Specific Criticism of Smart I'm Tired of Hearing

[SHAQATTACK]

TP for OP

[alldaboston]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

[Ilikesports17]

1. Smart's terrible shooting makes everything else irrelevant.

2. Smart's defense and intensity on the court make his terrible shooting irrelevant.

I've seen a lot more of #1 than #2 but I've still seen both and both are equaling ridiculous. Smart has a problem with his shooting and needs to get better to play the position he plays in the NBA. Everyone agrees on that. But it does not mean that the rest of the stuff he does doesn't matter and vice versa. You can criticize parts of a player's game without making absolute statements about whether or not he should play/not play/be traded, et al.

/whining

I think thats more of a perception than the reality.

Plenty of people are rightfully critical of smart. Just because they dont throw, "but hes also good at defense which gives him x amount of value" at the end, doesnt mean they believe Smart is useless.

Likewise, when a poster says they love Smarts intensity and defensive abilities, I dont think they need to throw in "but his inability to score the basketball limits his upside" at the end of every post.

My issue is more that you cant criticize Smart without 9 people assuming you think hes completely useless and you cant praise the guy without 10 more people assuming you think hes Lebron James.

[TrueFan]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

[cltc5]

Smart should be our starting pg not a freakin rotation player

[dreamgreen]

Smart should be our starting pg not a freakin rotation player

Don't be silly.  Why all realize he's no where close to beating out IT or AB.

[droopdog7]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

[KG Living Legend]

this has me thinking about my marriage. I'm a faithful, supportive and patient husband/father and yet my wife is critical of my penchant for burping and farting. 

...I wasn't even a lottery pick

 When were you drafted Red. Let me guess. I'm going to say you were selected around 35th overall. You were a Big Baby type steal early in the second round.

[jpotter33]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

10 ITs would be a really, really bad team that couldn't defend a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. I guess IT is even more below average than Smart. 

[droopdog7]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

10 ITs would be a really, really bad team that couldn't defend a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. I guess IT is even more below average than Smart. 

I guess you don't understand the analogy.  Ten Marcus smarts at their positions (i.e., ten players with good defense and bad offense) would not be very bad.  Ten Isaiah's Thomas's would be a [dang] could team because while there defense would be limited, they score a lot of points.

[jpotter33]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

10 ITs would be a really, really bad team that couldn't defend a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. I guess IT is even more below average than Smart. 

I guess you don't understand the analogy.  Ten Marcus smarts at their positions (i.e., ten players with good defense and bad offense) would not be very bad.  Ten Isaiah's Thomas's would be a [dang] could team because while there defense would be limited, they score a lot of points.

It doesn't matter how many points you score if you give up just as many points. Sure, I would say that offense is very marginally more important than defense, but it's not as drastic as you say. It's something like 51/49.

IT is a good opposite of Smart, because IT's offense is as elite as Smart's defense and IT's defense is as subpar as Smart's offense. Even with offense being marginally more important, I don't think you can claim Smart as being a below average player due to his subpar offense without also claiming IT as a below average player due to his subpar defense. That's just an inaccurate analogy and way to determine a player's status.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, the saying "defense wins championships" is there for a reason. Statistically, at least since around the 2000's, winning championships has been more associated with defensive rating than offensive rating. Finals contestants have more often had a top-10 defense than a top-10 offense.

https://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nba/offense-and-defensive-efficiency-of-nba-champions.aspx

[alldaboston]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

10 ITs would be a really, really bad team that couldn't defend a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. I guess IT is even more below average than Smart. 

I guess you don't understand the analogy.  Ten Marcus smarts at their positions (i.e., ten players with good defense and bad offense) would not be very bad.  Ten Isaiah's Thomas's would be a [dang] could team because while there defense would be limited, they score a lot of points.

The Lakers score a ton of points. They have (or had, as of last week) one of the best offenses in the NBA. But their defense is awful. Like, literally, it's trash. They're not a [dang] good team.

This Celtics team last year was pretty bad offensively, when you looked at stats like offensive rating. But we had an elite defense. We were a pretty solid team last year.

A team of 10 ITs would not be able to score a lot on a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. And even if they were able to score points, they'd get scored on even more, since Isaiah is really not that good a defender (as much as he tries to be).

[jpotter33]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

10 ITs would be a really, really bad team that couldn't defend a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. I guess IT is even more below average than Smart. 

I guess you don't understand the analogy.  Ten Marcus smarts at their positions (i.e., ten players with good defense and bad offense) would not be very bad.  Ten Isaiah's Thomas's would be a [dang] could team because while there defense would be limited, they score a lot of points.

The Lakers score a ton of points. They have (or had, as of last week) one of the best offenses in the NBA. But their defense is awful. Like, literally, it's trash. They're not a [dang] good team.

