Poll

Was Marcus a hit pick?

Yes
No
Sort of

Author Topic: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick  (Read 5904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #105 on: July 24, 2018, 05:29:03 PM »

Offline perks-a-beast

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1465
  • Tommy Points: 162
Marcus Smart is only the 10th best player in that draft at best.

But he’s also one of the only guys in that class that is already a big factor in playoff victories. That counts for something. If I’m making that 6th pick knowing what I know now I would take Randle, Jokic, Harris, Saric, Lavine, Capela over Smart. But hindsight is so clear, and I don’t think that makes him a bad pick...also he’s so young that he may play another decade and a half in the league so it’s way too early to call a guy who hasn’t even played a quarter of his career a bust..
Two choices - the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. The pain of regret hurts a whole lot more.

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #106 on: July 24, 2018, 05:48:56 PM »

Online smokeablount

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1927
  • Tommy Points: 140
  • When my account was born, Mark Blount was our C :(

Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of. 

Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins.  The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.

For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist.  Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'


I don't think I really agree with this, either.

High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities.  They don't actually really help you win games.

I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine. 

But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.

The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value.  The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches.  They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).

Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).

Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. 

The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/warretj01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smartma01.html
Give us this pick, Almighty Red
And forgive us our tanking
As we forgive those who tanked against us
And lead us not into the lottery
But deliver us from losing

-Sexyscottish

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #107 on: July 24, 2018, 05:56:53 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11255
  • Tommy Points: 2424

Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of. 

Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins.  The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.

For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist.  Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'


I don't think I really agree with this, either.

High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities.  They don't actually really help you win games.

I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine. 

But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.

The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value.  The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches.  They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).

Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).

Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.  The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.

Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record.  For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins.  If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.

If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP.  In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #108 on: July 24, 2018, 05:57:03 PM »

Online PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17563
  • Tommy Points: 1602


Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. 

The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.



I don't think Win Shares is going to accurately measure Smart's value.  It's a box score, counting numbers driven statistic, and Smart, well, he's not a box score guy.

Compare stats like VORP or BPM among Smart, Lavine, Warren -- Smart comes out on top by those measures, easily.  That's not to say those are perfect, either.  But I think you need something that tries to measure success of the team while the player is on the court rather than counting stats.

Edit --- Saltlover beat me to this analysis.   ;D

Warren and Lavine both have a career TS% around 54% and usage rate trending toward the mid to high 20s.  That's fine, but it's not particularly great for volume scorers.

Then you look at the fact that they're poor defensively and they don't contribute a lot in terms of rebounds or playmaking relative to their position and they start to look, so far, like high usage bench scorers rather than a major piece on any good team.


I guess we both agree Smart is "solid," but you have different opinions as to the value of guys like Warren and Lavine.  I don't think those guys have shown enough to be considered better picks than Smart, to this point.  I feel the same way about Jabari Parker, who has had a lot of injury problems and can't play defense yet.  Rodney Hood, similarly, has had some flashes / stretches but has yet to establish himself as a reliable contributor to a good team.

Meanwhile Smart has been a huge part of a team that's gone to the Conference Finals two years in a row. 
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #109 on: July 24, 2018, 05:59:00 PM »

Online smokeablount

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1927
  • Tommy Points: 140
  • When my account was born, Mark Blount was our C :(

Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of. 

Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins.  The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.

For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist.  Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'


I don't think I really agree with this, either.

High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities.  They don't actually really help you win games.

I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine. 

But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.

The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value.  The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches.  They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).

Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).

Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.  The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.

Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record.  For example, as a team, the Celtics has 51 win shares compared to 55 wins.  If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.

If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP.  In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.

Agreed.  I think you can make a case for any of them, but to suggest Smart is for sure ranked ahead of specifically Warren and Lavine right now just doesn't seem accurate to me. 

Now, if Lavine doesn't improve across the board and Smart improves on offense, I can see Smart emerging clearly ahead of these guys, but it would likely take 2 years for this to play out.
Give us this pick, Almighty Red
And forgive us our tanking
As we forgive those who tanked against us
And lead us not into the lottery
But deliver us from losing

-Sexyscottish

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #110 on: July 24, 2018, 06:07:26 PM »

Online smokeablount

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1927
  • Tommy Points: 140
  • When my account was born, Mark Blount was our C :(


Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. 

