Smart's Value

[nighthob]

No, I remember the guy as a rookie and stand by my comment having actually watched him play. You say it like age 23 is late in his career--obviously, that's not the case.

It was his fourth season in the NBA. And he was an inefficient shooter and scorer. And he wasn't exactly what we would call the most dextrous of dribblers or passers.

Artest's numbers were better and more efficient than Smart's from the start---though he wasn't good early on, just better than Smart has been. He also had two things skill-wise all along that Smart does not---a reliable inside game (mostly because he had size) at the rim and a three-point shot that was non-horrendous. Look at the effective FG%, PER, whatever you want for that end of the court, stats tell the same story the eyes did--Artest was a materially better offensive player.

We're discussing degrees of bad here. Because young Artest was pretty bad.

Artest was an above-average offensive player from his age 23 season on, statistically speaking. Some of that is his passing, but his shooting (while not great) was non-horrendous pretty early on too. I hope Smart gets there because I love what he brings, but he is not there yet.

No, actually he wasn't. Not either in terms of shooting or scoring. Roughly speaking league average eFG% tended to hover in the .490-.500 range back then while the league average TS% hovered in the .540-.550 range. Have a look at how many above average offensive seasons he had. Now when you use black box numbers he looks better, but that's in large part thanks to steals and rebounds. But those aren't offensive statistics.

The simple fact is that both guys spent their first few years in the NBA as bad offensive players, Artest was a slightly more efficient shooter and scorer, while Smart provided more ballhandling and passing. But we're not discussing great offensive players, we're discussing really great defensive players with a lot of offensive warts.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Not too svelte, I hope. After watching the video that jack posted upthread, I clicked thru to watch this one:
After watching that one, I walked away thinking that he had better not lose too much weight or he will get injured considering the utter fearlessness he exhibits in accepting charges.

Does fat really protect one from injury when taking charges?

 

[nighthob]

Not too svelte, I hope. After watching the video that jack posted upthread, I clicked thru to watch this one...

After watching that one, I walked away thinking that he had better not lose too much weight or he will get injured considering the utter fearlessness he exhibits in accepting charges.

Does fat really protect one from injury when taking charges?

Smart wears a flak jacket when he plays, so he should be fine. Also, with the upgrades in the frontcourt Smart needs to worry more about guarding the 1 & 2 this season, so any quickness is a bonus.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

We're discussing degrees of bad here. Because young Artest was pretty bad.

I said Artest's offensive game was better early in their respective careers, you said it was not. If you think I said Artest's offensive game was good his first few years, I have not (and in fact specifically said it was not). They are in fact different degrees of bad, and that was my point.

No, actually he wasn't. Not either in terms of shooting or scoring. Roughly speaking league average eFG% tended to hover in the .490-.500 range back then while the league average TS% hovered in the .540-.550 range. Have a look at how many above average offensive seasons he had. Now when you use black box numbers he looks better, but that's in large part thanks to steals and rebounds. But those aren't offensive statistics.

The simple fact is that both guys spent their first few years in the NBA as bad offensive players, Artest was a slightly more efficient shooter and scorer, while Smart provided more ballhandling and passing. But we're not discussing great offensive players, we're discussing really great defensive players with a lot of offensive warts.

Artest's black box offensive numbers (which I looked at) are better because of assists, not steals and rebounds.

As I noted originally, and you seem to have realized, Artest was a better offensive player early on though neither was good. Artest eventually had several years he was very good, and a number where he was average (remember, this is about overall offense and Artest's good passing not just shooting). I hope Smart does as well---but he hasn't yet.

 

[nighthob]

I said Artest's offensive game was better early in their respective careers, you said it was not.

It wasn't. He wasn't very good at shot creation and wasn't a good shooter. He did get to fire up a lot of shots because he was playing on 20 win teams, which led to higher /game scoring numbers, but he was bad at the one part of offense that he had a slight advantage.

If you valued shot creation you'd say Smart was slightly better, but you're still discussing degrees of bad because for his first three years in the NBA Artest was a bad offensive player. You keep trying to smuggle Artest's slightly less bad fourth season and compare it to Smart's first two, but it's not a very good comparison.

