The Illusion of threat concept is something that I've definitely given some thought to even before reading this article. I used to think about it with Rondo, who I feel would bog down the offense because he was often unwilling to shoot open shots. That, to me, was worse and taking shots and missing more than making. So I guess in a sense, I wanted him to be more like Smart.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Rondo was/is actually very good offensively except for shooting while Smart isn't really good at anything.
And on that note, I didn't notice any stats for Smart related to his play making. Sure, they showed a few highlights where he looked like a good passer but do the numbers bear that out? I have my doubts as I think smart is a below average play maker as well.
So where does this leave us. Clearly one cannot deny the numbers that were presented (flawed as they may be). I just don't think that the article was especially good at explaining the why.
I definitely agree with you on the illusion of threat issue - I do see people following him and I wonder if they're going to stop. But I would say that there is good reason at least for people to track him when he heads toward the hoop. He is often capable of getting past his initial defender or getting the defender on his back, and if the help didn't collapse (as it definitely does now) he would make more shots. I do believe he's capable of hitting an uncontested layup. A lot of the good he does on offense is in the pick and roll or a pass out to the perimeter after he's collapsed the defense. That's probably going to stay with him for the long haul. Why people check him on the 3-point line is a little harder to answer. Maybe his make percentage when he's truly uncontested is at least decent.
On passing, the reality is that Marcus is Boston's 2d best point guard - and it is not close. Look at the Raptors game, when Kyrie was out. Marcus was 3-10 from the field - very bad. *But*. He also passed out 9 assists against only 2 turnovers, and if you remember the game, a number of those assists were down the stretch in the 4th. Remember the beautiful lob pass he threw to Horford (after baiting Horford's defender), which turned into an uncontested dunk. For someone who shoots so badly, he has an excellent feel for the timing and spacing of the offensive game. And, critically, he didn't rush or panic in crunch time. I have a much different - much worse - feeling when Terry Rozier is directing the offense. That was a good game for him, but he wasn't playing out of his mind; he really does a nice job working off picks and handoffs.
I think that helps explain why he isn't a disaster on offense. But as the article explains, teams that have a chance to strategize for him in the playoffs might make him less effective. Cue the sentence everyone has been using: if he doesn't learn to shoot or finish, he's a problem, even with his defense.
Net, I still like him, but I can't see paying 15-17 million. I'm not even sure about 10. He's a great defender. But would an average to slightly good defender who's also an average to slightly good point guard really be a big falloff? He's a great 6th man, but it's more important to keep the Jaylens, Jaysons, and Kyries and the luxury tax is a killer.
Topic: Article: Smart is the NBA's Worst Shooter - Why Does He Make the Offense Better? (Read 2595 times)