How can anyone think Marcus Smart is a good NBA basketball player?

[Boris Badenov]

Look at the numbers again. 5 out of the 9 seasons he shot 50 percent or close to it.

No, he didn't.

Yes 48 percent is close to 50.

I agree - and he only shot 48% or better four times in nines years.  In case you are completely incompetent at basic mathematics principles, four out of nine is not the majority.

The last two years, when he shot poorly, he played a total of around 50 games. Just barely half a season.

In those two seasons (12/13 and 13/14) his scoring, assists, rebounds, steals and turnovers were all right up around his typical numbers, so you can't just cherry pick his FG% as the one thing to ignore from those seasons just because he played less games.   

He's also a career 47 percent shooter. Maybe you think that's closer to 40 percent then 50. 

Just because it's closer to 50% than 40% that doesn't mean it's close to 50%...it's not.

47% is 47%.  It's not 50%. 

Dude just stop. He's a career 47 percent shooter. Smart is shooting 31 percent this year. You are only making yourself look worse.

When did I say that Smart is a better FG% shooter than Rondo?  Did I say that at any point here? 

Let me help you - no, I did not.

All I said is that the the claim you made in your former post (which was in reply to somebody else) about Rondo shooting '50% or close to for most of his years as a Celtic' was not accurate.

I also love the fact that you keep going back to FG%, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that Smart shot a better percentage from three in his rookie year than Rondo EVER did as a Celtic. 

Or that Rondo shot < 60% from the free throw line in three of his seasons as a Celtic.  A woeful number for a guard.  Smart hasn't been a very good free throw shooter, but he's yet to shoot below 64% for a season - something Rondo did in six of his nine seasons as a Celtic.

It would be naive to try to suggest that Rondo's major weaknesses as a three point shooter and free throw shooter didn't have a major impact on the team.  Opposing teams tailored their entire defence to those weaknesses - they would sag way off Rondo and let him shot threes all night long, which killed spacing.  They'd play "hack a Rondo" in the closing minutes of games.  Rondos inability to score at the line or from the three point line crippled us on many occasions.

At Smart is capable of hitting the open three - teams don't just sag right off him, they have to at least somewhat respect his shot.  Likewise they won't play "hack-a-Smart" because even though he's not a good free throw shooter, he's passable enough for the defence to worry that he might actually make the shots.

Not once in this thread have I stated that Marcus Smart is a good shooter, or that he is a more efficient scorer than Rondo.  I never made that comparison. 

All I said prior to this is that your claim about Rondo was incorrect.  You continue to disagree with me, yet don't actually give a legitimate reason.  For example, you agree that you consider 48% as being close to 50%, but fail to acknowledge that he only shot 48% for a season 4 times.

I guess you enjoy wasting your time by the looks of that last post.

The entire premise of your attack is that you don't consider 47.5 percent close to 50 percent. So much so that you try to slam me for it.

It was a fail on your part dude. Move on. 

You are just looking worse the more this goes on.

Also Rondo avg 47.3 percent shooting on Celtics for his career. It's always fun when you're told you are wrong and the person telling you that couldn't be more wrong about it.

Neither 47.5% nor 47.3% is "nearly 50%".

It's a good percentage, especially for a guard.  I never disputed that.  But saying it is "near 50%" is silly.

The majority of players in the NBA average somewhere between 40% and 50% from the field, with the average being around 45%. 

If 45% is an average FG% then it's safe to say that 47.5% is a very good and 50% is great.  There's a distinct difference.

Given that the vast majority of players shoot between 40% and 50%, the difference between 47.5% and 50% is significant.

I'll give you 49% and I'll even give you 48% (and that's pushing it) but once you get down into the 47% range, no. 

In fact just to prove my point, Rondo has played a total of 527 games as a Celtic over 9 seasons, in which he has managed 2402 FGM on 5083 FGA, for a total FG% of 47%.

For him to push that percentage up from 47% to 50% he would have have to have made approximately 150 extra field goals. 

Over that 9 year stretch Rondo on average took roughly 10 two point shots for every 1 three point shot, so it's save to assume he would that 150 field goals would be roughly 135 2PT shots and 15 3PT shots. 

That adds up to about 315 extra points scored over 9 seasons.  Enough to increase his entire scoring average by 0.6 PPG for that entire 9 year stretch.