EDIT: If you want to look at offensive win shares, Artest didn't reach positive numbers until his fourth season. And then it was a monster .2 wins. Through three seasons Artest's offensive win shares net out at -.4 while Smart's rate out at 1.7 wins (which is, literally, the difference between them as through three seasons Smart rates out as a 9 win player and Artest at the same point a 6.9 win one). Offensive rating, OBPM, all place Smart ahead of Artest offensively through three seasons, And they both rate out as bad.

If Smart makes a similar fourth year jump to just bad levels of shooting and scoring efficiencly, he's going to run away with the comparison. And I suspect that it happens now that he's going to take a lot fewer late shot clock shots on a team with Irving and Hayward.

 

[xjack]

After watching that one, I walked away thinking that he had better not lose too much weight or he will get injured considering the utter fearlessness he exhibits in accepting charges.

Don't get me wrong. I really like him as a player. But even he admits he'll be better at 220 than 240. Here's what Smart told The Herald:

CANTON — There were times last season when Marcus Smart was having back problems, and it was affecting the Celtics guard’s ability to sleep. He was gaining weight. At 240 pounds, Smart was a little big to play guard, and sometimes it showed.

Sometimes, he said, he would put on a shirt and have to tuck his stomach in because he didn’t like the way it looked... “I was tired, I wasn’t as explosive, and I was exerting so much energy to try to go out there every day and do the things I’ve been doing my whole life,” Smart said of last season. “I wasn’t too fond of that. I didn’t like it one bit, and I knew I had to change.”

The decision to lose weight was suggested by president of basketball operations Danny Ainge, who gave Smart credit for wanting to change and taking the challenge head on... With Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder now gone, Smart’s value on defense has become even greater, and he thinks his new frame can help him be even better on that end. He’s also embracing a responsibility to continue his defensive prowess — particularly on the perimeter — without Bradley and Crowder in the fold.

“You’re going to see me being able to guard guards like (Washington Wizards stars) John Wall and Bradley Beal and guys like that a lot better,” Smart said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2017/09/trimmed_down_marcus_smart_works_to_improve_defense

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Smart wears a flak jacket when he plays, so he should be fine.

really- curious how you know this as I never heard it before.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

It wasn't. He wasn't very good at shot creation and wasn't a good shooter. He did get to fire up a lot of shots because he was playing on 20 win teams, which led to higher /game scoring numbers, but he was bad at the one part of offense that he had a slight advantage.

If you valued shot creation you'd say Smart was slightly better, but you're still discussing degrees of bad because for his first three years in the NBA Artest was a bad offensive player. You keep trying to smuggle Artest's slightly less bad fourth season and compare it to Smart's first two, but it's not a very good comparison.

EDIT: If you want to look at offensive win shares, Artest didn't reach positive numbers until his fourth season. And then it was a monster .2 wins. Through three seasons Artest's offensive win shares net out at -.4 while Smart's rate out at 1.7 wins (which is, literally, the difference between them as through three seasons Smart rates out as a 9 win player and Artest at the same point a 6.9 win one). Offensive rating, OBPM, all place Smart ahead of Artest offensively through three seasons, And they both rate out as bad.

If Smart makes a similar fourth year jump to just bad levels of shooting and scoring efficiencly, he's going to run away with the comparison. And I suspect that it happens now that he's going to take a lot fewer late shot clock shots on a team with Irving and Hayward.

Smart and Artest took virtually identical number of shots per game their first three years; your claim that Artest jacked up a ton of bad shots is simply false at least relative to Smart. Artest had a significant advantage in shooting % and 3pt%; Smart has an advantage at the line (which of course matters)...but Artest's true shooting % is still about 10 points higher. The key problem (for those who watched both guys play, at least) is that Smart is so bad a shooter teams drop off him defensively, which they did not with Artest. That matters a huge amount in basketball, and it's imperfectly demonstrated in the numbers (such as WS, which is a boxscore stat influenced by position and role---favoring Smart and his assists here)

I have never tried to smuggle in Artest's fourth season---the first three tell the story, and that's what I've focused on. It is of course true that Artest's next handful of seasons amplify the point, but that's not been my focus nor does it need to be

I have said all along they are both bad offensively, but Smart is worse both statistically and 'scouting' wise. You emphasizing they are both bad is odd given that I have said that all along and it's a point we clearly agree on.

