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.
I have to assume you are trolling right now, but just in case you aren't I will remain respectful.
1. It was argued that Smart is a better passer then Rozier . This argument was based at the higher rate at which Smart generates assists - probably about 20% higher then Rozier's rate. I get this. What I don't get is how you then shoot down bad pass turnovers as if of no relevance to the subject of "passing ability". How is a player's tendency to throw bad pass turnovers
not say something about their ability as a passer? Sure, the ability to throw passes that lead to teamate baskets is an valid measure of a player's passing ability. The ability to throw passes WITHOUT them going out of bounds or to the hands of an opponent is also a valid measure of a player's passing ability. If you can't throw a pass without turning the ball over then you are either throwing too many risky passes (rather then making the simple pass), or you are simply a BAD passer. Either way, it does not count in your favor when quantifying your ability as a passer/ play-maker. Smart may average like 20% more assists, but he also averages like 250% or so more bad passes. I think it's fair to argue that those bad pass turnovers say more about his passing ability then the slightly higher assist rate does.
TLDR: I would rather a point guard who records SLIGHTLY lower assist rates while also throwing FAR less bad passes. To my evaluation, that guy is a better, more reliable passer.
I won't write another full paragraph about ball handling, because that is another are athat Rozier is clearly far superior at. Anybody who claims Smart is a better ball handler would have to be either blind or just plain crazy. He has a larger array of dribble moves, he has a tighter handle, he's less prone to losing the ball or picking up his dribble when guarded. The turnover rate on bad dribble moves again backs this.
So that's two areas wher you can reasonably argue Rozier is better then Smart- Passing and Ball Handling.
He shot better percentages then smart every year but last year. That's a third area you could argue he is better -shooting.
His scoring rate Per 36 has been higher every year pretty much - so thats a fourth area you can argue hes better, scoring.
His rebounding has been superior pretty much forever, so thats a fifth area you can argue he is better, rebounding.
He's got superior athleticism, so that's a sixth area where you can argue Rozier is better.
That leaves one main criteria- defense. Here Smart is clearly better, and I wouldnt even try to argue otherwise.
But that is six areas out of seven where I have clearly provided WELL JUSTIFIED arguments for Rozier being superior. You may not agree with my arguments, but you can't say that they aren't reasonable or that I haven't justified them.
Topic: Are We Really Bringing Back Rozier?? (Update: Nope! Phew) (Read 19790 times)