ESPN ranked Smart 114th best

[alldaboston]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

The rankings don't mean anything.  They have Smart ahead of Okafor, Noel AND Simmons which is obviously nonsense.

ok, then it doesn't "confirm" what you claimed you were getting ridiculed about, either.

It absolutely confirms that Julius Randle is now seen as a better prospect than Marcus Smart.  But it also confirms that Marcus Smart is seen as a better prospect than Noel or Okafor...

Luckily neither matters... as I still personally feel Smart is a better prospect than Randle barely.  And I'd take Okafor over both of them.

My man, you just said the rankings "don't mean anything". Which is it? Do they mean anything? Do they confirm anything? Or don't they?

[Denis998]

Going of basic stats and PER, Randel is better right now. He made a huge jump this season and has Draymond Green type skillset

Smart is a lot more effective on the defensive end then Randle is.

Randle has a higher defensive rating

[Ilikesports17]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

The rankings don't mean anything.  They have Smart ahead of Okafor, Noel AND Simmons which is obviously nonsense.

ok, then it doesn't "confirm" what you claimed you were getting ridiculed about, either.

It absolutely confirms that Julius Randle is now seen as a better prospect than Marcus Smart.  But it also confirms that Marcus Smart is seen as a better prospect than Noel or Okafor...

Luckily neither matters... as I still personally feel Smart is a better prospect than Randle barely.  And I'd take Okafor over both of them.

My man, you just said the rankings "don't mean anything". Which is it? Do they mean anything? Do they confirm anything? Or don't they?

The rankings obviously mean something. They definitely mean whoever built this list (ESPN? a specific ESPN writer? idk?) believes Randles better than Smart etc etc. This serves as an indication of the mainstream view of the players but it does not mean Randle is worse than Smart etc etc. It just means that that point of view is one held by someone who professionally analyzes sports.

Put whatever weight into that you like.

[Ilikesports17]

Going of basic stats and PER, Randel is better right now. He made a huge jump this season and has Draymond Green type skillset

Smart is a lot more effective on the defensive end then Randle is.

Randle has a higher defensive rating

unlikely to continue. Smart has played 3 games.

[coffee425]

on the topic of these rankings...

[LarBrd33]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

The rankings don't mean anything.  They have Smart ahead of Okafor, Noel AND Simmons which is obviously nonsense.

ok, then it doesn't "confirm" what you claimed you were getting ridiculed about, either.

It absolutely confirms that Julius Randle is now seen as a better prospect than Marcus Smart.  But it also confirms that Marcus Smart is seen as a better prospect than Noel or Okafor...

Luckily neither matters... as I still personally feel Smart is a better prospect than Randle barely.  And I'd take Okafor over both of them.

My man, you just said the rankings "don't mean anything". Which is it? Do they mean anything? Do they confirm anything? Or don't they?

Both.  That was my point from the beginning.  I said that I had Smart above Randle despite the fact most would put Randle ahead of Smart at this point.  People got butthurt by it for whatever reason.

These rankings confirm most would put Randle ahead of Smart at this point.  Like I said from the start, I still have Smart ahead of Randle due to my Celtic homerism... despite what the rest of the world might think. 

If it's not clear yet from my years on this blog, I'm capable of acknowledging how the rest of the world perceives something while subsequently explaining why my point of view differs from the popular opinion.  In this case, popular opinion is that Randle has leapfrogged Smart.  I still have Smart a hair above him.

[wayupnorth]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

If ESPN agreed with LarBrd he will say how great they are, if they disagree with them, he will ignore them or claim they aren't correct.

(See thread where he tried to claim that the 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders).

Dude posts here to get reactions, and that is it.

Not worth taking seriously.

[LarBrd33]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

If ESPN agreed with LarBrd he will say how great they are, if they disagree with them, he will ignore them or claim they aren't correct.

(See thread where he tried to claim that the 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders).

Dude posts here to get reactions, and that is it.

Not worth taking seriously.

Actually that's another great example.   The 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders despite popular opinion.  Good point.

[footey]

Comes as no surprise to me that Randle has higher ranking. Smart's very poor outside shooting and pedestrian ball handling really diminish his value, something his superb defensive intuition and competitiveness cannot overcome. Randle has a tremendous motor on offense, and decent size for a small ball power forward. I'd trade Smart for him without hesitation. And I like Smart.

[wayupnorth]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

If ESPN agreed with LarBrd he will say how great they are, if they disagree with them, he will ignore them or claim they aren't correct.

(See thread where he tried to claim that the 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders).