 

[nighthob]

really- curious how you know this as I never heard it before.

I heard Scal mention it once during a game, but on reflection I'm not sure now whether or not it was injury related.

 

[nighthob]

Smart and Artest took virtually identical number of shots per game their first three years; your claim that Artest jacked up a ton of bad shots is simply false at least relative to Smart.

Smart has never averaged as many as 10 FGA/game. Artest averaged more than that right out of the gate. Last season Smart got within 1 FGA/game of Artest's rookie year numbers. So, yes, Artest had a green light to shoot on sub-20 win teams (seriously, look at the usage rates), and the extra 2-3 FGA/game, combined with a greater number of free throws, allowed him to average an extra 3-4 points per game.

We don't use raw FG% when discussing shooting because it's misleading, due to his entering the NBA in the year 2000, Artest shot far fewer threes than Smart does, which leads to a higher raw FG%. But part of that is the changing landscape of the NBA. Both players were fucking awful shooters through three NBA years. To the extent that Artest rated out as a net offensive negative by most rating systems despite being a better shooter. The simple fact is that Young Artest was a bad offensive player.

The key problem (for those who watched both guys play, at least) is that Smart is so bad a shooter teams drop off him defensively, which they did not with Artest. That matters a huge amount in basketball, and it's imperfectly demonstrated in the numbers (such as WS, which is a boxscore stat influenced by position and role---favoring Smart and his assists here)

Actually Artest was playing for the worst team in the NBA. Teams didn't aggressively defend him at all because opposing starters played half speed until the closing minutes of the fourth quarter. Since you're going to argue this, Chicago's record in games that he played was 39-136, a .223 winning percentage. Put another way, during his time on the floors the Bulls played at an 18 win pace.

Unlike Smart, Artest played on a shitty team that even other shitty teams viewed as a night off on the schedule. Have a look at Smart's numbers, notice anything? His performance, the year that he was playing on a team that was pretty bad until the All Star Break (20-31 at the ASB, 20-11 on the back nine), was pretty much right in line with Artest's performance during those years of "superior offensive production".

And Artest put up those shitty offensive numbers on a team that won a grand total of 40 games in his entire 2.7 year career there. So, no, they weren't "aggressively defending Artest" at all. Because it took those Bulls teams nearly three full seasons to exceed the victory total that Boston accrued during Smart's rookie season.

If Smart had got to play for teams that averaged win totals in the teens, with a green light to shoot, he would have most likely looked like Artest as a shooter. Because no one would have aggressively closed on him until the closing minutes of the fourth quarter. And that's assuming the game was even close at the point, which it nearly never was on those old Tim Floyd Bulls teams.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Smart wears a flak jacket when he plays, so he should be fine. Also, with the upgrades in the frontcourt Smart needs to worry more about guarding the 1 & 2 this season, so any quickness is a bonus.

Will Smart ever be asked to defend 1's this season? Whenever Kyrie isn't in the game we'd have Rozier and/or Larkin in the game. I don't feel Ainge has any plans on using Smart as a 1 which is why Larkin was signed as insurance in case Rozier had to be included in a Kyrie deal or if no deal was done and Isaiah was out.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Will Smart ever be asked to defend 1's this season? Whenever Kyrie isn't in the game we'd have Rozier and/or Larkin in the game.

For the most part, probably not, but I wouldn't rule out some experimentation with Smart in a wing-heavy lineup. Smart, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, Morris will see a few minutes at some point.

 

[nighthob]

Will Smart ever be asked to defend 1's this season? Whenever Kyrie isn't in the game we'd have Rozier and/or Larkin in the game. I don't feel Ainge has any plans on using Smart as a 1 which is why Larkin was signed as insurance in case Rozier had to be included in a Kyrie deal or if no deal was done and Isaiah was out.

When he's on the floor with Kyrie and the nominal SG isn't much of an offensive threat you probably will see him used to contain 1s so that Irving can save himself for the other end.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Smart has never averaged as many as 10 FGA/game. Artest averaged more than that right out of the gate. Last season Smart got within 1 FGA/game of Artest's rookie year numbers. So, yes, Artest had a green light to shoot on sub-20 win teams (seriously, look at the usage rates), and the extra 2-3 FGA/game, combined with a greater number of free throws, allowed him to average an extra 3-4 points per game.

