful team.

Marcus Smart was awful when he first started with the Celtics - but he was force fed minutes regardless, likely for two key reasons:

1. Boston was coming off a rebuild and a bottom 6 finish, so here was no real expectation to win
2. Smart was a top 5 pick, so there was an expectation for him to play

Regardless of the reason, it took Smart at least around half a season of consistent starter/6th-man minutes before he started to look like anything resembling a starting calibre NBA player.  But despite how green he was, the coaching staff stuck by hi and gave him the reps.

When Rozier came long Boston were suddenly playing competitive basketball again and were trying to win, Smart had already earned his role (pretty much by default) the prior season, and the Trio of Bradley/Smart/Thomas were eating up all of the minutes available at the guard spots. 

The same was true in Rozier's second season. 

Now you can't BLAME Boston for not playing him given the circumstances - Rozier was just the beneficiary of bad timing, while Smart was the beneficiary of good timing.  If Rozier and Smart were drafted in opposite seasons, we may well be looking at a totally reversed scenario - Rozier wold have gotten big minutes from day one and probably earned his role s a fringe starter midway through his rookie year, while Smart would have been buried deep on the bench for his first two seasons and would probably still look like he did in his first 2 - 3 months in the league. 

But it's not Rozier's fault either.  He was drafted to a playoff calibre team that was already filled up at the guard position, and as a result he never really got an opportunity to play real NBA minutes until his third season. 

In fact by the time Rozier entered his third NBA season he had logged only 1,574 NBA minutes.  Marcus Smart logged 1,808 minutes in his rookie year alone. 

You can't escape the fact that due to factors outside of his control, Rozier simply never had the same opportunity to develop that Smart had - so it is logical that Rozier struggled immensely in his first two seasons.

3. This is truth, but so what. It's a backup's job to step in and step up when the starter gets hurt.

That's correct. 

But Rozier was also called up in the playoffs in his third season - a year during which he got very few opportunities.  The only time he got more then a handful of minutes on the court was during garbage time in blowouts.  He had very little time to build chemistry with other guys, had barely played any meaningful NBA minutes.  And yet when he was called upon, in the playoffs, on the biggest stage, he came out and made a real contribution and actually helped the team win games.  That's huge coming from a guy who was as green as he was.

Then the following year when Kyrie was lost, he was called upon once again - and for the second time he elevated his game to another level come playoff time and surprised everybody by doing by filling Kyrie's shoes incedibly well and helping to carry the Celtics to the ECF. 

It's rare to find players who elevate their game on the biggest stage like that. A lot of inexperienced guys wold have crumbled under the pressure of having to fill the shoes of a guy like Kyrie.  But Rozier embraced it, and he held his own against high profile guys like Eric Bledsoe and Ben Simmons. 

Then the following year when Kyrie missed games due to injury, and Rozier was given the start, he once again too advance and played very well in the majority of those games.  You can can argue that those games were largely against poor teams, but even poor teams still have good players, and he still turned in solid performances against some quality starters.

You say "so what?". 

I think the point is self explanatory. Rozier has proven time and time again that when he is called upon in times of need, he's capable of stepping up and bearing the load.  It's not a huge sample size, but it's a big enough one to rule it out as just being a "fluke".  He's earned the reputation of being a starting calibre PG. 

4. He proved nothing. He had a good stretch of basketball in the playoffs but he never proved he was deserving of more minutes than Kyrie or Smart. He never proved he was better players than those two. And what did he do? He went and proved, all year long that he was a worse player. Rozier was awful as a whole last year because of his "me first" style of play.

Really?

I would argue that Rozier had a bigger role then Smart in leading Boston to the ECF against the Cavs a year ago. 

I would also argue that Boston had a better win record with Rozier as a starter then they did as Kyrie as a starter this season.  Of course you will bring up the fact that the record was against sub-par teams, but even against sub-par teams a win record of (what was it, 85% or so?) is pretty [dang] impressive.  Did the Celtics win 85% of their games against bad teams with Kyrie as a starter?

