Poll: Who would you take moving forward Randle or Smart

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

Smart, and to me it's not that close...

He's an average 3 pointer away from being a nightmare in the playoffs.

[truthhurts34]

 He was a good scorer but mostly when he was getting to the rim at will now for whatever reason he can't. And he was never a good shooter. And he's 6'2". So when you don't shoot well and your not getting to the rim you got problems.

 I'll tell you what I think is odd about him. He's a tremendous athlete of defense.
 However on offense I'm really disappointed in his athleticism on offense. He even seems slow with his first step.

 And then with Randle he shoes very little in defense. But on offense he's the quickest, meanest dude around.

 They are polar opposites time will tell who's better.

Yes they are polar opposites, because Smart is actually 6'4 which is oversized at the pg position, while randle is the one in the conversation that is actually undersized....

In fact your main point about Smart being undersized while providing the completely wrong is actually randles problem. Who is 6'9.

Smart is finally healthy again, I suggest you educate yourself on his time before the injury in his college days.

I honestly don't know how you watch the celtics and think he's 6'2 and undersized after a year on the team.

[esel1000]

Offensively he is not even an NBA player.  He has not position, can't shoot, can't drive to the basket, and can't finish. 

Smart had a .49 TS% in his rookie season, which is better than lots and lots of players in the NBA, many of them veterans.

He shot 56% within 3 feet of the basket, which is not bad for a guard, especially a rookie.  He shot 38% from 10-16 feet, which is not great, but approaching respectable.  He shot 33% from deep, which is a break-even rate (i.e. keeps defenses honest, at least). 

That last number is especially impressive since he came in as a guard who wasn't supposed to be able to shoot and yet he took 57% of his shots from three point land and had a 1.0 point-per-shot efficiency on those attempts.


Really, there's no support whatsoever for your assertion that Smart isn't an NBA-caliber offensive player.

Not only that but he's getting better... it takes time to develop, with all of the hype surrounding rookies these days people expect them all to be Lebron in their first season or bust. Smart looked much better on offense Wednesday as well. People who give up too quickly on a prospect like Smart need only remember Billups...

Now as I was saying Randle could end up being a great player but so could Smart. No one knows yet which is why these threads and the people saying Randle is definitely better and that Smart isn't NBA caliber on offense are just ridiculous. Too early, way too early.

[Celtics18]

Edited

[droopdog7]

Offensively he is not even an NBA player.  He has not position, can't shoot, can't drive to the basket, and can't finish. 

Smart had a .49 TS% in his rookie season, which is better than lots and lots of players in the NBA, many of them veterans.

He shot 56% within 3 feet of the basket, which is not bad for a guard, especially a rookie.  He shot 38% from 10-16 feet, which is not great, but approaching respectable.  He shot 33% from deep, which is a break-even rate (i.e. keeps defenses honest, at least). 

That last number is especially impressive since he came in as a guard who wasn't supposed to be able to shoot and yet he took 57% of his shots from three point land and had a 1.0 point-per-shot efficiency on those attempts.


Really, there's no support whatsoever for your assertion that Smart isn't an NBA-caliber offensive player.

You're right; I am not a stats guy.  I just watch the game and judge what I see.  He's slow footed, unexplosive, and awkward looking. 

And I will ask a question;  I would imagine good offensive numbers are a result of two things and offensive prowess isn't necessarily is not necessarily the primary driver.  For example, shooting percentage is not really an indicator of how well a guy can shoot.  It is more an indication of the kind of shots a guy can get or will take.  My point, terrible shooters can have really nice stats if they only shoot layups.  Do these stats account for that?

[fairweatherfan]

Offensively he is not even an NBA player.  He has not position, can't shoot, can't drive to the basket, and can't finish. 

Smart had a .49 TS% in his rookie season, which is better than lots and lots of players in the NBA, many of them veterans.

He shot 56% within 3 feet of the basket, which is not bad for a guard, especially a rookie.  He shot 38% from 10-16 feet, which is not great, but approaching respectable.  He shot 33% from deep, which is a break-even rate (i.e. keeps defenses honest, at least). 

That last number is especially impressive since he came in as a guard who wasn't supposed to be able to shoot and yet he took 57% of his shots from three point land and had a 1.0 point-per-shot efficiency on those attempts.