We don't use raw FG% when discussing shooting because it's misleading, due to his entering the NBA in the year 2000, Artest shot far fewer threes than Smart does, which leads to a higher raw FG%. But part of that is the changing landscape of the NBA. Both players were fucking awful shooters through three NBA years. To the extent that Artest rated out as a net offensive negative by most rating systems despite being a better shooter. The simple fact is that Young Artest was a bad offensive player.



Actually Artest was playing for the worst team in the NBA. Teams didn't aggressively defend him at all because opposing starters played half speed until the closing minutes of the fourth quarter. Since you're going to argue this, Chicago's record in games that he played was 39-136, a .223 winning percentage. Put another way, during his time on the floors the Bulls played at an 18 win pace.

Unlike Smart, Artest played on a shitty team that even other shitty teams viewed as a night off on the schedule. Have a look at Smart's numbers, notice anything? His performance, the year that he was playing on a team that was pretty bad until the All Star Break (20-31 at the ASB, 20-11 on the back nine), was pretty much right in line with Artest's performance during those years of "superior offensive production".

And Artest put up those shitty offensive numbers on a team that won a grand total of 40 games in his entire 2.7 year career there. So, no, they weren't "aggressively defending Artest" at all. Because it took those Bulls teams nearly three full seasons to exceed the victory total that Boston accrued during Smart's rookie season.

If Smart had got to play for teams that averaged win totals in the teens, with a green light to shoot, he would have most likely looked like Artest as a shooter. Because no one would have aggressively closed on him until the closing minutes of the fourth quarter. And that's assuming the game was even close at the point, which it nearly never was on those old Tim Floyd Bulls teams.

My comment was about two players, not two teams. You're working far too hard to try to tell the story about the teams rather than the players (perhaps because the players don't actually fit your preconception?)

It is, of course, true that eras change. It is also true that ballhandlers will get more asssists, which is far more about role than ability. Those both impact the raw stats and some advanced stats you've cited, and I've explained how I see that netting out; there just aren't shooting stats that support what you've asserted, I don't believe.

You keep fixating on them both being bad offensive players, which no one is disputing. The fact is, Artest could shoot and had to be defended at least somewhat; he had more shot-creation ability (not a strength for either, I imagine we'd agree); and though Smart handled the ball more both were effective passers. Certainly true that role impacts some of the stats, but to me (both having watched each player, and rechecking against the numbers) it all combined to make Artest a less bad offensive player his first three years, and we saw him take off after that. I hope Smart does the same.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

dupe

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I'd guess Smart may match up with a few 1s to close games, but not too often since Irving on 2s is not all that favorable a matchup

 

[nighthob]

My comment was about two players, not two teams. You're working far too hard to try to tell the story about the teams rather than the players.

Numbers have context. Basketball is a team sport and you can't isolate performance the way you can with baseball. This is why it matters. The one year Smart played for a mostly bad team (at least for the first 60% of the season when they were playing at a 32 win pace) his shooting numbers were eerily similar to Young Artest's.

You seem to have this impression that NBA teams kill themselves to beat 15 win teams, when every single year we watch the same game unfold a thousand different ways. And it nearly never involves good teams playing aggressively for more than 4-6 minutes a game. If it's even necessary to do that much (which it nearly never was on those Tim Floyd teams). That's why it's a lot easier to accumulate counting numbers on bottom feeders (something that Al Jefferson gave thanks for every night back in the day).

Artest was a worse offensive player by nearly every metric outside shooting, where he was marginally better than Smart. This is why people compare the two guys, and despite your kicking and screaming it's an apt comparison. But Smart's going to run away with this if Boston keeps him because on a team with Hayward and Irving he's going to face a whole lot less defensive pressure.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Numbers have context. Basketball is a team sport and you can't isolate performance the way you can with baseball. This is why it matters. The one year Smart played for a mostly bad team (at least for the first 60% of the season when they were playing at a 32 win pace) his shooting numbers were eerily similar to Young Artest's.