The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.



I don't think Win Shares is going to accurately measure Smart's value.  It's a box score, counting numbers driven statistic, and Smart, well, he's not a box score guy.

Compare stats like VORP or BPM among Smart, Lavine, Warren -- Smart comes out on top by those measures, easily.  That's not to say those are perfect, either.  But I think you need something that tries to measure success of the team while the player is on the court rather than counting stats.

Edit --- Saltlover beat me to this analysis.   ;D

Warren and Lavine both have a career TS% around 54% and usage rate trending toward the mid to high 20s.  That's fine, but it's not particularly great for volume scorers.

Then you look at the fact that they're poor defensively and they don't contribute a lot in terms of rebounds or playmaking relative to their position and they start to look, so far, like high usage bench scorers rather than a major piece on any good team.


I guess we both agree Smart is "solid," but you have different opinions as to the value of guys like Warren and Lavine.  I don't think those guys have shown enough to be considered better picks than Smart, to this point.  I feel the same way about Jabari Parker, who has had a lot of injury problems and can't play defense yet.  Rodney Hood, similarly, has had some flashes / stretches but has yet to establish himself as a reliable contributor to a good team.

Meanwhile Smart has been a huge part of a team that's gone to the Conference Finals two years in a row.

The Lavine/Warren talk is just minutia over the redraft conversation, I don't particularly like those guys, I'd rather have Smart, but my team is a contender.  For a team picking near the top of the draft, I think they have different needs. 

EDIT: You're also not re-drafting players strictly based on stats from age 19-23, though they matter.  But so does Lavine's upside, for example, if GMs believe in it.

I think Marcus is solid.  He's not a hit, because that's a disservice to actual hits.  We can have Celtics hits (Jaylen at #3) and home runs (potentially Tatum at #3), maybe even grand slams (Pierce at #10), but I'd call Smart 'getting value.'  Just not a hit.  Maybe it's just semantics. 
Give us this pick, Almighty Red
And forgive us our tanking
As we forgive those who tanked against us
And lead us not into the lottery
But deliver us from losing

-Sexyscottish

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #111 on: July 24, 2018, 06:32:42 PM »

Offline bellerephon

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 363
  • Tommy Points: 29


Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%. 

The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.



I don't think Win Shares is going to accurately measure Smart's value.  It's a box score, counting numbers driven statistic, and Smart, well, he's not a box score guy.

Compare stats like VORP or BPM among Smart, Lavine, Warren -- Smart comes out on top by those measures, easily.  That's not to say those are perfect, either.  But I think you need something that tries to measure success of the team while the player is on the court rather than counting stats.

Edit --- Saltlover beat me to this analysis.   ;D

Warren and Lavine both have a career TS% around 54% and usage rate trending toward the mid to high 20s.  That's fine, but it's not particularly great for volume scorers.

Then you look at the fact that they're poor defensively and they don't contribute a lot in terms of rebounds or playmaking relative to their position and they start to look, so far, like high usage bench scorers rather than a major piece on any good team.


I guess we both agree Smart is "solid," but you have different opinions as to the value of guys like Warren and Lavine.  I don't think those guys have shown enough to be considered better picks than Smart, to this point.  I feel the same way about Jabari Parker, who has had a lot of injury problems and can't play defense yet.  Rodney Hood, similarly, has had some flashes / stretches but has yet to establish himself as a reliable contributor to a good team.

Meanwhile Smart has been a huge part of a team that's gone to the Conference Finals two years in a row.

The Lavine/Warren talk is just minutia over the redraft conversation, I don't particularly like those guys, I'd rather have Smart, but my team is a contender.  For a team picking near the top of the draft, I think they have different needs. 

EDIT: You're also not re-drafting players strictly based on stats from age 19-23, though they matter.  But so does Lavine's upside, for example, if GMs believe in it.

I think Marcus is solid.  He's not a hit, because that's a disservice to actual hits.  We can have Celtics hits (Jaylen at #3) and home runs (potentially Tatum at #3), maybe even grand slams (Pierce at #10), but I'd call Smart 'getting value.'  Just not a hit.  Maybe it's just semantics.
In the end, I think some of the dispute here is about semantics. What do we mean by hit. Personally , I mean you got reasonable value given where the player was drafted, a miss would be betting poor value, and a home run would be getting much better value. By this standard Marcus is clearly a hit.

