Don't give up on Smart

[Ilikesports17]

You Cant measure Smarts contribution to this team by the Score Card or the 3 Ball percentage.. He is much more than that, always has been always will be..  He is Great as is, Can his shooting improve, sure.. but he is one of only a handful of players in the league who can effect winning despite the 1 for X...  Successful teams need guys like that to be successful.

Tell me why we won that Knicks game, what did Smart do at the end there to put it away? Let's say he goes 0 for X again that game. Are we winning this game?

Not sure what your argument is.

If Smart had missed 5 more shots thus resulting in us scoring ~10 less points, then yes we probably lose the game.

The point is that Smart makes winning plays and helps the team shot-making aside.

Smart took 2 bigtime charges and ran some of our best offense the whole game out of the post. He also hit a clutch shot, which he has seemingly dont a lot of in his career shooting percentages aside.

As I see it, the point is this. Smart is terrible at shooting and somehow thinks hes good. He will have games where he has a sub 20 fg%. In those games his ability to be a beast defensively, run the offense fairly well from the post or pick and roll, and make bigtime clutch plays and shots make it so he still helps the team or at least mitigates the negative impact his shooting has.

When he plays within himself and makes his shots he can be incredibly valuable and help the team immensely.

Well since you didn't know, I'm glad you were Smart enough.

Also didn't he hit the dagger three? Look man, Knicks had 3 guys scoring in the 20s, Smart HAD to hit some shots for us to win. Basketball isn't all putbacks and loose ball dives. Sometimes you gotta put the ball inside the hoop, you know to score and whatnot.

That point is obvious so I wasnt sure if you really felt the need to point it out.

Obviously when Smart hits shots hes better than when he doesnt. However, that doesnt mean he cant help the team win and be valuable when he doesnt hit shots.

Also, Smart left the game with 4:24 to go, up 11. We were outscored 14-3 He returns to the game with a minute left, nails a 3, Bradley steal, Horford block, game over.

Again, no one is arguing that 5-9 Smart is worse than 1-9 Smart. That point is asinine and irrelevant, the point is that 1-9 Smart can still be helpful to the team so give him patience and if he eventually wisens up on shot selection and adds a little savvy he can consistently be the weapon we saw on Christmas.

[mctyson]

I agree, Smart is a special player, the kind that you want to have on your side in crunch time. People are too impatient and always looking to move on to the next great prospect, just look at how many of us here wanted to get rid of Bradley in his first 3 years. I believe Smart is going to be great. Hopefully it will be as a Celtic.

Nothing to be impatient about. He is great as he is. if he can add more skills that a bonus.

A lot of good teams have 6th and 7th guys who are young, have some deficiencies, could start for lesser squads, but do so many little things great that they were indispensable role players.  That is what Smart is now.

Sam Cassel on the Rockets comes to mind:  http://bkref.com/tiny/YYObD

[mctyson]

You Cant measure Smarts contribution to this team by the Score Card or the 3 Ball percentage.. He is much more than that, always has been always will be..  He is Great as is, Can his shooting improve, sure.. but he is one of only a handful of players in the league who can effect winning despite the 1 for X...  Successful teams need guys like that to be successful.

Tell me why we won that Knicks game, what did Smart do at the end there to put it away? Let's say he goes 0 for X again that game. Are we winning this game?

Not sure what your argument is.

If Smart had missed 5 more shots thus resulting in us scoring ~10 less points, then yes we probably lose the game.

The point is that Smart makes winning plays and helps the team shot-making aside.

Smart took 2 bigtime charges and ran some of our best offense the whole game out of the post. He also hit a clutch shot, which he has seemingly dont a lot of in his career shooting percentages aside.

As I see it, the point is this. Smart is terrible at shooting and somehow thinks hes good. He will have games where he has a sub 20 fg%. In those games his ability to be a beast defensively, run the offense fairly well from the post or pick and roll, and make bigtime clutch plays and shots make it so he still helps the team or at least mitigates the negative impact his shooting has.

When he plays within himself and makes his shots he can be incredibly valuable and help the team immensely.

Well since you didn't know, I'm glad you were Smart enough.

