Marcus Smart's historical shooting ranking

[Chris22]

Some said he should be nick named "One-for". That has been very true this year. Darnnnnn Marcus step your game up. I like his drives and when he takes his time on his shots.

One-for is seeming more and more like a a nickname that will stick.


I still like Brickmaster.  He lays bricks, and makes other players do the same.

Just call him, The Brick.

[TheTruth]

Phosita,

Good point.

Smart is decent at drive and kicks.

Another good point is that Kemba was asked to do a lot more so he was less selective with his shots. Smart is only being asked to take high percentage shots so it's more alarming for him to be shooting as bad as Kemba did his rookie year.

[The Oracle]

As a rookie Smart shot 20-50 40% on corner 3's and 71-218 32.6% above the break excluding half court heaves.  These are in no way bad numbers .

This year Smart is 9-47 19.1% on corner 3's and 45-160 28.1% above the break excluding half court heaves.  These are not good numbers but considering his injury problems this year it can be looked at as nothing more than a loss of form and confidence.  Historically bad shooters do not shoot the numbers he shot as a rookie.

Consider that if he had made just 7 more 3's above the break this year he would be shooting the same % above the break as last year.  Absolutely nothing to worry about and should just be considered a slump brought on by injuries and a lack of confidence. 

[SHAQATTACK]

I want him on the court , he can shoot , it's just a slump ...Ray Allen had them

He needs to,be on the court .

Quit whining and be glade he is on Boston.

[The Oracle]

Dino,

Not sure why you are being so abrasive.

Am I making things up? No. He is a historically bad shooter so far.

The boost that Smart gets on his Efg is from the threes he takes. His 30 percent gets boosted to 45 percent but this in no way changes the fact that he was a much worse shooter than someone like Melo, in their first two years. His raw FG percentage is at 35 percent. I would much rather have Smart shooting 41 percent with an Efg of 43 than shooting 35 percent with Efg of 43.

This doesn't make sense.  Both players score exactly the same amount of points on the same amount of attempts.  There is actually an advantage to having the player who shoots the worse FG% in this scenario because he misses more shots affording you more offensive rebounding chances to extend the possessions.  (referring to your last sentence)

 

[TheTruth]

The Oracle,

You are missing the point.

Smart is shooting 35 percent. It's much easier to go from a 41 percent shooter to a respectable 46 or higher than a 35 percent shooter to the same 46. Any GM is going to pick the 41 percent shooter even tho they have the same Efg. It's easier to improve from 41 than 35.

Bringing up Efg is just a lazy way to disregard Smart's shooting problems.

It also is not a complete argument anyways as it doesn't take into account what type of shots the player is taking.

[The Oracle]

The Oracle,

You are missing the point.

Smart is shooting 35 percent. It's much easier to go from a 41 percent shooter to a respectable 46 or higher than a 35 percent shooter to the same 46. Any GM is going to pick the 41 percent shooter even tho they have the same Efg. It's easier to improve from 41 than 35.

Bringing up Efg is just a lazy way to disregard Smart's shooting problems.

It also is not a complete argument anyways as it doesn't take into account what type of shots the player is taking.

No you just have it backwards FG% does not account for the types of shots players are taking, EFG% does.  Would you consider everyone who has a FG% of 39% to be a poor shooter?  Because if you did you would be mistaken.  What if that player only shoots 3's you would gladly take that, where a player who doesn't shoot any 3's and has a 39% FG% would quickly be ran out of the league.

[TheTruth]

The Oracle.

I don't have it backwards.

When you take Efg, player A may take 40 percent of his shots from behind three. Giving him a nice boost to his Efg. Player B may shoot 95 percent of his shots from two with 40 percent from long range twos.

Player A shoots 35 percent and player b shoots 41 but both have the same Efg.

I'm taking player b without hesitation.

This player can develope more range to add a three or the player could improve his shooting since it's not beyond terrible like player A's 35 percent shooting percentage.

[Boris Badenov]

The Oracle,

You are missing the point.

