ESPN ranked Smart 114th best

[TrueFan]

I can't believe they have Randle 30 spots ahead and Rodney Hood 50 spots ahead of Smart.

Tons of other head scratchers.

Hopefully Smart uses this as motivation to continue playing great this year.

[droopdog7]

A link would be good.


And 114th best what?  Player overall?  Is so, then he is much higher than I would have thought.   

[chilidawg]

If you look at ESPN's RPM stat, and the Wins produced by it, Smart ranked 124th last year.  So not that far off.

Randle on the other hand was almost last.

Hood had a pretty good year, not surprised to see him ahead of Smart.

[Tr1boy]

Dayam

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[TrueFan]

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.

I would have them ranked closely but would give Smart higher future projections. 

[TrueFan]

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 is the number 1 sports media outlet. The rankings are easy to find.

[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

[TrueFan]

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.

[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.