Also didn't he hit the dagger three? Look man, Knicks had 3 guys scoring in the 20s, Smart HAD to hit some shots for us to win. Basketball isn't all putbacks and loose ball dives. Sometimes you gotta put the ball inside the hoop, you know to score and whatnot.

If you think that is all Smart does on the court brings value you shouldn't comment on the Celtics.

[tankcity!]

He had a good game and the cheerleaders came out Haha. Smart is a good role player. Maybe he can be more. No point in creating a thread. We already have enough smart threads. We're better off waiting for the year to end.

The only argument I have made is that Smart is nothing more than a roleplayer. I think that's pretty fair.

[Ilikesports17]

He had a good game and the cheerleaders came out Haha. Smart is a good role player. Maybe he can be more. No point in creating a thread. We already have enough smart threads. We're better off waiting for the year to end.

The only argument I have made is that Smart is nothing more than a roleplayer. I think that's pretty fair.

yeah that seems fair.

Obviously if God graces his right arm and he starts shooting 40% from deep we can reopen the Marcus Smart is a star narrative. However, for now he is anywhere from an OK to really good role-player primarily depending on how he is used and shot selection.

[Vermont Green]

Smart's per game average is currently 3.4 of 9.3 (36%).  If he made one more shot per game, 4.4 of 9.3, that would get him up to 47% and he would be considered an efficient scorer.  I think he can improve enough to make one more shot a game.  And if you assume that he make one more 3 every other game as part of the one shot per game (since about half his shots are 3s), he becomes a 40% 3pt shooter.

Smart still has to do it but what I see is a player that is very close to making that one more shot per game.  I can't see the future so who knows but I have certainly not given up on him.

[Chris22]

Give up on Smart?
The guy is a great player, built for the playoffs.

[liam]

Smart's per game average is currently 3.4 of 9.3 (36%).  If he made one more shot per game, 4.4 of 9.3, that would get him up to 47% and he would be considered an efficient scorer.  I think he can improve enough to make one more shot a game.  And if you assume that he make one more 3 every other game as part of the one shot per game (since about half his shots are 3s), he becomes a 40% 3pt shooter.

Smart still has to do it but what I see is a player that is very close to making that one more shot per game.  I can't see the future so who knows but I have certainly not given up on him.

If he didn't take all those last minute heaves from beyond half court he's percentages would improve and if his team mates didn't give him the ball with a second left on the clock in no position to score at least once a game then his % would be higher. But Smart doesn't care about those numbers and that's why he's my kind of player!

[CelticGuardian]

You Cant measure Smarts contribution to this team by the Score Card or the 3 Ball percentage.. He is much more than that, always has been always will be..  He is Great as is, Can his shooting improve, sure.. but he is one of only a handful of players in the league who can effect winning despite the 1 for X...  Successful teams need guys like that to be successful.

Tell me why we won that Knicks game, what did Smart do at the end there to put it away? Let's say he goes 0 for X again that game. Are we winning this game?

Not sure what your argument is.

If Smart had missed 5 more shots thus resulting in us scoring ~10 less points, then yes we probably lose the game.

The point is that Smart makes winning plays and helps the team shot-making aside.

Smart took 2 bigtime charges and ran some of our best offense the whole game out of the post. He also hit a clutch shot, which he has seemingly dont a lot of in his career shooting percentages aside.

As I see it, the point is this. Smart is terrible at shooting and somehow thinks hes good. He will have games where he has a sub 20 fg%. In those games his ability to be a beast defensively, run the offense fairly well from the post or pick and roll, and make bigtime clutch plays and shots make it so he still helps the team or at least mitigates the negative impact his shooting has.

When he plays within himself and makes his shots he can be incredibly valuable and help the team immensely.

Well since you didn't know, I'm glad you were Smart enough.

Also didn't he hit the dagger three? Look man, Knicks had 3 guys scoring in the 20s, Smart HAD to hit some shots for us to win. Basketball isn't all putbacks and loose ball dives. Sometimes you gotta put the ball inside the hoop, you know to score and whatnot.

If you think that is all Smart does on the court brings value you shouldn't comment on the Celtics.

Firstly, ease off man. I'll comment on whatever I feel like, however I feel like. Thank you very much.

