Author Topic: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus  (Read 7893 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2016, 09:23:38 PM »

Offline KeepRondo

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5161
  • Tommy Points: 215
Just read it.  A little hard to believe Jeff wrote that.  Is there another Jeff Clark out there?

I completely understand being disappointed by Marcus, but focusing only on what his shooting numbers have been so far this year blatantly disregards some very important context.

Could be worthwhile to, you know, look at his full body of work so far, first of all, and second of all, compare him to similarly situated players.  First and second year players with a similar role on their team and a somewhat comparable skillset.

Yes, Smart has been sold to us as the next big thing for the Celts.  I agree with the sentiment of the article which is that Smart is probably not that.  I'm pretty confident, still, that he'll eventually be a very valuable role player, if not for the Celts then for somebody else.

80% sure that's another Jeff Clark.

I am 100% sure its not our Jeff Clark.
It was a much better read than his normal stuff if it was.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2016, 09:26:29 PM »

Online feckless

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1219
  • Tommy Points: 93
Marcus Smart is the new Tony Allen!
Days up and down they come, like rain on a conga drum, forget most, remember some, don't turn none away.   Townes Van Zandt

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2016, 09:27:21 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52053
  • Tommy Points: 3197
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smartma01/on-off/2016/

Too bad there's such a thing as context and you can't just ignore evidence that doesn't fit your narrative! Seriously, you're getting pretty ridiculous in your bias. His on/off stats suggest the opposite of what you're implying...
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2016, 09:27:43 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.


Annoyed?
Yes, Annoyed... It's good to see someone shooting straight on Smart.  He's been a disappointment.

The way you worded it is sounds like you're more annoyed that they were critical of guys you salivate over
I mean... it was critical of guys like Noel, who I'd definitely trade Smart for... and Andrew Wiggins... who you'd obviously trade Smart for.    And the article was paraded around like, "Haha these rookies/sophomores stink" which seemed incredibly hypocritical to me considering that smart has been supremely disappointing.  That's what I felt was annoying...
I still don't get how a c's fan would be annoyed by this unless he wanted Marcus to be a failure.

I mean these experts have questionable opinions but if a guy who gets payed to analyze basketball says a player on your team is dissapointing it kinda sucks because it means a man knowledgeable about basketball doesn't think he's doing well.

As an admitted pessimist and Cs fan(supposedly) I would think you would be excited to find that experts don't see him as disappointing and think to yourself "maybe my pessimism is clouding my judgement of smart? Maybe these guys see something I don't see?"

 i expected Marcus to be on the list but I sure as hell wasn't disappointed win I found he wasn't.
I think Smart was left off the ESPN list, because Marcus Smart is irrelevant to that writer.  He probably wrote him off before he even entered the league and can't be disappointed in failing to achieve success.  It's the same reason I wouldn't include Terry Rozier or RJ Hunter in a "most disappointing rookie" list... they are doing exactly what I expected them to do... spending their time in D-League.  With Smart, I thought he'd be running the team at this point... not shooting like a poor man's Rajon Rondo.

Do you think about what you write before you hit "post"? So according to you Smart is irrelevant to the writer, but Stauskas is relevant. Ponder that for a bit before you reply.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2016, 09:28:54 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52053
  • Tommy Points: 3197
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.


Annoyed?
Yes, Annoyed... It's good to see someone shooting straight on Smart.  He's been a disappointment.

The way you worded it is sounds like you're more annoyed that they were critical of guys you salivate over
I mean... it was critical of guys like Noel, who I'd definitely trade Smart for... and Andrew Wiggins... who you'd obviously trade Smart for.    And the article was paraded around like, "Haha these rookies/sophomores stink" which seemed incredibly hypocritical to me considering that smart has been supremely disappointing.  That's what I felt was annoying...
I still don't get how a c's fan would be annoyed by this unless he wanted Marcus to be a failure.

I mean these experts have questionable opinions but if a guy who gets payed to analyze basketball says a player on your team is dissapointing it kinda sucks because it means a man knowledgeable about basketball doesn't think he's doing well.

As an admitted pessimist and Cs fan(supposedly) I would think you would be excited to find that experts don't see him as disappointing and think to yourself "maybe my pessimism is clouding my judgement of smart? Maybe these guys see something I don't see?"

 i expected Marcus to be on the list but I sure as hell wasn't disappointed win I found he wasn't.
I think Smart was left off the ESPN list, because Marcus Smart is irrelevant to that writer.  He probably wrote him off before he even entered the league and can't be disappointed in failing to achieve success.  It's the same reason I wouldn't include Terry Rozier or RJ Hunter in a "most disappointing rookie" list... they are doing exactly what I expected them to do... spending their time in D-League.  With Smart, I thought he'd be running the team at this point... not shooting like a poor man's Rajon Rondo.