Really, there's no support whatsoever for your assertion that Smart isn't an NBA-caliber offensive player.

You're right; I am not a stats guy.  I just watch the game and judge what I see.  He's slow footed, unexplosive, and awkward looking. 

And I will ask a question;  I would imagine good offensive numbers are a result of two things and offensive prowess isn't necessarily is not necessarily the primary driver.  For example, shooting percentage is not really an indicator of how well a guy can shoot.  It is more an indication of the kind of shots a guy can get or will take.  My point, terrible shooters can have really nice stats if they only shoot layups.  Do these stats account for that?

He gave you numbers on how well he shot.  If you're looking for how often he took each kind of shot, as Pho said 57% of his shots were from 3 - that's about 4 out of every 7.  To complete the picture about 18% of his shots were layups, 9% from 3-10 feet, and 7% from 10-16, and 9% from 16-3 pt line. 

Adding the eye test in, Smart's percentages definitely weren't inflated by getting a lot of layups, because as you mentioned getting to the rim really was one of his biggest offensive weaknesses last year.

[PhoSita]

And I will ask a question;  I would imagine good offensive numbers are a result of two things and offensive prowess isn't necessarily is not necessarily the primary driver.  For example, shooting percentage is not really an indicator of how well a guy can shoot.  It is more an indication of the kind of shots a guy can get or will take.  My point, terrible shooters can have really nice stats if they only shoot layups.  Do these stats account for that?

Smart had a pretty low usage rate, around 15%.  Despite that, he was pretty aggressive taking threes, so his 33% actually underrates him as a shooter. 

To further that point, only 17.9% of Smart's threes were from the corner, and he shot just under 40% on the ones he did take from the corner.

Your assertion that Smart isn't an NBA caliber player on offense is undercut by the fact that he was a valuable offensive player for a playoff team in the NBA last year, and he had carved out a starting role by the end of the season -- at a time when the team was winning nearly two thirds of their games.

He not only made a number of clutch shots, he also -- as a rookie, remember -- functioned within the offense and got points without hurting the team or compromising his defensive effort, which was tremendous. I don't think this is something any of the other guards in his draft class could say.

It's true that Smart was not impressive from the standpoint of scoring in volume as a rookie.  He definitely fell short of our expectations in that regard, considering he was a high volume scorer in college.  But that in some ways speaks to his ability to recognize the role that he was best suited for as a rookie.  Very, very few guards come into this league and help their team on both ends from their first game.  Very few of those that do are 20 years old. 

Smart may never be an offensive star, but it's ludicrous to suggest he was as bad as you've said, based on your "eye test."  On top of that, I think you'd have to be very pessimistic to think he won't improve over time, given his age and his pedigree as a prospect.

Marcus really had a remarkable rookie season when you consider that he was a valuable two way role player in his first season, despite very obviously -- as you note -- having plenty of room for growth in his skills and decision-making.

[droopdog7]

And I will ask a question;  I would imagine good offensive numbers are a result of two things and offensive prowess isn't necessarily is not necessarily the primary driver.  For example, shooting percentage is not really an indicator of how well a guy can shoot.  It is more an indication of the kind of shots a guy can get or will take.  My point, terrible shooters can have really nice stats if they only shoot layups.  Do these stats account for that?

Smart had a pretty low usage rate, around 15%.  Despite that, he was pretty aggressive taking threes, so his 33% actually underrates him as a shooter. 

To further that point, only 17.9% of Smart's threes were from the corner, and he shot just under 40% on the ones he did take from the corner.

Your assertion that Smart isn't an NBA caliber player on offense is undercut by the fact that he was a valuable offensive player for a playoff team in the NBA last year, and he had carved out a starting role by the end of the season -- at a time when the team was winning nearly two thirds of their games.

He not only made a number of clutch shots, he also -- as a rookie, remember -- functioned within the offense and got points without hurting the team or compromising his defensive effort, which was tremendous. I don't think this is something any of the other guards in his draft class could say.

It's true that Smart was not impressive from the standpoint of scoring in volume as a rookie.  He definitely fell short of our expectations in that regard, considering he was a high volume scorer in college.  But that in some ways speaks to his ability to recognize the role that he was best suited for as a rookie.  Very, very few guards come into this league and help their team on both ends from their first game.  Very few of those that do are 20 years old. 

