Maybe. The naked eye test says we blow just as many defensive assignments with him. But that's just one man watching.
Smartís immaturity is really hurting this team about now.It is? I think the team has been better without him. As a minimum, not worse.
Idk, I think we could have really used him in that Warriors game...
I was actually thinking the same thing, had Smart been there, would Curry erupt for 46 points? I would like to think he doesn't
Why is it that people only think about the change that could benefit us? The addition of smart's D doesn't mean we win automatically. Maybe GSW wins another way? It's not as if we were blown out, any little change could make the game go in any direction in our favor or theirs.
The fact is that Curry put up 49 on us because we had nobody that could stay with him around screens, which Smart happens to be about as good at as anyone in the league.
No, it certainly doesnít guarantee us a win, but Iíd bet that had Smart played Curry wouldnít have had as many points as he did.
My question still stands, even if we don't give up 49, what makes you think that we don't shift that underperformance to somewhere else? Maybe guys who hit shots don't have that chance if Smart is now taking his few? We lost by 4 points any change could work for us but something could also work differently for them in the positive also.
When I say that, I'm referring to me too, I do it. Just asking why we think about one change that would benefit us but forget that that change has a ripple effect? Apparently we think you change one thing and everything else stays the same.