I would also argue that out of the 6 categories I would consider important to the PG role (in order: handles, passing/playmaking, decision making, shooting, defense, rebounding) Rozier is better than Smart in every one of those areas except defense.

I certainly wouldn't try to argue Rozier is a better player then Kyrie, but there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest the team played better when Rozier was starting then they did with Kyrie starting.  Maybe Kyrie's toxic relationship with the team had something to do with that.  Maybe it was his ISO heavy ego ball.   

I'd also argue Rozier is an objectively better PG then Marcus Smart.

You clearly disagree, and that's OK.

5. The games that Rozier started were chosen, for the most part, because the team was playing a terrible opponent. Here is who he started against:

@Utah(50-32)
New Orleans(33-49)
Minnesota(36-46)
Dallas(33-49)
@Brooklyn(42-40)
Cleveland(19-63)
Brooklyn(42-40)
Charlotte(39-43)
@Cleveland(19-63)
@Philadelphia(51-31)
@Sacramento(39-43)
@Cleveland(19-63)
@Brooklyn(42-40)
@Washington (32-50)

Just 2 good teams in 14 games. This probably explains his better numbers starting this year.

Utah was a playoff team.
Brooklyn was a playoff team.
Charlotte was a fringe playoff team.
Sacramento was a fringe playoff team.
Philadelphia was a top 4 seed in the east

Out of those 14 games, 7 of them were against teams that were either playoff teams or fringe playoff teams.  Only three of those games (the three Cleveland ones) were against true bottom feeders.

Given how chaotic and inconsistent this team was last season, I would argue that at least around 10 of those 14 games would have been very lose-able with Kyrie in the starting lineup.

6. In what alternate reality did Rozier often play better than Smart last year? Certainly not on the defensive end as Smart was a 1st Team All-Defense and Rozier wasn't close to his level of defense. Clearly it wasn't at shooting the ball as Smart had better, in some instances much better, shooting percentages across the board(FG%, FT%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG% and TS%). It wasn't at passing the ball as Smart had better APG, Per36 APG and Assist%. And just about every advanced metric says Smart was better(PER, WS, OWS, DWS, WS/48, BPM, OBPM, DBPM, VORP...all with Smart with better numbers). All Rozier did better is rebound the ball. That is it. Smart was tremendously better as a player than Rozier all last year.

Cherry picking stats...

APG, Assist Per 36, Assist % - ultimately all tell the same story.  They are all measures of the rate at which a player can generate assists.  I already listed that Smart has had a slightly higher assist rate then Rozier.

BUT

There is more to being a PG then simply generating assists.  It's perceived by many that a turnover can be every bit as costsly as an assist is helpful - so a players ability to general assists is only as helpful as his tendancy to turnover the ball is hurtful.

Rozier's Assist to turnover ratio last year?  3.4
Smart's Assist to turnover ratio?  2.0

Rozier's Turnover rate? 8.8%
Smart's Turnover rate?  16.5%

Rozier's Turnovers due to bad passes? 35 (0.44 per game / 0.70 per 36 minutes)
Smart's Turnovers due to bad passes? 81 (1.01 per game /1.3 Per 36 Minutes)

Smart did shoot better percentages then Rozier last season, this I will give you - but it was also the first time in their careers that Smart did so.

So if you single out JUST last season, you can give Smart two wins - defense and shooting.

You really cannot consider Smart the better playmaker when he is averaging a smidgen higher assist % while also throwing twice as many bad passes - the turnovers more than make up for the miniscule edge Smart has in outright assists.

If you look at their career body of work, then defense is the ONLY area where Smart is winning this comparison.

Also, you are saying that Rozier had a HORRIBLE season last season.  Are you also of the opinion that Smart had the best season of his career?  Because if so, I'd like to do a direct statistical comparison from last year alone:

Smart: 8.9 PPG, 4.0 APG, 2.9 RPG, 1.8 SPG, 0.4 BPG, 1.5 TOPG, 42% FG, 36% 3PT, 81% FT, 27.5 MPG
Rozier: 9.0 PPG, 2.9 APG, 3.9 RPG, 0.9 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 0.9 TOPG, 39% FG, 35% 3PT, 79% FT, 22.7 MPG

Is it just me - those numbers do not look drastically different. 