Secondly, I mean no disrespect since I have long praised Smart for being our goon. I don't know how you made him out to be in your head but he can do all the mystical things you can fathom and if it's not resulting in the C's being the #1 seed and a serious threat to compete in the NBA Finals, then he's not immune from criticism. I'm sorry.

[CelticGuardian]

You Cant measure Smarts contribution to this team by the Score Card or the 3 Ball percentage.. He is much more than that, always has been always will be..  He is Great as is, Can his shooting improve, sure.. but he is one of only a handful of players in the league who can effect winning despite the 1 for X...  Successful teams need guys like that to be successful.

Tell me why we won that Knicks game, what did Smart do at the end there to put it away? Let's say he goes 0 for X again that game. Are we winning this game?

Not sure what your argument is.

If Smart had missed 5 more shots thus resulting in us scoring ~10 less points, then yes we probably lose the game.

The point is that Smart makes winning plays and helps the team shot-making aside.

Smart took 2 bigtime charges and ran some of our best offense the whole game out of the post. He also hit a clutch shot, which he has seemingly dont a lot of in his career shooting percentages aside.

As I see it, the point is this. Smart is terrible at shooting and somehow thinks hes good. He will have games where he has a sub 20 fg%. In those games his ability to be a beast defensively, run the offense fairly well from the post or pick and roll, and make bigtime clutch plays and shots make it so he still helps the team or at least mitigates the negative impact his shooting has.

When he plays within himself and makes his shots he can be incredibly valuable and help the team immensely.

Well since you didn't know, I'm glad you were Smart enough.

Also didn't he hit the dagger three? Look man, Knicks had 3 guys scoring in the 20s, Smart HAD to hit some shots for us to win. Basketball isn't all putbacks and loose ball dives. Sometimes you gotta put the ball inside the hoop, you know to score and whatnot.

That point is obvious so I wasnt sure if you really felt the need to point it out.

Obviously when Smart hits shots hes better than when he doesnt. However, that doesnt mean he cant help the team win and be valuable when he doesnt hit shots.

Also, Smart left the game with 4:24 to go, up 11. We were outscored 14-3 He returns to the game with a minute left, nails a 3, Bradley steal, Horford block, game over.

Again, no one is arguing that 5-9 Smart is worse than 1-9 Smart. That point is asinine and irrelevant, the point is that 1-9 Smart can still be helpful to the team so give him patience and if he eventually wisens up on shot selection and adds a little savvy he can consistently be the weapon we saw on Christmas.

Smart's a good role player. I think even fans of opposing teams are starting to notice. He's great at one end of the floor, is our second best point guard plus he can light a fire under the team's butts during timeouts, who can't appreciate that? However, I think we can both agree that 1 for 9 Smart would not have been helpful in a high scoring game like this.

[vjcsmoke]

Marcus Smart was huge in the game vs the Knickerbockers.  I'd love to see him post up more and use his size to his advantage against smaller guards.

That said, the play he will be remembered for is that huge 3 at the end.  Assisted by Horford, really nice pass.

But Smart was making a positive impact all night long, not just the 3 at the end.  He was distributing the ball and being efficient with it.

So Smart's stock continues to go up.  Would I trade him in a package for Cousins or Paul George?  Yes.  Would I give him away for just anybody, no.  It has to be a special player in return.  Marcus Smart can be a difference maker for our team.

[BitterJim]

You Cant measure Smarts contribution to this team by the Score Card or the 3 Ball percentage.. He is much more than that, always has been always will be..  He is Great as is, Can his shooting improve, sure.. but he is one of only a handful of players in the league who can effect winning despite the 1 for X...  Successful teams need guys like that to be successful.

Tell me why we won that Knicks game, what did Smart do at the end there to put it away? Let's say he goes 0 for X again that game. Are we winning this game?

Not sure what your argument is.

If Smart had missed 5 more shots thus resulting in us scoring ~10 less points, then yes we probably lose the game.

The point is that Smart makes winning plays and helps the team shot-making aside.

Smart took 2 bigtime charges and ran some of our best offense the whole game out of the post. He also hit a clutch shot, which he has seemingly dont a lot of in his career shooting percentages aside.

