sully00 wrote:This is why stats are important because they stop memory bias from gas lighting you. I know what you are talking about Smart's hustle and effort nailing down a couple of wins but it was in fact a couple of wins. First of all he was only involved in 38 wins the whole season. The team was 6 and 5 with him as a starter. They were better with him in the line up but that line up also included Irving.
17/18 seasons split's almost sum up this situation. Smart scored more ppg (12) and shot the ball better (40%/38%) in the teams losses than its wins (9ppg/35%/25%). His ORTG in both the wins and losses that year was a gross 96 the difference is on the defensive end where he had a DRTG of 102 in wins and 110 in the losses.
Now this past season we saw a player whose production was the same in wins and loses for the most part shot the ball better in the wins on lower usage. He had a DRTG of 103 in the wins and 117 in the losses and actually added an ORTG of 114 in the wins against a pretty respectable 108 in the losses. He was a +13 in the wins and a -11 in the losses.
While last year wasn't a great year chemistry wise for this team it was a fantastic year for an effective and efficient Marcus Smart in stark comparison to the offensive **** show it had been previously.
OK, but two years ago, Smart had a bigger role and more impact on a more successful team, despite them being younger with far less talent and depth. Do we agree on that?
And this year, he likely had more favorable scoring opportunities playing in a starting lineup that was far more talented offensively than the bench unit he had led the previous season? And that there was also a lesser need for him to try to force the issue make up for injuries compared to the year before? And that this difference in role and offensive teammates would naturally have a positive impact on his scoring efficiency all by itself?
I mean, I get stats as well as anyone here. They are a great tool that can provide nice insights. But there are often used to lend a fake validity to arguments. I mean, I have laid out comprehensive, basic, and repetitive arguments here that put those stats into a larger context that some of you here are not even addressing at all.
