If this is what it looks like when you compare Rozier's supposedly "horrendous" year against Marcus Smart's "best season" of his career....it doesn't seem to make an especially strong case against Rozier. He put up comparable stats to Smart in 5 less minutes...

I dont know what the heck you have been smoking tbh.

Even without Smart's improved shooting, he is still the better player.

I dunno how you consider a team 1 game above 500 as "good". That's not even mentioning how you considered a team under 40 wins as such.

All your stats show is that Rozier is bettr than smart when it comes to turnovers. You have failed to refute nick's post regarding all the other stat.

Even during Rozier's hot streak the previous year, he has failed to show up in home games save for 1 (game 6) which he made up for with an absolute garbage of a game 7.

Terrible play aside, he is also a lockerroom problem. And unlike kyrie, isnt a good player that youd be willing to gamble.

[Silky]

I would be pretty happy to bring Rozier back, and I would consider this team lucky if he is willing to come back.

This team has treated Rozier like a doormat since the moment he arrived:

1. First he was buried behind Rondo and Smart - he did not complain once.

2. Then then Rondo was traded out he got buried behind Thomas and Smart - again, he did not say a word.

3. When Boston faced injuries Rozier finally got a chance, and he absolutely made the most of that opportunity.  Boston surprised everybody by beating the Bucks and the Sixers, then taking the Cavs to 7 games - and Rozier was absolutely instrumental to that run.   

4. Then after proving what he can do, what does he get as thanks?  He gets buried on the bench once again behind Kyrie and Smart.  In a contract year, no less - his last opportunity to show his value and get paid. 

5. Despite being buried AGAIN behind Kyrie and Smart, he once again proved himself by filling in extremely well every time the injury bug hit.  In 14 games as a starter Rozier averaged 13 points, 5 rebounds and 5 assists while shooting 43% / 40% / 90%.  In those games Rozier had a net rating of +11 and the Celtics were 11-3 (0.785).  The Celtics almost always played their best basketball when Rozier was given the starting PG spot...and yet any time the injured partys returned he was thrown straight back to the end of the bench again.

6.  I can understand Rozier being beyind Kyrie, but he was also constantly buried behind Smart.  Despite the fact that Rozier often outplayed Smart.  Despite Smart's constantly poor end of game decision making, Stevens frequently left Smart in the game and Rozier rotting at the end of the bench.

Rozier went through the entire NBA season without making a single complaint.  He sat there quietly at the end of the bench and did whatever he was asked, year after year after year. 

Finally after after four years of being shoved to the end of the bench and utterly ignored by your coach, after coming off a disastrous season that nobody on the team enjoyed, and after willingly sacrificing your entire contract year for the sake of the team -  and not getting a single bit of thanks or appreciation for any of it - finally he reached the limit of his patience and came out to express how he really felt.

And I don't blame the guy one iota, because if I were in his position I would feel exactly the same way. 

Ok maybe he could have thought a bit more carefully before talking - maybe going and saying all of this on public TV may not have been the cleanest way of expressing himself  But people make mistakes - and Rozier was clearly incredibly frustrated, not just for this season but probably for the way he's been treated the entire time he was in Boston.  I really don't think anybody really has the right to blame him for that - the entire league has pretty much acknowledged Rozier's potential as a starting PG in this league for one or two seasons now, and yet the Celtics have been holding him back from achieving his potential from day one.

In all honest, i don't even think most of the things he said were that bad.  He didn't really throw specific shade at any one person.  In fact the people on the shows pushed and prodded him HARD to try to push him to diss specific individuals (like Kyrie and Kayward) and he refused to do it.  He specifically said sure there may have been some challenges with those guys, but that the problem was not any one person.  He went out of his way to say it wasn't all Kyrie's fault, and that he also had to make adjustments to taking on a new role as a leader.  He mentioned guys had egos, and that created issues, etc. 

