I知 a Smart hater

[Ilikesports17]

Jeeze, Smart gets two calls in front of a home crowd that he wouldn't get in any other arena in the U.S. and his apologizers go bananas.

Smart gets 2 offensive fouls and an assist in the last 8 seconds of a 1 point game against the likely MVP, who he held to 0-7 shooting and 4 TOs when matched up throughout the game.

Smart's got problems but dude came up big last night down the stretch. Of course he's gonna get a lot of praise the next day.

[ChillyWilly]

I don't hate Smart but I'm not a fan boy either. There are times he amazes me and other times I'm left screaming at my TV. Troz3 samething. I'm guessing people like Marcus because he's a dirtdog so hes fun to root for but I think same could be said for Terry and there doesn't to be much of a fan club for him.

I think offseason will tell us all we need to know about where Danny stands on Marcus.

[Boris Badenov]

Smart will (probably) never be a good offensive player but tonight is a perfect example of why he痴 an invaluable piece to a championship team. He makes winning plays.

Makes lots of losing plays too

That isn't true.

No. It is actually. Not last night, necessarily. His offensive line last night is excellent.

But if you're the worst shooter in the league and you jack up a bunch of shots and you miss them.....those are losing plays.   So then all of a sudden you've made 7 losing plays but your teammates bail you out night after night, and then in the last few seconds of a game you make a well timed spectacular game winning play.  That's more losing plays than winning plays. It happens a lot.

No it doesn't.

Smart missing a 3 pointer is not a losing play.

That is disingenuous.

Let's say you shoot 1 for 9. You're team is down by two points and you finally hit a 3. Now you're 2 for 10.   

If you're Smart this is what happens. You get credited with a game winning play. Which it is. Clutch 3. Game winning play.

However had you just shot 3 for 9 (which is a pretty bad shooting night) your team wouldn't have needed that clutch 3.

So you get credit for the game winning play and free passes on the game losing ones and anyone that says anything about it is a hater.

Fine by me.

Credit where credit is due but criticism where criticism is due

Every player makes "losing plays" by that definition.

Now let's take the defensive side where he held Harden to 0-7 with 4 TO. How many "winning plays" is that?

And overall, the Celtics offense works much better with Smart on the floor: more points, better shooting percentages, more assists, fewer turnovers.

That is all even with his "losing plays," so what it means is that he's helping everyone else make MORE "winning plays," and so much so that our overall offense is 3 points better with him on the court.

And of course, the defensive impact is there, we are almost 4 points better with him on the court, and we defend 3s incredibly well in particular when he's out there.

I've posted all those numbers elsewhere so I'm not doing it again, and anyone can look them up, but you just can't dispute them, they are real, and they cut the "Marcus is a crippling offensive player" argument to shreds. It's just flat wrong.

[Big333223]

I don't hate Smart but I'm not a fan boy either. There are times he amazes me and other times I'm left screaming at my TV. Troz3 samething. I'm guessing people like Marcus because he's a dirtdog so hes fun to root for but I think same could be said for Terry and there doesn't to be much of a fan club for him.

I think offseason will tell us all we need to know about where Danny stands on Marcus.

fwiw, I am a fanboy and I tend to love guys like Smart. I loved Leon Powe, too. My favorite players are often the guys who are able to make up for a lack of skill or talent with hard work, hustle, smart play and relentlessness. That's the draw of Smart's play for me as a fan.   

Rozier is a much better athlete and while he can be a hustle player you're never going to see Terry draw back-to-back charges on inbounds passes to win a game. There are different levels operative here.

[mgent]

I'm a Smart hater

I'm a dumb lover.

[chilidawg]

I'm a Smart hater

I'm a dumb lover.

Much better.

[chilidawg]

I don't hate Smart but I'm not a fan boy either. There are times he amazes me and other times I'm left screaming at my TV. Troz3 samething. I'm guessing people like Marcus because he's a dirtdog so hes fun to root for but I think same could be said for Terry and there doesn't to be much of a fan club for him.

I think offseason will tell us all we need to know about where Danny stands on Marcus.

fwiw, I am a fanboy and I tend to love guys like Smart. I loved Leon Powe, too. My favorite players are often the guys who are able to make up for a lack of skill or talent with hard work, hustle, smart play and relentlessness. That's the draw of Smart's play for me as a fan.   

