Here are some of Smart's stats. I'm trying to be as fair as possible here so please be objective. These stats don't fair well for Smart and I just want to get a better understanding of what I need to find to resolve this debate. Because we can't just use our eyes as an argument.
https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM
http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/individual-player-plus-minus-statistics/2015/
http://www.foxsports.com/nba/stats?season=2015&category=ADVANCED&group=1&sort=5&pos=0&team=0&qual=1
http://www.foxsports.com/nba/stats?season=2015&category=ADVANCED&group=1&sort=14&time=0&pos=0&team=0&qual=1&sortOrder=0&opp=0
thanks for the homework and good research TC. my point, however, is to rephrase your point by extending it..."because we just cant use our
stats as an argument."
the counter side has been arguing that smart's ability to affect a game positively for the celtics extends beyond stats. that is a fair point and i have seen their eye-ball-based evidence and support for their position. they really do have a point. but not the full story.
yet, stats dont tell the full story either. (and if you are into stats, you will know that they are never intended to do so.)
isnt this your exact argument, but from another perspective? you raise the very very good point that eyeballs alone are not able to reveal the full story. i agree.
now i argue that the same can be said about stats in this case.
to be honest, i love what i see in smart in some ways. and in others i roll my eyes and wonder, yet again, why in the hell smart decided to chuck up a 26 foot 3 pointer with 14 seconds left on the clock....and do so without being set or in position.
my take away after seeing bradley develop far far far far far beyond what he was as a rookie is to be patient. (ha! how many times do i type THAT word on cb.
)
your stats reveal a short sample size that is a concern solely because we fret and stew and worry and run in circles that they MIGHT be a predictor of the future. but in the end we dont know right now how smart will turn out as a shooter.
going forward under CBS, i would expect smart to chuck up better considered shots, to have an offense that lets him shoot when he is set in the proper position, and play to his abilities.
as one stat-example of this possible development, his passing for assists has nudged up this season. a combo not only of his ability, but the position in which CBS has placed him.
i doubt, given my eyes and the stats, that smart will develop into paul pierce as a scorer - lots of moves, lots of ways to score, killer shooter. but i do believe that he has the potential, within a system that WILL allow him to play to his strengths on offense, to become a credible, reliable scorer and not the sink hole the stats indicate he HAS been so far.
stats are the past, not the future. unless we take other factors in to account, stats are deceptive and misleading. they dont tell us the future, but they can let us think more carefully about it.
so, thanks for the post TC. good work by you and a tp.