Many people took offense when he was asked if he would come back to Boston if the team was brought back as it was and he said probably not - that he'd love to come back to Boston but he really wants a starting role.  I think that's fair.  I think he's earned that.  Why WOULD he want to come back only to be buried at the end of the bench for another 4 years? 

Anyway I will end my little rant now - but I really do think people are being (and always have been) a little hard on Rozier.  I can acknowledge that he made a mistake by coming out and being as vocal as he was, but at least he was honest and speaking from the heart - he seems like the type of guy who doesn't know any other way.  If Marcus Smart came out and said all the things Rozier said, you would probably all be praising him for being real and for saying it how it is.  Somehow Rozier has been hated on by Celtics fans from day one.

Rozier is buried because he isnt as good

As opposed to Marcus Smart?

A guy who:
1. Can't shoot (as demonstrated by his career FG% and 3PT%)
2. Cant pass or dribble (as evidenced by his poor turnover rates, low assist/to ratio, and high rate of bad pass TO)
3. Has poor offensive IQ (as evidenced by his frequent poor decision making at the end of games)
4. Has serious mental issues around self control (as evidenced by techs, suspensions and tendency to get into fights)

He literally just plays hard defense - that is the only thing he consistently does at an above average level, and yet he gets gifted minutes like an all you can eat buffet.

Rozier is better then Smart at EVERY aspect of the game except defense, and yet gets buried on the end of the bench.

That is purely a lie.

If you loom at roziers best season(2017-2018) and compare to smarts best season (2018-2019)

Smart had the better ts%, ass%, stl%, blck%, ows, dws, ws, ws/48, vorp.

Terry rebounded better, but terry looks those out to stat pad himself, just like westbrook does.

So Smart is an allnba defender. Top 4 in the leage for his position amd is better at everything not rebounding than terry.


And that doesnt tale into consideration things like tunnel vision, pass/assist ratio, game impact etc.

Smart at his best is better than rozier at his best offensively, and vastly immeasurably superior defensively

[nickagneta]

Some weird somewhat revisionist takes here let's look by the number.

1. Rozier was never on a team with Rondo. This is completely made up fiction.

Mental error on my part.  It was the trio of Avery Bradley (33 MPG), Isaiah Thomas (32 MPG) and Marcus Smart (27 MPG) who were taking up all the minutes that first season - I knew there was somebody but got it mixed up, so i will concede that one.  There was also Evan Turner (27 MPG) who also filled in a point-forward quite a bit. 

In Rozier's second year it was again Thomas (34 MPG), Bradley (33 MPG) and Smart (30 MPG) taking up pretty much all the available guard minutes.

Either way, given how established those three players were, Rozier never really had a chance to get on the court - no matter how good he was / wasn't (and the coaches constantly raved about how good he was in practice) he was never taking minutes away from either one of those guys.

2. He didn't receive playing time behind IT and Smart for two years because IT and Smart were much better players. Rozier was God awful his first two years in the league. If he had complained of playing time, he would have been instantly sent off to some awful team.

Marcus Smart was awful when he first started with the Celtics - but he was force fed minutes regardless, likely for two key reasons:

1. Boston was coming off a rebuild and a bottom 6 finish, so here was no real expectation to win
2. Smart was a top 5 pick, so there was an expectation for him to play

Regardless of the reason, it took Smart at least around half a season of consistent starter/6th-man minutes before he started to look like anything resembling a starting calibre NBA player.  But despite how green he was, the coaching staff stuck by hi and gave him the reps.

When Rozier came long Boston were suddenly playing competitive basketball again and were trying to win, Smart had already earned his role (pretty much by default) the prior season, and the Trio of Bradley/Smart/Thomas were eating up all of the minutes available at the guard spots. 

The same was true in Rozier's second season. 