You seem to have this impression that NBA teams kill themselves to beat 15 win teams, when every single year we watch the same game unfold a thousand different ways. And it nearly never involves good teams playing aggressively for more than 4-6 minutes a game. If it's even necessary to do that much (which it nearly never was on those Tim Floyd teams). That's why it's a lot easier to accumulate counting numbers on bottom feeders (something that Al Jefferson gave thanks for every night back in the day).

Artest was a worse offensive player by nearly every metric outside shooting, where he was marginally better than Smart. This is why people compare the two guys, and despite your kicking and screaming it's an apt comparison. But Smart's going to run away with this if Boston keeps him because on a team with Hayward and Irving he's going to face a whole lot less defensive pressure.

I have said nothing like "NBA teams kill themselves to beat 15 win teams" or anything that would make "kicking and screaming" remotely applicable. Please stick to what's posted.

I think if you connect your first comment above (players have context within teams) and your last (that Artest is a superior shooter) you'll be at the point I have been making all along, which is that Smart's hideous shooting impacts the team and thus makes him an inferior offensive player. Whether you agree or not, the point is out there for those others here to assess for themselves.

 

[nighthob]

You specifically said that teams had to aggressively defend Artest when the simple truth was that they didn't back in the day because those Tim Floyd teams were playing .200 ball. That's the point, it's a lot easier to shoot and score when the other team is going through the motions defensively. So, yes, you were wrong, it's a really good comp for Smart, because I don't think Smart will ever be an average NBA shooter either.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Marcus is early leader in the "best shape of their lives" preseason buzz.
http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/boston-celtics-marcus-smart-loses-20-pounds-hopes-to-be-better-defender

 

[PedroKsBambino]

You specifically said that teams had to aggressively defend Artest when the simple truth was that they didn't back in the day because those Tim Floyd teams were playing .200 ball. That's the point, it's a lot easier to shoot and score when the other team is going through the motions defensively. So, yes, you were wrong, it's a really good comp for Smart, because I don't think Smart will ever be an average NBA shooter either.

I simply did not say the bolded. Nor does your bizarre tangent about the team's record make any senes given the point I made originally. Some of us are trying to have a fact-based discussion---you need to stick to those or leave the rest of us here to do so in peace.

 

[Sprowl]

The Port Cellar benefits from the evidence-based discussion, but not from the personal sniping. If a post can't make its point without putting someone else down -- regardless of whether it is a valid characterization or a straw man argument -- it is not a worthwhile contribution.

Nobody else cares who wins the argument. Take the sniping to PM.

 

[bakahump]

Small Sample.
Gordan Hayward Injury dominating storylines.
And as he normally does he did some (really) good things too
But Damn 5-16 and 0-4 from 3.
We need his "rebuilt and improved" shooting form more then ever.
Or screw it just become Adrian Dantley 2.0 and Post EVERYONE UP.

 

[Bleedred]

Small Sample.
Gordan Hayward Injury dominating storylines.
And as he normally does he did some (really) good things too
But Damn 5-16 and 0-4 from 3.
We need his "rebuilt and improved" shooting form more then ever.
Or screw it just become Adrian Dantley 2.0 and Post EVERYONE UP.

His shitty shooting is not a small sample size. He's been a shitty shooter for quite a long time, and without GH's presence on the floor to give him much more open looks, I suspect that he'll continue to be a shitty shooter. Marcus is a valuable asset to any team (defense, intensity, toughness), even more so to a team like the Celtics with a healthy BH. But if they are looking to Marcus to shoulder even a healthy part of the offensive load that they are now missing from BH, then it's a problem.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I’m giving the whole team, Smart included, a pass for the first half. Smart had his moments later in the game. We’ll see what he does over a full year.

 

[slamminsammya]

The offense was visibly totally discombobulated in the first half following the injury. A lot of those shots were end of the shot clock there is no one open attempts, where we all know Smart is not good. I thought he looked great in the second half.

 

[Bleedred]

The offense was visibly totally discombobulated in the first half following the injury. A lot of those shots were end of the shot clock there is no one open attempts, where we all know Smart is not good. I thought he looked great in the second half.

I agree that he looked great in the 2nd half and showed how valuable he can be when he is playing to his strengths. Nevertheless, until he shows otherwise, he's a dreadful outside shooter.