This Celtics team last year was pretty bad offensively, when you looked at stats like offensive rating. But we had an elite defense. We were a pretty solid team last year.

A team of 10 ITs would not be able to score a lot on a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. And even if they were able to score points, they'd get scored on even more, since Isaiah is really not that good a defender (as much as he tries to be).

TP. I didn't want to say it and be called a biased Smart fan, but I'd rather have a team of 10 Smarts than 10 ITs, especially if they were playing each other. It doesn't matter how many points you score if you give up just as many or more due to absolutely terrible defense.

[droopdog7]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

10 ITs would be a really, really bad team that couldn't defend a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. I guess IT is even more below average than Smart. 

I guess you don't understand the analogy.  Ten Marcus smarts at their positions (i.e., ten players with good defense and bad offense) would not be very bad.  Ten Isaiah's Thomas's would be a [dang] could team because while there defense would be limited, they score a lot of points.

The Lakers score a ton of points. They have (or had, as of last week) one of the best offenses in the NBA. But their defense is awful. Like, literally, it's trash. They're not a [dang] good team.

This Celtics team last year was pretty bad offensively, when you looked at stats like offensive rating. But we had an elite defense. We were a pretty solid team last year.

A team of 10 ITs would not be able to score a lot on a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. And even if they were able to score points, they'd get scored on even more, since Isaiah is really not that good a defender (as much as he tries to be).

Yeah, I'm not buying it.  A team with bad offensive players at every position would be terrible regardless of how good the individual defenders are.  You see, it is easier to manufacture a good defense with team concepts than it is to manufacture a good, efficient offense.

Either way, simple question.  Would people agree that Marcus smart and James harden are sort of opposites?  Good/great offense with bad defense versus good/great defense and bad offense?  How many non Celtic fans on the planet (all 500 million of them) would choose smart over harden?  I going to guess just about zero.  And yes, I fully expect that you people will make an argument to take smart. At that point, all credibility will be lost.

[fantankerous]

The truth is, offense is much more valuable than defense.  So while his lousy offense doesn't make his defense irrelevant, it is a much more important aspect of the game.  In other words, great defense and lousy offense don't make an average player.  It makes a below average player.  On the other hand, there are many examples of great offensive players with bad defense that are still good players overall.

what defines "good" in your point of view?

because, in my opinion, "great defense and lousy offense" makes a good player.
and "great offense and bad defense" also makes a good player.

so, there is more than 1 way to be a good player.

Very good point. His opinion is just his perception.

I think most people including me agree with your opinion more.

I mean, he was perhaps the worst offensive player in the entire league last year.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  He's gotten a little better this year but he's still bad.  Yet, people question how someone could consider him below average? 

My point is pretty simple.  Being a good defensive player doesn't cancel his offense.  While sure, perhaps if others on the team make up for his offense can allow him to focus on what he does well.  But 10 Marcus Smarts would be really really bad team.

10 ITs would be a really, really bad team that couldn't defend a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. I guess IT is even more below average than Smart. 

I guess you don't understand the analogy.  Ten Marcus smarts at their positions (i.e., ten players with good defense and bad offense) would not be very bad.  Ten Isaiah's Thomas's would be a [dang] could team because while there defense would be limited, they score a lot of points.

The Lakers score a ton of points. They have (or had, as of last week) one of the best offenses in the NBA. But their defense is awful. Like, literally, it's trash. They're not a [dang] good team.

This Celtics team last year was pretty bad offensively, when you looked at stats like offensive rating. But we had an elite defense. We were a pretty solid team last year.

A team of 10 ITs would not be able to score a lot on a team of 10 Marcus Smarts. And even if they were able to score points, they'd get scored on even more, since Isaiah is really not that good a defender (as much as he tries to be).

Yeah, I'm not buying it.  A team with bad offensive players at every position would be terrible regardless of how good the individual defenders are.  You see, it is easier to manufacture a good defense with team concepts than it is to manufacture a good, efficient offense.

Either way, simple question.  Would people agree that Marcus smart and James harden are sort of opposites?  Good/great offense with bad defense versus good/great defense and bad offense?  How many non Celtic fans on the planet (all 500 million of them) would choose smart over harden?  I going to guess just about zero.  And yes, I fully expect that you people will make an argument to take smart. At that point, all credibility will be lost.

To some extent, I agree with your conclusion.  However, I think your premise is faulty.  Were the masses right to execute Socrates?  Perhaps they knew of Socrates' association with the Thirty Tyrants that the extant evidence doesn't afford.  Or perhaps they were just afraid of the truth.  Nevertheless, mass appeal is a poor proxy for truth.