Now you can't BLAME Boston for not playing him given the circumstances - Rozier was just the beneficiary of bad timing, while Smart was the beneficiary of good timing.  If Rozier and Smart were drafted in opposite seasons, we may well be looking at a totally reversed scenario - Rozier wold have gotten big minutes from day one and probably earned his role s a fringe starter midway through his rookie year, while Smart would have been buried deep on the bench for his first two seasons and would probably still look like he did in his first 2 - 3 months in the league. 

But it's not Rozier's fault either.  He was drafted to a playoff calibre team that was already filled up at the guard position, and as a result he never really got an opportunity to play real NBA minutes until his third season. 

In fact by the time Rozier entered his third NBA season he had logged only 1,574 NBA minutes.  Marcus Smart logged 1,808 minutes in his rookie year alone. 

You can't escape the fact that due to factors outside of his control, Rozier simply never had the same opportunity to develop that Smart had - so it is logical that Rozier struggled immensely in his first two seasons.

3. This is truth, but so what. It's a backup's job to step in and step up when the starter gets hurt.

That's correct. 

But Rozier was also called up in the playoffs in his third season - a year during which he got very few opportunities.  The only time he got more then a handful of minutes on the court was during garbage time in blowouts.  He had very little time to build chemistry with other guys, had barely played any meaningful NBA minutes.  And yet when he was called upon, in the playoffs, on the biggest stage, he came out and made a real contribution and actually helped the team win games.  That's huge coming from a guy who was as green as he was.

Then the following year when Kyrie was lost, he was called upon once again - and for the second time he elevated his game to another level come playoff time and surprised everybody by doing by filling Kyrie's shoes incedibly well and helping to carry the Celtics to the ECF. 

It's rare to find players who elevate their game on the biggest stage like that. A lot of inexperienced guys wold have crumbled under the pressure of having to fill the shoes of a guy like Kyrie.  But Rozier embraced it, and he held his own against high profile guys like Eric Bledsoe and Ben Simmons. 

Then the following year when Kyrie missed games due to injury, and Rozier was given the start, he once again too advance and played very well in the majority of those games.  You can can argue that those games were largely against poor teams, but even poor teams still have good players, and he still turned in solid performances against some quality starters.

You say "so what?". 

I think the point is self explanatory. Rozier has proven time and time again that when he is called upon in times of need, he's capable of stepping up and bearing the load.  It's not a huge sample size, but it's a big enough one to rule it out as just being a "fluke".  He's earned the reputation of being a starting calibre PG. 

4. He proved nothing. He had a good stretch of basketball in the playoffs but he never proved he was deserving of more minutes than Kyrie or Smart. He never proved he was better players than those two. And what did he do? He went and proved, all year long that he was a worse player. Rozier was awful as a whole last year because of his "me first" style of play.

Really?

I would argue that Rozier had a bigger role then Smart in leading Boston to the ECF against the Cavs a year ago. 

I would also argue that Boston had a better win record with Rozier as a starter then they did as Kyrie as a starter this season.  Of course you will bring up the fact that the record was against sub-par teams, but even against sub-par teams a win record of (what was it, 85% or so?) is pretty [dang] impressive.  Did the Celtics win 85% of their games against bad teams with Kyrie as a starter?

I would also argue that out of the 6 categories I would consider important to the PG role (in order: handles, passing/playmaking, decision making, shooting, defense, rebounding) Rozier is better than Smart in every one of those areas except defense.

I certainly wouldn't try to argue Rozier is a better player then Kyrie, but there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest the team played better when Rozier was starting then they did with Kyrie starting.  Maybe Kyrie's toxic relationship with the team had something to do with that.  Maybe it was his ISO heavy ego ball.   

I'd also argue Rozier is an objectively better PG then Marcus Smart.

You clearly disagree, and that's OK.

5. The games that Rozier started were chosen, for the most part, because the team was playing a terrible opponent. Here is who he started against:

@Utah(50-32)
New Orleans(33-49)
Minnesota(36-46)
Dallas(33-49)
@Brooklyn(42-40)
Cleveland(19-63)
Brooklyn(42-40)
Charlotte(39-43)
@Cleveland(19-63)
@Philadelphia(51-31)
@Sacramento(39-43)
@Cleveland(19-63)
@Brooklyn(42-40)
@Washington (32-50)

Just 2 good teams in 14 games. This probably explains his better numbers starting this year.

