Is there any data to suggest that a high variance shooter (ie shoots .750 in one game on 8 shots, then .250 per game on 8 shots over the next 4 games for a total of 35%) is any more or less valuable to winning than a player who just shoots 8 shots per game and makes 3 out of 8 for 4 games then 2 out of 8 in the 5th game for a total of 35%?
they actually did a similar analysis on this over on SoSH a bit ago, though it was for baseball hitters.
the general take away was that it did not make a big difference in terms of wins and loses. but everyone pretty much also said it is almost impossible to quantify with any dependability.
Over a large enough sample it probably makes very little difference, but it raises your scoring ceiling as a team if a guy is highly variable on his shot-making (or baseball-hitting). That matters in the playoffs, for sure.
I think the idea with a guy like Smart or J.R. Smith or whoever is to build your team so that you can win even if he's cold as ice, and that way when he occasionally gets hot, it makes your team really hard to beat.