IMHO that is significant. Not a huge different, but significant.

Based on the above, I would say that 48.5% is actually 'close enough' to 50% that it can be more or less considered insignificant.  48% is a stretch - borderline.   

Anyway your username alone is a pretty obvious indicator of your personal bias, just FYI.

I'm just going to say that this back and forth between you two is the single greatest example of hair-splitting I've ever seen on this forum - and that is REALLY saying something. Congratulations to the both of you.

[Boris Badenov]

Back on topic I agree that Smart's offense particularly shooting and shot selection is a huge concern. He's certainly not shown anything close to being a useful offensive player in the traditional sense.

Now that said, there are players who find roles over time, with good coaching and serious work on their games. I think we have the first thing, and whether Smart puts in the time to become a better offensive player (and whether it pays off) is to be determined.

A few other points to consider though.

First, if you look at the C's offense over his first two years (which add up to one NBA season, essentially), it's better with him on the court than off:

105.7 Ortg on-court vs. 103.3 off.

The interesting thing is that this doesn't come from shooting - the C's shoot about the same in Efg% with him on vs. off.

What is comes from is that he is very good at helping is team generate possessions, in two ways one of which I think is overlooked:

1. Steals (and to a lesser extent blocks)
2. Not turning the ball over on offense.

The first is well-known, by the numbers the C's get about an extra steal a game when Marcus is on the floor.

The second is more dramatic - Smart himself rarely turns the ball over and the Celts turn it over on 13.3% of possessions with him out there, vs. 15.5 with him off the court.

The numbers are even more stark this year in a small sample, and what it means is that despite Smart's limitations on offense in terms of scoring, the Celts can often be equal or better offensively with him on the floor because they generate more possessions.

I think this is something that adds to his value in a measurable way...possessions help a team score. To me it means that Smart doesn't need to reach the same level in terms of standard offensive metrics (like shooting percentages) in order to be a "plus" player in terms of helping the TEAM score.

[Hemingway]

Can we keep the Rondo hate limited to the Everybody Hates Rondo thread please? Geez Louise, this is like 3 pages of back and forth over a half percentage point in RR's shooting years ago.

The thing that Rondo did well was that he know he wasn't a good outside shooter so he got to the rim a lot. he could shoot close to "47.5%" "some" of his seasons because he took a lot of floaters and layups. Smart should do the same thing and keep working on his shot.

It sucks for young players that the 3 point line is so far and stepping in a step or two is such a bad shot statistically as you get a point less for basically the same shot. But sometimes you just need to see the ball go in to make it keep going in.

To the OP- you would think 50 years of being a fan would teach you patients. Especially if you were watching the games from post bird to the big 3.

[Celtics4ever]

Defense is half the game, I do not know how the OP can claim to watch games and not acknowledge his defensive prowess  and elite nba skills in that aspect of the game.    His offense can be brutal.

[Celtics17]

Yes, why is it that if a player is a good offensive player at a young age that he is going to be the next star in many people's eyes but when they are good defensive players it so often gets overlooked? I think people so often have the misconception that star offensive players can just turn it on when it comes to defense and that if they really wanted to they could be good defensive players too?

I dont get to see many games but from watching the box scores and reading about the Celtics this year it seems as if they were playing their best ball before Marcus went down. It just makes sense that when he comes back that his game is going to suffer until he gets back into bball shape both physically and mentally. Let's wait until after the All Star break to judge his game. Give the guy at least 20 games back.

[KeepRondo]

Look at the numbers again. 5 out of the 9 seasons he shot 50 percent or close to it.

No, he didn't.

Yes 48 percent is close to 50.

I agree - and he only shot 48% or better four times in nines years.  In case you are completely incompetent at basic mathematics principles, four out of nine is not the majority.

The last two years, when he shot poorly, he played a total of around 50 games. Just barely half a season.

In those two seasons (12/13 and 13/14) his scoring, assists, rebounds, steals and turnovers were all right up around his typical numbers, so you can't just cherry pick his FG% as the one thing to ignore from those seasons just because he played less games.   

He's also a career 47 percent shooter. Maybe you think that's closer to 40 percent then 50. 

Just because it's closer to 50% than 40% that doesn't mean it's close to 50%...it's not.

47% is 47%.  It's not 50%. 

Dude just stop. He's a career 47 percent shooter. Smart is shooting 31 percent this year. You are only making yourself look worse.