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #112 on: July 24, 2018, 06:37:23 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3674
  • Tommy Points: 615

Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of. 

Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins.  The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.

For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist.  Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'


I don't think I really agree with this, either.

High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities.  They don't actually really help you win games.

I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine. 

But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.

The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value.  The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches.  They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).

Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).

Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.  The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.

Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record.  For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins.  If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.

While that's true in a technical sense they do tend to correlate reasonably well.  I.E., a team will win more games in correlation with it's individual players accruing more win shares.   And while it's probably not correct to say that its easier to accrue win shares on a winning team, there are some factors to that effect.   A team with good shooters will help a player's assist stats.   A team with a great playmaker might help another player get better shots.

While by no means perfect, Win Shares do seem to work as a pretty reasonable proxy for value for the vast majority of NBA players.  As good as any other aggregate metric seems to at least.   No single measure works great at capturing the value of every possible individual player, of course.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #113 on: July 24, 2018, 07:27:38 PM »

Online PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17563
  • Tommy Points: 1602
Yeah I think we're arguing semantics over the meaning of "hit" at this point as bellerophon said.

A "hit" to me would mean a draft pick that delivers an average or better value for that draft position.

I don't see a good argument for saying Smart hasn't been a "hit" pick by that metric.  His value to the Celtics has been around what you could reasonably expect to get on average from a #6 pick historically, even if he probably hasn't turned into the level of player they hoped they were getting when they drafted him. 

A very low percentage of top 10 picks become the level of player the team hopes they're getting when they draft the player, because that's how the draft works.

If you get expected or better value from a pick based on historical averages, I think that's a good pick i.e. a "hit", but you're free to define it how you like.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #114 on: July 24, 2018, 07:30:15 PM »

Online PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17563
  • Tommy Points: 1602

While by no means perfect, Win Shares do seem to work as a pretty reasonable proxy for value for the vast majority of NBA players.  As good as any other aggregate metric seems to at least.   

I agree, but I think Smart is the type of player that isn't accurately assessed by a metric like Win Shares (i.e. not part of the 'vast majority').

If box scores could properly weight steals and timely offensive boards or clutch three pointers, or if things like loose balls and deflections were recorded, then a box score based metric might come closer to describing Smart's impact.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #115 on: July 24, 2018, 07:34:38 PM »

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 967
  • Tommy Points: 101
I think the Celtics organization is insisting he was a "hit."  They literally bid against themselves to resign him to a multi-year contract. 

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #116 on: July 24, 2018, 08:29:09 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3674
  • Tommy Points: 615

While by no means perfect, Win Shares do seem to work as a pretty reasonable proxy for value for the vast majority of NBA players.  As good as any other aggregate metric seems to at least.   

I agree, but I think Smart is the type of player that isn't accurately assessed by a metric like Win Shares (i.e. not part of the 'vast majority').

If box scores could properly weight steals and timely offensive boards or clutch three pointers, or if things like loose balls and deflections were recorded, then a box score based metric might come closer to describing Smart's impact.

Well, that may be true.  But Win Shares 'favored' Smart in his first couple of seasons relative to his draft classmates.   He was ranked very high by that metric his first two years compared to his draft class.

Was he not being 'accurately assessed' by Win Shares then?

Whether Win Shares are an accurate measure of Smart's value or not, the real problem seems to be that very few metrics of any kind have changed very much in a positive direction for Smart over the 4 years.   Whereas for many of his fellow 2014 draftees, they have started to show large improvements in many measurable areas the last couple of seasons.

There are several names that are currently still ranked below Smart on aggregate value stats such as Win Shares that have played only 2 or 3 seasons compared to his 4 and that are very likely to climb past him soon on such rankings.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #117 on: July 24, 2018, 09:26:49 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20490
  • Tommy Points: 976

Put Smart on Warren's Suns or Lavine's Wolves / Bulls, and his winning plays, which are very valuable here, become an alternate version of the empty calories you speak of. 