Dude posts here to get reactions, and that is it.

Not worth taking seriously.

Actually that's another great example.   The 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders despite popular opinion.  Good point.

Celtics were true contenders and you are literally the only person that thinks they weren't.

But of course you are the only one who knows anything around here.

I like how if ESPN agrees with you they are correct, and if they don't, they aren't.

And Chad Fords tiers are gospel, but when ESPN says the 12' C's were contenders, they clearly are just wrong.

 8/8...Gr8 B8 Ma8.

[TrueFan]

Al Horford came in at 22nd and IT at 29.

[Bobshot]

Media rankings are largely fantasy stat rankings. Randle has decent rebounding stats and averages 10-12 ppg.  He isn't much on defense, which is Smart's forte. There is really no basis for comparison between the two. Take rankings with a grain of salt.

[Moranis]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

The rankings don't mean anything.  They have Smart ahead of Okafor, Noel AND Simmons which is obviously nonsense.

ok, then it doesn't "confirm" what you claimed you were getting ridiculed about, either.

It absolutely confirms that Julius Randle is now seen as a better prospect than Marcus Smart.  But it also confirms that Marcus Smart is seen as a better prospect than Noel or Okafor...

Luckily neither matters... as I still personally feel Smart is a better prospect than Randle barely.  And I'd take Okafor over both of them.

These aren't prospect or trade value rankings.  They are rankings based on what they project the players season to be i.e. who is the better player for the up coming season.  Smart will most likely have a better season than Simmons, it doesn't mean Smart is a better prospect or has a higher trade value than Simmons. 

[Moranis]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

If ESPN agreed with LarBrd he will say how great they are, if they disagree with them, he will ignore them or claim they aren't correct.

(See thread where he tried to claim that the 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders).

Dude posts here to get reactions, and that is it.

Not worth taking seriously.

Actually that's another great example.   The 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders despite popular opinion.  Good point.

Celtics were true contenders and you are literally the only person that thinks they weren't.

But of course you are the only one who knows anything around here.

I like how if ESPN agrees with you they are correct, and if they don't, they aren't.

And Chad Fords tiers are gospel, but when ESPN says the 12' C's were contenders, they clearly are just wrong.

 8/8...Gr8 B8 Ma8.

Boston wasn't a true contender in 11/12.  If not for Rose's injury, Boston would have lost in the ECS to Chicago.  If Bosh was healthy, the Heat would have steamrolled Boston in the ECF.  It was a great last "hurrah" but Boston was not a legit contender that year.

[kraidstar]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead

I can.  This confirms what I was getting ridiculed about in the "Revisit Randle vs Smart" thread.  While I still have Smart a hair above Randle due to my homerism, I feel like most people outside Laker/Celtic fandom would already say Randle has leapfrogged Smart.

doesn't confirm a thing. arbitrary ESPN rankings (that we still don't have a link for, btw lol) dont confirm anything. what is the basis of the ranking? what are they using to justify the ranking? until we get the actual link, there's nothing to even look into to confirm.

ESPN ranks players every year.  http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank51100/nbarank-players-51-100

Embiid at #58 already.

thanks for the link (and the shameless Embiid plug lol), still doesnt "confirm" anything. ESPN might be touted as the "experts" or whatever, but their rankings don't "confirm" anything at all.

If ESPN agreed with LarBrd he will say how great they are, if they disagree with them, he will ignore them or claim they aren't correct.

(See thread where he tried to claim that the 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders).

Dude posts here to get reactions, and that is it.

Not worth taking seriously.

Actually that's another great example.   The 2012 Celtics weren't true contenders despite popular opinion.  Good point.

Celtics were true contenders and you are literally the only person that thinks they weren't.

But of course you are the only one who knows anything around here.

I like how if ESPN agrees with you they are correct, and if they don't, they aren't.

And Chad Fords tiers are gospel, but when ESPN says the 12' C's were contenders, they clearly are just wrong.

 8/8...Gr8 B8 Ma8.

Boston wasn't a true contender in 11/12.  If not for Rose's injury, Boston would have lost in the ECS to Chicago.  If Bosh was healthy, the Heat would have steamrolled Boston in the ECF.  It was a great last "hurrah" but Boston was not a legit contender that year.

Well, the Celtics gave the Heat a lot more trouble than any other team did that offseason.

And that was without Avery Bradley - the player who, after he replaced Ray Allen in the starting lineup, turned the C's from a sub-.500 team to an ECF team. Not having him around to guard Wade was huge.