Smart is shooting 35 percent. It's much easier to go from a 41 percent shooter to a respectable 46 or higher than a 35 percent shooter to the same 46. Any GM is going to pick the 41 percent shooter even tho they have the same Efg. It's easier to improve from 41 than 35.

Bringing up Efg is just a lazy way to disregard Smart's shooting problems.

It also is not a complete argument anyways as it doesn't take into account what type of shots the player is taking.

You're not accounting for that fact that a 1% increase in 3pt% is the same as a 1.5% increase in 2pt%.

Suppose a 41% guy shoots only twos and goes to 46% on twos alone. Like you said.

The same player shooting 27% on 3s only (41% eFG) only needs to improve to a little better than 30% in order to reach 46% eFG.

So it's not whether it's easier to improve from 46% from 35% or from 41%.

It's whether it's easier to improve 2pt% by 5 points, or 3pt% by around 3 points.

[TheTruth]

Boris,

It's more that it's harder to become a decent shooter when you're shooting 35 percent.

[Dino Pitino]

Boris,

It's more that it's harder to become a decent shooter when you're shooting 35 percent.

The Oracle.

I don't have it backwards.

When you take Efg, player A may take 40 percent of his shots from behind three. Giving him a nice boost to his Efg. Player B may shoot 95 percent of his shots from two with 40 percent from long range twos.

Player A shoots 35 percent and player b shoots 41 but both have the same Efg.

I'm taking player b without hesitation.

This player can develope more range to add a three or the player could improve his shooting since it's not beyond terrible like player A's 35 percent shooting percentage.

You keep talking about the player with 35 FG% as if he can't improve his shooting, when he's the one who already hits three pointers. His FG% and 3PT% can improve, too. The player who hits no threes has to develop an ability that doesn't yet exist. All Smart has to do is finish close and easy opportunities better & improve his three point shot. You're overstating what 35% means, acting like it signifies a permanent handicap or something. It's not. Stop.

[byennie]

The Oracle.

I don't have it backwards.

When you take Efg, player A may take 40 percent of his shots from behind three. Giving him a nice boost to his Efg. Player B may shoot 95 percent of his shots from two with 40 percent from long range twos.

Player A shoots 35 percent and player b shoots 41 but both have the same Efg.

I'm taking player b without hesitation.

This player can develope more range to add a three or the player could improve his shooting since it's not beyond terrible like player A's 35 percent shooting percentage.

Based on what evidence does a guy shooting 41% on easier shots have more room for improvement than someone at 35% shooting from outside?

You can just as easily say the 35% could pick up more easy baskets by posting up, or getting out in transition, or scrapping midrange jumpers. There are a million possibilities for either player; it's nonsense to say 41% is automatically more promising "because he could add a 3pt shot".

[The Oracle]

The Oracle.

I don't have it backwards.

When you take Efg, player A may take 40 percent of his shots from behind three. Giving him a nice boost to his Efg. Player B may shoot 95 percent of his shots from two with 40 percent from long range twos.

Player A shoots 35 percent and player b shoots 41 but both have the same Efg.

I'm taking player b without hesitation.

This player can develope more range to add a three or the player could improve his shooting since it's not beyond terrible like player A's 35 percent shooting percentage.

Last attempt to try to convince you.

Serge Ibaka is shooting 380-791 48% FG%
J.J. Redick   is shooting 379-794 47.7% FG%

If you just look at their FG% you would consider them to hold much the same value.  J.J. has scored 1115 points on those shots, Ibaka 895 points.  If you eliminate the Free throws you get J.J. 938 points, Ibaka 812 points.  You would be crazy to consider them as holding anything near the same value shooting those shots.  FG% by itself tells you very little and can easily be misconstrued.

[CelticPride2016]

Too many threads on this board are unreadable. They too often turn into a fellowship of the miserable.

[CelticPride2016]

DinoPitino is correct. All Smart has to do is figure out how to finish at the hoop and all of a sudden his shooting doesn't look so bad. Rondo's downfall was his inability to hit free throws. I don't think Smart will have that problem.