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