When did I say that Smart is a better FG% shooter than Rondo?  Did I say that at any point here? 

Let me help you - no, I did not.

All I said is that the the claim you made in your former post (which was in reply to somebody else) about Rondo shooting '50% or close to for most of his years as a Celtic' was not accurate.

I also love the fact that you keep going back to FG%, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that Smart shot a better percentage from three in his rookie year than Rondo EVER did as a Celtic. 

Or that Rondo shot < 60% from the free throw line in three of his seasons as a Celtic.  A woeful number for a guard.  Smart hasn't been a very good free throw shooter, but he's yet to shoot below 64% for a season - something Rondo did in six of his nine seasons as a Celtic.

It would be naive to try to suggest that Rondo's major weaknesses as a three point shooter and free throw shooter didn't have a major impact on the team.  Opposing teams tailored their entire defence to those weaknesses - they would sag way off Rondo and let him shot threes all night long, which killed spacing.  They'd play "hack a Rondo" in the closing minutes of games.  Rondos inability to score at the line or from the three point line crippled us on many occasions.

At Smart is capable of hitting the open three - teams don't just sag right off him, they have to at least somewhat respect his shot.  Likewise they won't play "hack-a-Smart" because even though he's not a good free throw shooter, he's passable enough for the defence to worry that he might actually make the shots.

Not once in this thread have I stated that Marcus Smart is a good shooter, or that he is a more efficient scorer than Rondo.  I never made that comparison. 

All I said prior to this is that your claim about Rondo was incorrect.  You continue to disagree with me, yet don't actually give a legitimate reason.  For example, you agree that you consider 48% as being close to 50%, but fail to acknowledge that he only shot 48% for a season 4 times.

I guess you enjoy wasting your time by the looks of that last post.

The entire premise of your attack is that you don't consider 47.5 percent close to 50 percent. So much so that you try to slam me for it.

It was a fail on your part dude. Move on. 

You are just looking worse the more this goes on.

Also Rondo avg 47.3 percent shooting on Celtics for his career. It's always fun when you're told you are wrong and the person telling you that couldn't be more wrong about it.

Neither 47.5% nor 47.3% is "nearly 50%".

It's a good percentage, especially for a guard.  I never disputed that.  But saying it is "near 50%" is silly.

The majority of players in the NBA average somewhere between 40% and 50% from the field, with the average being around 45%. 

If 45% is an average FG% then it's safe to say that 47.5% is a very good and 50% is great.  There's a distinct difference.

Given that the vast majority of players shoot between 40% and 50%, the difference between 47.5% and 50% is significant.

I'll give you 49% and I'll even give you 48% (and that's pushing it) but once you get down into the 47% range, no. 

In fact just to prove my point, Rondo has played a total of 527 games as a Celtic over 9 seasons, in which he has managed 2402 FGM on 5083 FGA, for a total FG% of 47%.

For him to push that percentage up from 47% to 50% he would have have to have made approximately 150 extra field goals. 

Over that 9 year stretch Rondo on average took roughly 10 two point shots for every 1 three point shot, so it's save to assume he would that 150 field goals would be roughly 135 2PT shots and 15 3PT shots. 

That adds up to about 315 extra points scored over 9 seasons.  Enough to increase his entire scoring average by 0.6 PPG for that entire 9 year stretch.

IMHO that is significant. Not a huge different, but significant.

Based on the above, I would say that 48.5% is actually 'close enough' to 50% that it can be more or less considered insignificant.  48% is a stretch - borderline.   

Anyway your username alone is a pretty obvious indicator of your personal bias, just FYI.

I'm just going to say that this back and forth between you two is the single greatest example of hair-splitting I've ever seen on this forum - and that is REALLY saying something. Congratulations to the both of you.

Thank you. Exactly what I was saying about his argument. Unreal that he started this up. Kind of sad.

[KeepRondo]

I guess you enjoy wasting your time by the looks of that last post.

The entire premise of your attack is that you don't consider 47.5 percent close to 50 percent. So much so that you try to slam me for it.

It was a fail on your part dude. Move on. 

You are just looking worse the more this goes on.

Also Rondo avg 47.3 percent shooting on Celtics for his career. It's always fun when you're told you are wrong and the person telling you that couldn't be more wrong about it.