 

[nighthob]

I'll give the whole team a pass for that first half, aside from Irving they were all pretty shellshocked and Smart played pretty spastically (clearly trying to do way too much to make up for Hayward's sudden absence). In the second half he helped carry them back into the game, and that's basically what you get with Marcus. He has those stretches where he inexplicably is able to put the team on his back and carry them.

However I also suspect that part of that was that the Cavaliers are pretty toasty this year. James looked a step slow all night (getting juked out of his sneakers by the 19 year old Tatum was telling), and their aging former stars looked pretty forky last night. In this case Cleveland's guards were just clearly not able to deal with Marcus once he settled down, and they eventually resorted to using forwards to contain him. Unless Lil' Zeke comes back at 100% I don't expect the Cavs to last more than four games in the finals.

I simply did not say the bolded.

You actually literally said it in defense of your claim that young Artest wasn't a bad offensive player. Even though you later switched over to my position that they were both terrible offensive players in their first three seasons. (But decided to keep arguing anyway)

The key problem (for those who watched both guys play, at least) is that Smart is so bad a shooter teams drop off him defensively, which they did not with Artest.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Ok, we are making fun of Ball, but Smart's shooting has been absolutely putrid this year. Over 13 games, he's shooting 28% from the field, 27% from 3. I haven't watched every single Celtics game, but whenever I ve watched it's not that he's missing shots from open looks. It's that he forces it so so so bad. He's like a surrealist take on Mark Jackson; just an inchoate maze of legs, arms and feet somehow reaching their way to the basket and only to lob a shot up in the most unorthodox way possible, a way that usually requires a prayer in order to increase its chances of success.

He maybe a hard worker, great on defense and the soul of the team, but my god, he needs to fix this.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I dunno. I'd like to see Marcus solve his shooting next year after he signs a reasonable extension with the Cs. I also wonder if he's hurt again - he seems to have less lift than he did in the preseason.

In the interim, we get to watch the winning plays he makes such as these: https://nbamath.com/marcus-smart-is-one-of-the-nbas-most-misunderstood-players/

 

[Eddie Jurak]

One reporter, I forget which, suggested that Smart's shooting woes are related to his double ankle sprain earlier in the year. I have no idea whether that is actually the case, just noting that it has been mentioned.

There is an upside to Smart's shooting trouble. It hasn't actually cost the Celtics a game thus far, and teams are going to have to swallow very hard before forking over a big RFA contract to a sub 30% shooter no matter what else he does. And if his shooting reverts to the mean at some point later in the year, the Celtics will get a little boost out of it.

 

[BigSoxFan]

It’s sad that the “mean” is 35%

 

[DJnVa]

 

[DJnVa]

There's a lot of stuff right now in @HPbasketball's feed about Smart.

Link to this, talk of Smart's "gravity": https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/marcus-smart-shooting-percentage-stats-boston-celtics-vs-golden-state-warriors/

Except ... here's the thing ... when Smart is on the floor, the Celtics have a 106 offensive rating. That's also second-best among rotation players, and 6.8 points better than when he's on the bench.

How is it that the the worst shooter in the league helps make the league's best team better on offense?

 

[Light-Tower-Power]

There's a lot of stuff right now in @HPbasketball's feed about Smart.

Link to this, talk of Smart's "gravity": https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/marcus-smart-shooting-percentage-stats-boston-celtics-vs-golden-state-warriors/

That's a great read for folks like me who were clamoring for Brad to bench Smart last night. We all watch him throw up awful shots and groan but the more subtle good things he does, especially the passing, isn't as glaring.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

One reporter, I forget which, suggested that Smart's shooting woes are related to his double ankle sprain earlier in the year. I have no idea whether that is actually the case, just noting that it has been mentioned.

We hear this garbage excuse with Smart every year. No lift due to an injury, poor shooting due to an injury. NBA players are out there injured every game during the course of an 82-game season. I always had Smart's ideal role as that of a 3rd guard off the bench but hearing the injury excuse for his lack of lift and poor shot selection each year is tiring. This is Marcus Smart. It's the NBA.....you play banged up all the time.