Do you think about what you write before you hit "post"? So according to you Smart is irrelevant to the writer, but Stauskas is relevant. Ponder that for a bit before you reply.

Some of his stuff is getting so far out there that it's not even worth replying to.
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2016, 09:30:56 PM »

Offline oldtype

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1677
  • Tommy Points: 143
Smart is otherworldly good on defense and otherworldly bad on offense.

He is a useful player as is and given his age, it is not unreasonable to hope/expect he becomes a bit more.

He's a actually a really easy player to evaluate. Trouble comes when people decide they need to have conclusive opinions not just on what he is but also on what he will be
If he was a big man who was otherworldly good on defense and otherworldly bad on offense, I'd be ok with it.  But this is a guard-centric league.  You need offense from that position.   

I think there's a reason we are 7-9 in games he's played and 12-9 in games he's sat...  I hate to say it, but it's the same [dang] problem we had with Rajon Rondo.  In the modern NBA you can't have a complete offensive liability as one of your two main guards.  That's a problem.  At least Rondo could create for other players.  Smart is a one dimensional player at the wrong position... and you can't build a defense around a really good defensive guard. 

Hence why I'd gladly trade Smart for Nerlens Noel if Philly was willing to do it.  But I don't think Philly would make that move. 

And again... Smart's just 21 years old... he can turn it around.  But this article isn't really saying anything that isn't true.

You need a certain amount of shooting to get by in the modern NBA but it doesn't always have to come from the guard position. Having stretch bigs allows you to get away with a player like Smart at PG. That's a roster constraint that takes away some flexibility, but hardly a reason to deem a player fundamentally flawed.


Great words from a great man

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2016, 09:31:52 PM »

Offline KeepRondo

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5161
  • Tommy Points: 215
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.


Annoyed?
Yes, Annoyed... It's good to see someone shooting straight on Smart.  He's been a disappointment.

The way you worded it is sounds like you're more annoyed that they were critical of guys you salivate over
I mean... it was critical of guys like Noel, who I'd definitely trade Smart for... and Andrew Wiggins... who you'd obviously trade Smart for.    And the article was paraded around like, "Haha these rookies/sophomores stink" which seemed incredibly hypocritical to me considering that smart has been supremely disappointing.  That's what I felt was annoying...
I still don't get how a c's fan would be annoyed by this unless he wanted Marcus to be a failure.

I mean these experts have questionable opinions but if a guy who gets payed to analyze basketball says a player on your team is dissapointing it kinda sucks because it means a man knowledgeable about basketball doesn't think he's doing well.

As an admitted pessimist and Cs fan(supposedly) I would think you would be excited to find that experts don't see him as disappointing and think to yourself "maybe my pessimism is clouding my judgement of smart? Maybe these guys see something I don't see?"

 i expected Marcus to be on the list but I sure as hell wasn't disappointed win I found he wasn't.
I think Smart was left off the ESPN list, because Marcus Smart is irrelevant to that writer.  He probably wrote him off before he even entered the league and can't be disappointed in failing to achieve success.  It's the same reason I wouldn't include Terry Rozier or RJ Hunter in a "most disappointing rookie" list... they are doing exactly what I expected them to do... spending their time in D-League.  With Smart, I thought he'd be running the team at this point... not shooting like a poor man's Rajon Rondo.

Do you think about what you write before you hit "post"? So according to you Smart is irrelevant to the writer, but Stauskas is relevant. Ponder that for a bit before you reply.

Some of his stuff is getting so far out there that it's not even worth replying to.
Pelton was asked a question in his chat last week about Smart. The response was something about Smart getting injured and not being able to evaluate his play and then may had talked more about the injuries. So you can probably assume that they left off Smart because he was injured.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2016, 09:32:58 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.


Annoyed?
Yes, Annoyed... It's good to see someone shooting straight on Smart.  He's been a disappointment.

The way you worded it is sounds like you're more annoyed that they were critical of guys you salivate over
I mean... it was critical of guys like Noel, who I'd definitely trade Smart for... and Andrew Wiggins... who you'd obviously trade Smart for.    And the article was paraded around like, "Haha these rookies/sophomores stink" which seemed incredibly hypocritical to me considering that smart has been supremely disappointing.  That's what I felt was annoying...
I still don't get how a c's fan would be annoyed by this unless he wanted Marcus to be a failure.