Neither 47.5% nor 47.3% is "nearly 50%".

It's a good percentage, especially for a guard.  I never disputed that.  But saying it is "near 50%" is silly.

The majority of players in the NBA average somewhere between 40% and 50% from the field, with the average being around 45%. 

If 45% is an average FG% then it's safe to say that 47.5% is a very good and 50% is great.  There's a distinct difference.

Given that the vast majority of players shoot between 40% and 50%, the difference between 47.5% and 50% is significant.

I'll give you 49% and I'll even give you 48% (and that's pushing it) but once you get down into the 47% range, no. 

In fact just to prove my point, Rondo has played a total of 527 games as a Celtic over 9 seasons, in which he has managed 2402 FGM on 5083 FGA, for a total FG% of 47%.

For him to push that percentage up from 47% to 50% he would have have to have made approximately 150 extra field goals. 

Over that 9 year stretch Rondo on average took roughly 10 two point shots for every 1 three point shot, so it's save to assume he would that 150 field goals would be roughly 135 2PT shots and 15 3PT shots. 

That adds up to about 315 extra points scored over 9 seasons.  Enough to increase his entire scoring average by 0.6 PPG for that entire 9 year stretch.

IMHO that is significant. Not a huge different, but significant.

Based on the above, I would say that 48.5% is actually 'close enough' to 50% that it can be more or less considered insignificant.  48% is a stretch - borderline.   

Anyway your username alone is a pretty obvious indicator of your personal bias, just FYI.

You are an idiot for thinking you railroaded my point by saying one season at 47.5 was not close enough to 50 percent.

Way to go on wasting your time trying to make a stupid point.

[The Oracle]

Back on topic I agree that Smart's offense particularly shooting and shot selection is a huge concern. He's certainly not shown anything close to being a useful offensive player in the traditional sense.

Now that said, there are players who find roles over time, with good coaching and serious work on their games. I think we have the first thing, and whether Smart puts in the time to become a better offensive player (and whether it pays off) is to be determined.

A few other points to consider though.

First, if you look at the C's offense over his first two years (which add up to one NBA season, essentially), it's better with him on the court than off:

105.7 Ortg on-court vs. 103.3 off.

The interesting thing is that this doesn't come from shooting - the C's shoot about the same in Efg% with him on vs. off.

What is comes from is that he is very good at helping is team generate possessions, in two ways one of which I think is overlooked:

1. Steals (and to a lesser extent blocks)
2. Not turning the ball over on offense.

The first is well-known, by the numbers the C's get about an extra steal a game when Marcus is on the floor.

The second is more dramatic - Smart himself rarely turns the ball over and the Celts turn it over on 13.3% of possessions with him out there, vs. 15.5 with him off the court.

The numbers are even more stark this year in a small sample, and what it means is that despite Smart's limitations on offense in terms of scoring, the Celts can often be equal or better offensively with him on the floor because they generate more possessions.

I think this is something that adds to his value in a measurable way...possessions help a team score. To me it means that Smart doesn't need to reach the same level in terms of standard offensive metrics (like shooting percentages) in order to be a "plus" player in terms of helping the TEAM score.

I was just going to make a post discussing this very thing.  He creates possession differential like no other.  Marcus Smart is the only player in the NBA this year averaging (per 36 min.) at least 2 steals, 1 Off. reb., 3 Assists and fewer than 2 turnovers.  You know what....He was the only player to do so last year also. 
 
  The C's are averaging 9.2 steals without Marcus, and 10.6 with him on the court.  The C's average 15.2 turnovers without him, and 12.5 with him on the court.  The C's offensive rebounding numbers go up dramatically with him on the court also from 10.6 to 14.1.  This can partially be explained by other factors including poorer shooting percentages leading to more missed shots.  Opponents are only getting 80.2 FGA per 48 with him on the floor while the C's are getting 91.7 FGA.  Opponents do go to the FT line 3.4 more times than the C's do while he is on the floor.  However you look at it though the possessions he helps create and simultaneously take away from opponents is huge. 

  In the last 5 games Smart has 14 offensive rebounds and 11 steals.  His +/- in those games has never been worse than -1 even though the C's lost 4 of those games.  People worry way to much about his shooting, it will get better and when it does the C's truly have a special player if he can just stay on the court!