As I see it, the point is this. Smart is terrible at shooting and somehow thinks hes good. He will have games where he has a sub 20 fg%. In those games his ability to be a beast defensively, run the offense fairly well from the post or pick and roll, and make bigtime clutch plays and shots make it so he still helps the team or at least mitigates the negative impact his shooting has.

When he plays within himself and makes his shots he can be incredibly valuable and help the team immensely.

Well since you didn't know, I'm glad you were Smart enough.

Also didn't he hit the dagger three? Look man, Knicks had 3 guys scoring in the 20s, Smart HAD to hit some shots for us to win. Basketball isn't all putbacks and loose ball dives. Sometimes you gotta put the ball inside the hoop, you know to score and whatnot.

That point is obvious so I wasnt sure if you really felt the need to point it out.

Obviously when Smart hits shots hes better than when he doesnt. However, that doesnt mean he cant help the team win and be valuable when he doesnt hit shots.

Also, Smart left the game with 4:24 to go, up 11. We were outscored 14-3 He returns to the game with a minute left, nails a 3, Bradley steal, Horford block, game over.

Again, no one is arguing that 5-9 Smart is worse than 1-9 Smart. That point is asinine and irrelevant, the point is that 1-9 Smart can still be helpful to the team so give him patience and if he eventually wisens up on shot selection and adds a little savvy he can consistently be the weapon we saw on Christmas.

Smart's a good role player. I think even fans of opposing teams are starting to notice. He's great at one end of the floor, is our second best point guard plus he can light a fire under the team's butts during timeouts, who can't appreciate that? However, I think we can both agree that 1 for 9 Smart would not have been helpful in a high scoring game like this.

I think this is where the disagreement is.  I would say that he could still be helpful in that game if shooting poorly (especially since he would presumably have taken fewer shots if he wasn't making any).  Obviously he wouldn't have been as helpful, but I'd still rather have him out there than Rozier

[celtics2030]

You know the guy sucks at shooting when posters have to point out halfcourt heaves as the excuse for his poor percentage

Smart is a positive because he hustles , plays hard, and makes key plays. Only reason he is in the NBA. His skill level is below average on offense. One would argue even worse than Tony Allen.

Smart also has become a decent point guard. Which I did not think would be possible.

For now he is fine.

[CelticGuardian]

You Cant measure Smarts contribution to this team by the Score Card or the 3 Ball percentage.. He is much more than that, always has been always will be..  He is Great as is, Can his shooting improve, sure.. but he is one of only a handful of players in the league who can effect winning despite the 1 for X...  Successful teams need guys like that to be successful.

Tell me why we won that Knicks game, what did Smart do at the end there to put it away? Let's say he goes 0 for X again that game. Are we winning this game?

Not sure what your argument is.

If Smart had missed 5 more shots thus resulting in us scoring ~10 less points, then yes we probably lose the game.

The point is that Smart makes winning plays and helps the team shot-making aside.

Smart took 2 bigtime charges and ran some of our best offense the whole game out of the post. He also hit a clutch shot, which he has seemingly dont a lot of in his career shooting percentages aside.

As I see it, the point is this. Smart is terrible at shooting and somehow thinks hes good. He will have games where he has a sub 20 fg%. In those games his ability to be a beast defensively, run the offense fairly well from the post or pick and roll, and make bigtime clutch plays and shots make it so he still helps the team or at least mitigates the negative impact his shooting has.

When he plays within himself and makes his shots he can be incredibly valuable and help the team immensely.

Well since you didn't know, I'm glad you were Smart enough.

Also didn't he hit the dagger three? Look man, Knicks had 3 guys scoring in the 20s, Smart HAD to hit some shots for us to win. Basketball isn't all putbacks and loose ball dives. Sometimes you gotta put the ball inside the hoop, you know to score and whatnot.

That point is obvious so I wasnt sure if you really felt the need to point it out.

Obviously when Smart hits shots hes better than when he doesnt. However, that doesnt mean he cant help the team win and be valuable when he doesnt hit shots.

Also, Smart left the game with 4:24 to go, up 11. We were outscored 14-3 He returns to the game with a minute left, nails a 3, Bradley steal, Horford block, game over.