Utah was a playoff team.
Brooklyn was a playoff team.
Charlotte was a fringe playoff team.
Sacramento was a fringe playoff team.
Philadelphia was a top 4 seed in the east

Out of those 14 games, 7 of them were against teams that were either playoff teams or fringe playoff teams.  Only three of those games (the three Cleveland ones) were against true bottom feeders.

Given how chaotic and inconsistent this team was last season, I would argue that at least around 10 of those 14 games would have been very lose-able with Kyrie in the starting lineup.

6. In what alternate reality did Rozier often play better than Smart last year? Certainly not on the defensive end as Smart was a 1st Team All-Defense and Rozier wasn't close to his level of defense. Clearly it wasn't at shooting the ball as Smart had better, in some instances much better, shooting percentages across the board(FG%, FT%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG% and TS%). It wasn't at passing the ball as Smart had better APG, Per36 APG and Assist%. And just about every advanced metric says Smart was better(PER, WS, OWS, DWS, WS/48, BPM, OBPM, DBPM, VORP...all with Smart with better numbers). All Rozier did better is rebound the ball. That is it. Smart was tremendously better as a player than Rozier all last year.

Cherry picking stats...

APG, Assist Per 36, Assist % - ultimately all tell the same story.  They are all measures of the rate at which a player can generate assists.  I already listed that Smart has had a slightly higher assist rate then Rozier.

BUT

There is more to being a PG then simply generating assists.  It's perceived by many that a turnover can be every bit as costsly as an assist is helpful - so a players ability to general assists is only as helpful as his tendancy to turnover the ball is hurtful.

Rozier's Assist to turnover ratio last year?  3.4
Smart's Assist to turnover ratio?  2.0

Rozier's Turnover rate? 8.8%
Smart's Turnover rate?  16.5%

Rozier's Turnovers due to bad passes? 35 (0.44 per game / 0.70 per 36 minutes)
Smart's Turnovers due to bad passes? 81 (1.01 per game /1.3 Per 36 Minutes)

Smart did shoot better percentages then Rozier last season, this I will give you - but it was also the first time in their careers that Smart did so.

So if you single out JUST last season, you can give Smart two wins - defense and shooting.

You really cannot consider Smart the better playmaker when he is averaging a smidgen higher assist % while also throwing twice as many bad passes - the turnovers more than make up for the miniscule edge Smart has in outright assists.

If you look at their career body of work, then defense is the ONLY area where Smart is winning this comparison.

Also, you are saying that Rozier had a HORRIBLE season last season.  Are you also of the opinion that Smart had the best season of his career?  Because if so, I'd like to do a direct statistical comparison from last year alone:

Smart: 8.9 PPG, 4.0 APG, 2.9 RPG, 1.8 SPG, 0.4 BPG, 1.5 TOPG, 42% FG, 36% 3PT, 81% FT, 27.5 MPG
Rozier: 9.0 PPG, 2.9 APG, 3.9 RPG, 0.9 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 0.9 TOPG, 39% FG, 35% 3PT, 79% FT, 22.7 MPG

Is it just me - those numbers do not look drastically different. 

If this is what it looks like when you compare Rozier's supposedly "horrendous" year against Marcus Smart's "best season" of his career....it doesn't seem to make an especially strong case against Rozier. He put up comparable stats to Smart in 5 less minutes...

Wow...given your response my only guess is you are Terry Rozier or related to him. You truly are looking at this with eyes that are ridiculously biased and not with any subjectivity at all, so I am walking away. Others can continue to argue my points, I know it will be a waste of time.

[liam]

This is awesome.

https://nesn.com/2019/06/nba-rumors-terry-rozier-not-too-far-a-step-down-from-kyrie-irving-for-this-team/