New Marcus Smart Article

[hwangjini_1]

Oracle,

I can only lead you to the water.

Turner is a far better player when the floor is spaced. He doesn't have to dribble through crowds. He is very good at creating off the dribble and pulling up for midrange jumpers. He's much more valuable than Smart.

Olynyk reaches for rebounds. He doesn't try to rip them down. He's a very flawed rebounder but his offensive skills and somewhat decent help defense, ok serviceable help D, make up for it. You can't honestly think Olynyk is an ok rebounder or strong on the glass?

Smart hitting only 23 percent from three and 34 percent overall is bad. Very bad. You put him out there with Zeller and Rozier and he gets totally exposed. His offensive numbers and plus minus stats would be awful if he was on a team just under 500.

small point on olly's rebounding, with no intent to overly promote him, is that his rebounding is not "very flawed" and risks putting your post into the realm of hyperbole. when we look at his rebounding, we need to consider that he role is to play AWAY from the basket.

compared to players who camp out near the basket, his stats look sad, true. but since his primarily role is not rebounding, but stretching the floor i dont see he rebounding as all that bad. - a career of 4.7.

[The Oracle]

Oracle,

I can only lead you to the water.

Turner is a far better player when the floor is spaced. He doesn't have to dribble through crowds. He is very good at creating off the dribble and pulling up for midrange jumpers. He's much more valuable than Smart.

Olynyk reaches for rebounds. He doesn't try to rip them down. He's a very flawed rebounder but his offensive skills and somewhat decent help defense, ok serviceable help D, make up for it. You can't honestly think Olynyk is an ok rebounder or strong on the glass?

Smart hitting only 23 percent from three and 34 percent overall is bad. Very bad. You put him out there with Zeller and Rozier and he gets totally exposed. His offensive numbers and plus minus stats would be awful if he was on a team just under 500.



 

 

Where did I say Turner isn't better with spacing?  Of course he is.  Olynyk has small hands, he is not Sully who rebounds cling to his hands like they are covered in stickum.  You and Crimson must share a brain.  Done with you.

[greece66]

As always, my problem with this kind of analysis is that the proper question to ask is what players were available in the general range of the #6 pick in previous drafts, not what players other teams chose at #6 specifically.

I think it's reasonable to have the expectation that a pick in the #6-10 range will turn into at least an average starter.  Ideally, an above average starter with the talent to make an All-Star game in the right situation.

Obviously not all picks in that range turn into that sort of player, but the kind of talent is very often available at #6, so failing to turn up a player of that caliber has to be regarded as a failure.

We're not there yet with Smart, but I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that there are concerning signs that Smart may never reach that level.

I agree with the bolded part; I feel less sure about the italicized first paragraph.

Looking at the specifics of the 2014 draft, Smart comes out as a solid choice. With hindsight,  some picks were steals (Lavine at 13; Nurkic at 16  Rodney Hood at 23; Jordan Clarkson at 46) but this happens in every draft; and who knows, in a few years, it might look like Saric was the best prospect outside the top-2.

Now looking at the 3-10 draft picks in 2014:

3 Embiid
4 Aaron Gordon
5 Dante Exum: torn ACL
7 Julius Randle
8  Nik Stauskas
9 Noah Vonleh: 20 yo
10 Elfrid Payton

This is not a very impressive list...

Randle is a nice player, but he would not fit with our roster (we still had Bass and Jeff Green); Payton's 3p% has gone up to 35.8 this season and he is a better ball handler and passer than Smart but I will not lose sleep over this choice.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=paytoel01&p2=smartma01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

tl;dr: Smart would still make it in the top-10 if the draft was re-ran today.

[TheTruth]

Greece,

Randle and Payton are pretty gross also.

Exum and LaVine are not.

[Denis998]

Greece,

Randle and Payton are pretty gross also.

Exum and LaVine are not.

Exum?

[PhoSita]

tl;dr[/b]: Smart would still make it in the top-10 if the draft was re-ran today.

All good points.  I was thinking about this after making the post you quoted.

As much as I'm concerned about Smart, it still seems that the top 10 of the 2014 draft, aside from the top 3, was pretty weak.  Maybe historically so -- we'll have to wait to see if any of these guys eventually breaks out.

So yeah, I'm not saying I regret Danny picking Smart.  It is still a bummer to think a #6 pick might not turn into anything better than a 20 mpg defensive role player. 

My point with the italicized paragraph was this -- let's take a look at some names from the back half of the top 10 over the five years before Smart was drafted.

Stephen Curry
Demar Derozan
Brandon Jennings
Greg Monroe
Al-Farouq Aminu
Gordon Hayward
Paul George
Brandon Knight
Kemba Walker
(Klay Thompson was 11th)
Damian Lillard
Harrison Barnes
Andre Drummond
Nerlens Noel
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
C.J. McCollum


That's 15 names of guys who have turned into starter caliber players or better -- some of them much better.  All picked between 6 and 10 in the 2009-2013 drafts.

15 out of 25 is a pretty good success rate -- 60%.

So like I said, maybe the 2014 draft was just really weak in that range.  That's not especially comforting since that looks like an anamoly, if we assume that none of the guys in that range in 2014 turns into a quality starter (far from a given of course, including Smart).

[kozlodoev]

Greece,

Randle and Payton are pretty gross also.

Exum and LaVine are not.

I agree that Payton has been pretty gross. And now consider that he has also been a better player than Marcus Smart so far.