I mean these experts have questionable opinions but if a guy who gets payed to analyze basketball says a player on your team is dissapointing it kinda sucks because it means a man knowledgeable about basketball doesn't think he's doing well.

As an admitted pessimist and Cs fan(supposedly) I would think you would be excited to find that experts don't see him as disappointing and think to yourself "maybe my pessimism is clouding my judgement of smart? Maybe these guys see something I don't see?"

 i expected Marcus to be on the list but I sure as hell wasn't disappointed win I found he wasn't.
I think Smart was left off the ESPN list, because Marcus Smart is irrelevant to that writer.  He probably wrote him off before he even entered the league and can't be disappointed in failing to achieve success.  It's the same reason I wouldn't include Terry Rozier or RJ Hunter in a "most disappointing rookie" list... they are doing exactly what I expected them to do... spending their time in D-League.  With Smart, I thought he'd be running the team at this point... not shooting like a poor man's Rajon Rondo.

Do you think about what you write before you hit "post"? So according to you Smart is irrelevant to the writer, but Stauskas is relevant. Ponder that for a bit before you reply.

Some of his stuff is getting so far out there that it's not even worth replying to.

You're right. The guy doesn't even pretend to be objective and just posts nonsense. That said, given how awful his predictions are I'm actually pretty thankful he doesn't like Smart.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #38 on: January 10, 2016, 09:42:12 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52053
  • Tommy Points: 3197
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.


Annoyed?
Yes, Annoyed... It's good to see someone shooting straight on Smart.  He's been a disappointment.

The way you worded it is sounds like you're more annoyed that they were critical of guys you salivate over
I mean... it was critical of guys like Noel, who I'd definitely trade Smart for... and Andrew Wiggins... who you'd obviously trade Smart for.    And the article was paraded around like, "Haha these rookies/sophomores stink" which seemed incredibly hypocritical to me considering that smart has been supremely disappointing.  That's what I felt was annoying...
I still don't get how a c's fan would be annoyed by this unless he wanted Marcus to be a failure.

I mean these experts have questionable opinions but if a guy who gets payed to analyze basketball says a player on your team is dissapointing it kinda sucks because it means a man knowledgeable about basketball doesn't think he's doing well.

As an admitted pessimist and Cs fan(supposedly) I would think you would be excited to find that experts don't see him as disappointing and think to yourself "maybe my pessimism is clouding my judgement of smart? Maybe these guys see something I don't see?"

 i expected Marcus to be on the list but I sure as hell wasn't disappointed win I found he wasn't.
I think Smart was left off the ESPN list, because Marcus Smart is irrelevant to that writer.  He probably wrote him off before he even entered the league and can't be disappointed in failing to achieve success.  It's the same reason I wouldn't include Terry Rozier or RJ Hunter in a "most disappointing rookie" list... they are doing exactly what I expected them to do... spending their time in D-League.  With Smart, I thought he'd be running the team at this point... not shooting like a poor man's Rajon Rondo.

Do you think about what you write before you hit "post"? So according to you Smart is irrelevant to the writer, but Stauskas is relevant. Ponder that for a bit before you reply.

Some of his stuff is getting so far out there that it's not even worth replying to.
Pelton was asked a question in his chat last week about Smart. The response was something about Smart getting injured and not being able to evaluate his play and then may had talked more about the injuries. So you can probably assume that they left off Smart because he was injured.

That's an objective, arguable stance. I think in addition to the injuries, it's not fair to put him on that list due to his role on a better team. It's not fair to compare apples to oranges given hufely different contexts. However, that doesn't make LarBrd33's comment any less biased.
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2016, 10:03:53 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.
To be disappointing, you have to not meet expectations. Smart is not far from expectations. Expectations were much lower than for Wiggins. The defense is as good as expected. Everyone was concerned with his offense at the NBA level. His offense may be closer to the expected worst case as of now, but but at least he contributes in the rotation of a team that wins half of its games.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2016, 10:09:43 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.


Annoyed?
Yes, Annoyed... It's good to see someone shooting straight on Smart.  He's been a disappointment.

I'm with you on that one - absolutely, TP.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2016, 10:17:29 PM »

Offline KeepRondo

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5161
  • Tommy Points: 215
Smart can be a 20 point scorer but needs to get craftier around the rim and, the obvious, become a better shooter.

But right now, his offensive game is ugly.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2016, 10:35:34 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Smart can be a 20 point scorer but needs to get craftier around the rim and, the obvious, become a better shooter.

But right now, his offensive game is ugly.

But only on the night that the Celtics visit Oklahoma ;D. Does the spell expire after the game or something, because if so, then we clearly need a new fairy godmother (sarcasm) ;D.

Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2016, 10:52:35 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smartma01/on-off/2016/

Too bad there's such a thing as context and you can't just ignore evidence that doesn't fit your narrative! Seriously, you're getting pretty ridiculous in your bias. His on/off stats suggest the opposite of what you're implying...
I think it's hilarious when people call me ridiculously bias when they are being ridiculously bias.  Marcus Smart has been bad.  If he wasn't playing for the Celtics, you wouldn't be defending him.  This article really summed it up.

Quote
Is Marcus Smart talented enough to become that franchise cornerstone, that star — what the team and its media have already sold him to you as being?

I’m sorry, Celtics fans, but the answer is no. He’s not talented enough to become your team’s cornerstone. And he may not even be talented enough to remain in the league longer than a few more years, based on how he’s played this season. I mean, there might be a roster spot somewhere in the NBA for a power forward or center who is as offensively inept as Smart, but who excels on the defensive end of the floor. But a point guard? I doubt it.

I know what you’re going to say: Smart’s fingers were hurt earlier on in the year! Couldn’t you see they were taped? Yes, I could. I can also see that plenty of other players around the league have to tape their fingers up on occasion, too. But what I don’t see are any players with offensive numbers as terrible as Marcus’ have been.

And if taped fingers were such an obstacle for Marcus, why was he playing? If Brad and Danny, both of whom seem to be of sound basketball mind, knew Smart’s taped fingers were preventing him from being able to perform, why would he have been allowed on the court? A quick google images search of Reggie Miller, one of the great shooters in NBA history, shows that he either preferred having his fingers taped or simply played at a hall of fame level throughout his career in spite of this. At the least, taped fingers and shooting success aren’t mutually exclusive.

And, please, don’t bring up Marcus’ recent knee injury as an excuse — or anything else, for that matter. You know why, Celtics fans? Because there is no excuse for what I’m about to tell you….

Marcus Smart doesn’t qualify for ESPN’s rankings of the top 32 points guard in the NBA by overall field goal percentage because he’s not on pace to convert at least 300 field goals this season. What if he were, though? Where would he rank? That would be dead last, Celtics fans. The worst qualifying player is currently the Brooklyn Nets’ Jarret Jack, who was shooting a putrid .391% from the field before suffering a season ending knee injury. But what Smart is shooting makes Jarrett Jack look like the deadliest of snipers — an utterly shameful .321%, which is .070% points worse than Jack. Now, if you added .070% points to Jack’s field goal percentage, his current ranking would vault all the way from last to 5th, placing him ahead of the likes of superstars Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook.

You know what, we really shouldn’t say that Marcus is “shooting” .321% from the field. Saying that Marcus is “chucking” .321% would be more appropos.

But wait, Celtics fans, there’s more! Let’s take a look a Smart’s three point shooting, all by itself. Marcus Smart doesn’t qualify for ESPN’s rankings of the top 31 points guards by three point shooting, either, because he’s not on pace to make at least 82 threes. But if he were, his .217% would rank him last once again, this time .077% points worse than the next most awful shooter. Hold on, Jeff, if Smart can’t shoot, can he at least put his teammates in a position to score? Unfortunately, Celtics fans, he can’t. If Marcus qualified for ESPN’s point guard assist rankings, he would be averaging the 3rd fewest assists per game of any of the 79 qualifying players who have played as many minutes per game as he has.

I understand that the Celtics’ organization and media have a vested interest in growing the support of and belief in their team’s players, particularly one whom the team is as deeply invested in as Marcus Smart. After all, the Celtics took Smart with the 6th overall pick in the highly touted 2014 NBA draft. So, the organization and media really can’t be expected to do anything other than package him to us with the biggest, prettiest green bow on top they can come up with. The league is a business. Fans must tune into games and buy tickets and jerseys in order for it to survive. Thus, marketing has a natural place.

Jeff nailed it here.  I think the defensiveness is mostly about securing Smart's trade value.  The hope here is to package him with the Brooklyn pick and expiring contracts and land a real star.   But let's be straight... he's been pretty bad. 

I still think he can find a rhythm and get it together... but he isn't really coming from a history of success offensively.  At least with scrubs like Stauskas (who I don't rank nearly as high as Smart), they have a track record of shooting to lean on and build optimism for.   Smart wasn't a good offensive player in College.  He was inefficient even then.   It's been discouraging watching him this season.   I'm still trying to have faith.