Rozier is a much better athlete and while he can be a hustle player you're never going to see Terry draw back-to-back charges on inbounds passes to win a game. There are different levels operative here.

Odds are pretty good you'll never see Marcus Smart do that again either.   Just a rare event.

[Ilikesports17]

I don't hate Smart but I'm not a fan boy either. There are times he amazes me and other times I'm left screaming at my TV. Troz3 samething. I'm guessing people like Marcus because he's a dirtdog so hes fun to root for but I think same could be said for Terry and there doesn't to be much of a fan club for him.

I think offseason will tell us all we need to know about where Danny stands on Marcus.

fwiw, I am a fanboy and I tend to love guys like Smart. I loved Leon Powe, too. My favorite players are often the guys who are able to make up for a lack of skill or talent with hard work, hustle, smart play and relentlessness. That's the draw of Smart's play for me as a fan.   

Rozier is a much better athlete and while he can be a hustle player you're never going to see Terry draw back-to-back charges on inbounds passes to win a game. There are different levels operative here.

Odds are pretty good you'll never see Marcus Smart do that again either.   Just a rare event.

yeah, I mean you are probably never gonna see Marcus Smart steal a pass and streak down the court for a game winning dunk with 1 second left either.

Some plays are just rare.

I dont like Rozier much, and love Smart, but when we are down with under a minute to go, I always feel weve got a chance to get a steal thanks to those too.

[wayupnorth]

Smart will (probably) never be a good offensive player but tonight is a perfect example of why he痴 an invaluable piece to a championship team. He makes winning plays.

Makes lots of losing plays too

That isn't true.

No. It is actually. Not last night, necessarily. His offensive line last night is excellent.

But if you're the worst shooter in the league and you jack up a bunch of shots and you miss them.....those are losing plays.   So then all of a sudden you've made 7 losing plays but your teammates bail you out night after night, and then in the last few seconds of a game you make a well timed spectacular game winning play.  That's more losing plays than winning plays. It happens a lot.

No it doesn't.

Smart missing a 3 pointer is not a losing play.

That is disingenuous.

Let's say you shoot 1 for 9. You're team is down by two points and you finally hit a 3. Now you're 2 for 10.   

If you're Smart this is what happens. You get credited with a game winning play. Which it is. Clutch 3. Game winning play.

However had you just shot 3 for 9 (which is a pretty bad shooting night) your team wouldn't have needed that clutch 3.

So you get credit for the game winning play and free passes on the game losing ones and anyone that says anything about it is a hater.

Fine by me.

Credit where credit is due but criticism where criticism is due

Every player makes "losing plays" by that definition.

Now let's take the defensive side where he held Harden to 0-7 with 4 TO. How many "winning plays" is that?

And overall, the Celtics offense works much better with Smart on the floor: more points, better shooting percentages, more assists, fewer turnovers.

That is all even with his "losing plays," so what it means is that he's helping everyone else make MORE "winning plays," and so much so that our overall offense is 3 points better with him on the court.

And of course, the defensive impact is there, we are almost 4 points better with him on the court, and we defend 3s incredibly well in particular when he's out there.

I've posted all those numbers elsewhere so I'm not doing it again, and anyone can look them up, but you just can't dispute them, they are real, and they cut the "Marcus is a crippling offensive player" argument to shreds. It's just flat wrong.

At this point I don't even think it is worth it.

He clearly has irrational opinions that are not grounded in anything but his own personal biases. It does really get old though.

It is fine to not like Marcus, but do so for reasons actually grounded in fact, or at least something remotely close to a fact.

[GreenFaith1819]

OP's making a Smart choice.

[nickagneta]

Wait...not so fast. Smart does take a lot of bad shots that are bad decisions. And being one of the worst shooters in league history, he should not be taking these shots. Those are definitely losing plays

If Kyrie or Tatum miss shots, those are missed shots, they are both efficient scorers and great shooters. But Smart isn't. He is horribly inefficient and a terrible shooter, yet is constantly the player taking the second to most shots. If you know you are a bad scorer/shooter then play within yourself and don't jack up 3-5 horrid shots a game. Those particular shots, not all the missed shots, are losing plays.

That said Marcus makes 3-5 or more great plays a game that make up for it.