Smart may never be an offensive star, but it's ludicrous to suggest he was as bad as you've said, based on your "eye test."  On top of that, I think you'd have to be very pessimistic to think he won't improve over time, given his age and his pedigree as a prospect.

Marcus really had a remarkable rookie season when you consider that he was a valuable two way role player in his first season, despite very obviously -- as you note -- having plenty of room for growth in his skills and decision-making.

Appreciate the detailed response.  And yes, I still believe what I see and he'll need to make one hell of a transformation to change my mind.  As in, someone else is going to have to take over his body.

For now, he is a pretty insignificant player offensively.  You aren't going to build an offense around a guy with his skills and he isn't exactly a natural playmaker.  What would happen to a guy like smarty if his usage rate increased?  My guess is his efficiency would go way down.

And no, I don t really believe that guys improve their skills all that much in the nba.  Yes, younger players do mature and can become more consistent.  But what happens more than anything is that they gain confidence and that the role in their team evolves.  Their usage rate increases as a result and the good players can maintain high efficiency as their usage rate increases.  The bad players never earn higher usage rates or if they get, they become more inefficient. 

I can't be the only person that sees how horribly average smart is as an athlete.  I mean, comparisons to Westbrook, which were common when he was picked, are completely and utterly ridiculous.  Every other part of his offensive game is a work in progress.  I mean, below average shooter, ball handler, penetrator, passer, speed, leaper, quickness, you name it.  He also lacks creativity to his game, which guys with his ability generally need to be successful. 

Am I killing?  I guess I am, at least on the offensive end.  I think he'll always be below average, assuming his defensive skills can keep him on the court.  I think he has a 50/50 shot to even be in the nba five years from now.

[MJohnnyboy]

That's it! Tonight's first half proves Julius Randle is going to be a bust and the Celtics can sleep easy for the next decade knowing they took Smart over him. That's right. One half of basketball and I know Randle's going to suck.

Please tell me how I'm wrong. I beg you!

[jpotter33]

Randle's stats from tonight:

Randle: 3 pts, 2 rebs, 1 asts, 1-4 FG, 5 TO, -27

Smart's weren't much better tonight, but those are some pretty God-awful numbers.

[Csfan1984]

Randle got trucked over. Way over matched tonight. Smart and Randle have a long ways to go. Of course Smart at least has physical edge for his position and a year more exp.

[PhoSita]

And no, I don t really believe that guys improve their skills all that much in the nba.

How much time have you spent watching the NBA game?

[Rondo9]

And no, I don t really believe that guys improve their skills all that much in the nba.

How much time have you spent watching the NBA game?

Seriously,

It took Lebron years to become a credible shooter. It took Curry a few years to become a good passer. Players do work on their craft and improve weaknesses.

[chambers]

The Lakers were simply terrible tonight.

I think they need to

1) get rid of Kobe.
2) Get rid of Coach Scott.
3) Get rid of Ryan Kelly.

Their entire program needs a re-vamp to get the most out of their young prospects because it's a terrible environment to grow as an NBA player.


On another note, both Rondo and Willie Cauley Stein were awesome. Rondo owned the first quarter and got everyone involved.

[KG Living Legend]

 He was a good scorer but mostly when he was getting to the rim at will now for whatever reason he can't. And he was never a good shooter. And he's 6'2". So when you don't shoot well and your not getting to the rim you got problems.

 I'll tell you what I think is odd about him. He's a tremendous athlete of defense.
 However on offense I'm really disappointed in his athleticism on offense. He even seems slow with his first step.

 And then with Randle he shoes very little in defense. But on offense he's the quickest, meanest dude around.

 They are polar opposites time will tell who's better.

Yes they are polar opposites, because Smart is actually 6'4 which is oversized at the pg position, while randle is the one in the conversation that is actually undersized....

In fact your main point about Smart being undersized while providing the completely wrong is actually randles problem. Who is 6'9.

Smart is finally healthy again, I suggest you educate yourself on his time before the injury in his college days.

I honestly don't know how you watch the celtics and think he's 6'2 and undersized after a year on the team.







 Truth Hurts, I speak in terms of actual height. Not made up height. Draftexpress.com He's 6'2" no shoes on. 6'3.25" shoes on.  Randle is 6'7.75" shoes off.

 So Smart is 6'2" with really long arms case closed.