Re: hardwood houdini just did hatchet job on marcus
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2016, 11:01:32 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52053
  • Tommy Points: 3197
It's fair.  Marcus is deserving of criticism at this point.  I still have hope he will make improvements but just yesterday I was a little annoyed by ESPN dumping on "disappointing" prospects like Wiggins while ignoring how disappointing smart has been.  He's been bad.  We have a losing record this season with him on the court.  Shades of rondo without the passing ability.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smartma01/on-off/2016/

Too bad there's such a thing as context and you can't just ignore evidence that doesn't fit your narrative! Seriously, you're getting pretty ridiculous in your bias. His on/off stats suggest the opposite of what you're implying...
I think it's hilarious when people call me ridiculously bias when they are being ridiculously bias.  Marcus Smart has been bad.  If he wasn't playing for the Celtics, you wouldn't be defending him.  This article really summed it up.

Quote
Is Marcus Smart talented enough to become that franchise cornerstone, that star — what the team and its media have already sold him to you as being?

I’m sorry, Celtics fans, but the answer is no. He’s not talented enough to become your team’s cornerstone. And he may not even be talented enough to remain in the league longer than a few more years, based on how he’s played this season. I mean, there might be a roster spot somewhere in the NBA for a power forward or center who is as offensively inept as Smart, but who excels on the defensive end of the floor. But a point guard? I doubt it.

I know what you’re going to say: Smart’s fingers were hurt earlier on in the year! Couldn’t you see they were taped? Yes, I could. I can also see that plenty of other players around the league have to tape their fingers up on occasion, too. But what I don’t see are any players with offensive numbers as terrible as Marcus’ have been.

And if taped fingers were such an obstacle for Marcus, why was he playing? If Brad and Danny, both of whom seem to be of sound basketball mind, knew Smart’s taped fingers were preventing him from being able to perform, why would he have been allowed on the court? A quick google images search of Reggie Miller, one of the great shooters in NBA history, shows that he either preferred having his fingers taped or simply played at a hall of fame level throughout his career in spite of this. At the least, taped fingers and shooting success aren’t mutually exclusive.

And, please, don’t bring up Marcus’ recent knee injury as an excuse — or anything else, for that matter. You know why, Celtics fans? Because there is no excuse for what I’m about to tell you….

Marcus Smart doesn’t qualify for ESPN’s rankings of the top 32 points guard in the NBA by overall field goal percentage because he’s not on pace to convert at least 300 field goals this season. What if he were, though? Where would he rank? That would be dead last, Celtics fans. The worst qualifying player is currently the Brooklyn Nets’ Jarret Jack, who was shooting a putrid .391% from the field before suffering a season ending knee injury. But what Smart is shooting makes Jarrett Jack look like the deadliest of snipers — an utterly shameful .321%, which is .070% points worse than Jack. Now, if you added .070% points to Jack’s field goal percentage, his current ranking would vault all the way from last to 5th, placing him ahead of the likes of superstars Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook.

You know what, we really shouldn’t say that Marcus is “shooting” .321% from the field. Saying that Marcus is “chucking” .321% would be more appropos.

But wait, Celtics fans, there’s more! Let’s take a look a Smart’s three point shooting, all by itself. Marcus Smart doesn’t qualify for ESPN’s rankings of the top 31 points guards by three point shooting, either, because he’s not on pace to make at least 82 threes. But if he were, his .217% would rank him last once again, this time .077% points worse than the next most awful shooter. Hold on, Jeff, if Smart can’t shoot, can he at least put his teammates in a position to score? Unfortunately, Celtics fans, he can’t. If Marcus qualified for ESPN’s point guard assist rankings, he would be averaging the 3rd fewest assists per game of any of the 79 qualifying players who have played as many minutes per game as he has.

I understand that the Celtics’ organization and media have a vested interest in growing the support of and belief in their team’s players, particularly one whom the team is as deeply invested in as Marcus Smart. After all, the Celtics took Smart with the 6th overall pick in the highly touted 2014 NBA draft. So, the organization and media really can’t be expected to do anything other than package him to us with the biggest, prettiest green bow on top they can come up with. The league is a business. Fans must tune into games and buy tickets and jerseys in order for it to survive. Thus, marketing has a natural place.

Jeff nailed it here.

Yeah, it's cool. Deny the evidence that again shows that you're wrong and that Marcus is still a big all-around plus on the floor, despite your insistence due to the record that he's hurting the team. That's pretty much your MO anymore, right?

And I'll interpret your statement for others that aren't used to your biased philosophy. "This article really summed it up" equals "this article confirms my previous biases."

Oh, and, no, I like Smart because of the way he plays the game and the fire that he plays with. It has nothing to do with him being on the Celtics.
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.