[KeepRondo]

Can we keep the Rondo hate limited to the Everybody Hates Rondo thread please? Geez Louise, this is like 3 pages of back and forth over a half percentage point in RR's shooting years ago.

The thing that Rondo did well was that he know he wasn't a good outside shooter so he got to the rim a lot. he could shoot close to "47.5%" "some" of his seasons because he took a lot of floaters and layups. Smart should do the same thing and keep working on his shot.

It sucks for young players that the 3 point line is so far and stepping in a step or two is such a bad shot statistically as you get a point less for basically the same shot. But sometimes you just need to see the ball go in to make it keep going in.

To the OP- you would think 50 years of being a fan would teach you patients. Especially if you were watching the games from post bird to the big 3.

They are brainless creatures.

A half of a percentage point this guy wants to argue over. And write a novel about

[feckless]

The two things Smart supporters are giving Marcus which he has not earned are high basketball IQ and leadership.  The game needs to be played at both ends and as high as his grades are at the defensive end they are as low on the offensive end.  He has shown no increased knowledge in his shot selection IQ nor his playmaking.  Right now he is a young Tony Allen with no real indication that he will ever be more than another Tony.  A sometime starter, role player, premier defender and unreliable, often stupid on offense.  The injuries in my mind cannot excuse his continued poor choices on the offensive end.  The dumb play the other night, and his teammates reaction, also show he is not listening to the coaches.

[oldtype]

Tony Allen is a useful NBA player. Marcus Smart right now is already about 90% of Tony Allen.

I don't think there's any question that he's going to have a career.

[Rosco917]

Why this sensitivity for Rondo continues I have no idea. It's like a wound that some will not let heal, it gets torn open every few days on this forum. 

Get over it, he's gone. Smart had nothing to do with the trading of Rondo. If it bothers you that the team played better when he was gone, you must be taking great delight in the way the C's are currently playing.

Downing Smart every chance you can, because you miss your boy, is childish.

Smart sucking has nothing to do with Rondo. 

The question is, why when Rondo is brought into any conversation, negatively do you feel it's your duty...your obsession to defend his honor. The tone you take when doing it is much like a child. You just can't tolerate if anyone has an opinion of Rondo that differs from yours.
Sorry pal, You need to better examine these irrational feeling you have for a former player.

[KeepRondo]

Why this sensitivity for Rondo continues I have no idea. It's like a wound that some will not let heal, it gets torn open every few days on this forum. 

Get over it, he's gone. Smart had nothing to do with the trading of Rondo. If it bothers you that the team played better when he was gone, you must be taking great delight in the way the C's are currently playing.

Downing Smart every chance you can, because you miss your boy, is childish.

Smart sucking has nothing to do with Rondo. 

The question is, why when Rondo is brought into any conversation, negatively do you feel it's your duty...your obsession to defend his honor. The tone you take when doing it is much like a child. You just can't tolerate if anyone has an opinion of Rondo that differs from yours.
Sorry pal, You need to better examine these irrational feeling you have for a former player.

I guess I'm not allowed to comment on Rondo. Haha

Do you even think before posting? I have responded to maybe a few posts about Rondo in the last year. You are the one with the agenda.

[Evantime34]

My stance on Smart is that he is already an elite defender, and with his work ethic I trust him to improve.

I am concerned about his durability long term though.

[Rosco917]

Why this sensitivity for Rondo continues I have no idea. It's like a wound that some will not let heal, it gets torn open every few days on this forum. 

Get over it, he's gone. Smart had nothing to do with the trading of Rondo. If it bothers you that the team played better when he was gone, you must be taking great delight in the way the C's are currently playing.

Downing Smart every chance you can, because you miss your boy, is childish.

Smart sucking has nothing to do with Rondo. 

The question is, why when Rondo is brought into any conversation, negatively do you feel it's your duty...your obsession to defend his honor. The tone you take when doing it is much like a child. You just can't tolerate if anyone has an opinion of Rondo that differs from yours.
Sorry pal, You need to better examine these irrational feeling you have for a former player.

I guess I'm not allowed to comment on Rondo. Haha

Do you even think before posting? I have responded to maybe a few posts about Rondo in the last year. You are the one with the agenda.

You're wrong, at one time I was a fan of Rondo, but in a normal context to the Celtic team. When he no longer fit, it was time to let it go. You have to learn to except that not all Celtic fans, are fans of Rondo. And simply let it go.