Play more Smart because the worse he shoots the better the Celtics offense produces. Sometimes stats hurt ones head.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

It’s sad that the “mean” is 35%

Maybe bowiac can help with this. Where can you locate shooting pct for contested and uncontested 3-pointers? I know I saw this last year someplace but can't recall where. Shot selection and a players role in an offense seems to play a larger factor in these numbers now more than ever with the defenses focus on closeouts and an offenses on ball rotation. Someone like JJ Redick shooting 44%, 47%, and 43% behind the arc in a veteran Clipper system with Paul and Blake while dipping to 39% in Philly with less experienced players and an offense still working on an identify would seem to be the norm.

 

[the moops]

here is just Celtics by shot type
https://stats.nba.com/players/shots-closest-defender/?Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular Season&CloseDefDistRange=6+ Feet - Wide Open&sort=FG3_PCT&dir=1&TeamID=1610612738

 

[Manzivino]

The freely available stats from NBA.com on defender distance are highly questionable (see Tatum only taking 5 3s all year with a defender within 4 feet of him) and the subscription data sites are prohibitively expensive for fans.

 

[joe dokes]

Trying to figure out Smart hurts my head. I'm just telling my eyes to shut up, and figure he's like the rare shortstop who hits 200 but still helps his team because he plays HoF defense.

Maybe one of the reasons that the offense performs well when he's out there is that he takes only a small percentage of the shots, and when he's not shooting, he's moving the ball, moving himself, getting offensive rebounds and doing all the other things that are necessary to make a 5-man NBA offense go smoothly. Does that make any sense?

 

[nighthob]

Maybe one of the reasons that the offense performs well when he's out there is that he takes only a small percentage of the shots, and when he's not shooting, he's moving the ball, moving himself, getting offensive rebounds and doing all the other things that are necessary to make a 5-man NBA offense go smoothly. Does that make any sense?

Probably a lot of little things to go along with all that. For example he's a pretty good rebounder and outlet passer, so I'm sure the early season numbers are skewed by some transition baskets they're getting due to his play. He's also one of the few guards out there that can legitimately set wipeout picks on big men, leading to more open shots for Boston's 4s and 5s.

These are, overall, the reasons that he's valuable to Boston, but part and parcel of why I doubt he's going to get a big offer on the open market. Teams generally don't pay 80% max money to a roleplayer to do the dirty work.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Is there a way to find out how many shots he has taken this year with less than 5 seconds to go in a quarter? It seems like it's twice a game.

 

[bowiac]

Maybe bowiac can help with this. Where can you locate shooting pct for contested and uncontested 3-pointers? I know I saw this last year someplace but can't recall where. Shot selection and a players role in an offense seems to play a larger factor in these numbers now more than ever with the defenses focus on closeouts and an offenses on ball rotation. Someone like JJ Redick shooting 44%, 47%, and 43% behind the arc in a veteran Clipper system with Paul and Blake while dipping to 39% in Philly with less experienced players and an offense still working on an identify would seem to be the norm.

As Manzivino noted, there the public data on contest rates is murky. From what I've heard from talking to someone who works for a team with access to propriety data, the issue is that the SportVU data on NBA.com appears to be calibrated to the moment a player begins his shooting motion, rather than the moment of release, so a lot of closeouts aren't being captured with the ranges provided by SportVU.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

As Manzivino noted, there the public data on contest rates is murky. From what I've heard from talking to someone who works for a team with access to propriety data, the issue is that the SportVU data on NBA.com appears to be calibrated to the moment a player begins his shooting motion, rather than the moment of release, so a lot of closeouts aren't being captured with the ranges provided by SportVU.

And this is where the NBA.com numbers lack the proper context in todays game with such long, athletic defenders who are coached up to closeout hard. Maybe now that Roland Beech is no longer running Sacramento's analytics department he will return to some of the stuff he was doing at 82games. I always laughed whenever I would imagine the organizational meeting between Beech and Divac, who was openly critical of analytics in the game.

 

[bowiac]

There's a lot of stuff right now in @HPbasketball's feed about Smart.

Link to this, talk of Smart's "gravity": https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/marcus-smart-shooting-percentage-stats-boston-celtics-vs-golden-state-warriors/

I love Hardwood Paroxysm, and you all know I believe in plus/minus data, but the amount of noise involved in ~400 of raw plus/minus data is simply enormous. There's a reason models like RAPM and RPM torture plus/minus data so much, and usually need two full seasons of it to make much sense of what they're seeing, and it's not because ridge regressions are fun.