[wayupnorth]

Wait...not so fast. Smart does take a lot of bad shots that are bad decisions. And being one of the worst shooters in league history, he should not be taking these shots. Those are definitely losing plays

If Kyrie or Tatum miss shots, those are missed shots, they are both efficient scorers and great shooters. But Smart isn't. He is horribly inefficient and a terrible shooter, yet is constantly the player taking the second to most shots. If you know you are a bad scorer/shooter then play within yourself and don't jack up 3-5 horrid shots a game. Those particular shots, not all the missed shots, are losing plays.

That said Marcus makes 3-5 or more great plays a game that make up for it.

Shooting isn't the only part of offensive play. The good Marcus brings clearly outweighs his shooting issues, and he helps us win more than helps us lose.

I don't any reasonable grounds to disagree with that, given the 4 years of evidence he has provided.

[Eja117]

Smart will (probably) never be a good offensive player but tonight is a perfect example of why he痴 an invaluable piece to a championship team. He makes winning plays.

Makes lots of losing plays too

That isn't true.

No. It is actually. Not last night, necessarily. His offensive line last night is excellent.

But if you're the worst shooter in the league and you jack up a bunch of shots and you miss them.....those are losing plays.   So then all of a sudden you've made 7 losing plays but your teammates bail you out night after night, and then in the last few seconds of a game you make a well timed spectacular game winning play.  That's more losing plays than winning plays. It happens a lot.

No it doesn't.

Smart missing a 3 pointer is not a losing play.

That is disingenuous.

Let's say you shoot 1 for 9. You're team is down by two points and you finally hit a 3. Now you're 2 for 10.   

If you're Smart this is what happens. You get credited with a game winning play. Which it is. Clutch 3. Game winning play.

However had you just shot 3 for 9 (which is a pretty bad shooting night) your team wouldn't have needed that clutch 3.

So you get credit for the game winning play and free passes on the game losing ones and anyone that says anything about it is a hater.

Fine by me.

Credit where credit is due but criticism where criticism is due

Every player makes "losing plays" by that definition.

Now let's take the defensive side where he held Harden to 0-7 with 4 TO. How many "winning plays" is that?

And overall, the Celtics offense works much better with Smart on the floor: more points, better shooting percentages, more assists, fewer turnovers.

That is all even with his "losing plays," so what it means is that he's helping everyone else make MORE "winning plays," and so much so that our overall offense is 3 points better with him on the court.

And of course, the defensive impact is there, we are almost 4 points better with him on the court, and we defend 3s incredibly well in particular when he's out there.

I've posted all those numbers elsewhere so I'm not doing it again, and anyone can look them up, but you just can't dispute them, they are real, and they cut the "Marcus is a crippling offensive player" argument to shreds. It's just flat wrong.

I guess he did great against Harden. How'd he do against Eric Gordon?

And I simply don't believe Smart makes the Celts better offensively. I think that's a case of statistics being used to prove anything.

Perhaps his defense is so strong that he wears down the other team and then they don't have as much energy as they'd like on offense. Maybe because he comes off the bench he tends to play the other team when the other team doesn't have their best players. Not sure. Don't care.  His good offensive games are few and far between.   

He's gonna get his shot in the playoffs. Just like last year. Can't wait.

[bellerephon]

Smart does improve the offense, and it's not just a matter of stats being used to prove anything. No doubt, he is a very poor shooter. But he handles the ball well, runs the pick and roll well, and passes well. Those are all extremely useful skills. It is also useful to have him play alongside Kyrie. Smart's ability to play point allows Kyrie to play off the ball at times, giving the opposing team a different look and making the Celts offense harder to defend.

[Eja117]

Smart does improve the offense, and it's not just a matter of stats being used to prove anything. No doubt, he is a very poor shooter. But he handles the ball well, runs the pick and roll well, and passes well. Those are all extremely useful skills. It is also useful to have him play alongside Kyrie. Smart's ability to play point allows Kyrie to play off the ball at times, giving the opposing team a different look and making the Celts offense harder to defend.

Larkin, Rozier, Horford, and Kyrie all have better assist to to ratios than Smart, and while I've never really thought Smart's passing was bad I've never thought it was all that great either. I can grant that Smart certainly makes some major defensive game winning plays, but the idea that he is an irreplaceable passer, and that his passing is somehow uniquely lifting the Celts offense in a way that the other players can't isn't really something I could agree to.

Rondo. That guy's passing could really change things. Smart...not as much