Smart most likely adds very little to those clubs in terms of wins.  The market confirms this, in the form of 0 bad teams with cap space making a run at him.

For the average awful team picking #6 in the draft, a go-to-scorer is immensely more valuable than a bench defensive specialist.  Smart isn't a 'hit' at #6, but I'd say we got 'solid value.'


I don't think I really agree with this, either.

High volume scorers, especially ones that are not especially efficient and give up a ton on the other end, are overrated commodities.  They don't actually really help you win games.

I think most bad teams would win a lot more games if they had more players like Marcus instead of revolving around players like Lavine. 

But most bad teams don't want to win more games now, they want to assemble valuable assets and win later.

The difference is those teams are hoping that the bad young players like Lavine eventually become good at defense, more efficient at scoring, and provide more overall value.  The seeming upside is what persuades them to go for those guys and give them lots of touches.  They hope the Lavines and Parkers turn into stars or serve as significant parts of trades for stars (like when the Wolves traded Lavine for Butler).

Smart is never going to score 20 points per game, but he was helping the Celts win games pretty much as soon as he entered the league (even though the Celts were bad).

Warren's all time high win shares in his 3rd season (4.2) and Lavine's (3) are right there with Smart's high in year 3 (3.2).  Smart has 3 years with WS at 2.6+, Warren has 2, Lavine 2.

Those guys' teams were awful and that makes it hard to get win shares, but they're right there with Smart.  You're also calling these scorers 'inefficient', but they each shot 55%+ TS% in a 2 year stretch over their 2nd and 3rd years, while Smart's career TS% is 48%. 

His best season was his rookie year, 49.1%.  The win shares are close, and the guys you're calling inefficient look like Steve Nash compared to Smart.  Lavine has considerably more upside than Smart and Smart's highest PER is lower than Warren's lowest, and Warren's top 2 WS seasons beat Smart's best.  There is ample evidence to support my stance in stats and the market.

I also like Smart.  You said 'solid' in your other post- I said that previously on the same page.

Basketball Win Shares do not work like baseball win shares, in that they aren’t based on a team’s record.  For example, as a team, the Celtics had 51 win shares compared to 55 wins.  If you want to use Win Shares as an example, you can’t disqualify them in this manner.

If you want to look at other gestalt stats, Smart dominates both in VORP.  In most of the stats, all three had their worst year since their rookie season last year, so none can make a “trending upward” case.
they are still mostly based on actual team wins though so a guy on a bad team is absolutely hurt in the win shares department by playing on a bad team.

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #118 on: July 24, 2018, 10:19:09 PM »

Online PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17563
  • Tommy Points: 1602


Well, that may be true.  But Win Shares 'favored' Smart in his first couple of seasons relative to his draft classmates.   He was ranked very high by that metric his first two years compared to his draft class.

Was he not being 'accurately assessed' by Win Shares then?

Whether Win Shares are an accurate measure of Smart's value or not, the real problem seems to be that very few metrics of any kind have changed very much in a positive direction for Smart over the 4 years.   Whereas for many of his fellow 2014 draftees, they have started to show large improvements in many measurable areas the last couple of seasons.



I would say no, Win Shares has never really captured his value.

At the same time, I agree with you that Smart hasn't really changed much as a player during his time in the league so far.  I'd say he's gotten better as a decision maker passing out of the pick and roll and as a ballhandler he's gotten more controlled I think.  But he hasn't shown any lasting or definite improvement in scoring generally or shooting more specifically.  That is disappointing.

Some other players in the same draft class have shown more improvement, that's true too.  Though I'd say part of that is they started out like most young players do ... rough, not particularly helpful to winning.


Anyways, Smart's upside compared to his peers and whether Smart has shown as much improvement year on year as you'd hope for from a top pick are not really the same discussion as whether the Celts "hit" on the pick, which I interpret as a question of whether the Smart pick has provided value commensurate with the expected yield of a #6 overall pick.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So, after all is said and done, is Marcus a "hit" draft pick
« Reply #119 on: July 24, 2018, 10:26:48 PM »

Online SHAQATTACK

  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28129
  • Tommy Points: 2150
  Never boring when he is on the court. 

throwback player ....fun to watch

 d miss him , if he was on another team.