 

[benhogan]

One reporter, I forget which, suggested that Smart's shooting woes are related to his double ankle sprain earlier in the year. I have no idea whether that is actually the case, just noting that it has been mentioned.

There is an upside to Smart's shooting trouble. It hasn't actually cost the Celtics a game thus far, and teams are going to have to swallow very hard before forking over a big RFA contract to a sub 30% shooter no matter what else he does. And if his shooting reverts to the mean at some point later in the year, the Celtics will get a little boost out of it.

good point.

Is there a 'clever' way to sign him to an extension now? or wait till after the season?

He is very valuable on defence and all those intangibles

Offensively if he sets solid picks, does pnr with Theis, hits the offensive boards, goes down low and posts (exhaust) other PGs, and doesn't turn it over he'll continue to be an analytics darling. Play him with skilled shooters like Kyrie, Horford, Tatum, Morris, Rozier, Larkin and his shooting deficiencies can be hidden.

Like LTP, I was bitching about Marcus' play/shooting last night, especially after leading the team in minutes played last night (35mins). Obviously, Brad knows better. I'd also be willing to bet Marcus' positive advanced offensive stats are driven by playing under Brad's system. Put Smart in another uniform next season and watch those numbers nosedive.

 

[DavidTai]

Trying to figure out Smart hurts my head. I'm just telling my eyes to shut up, and figure he's like the rare shortstop who hits 200 but still helps his team because he plays HoF defense.

Maybe one of the reasons that the offense performs well when he's out there is that he takes only a small percentage of the shots, and when he's not shooting, he's moving the ball, moving himself, getting offensive rebounds and doing all the other things that are necessary to make a 5-man NBA offense go smoothly. Does that make any sense?

Along the lines of that, when the team has him running the offense, is the team as a whole less turnover-prone? Is it much better to miss a shot than to have the possession end up in a turnover in terms of the analytics being used to measure Smart?

 

[teddykgb]

I don't believe in basketball statistics the way some of you do and think they're generally abused on this forum in the sense that they're highly experimental but often cited as facts. Nonetheless, it's hard to argue with his putrid shooting pct and some weird on off numbers in a small sample aren't going to make me fall in love with this methodology.

But I think another part of Smarts value is mentality. He's a real hard bastard who works hard and makes an enormous amount of big plays in big spots. I can't imagine he's fun to deal with in practices either. Normally I'd dismiss this type of thought but I earnestly wonder whether we could replace his mentality if he were to leave. I think he might be good enough defensively to almost shame his teammates into similar max effort max effectiveness performances.

Maybe I'm totally wrong and he coasts in practices, I can't know. But if he is that kind of go hard every day hyper competitive person, he's probably an awesome role model for his suddenly very young teammates

 

[DJnVa]

I love Hardwood Paroxysm, and you all know I believe in plus/minus data, but the amount of noise involved in ~400 of raw plus/minus data is simply enormous. There's a reason models like RAPM and RPM torture plus/minus data so much, and usually need two full seasons of it to make much sense of what they're seeing, and it's not because ridge regressions are fun.

Yeah, he tweets something about noise and SSS but says it is happening every single game and I guess thinks there's *something* there.

He's a great twitter follow

 

[DJnVa]

I don't believe in basketball statistics the way some of you do and think they're generally abused on this forum in the sense that they're highly experimental but often cited as facts. Nonetheless, it's hard to argue with his putrid shooting pct and some weird on off numbers in a small sample aren't going to make me fall in love with this methodology.

But I think another part of Smarts value is mentality. He's a real hard bastard who works hard and makes an enormous amount of big plays in big spots. I can't imagine he's fun to deal with in practices either. Normally I'd dismiss this type of thought but I earnestly wonder whether we could replace his mentality if he were to leave. I think he might be good enough defensively to almost shame his teammates into similar max effort max effectiveness performances.

Maybe I'm totally wrong and he coasts in practices, I can't know. But if he is that kind of go hard every day hyper competitive person, he's probably an awesome role model for his suddenly very young teammates

So, he's a dirtdog? lol Trot Nixon on the hardwood?