Again, no one is arguing that 5-9 Smart is worse than 1-9 Smart. That point is asinine and irrelevant, the point is that 1-9 Smart can still be helpful to the team so give him patience and if he eventually wisens up on shot selection and adds a little savvy he can consistently be the weapon we saw on Christmas.

Smart's a good role player. I think even fans of opposing teams are starting to notice. He's great at one end of the floor, is our second best point guard plus he can light a fire under the team's butts during timeouts, who can't appreciate that? However, I think we can both agree that 1 for 9 Smart would not have been helpful in a high scoring game like this.

I think this is where the disagreement is.  I would say that he could still be helpful in that game if shooting poorly (especially since he would presumably have taken fewer shots if he wasn't making any).  Obviously he wouldn't have been as helpful, but I'd still rather have him out there than Rozier

C's have a stretch of games where they play a slew of olayoff caliber teams.

If they win any of those games with Smart not making 40% of his shots and he's playing 27+ mins, I'll give you a TP for every win.

[Ilikesports17]

You Cant measure Smarts contribution to this team by the Score Card or the 3 Ball percentage.. He is much more than that, always has been always will be..  He is Great as is, Can his shooting improve, sure.. but he is one of only a handful of players in the league who can effect winning despite the 1 for X...  Successful teams need guys like that to be successful.

Tell me why we won that Knicks game, what did Smart do at the end there to put it away? Let's say he goes 0 for X again that game. Are we winning this game?

Not sure what your argument is.

If Smart had missed 5 more shots thus resulting in us scoring ~10 less points, then yes we probably lose the game.

The point is that Smart makes winning plays and helps the team shot-making aside.

Smart took 2 bigtime charges and ran some of our best offense the whole game out of the post. He also hit a clutch shot, which he has seemingly dont a lot of in his career shooting percentages aside.

As I see it, the point is this. Smart is terrible at shooting and somehow thinks hes good. He will have games where he has a sub 20 fg%. In those games his ability to be a beast defensively, run the offense fairly well from the post or pick and roll, and make bigtime clutch plays and shots make it so he still helps the team or at least mitigates the negative impact his shooting has.

When he plays within himself and makes his shots he can be incredibly valuable and help the team immensely.

Well since you didn't know, I'm glad you were Smart enough.

Also didn't he hit the dagger three? Look man, Knicks had 3 guys scoring in the 20s, Smart HAD to hit some shots for us to win. Basketball isn't all putbacks and loose ball dives. Sometimes you gotta put the ball inside the hoop, you know to score and whatnot.

That point is obvious so I wasnt sure if you really felt the need to point it out.

Obviously when Smart hits shots hes better than when he doesnt. However, that doesnt mean he cant help the team win and be valuable when he doesnt hit shots.

Also, Smart left the game with 4:24 to go, up 11. We were outscored 14-3 He returns to the game with a minute left, nails a 3, Bradley steal, Horford block, game over.

Again, no one is arguing that 5-9 Smart is worse than 1-9 Smart. That point is asinine and irrelevant, the point is that 1-9 Smart can still be helpful to the team so give him patience and if he eventually wisens up on shot selection and adds a little savvy he can consistently be the weapon we saw on Christmas.

Smart's a good role player. I think even fans of opposing teams are starting to notice. He's great at one end of the floor, is our second best point guard plus he can light a fire under the team's butts during timeouts, who can't appreciate that? However, I think we can both agree that 1 for 9 Smart would not have been helpful in a high scoring game like this.

I think this is where the disagreement is.  I would say that he could still be helpful in that game if shooting poorly (especially since he would presumably have taken fewer shots if he wasn't making any).  Obviously he wouldn't have been as helpful, but I'd still rather have him out there than Rozier

C's have a stretch of games where they play a slew of olayoff caliber teams.

If they win any of those games with Smart not making 40% of his shots and he's playing 27+ mins, I'll give you a TP for every win.

BitterJim, Smart would probably take fewer shots, but not by as many as he should.

I agree with your general point and the one that most seem to agree on. efficient Smart > inneficient Smart however, both Smarts make a positive impact on the game.

CelticGaurdian, Marcus shoots 33% and averages 29 minutes in Celtics wins this year, so you could find yourself doling out TPs.