Mikki Moore vs. Joe Smith

[Jammer]

Joe Smith is 33, 6' 9.5" without shoes, jump shot out to 17 feet,
career 6.6 ppg @ 45.6%, 6.8 rpg, 27.9 mpg, 79% Free Throws, 1995 #1 Pick

Mikki Moore is 33, taller than Joe, was originally undrafted,
career 5.9 ppg @ 54%, 3.9 rpg, 18.2 mpg, 74.4% Free Throws

Ostensibly, they look similar, until you factor in EVERYTHING.

Player ********* Individual PER ********** Man's PER ******** NET PER
Kevin Garnett **** 23.6 ********************** 13.8 ************ +09.8
Leon Powe ******** 16.9 ********************** 15.7 ************ +01.2
Kendrick ********** 14.7 ********************** 17.2 ************ -02.5
Joe Smith ****** 14.8 ****************** 17.4 ********** -02.6
Glen Davis ******* 09.8 *********************** 17.7 *********** -07.9
Mikki Moore *** 09.7 ******************** 20.0 ******** -10.3
Brian Scalabrine 7.8 ************************** 20.2 ********** -12.4

Even if you take it back to last season, Moore still lags Smith by a mile.

2008 Season
Smith in Chicago NET PER +2.4 (18.9 minus 16.5)
Smith in Cleveland NET PER +0.6 (16.7 minus 16.1)
Moore in Sacramento NET PER -5.8 (13.0 minus 18.8)

Moore in 2007 Season NET PER -2.3 (16.0 minus 18.3)

Overall, I am rather distressed that Moore has been so mediocre.
Still, he has height that Powe and Davis lack.
Perhaps he will function better in the team system,
but his numbers are not remotely close to Joe Smith's,
factoring in everything.

[GreenGrizz]

They are both done. Big Baby and Powe will outperform them, anyway. I want PJ Brown and Byron Russell. They understand defense and play tough. Smith knows KG well. That's why he handled him well last year. I can tell that Moore is a NBDL material without Jason Kidd.

[BillessuR6]

Link: http://celticshub.com/2009/02/19/mikki- ... ho-ya-got/

This article has more on Mikki Moore vs. Joe Smith comparison....

Offensively, these guys are two very different players. Smith is a jump-shooter; Moore gets his points at the rim. Over the last two seasons, about 75 percent of Smith’s shots have been jumpers, compared to about 40 percent for Moore. Neither guy is a lights out jump-shooter; Smith’s made 43 percent of his over the last two years, while Moore’s knocked down about 40 percent. Smith’s figure means more, though, since he shoots so many jumpers; Mikki probably takes them only when he’s wide open, meaning his 40 percent success rate probably isn’t as good as it looks–and it doesn’t look good, anyway.

There’s also a perception, I think, that Moore is a better rebounder and shot-blocker than Smith. He’s not. Their per-minute numbers and defensive rebounding percentages are similar, and Smith actually grabs a higher percentage of available offensive boards.

I’ve sort of buried the lead here, but there are two other huge red flags sticking out of Mikki Moore. First, he’s a turnover machine, and the Celtics are already at the bottom of the league in turnover rate. Moore coughs the ball up about 16 percent of the time he tries to do something with it. Smith, on the other hand, takes care of the ball (5.8 percent turnover rate this year), and he’s taking better care of it as he gets older.

That leads to my second concern about Moore: He’s getting worse really, really fast. Moore was a productive player just two seasons ago with the Nets. He shot 60 percent from the floor (including 55 percent on jumpers!), had a PER (14.8) around the league average and did a passable job guarding centers.

He’s fallen apart over the last two seasons in Sacto. Opposing power forwards put up a 15.9 PER against him last year, and they are torching him (18.1 PER) this season. He’s spent more time guarding centers this year, and the bigs are putting up a PER over 21 right in his face.

Smith’s defense isn’t spectacular, but he’s been steadily holding power forwards to league average stats for the last few seasons.

[Frank Lucas]

At this point I would take Moore over Smith because Moore is the one who is a free agent and Smith is already on a roster. I still think we have to hold out out that New York works something out with Marbury becasue we need some help at the back-up PG position.

[billfromBoston]

I would never argue that Moore is better than Smith, but I think there are some factors that have to be accounted for:

1. Smith has played a consistent role on both Cle and OKC over the last 2 years - they haven't had huge personnel turnover and they've both knows excactly who the ball was going to run through on the offensive side and have been able to plug role players in around them.

2. Moore has spent the past 2 seasons on the revolving-door roster known as the SAC-Town Kings. He has seen his role fluxuate as the team has tried to do numerous things with its offense- this is going to adversely affect consistency.

When Moore was on NJ a couple years back he had a very consistent role in an offense that had consistent playmaking and a set plan of attack. I'd be far more inclined to think that Moore will split the difference between his last two years of production and that season in NJ as he'll be playing a very finite and specific role for this team.

I also believe that Moore is the type of personality that will dramatically increase his focus and committment to effective execution now that he is joining a team with a goal of title contention. Moore has always been an emotional type - very much like KG in many ways from an emotional standpoint. His reaction to leaving Sac-Town is reflective of that.

Playing on a team that wants him, needs a role from him, and is pointed toward high-level contention, should bring out the very best of Moore. I don't think we've seen his maximum level of ability the past two years and its not because he got a contract. When emotional and competitive players get stuck in rudderless situations like Sac-Town, it tends to erode one's ability to focus and invest intensity into each moment.

Bottom line - I expect to see a rejuvenated and productive Mikki Moore in Boston if he is indeed on his way. While he is certainly not without limitations, I think he'll play inspired bball and will be a net positive for our height-challenged team.

[jfs1000d]

Moore > Smith because of one reason---


MOORE IS AVAILABLE. If Joe Smith is bought out, let's get Joe. But that isn't case now. I would get them both, add anther guard, and go from there.

[TMU]

Moore is a taller version of Powe. Again, it'd be very repetitive with Moore, Powe, and Davis on the roster. They're a bunch of low-post bangers and none of them can stretch the floor. If Joe Smith was available, he'd be a much better fit to this team.

[Red2]

there shouldn't be a debate over who is better; SMith is clearly the better player. The debate or question is do you wait and take a chance on losing BOTH players or do you go for the bird in hand and lock up Moore if you can get him. Look at it this way- would you rather have POB or MIkki Moore. That's what this comes down to . Moore is a veteran player who has been in the lague who can block a few shots for you, clog the middle and occasionally stick back an offensive rebound. IF we have a guard on the second unit who can push the ball and hit a big man in transition he could also be effective running the floor.

[Gant]

I'm not saying Mikki Moore will be of great help, but here's a few thoughts on him:

He does turn the ball over a lot and is not broad enough to play defense down low against the hulks.

However I do like that he is a dedicated hustle guy.

Though his one on one big man defense is poor, he's a good team defender which is essential for the Celtics. Sacramento is one of the worst defensive teams in the league so Moore's positives as a defender were largely negated. In Boston they'd be maximized.

He's tall and fast.

His rare shots are opportunity baskets, so if he runs he'll get some.

He's often been playing against frontline guys in Sacramento. In Boston he'll be playing against second stringers.

To sum it up: He probably won't help much but there will be situations where you just need a tall guy, and he's that. Also if you need someone to inject some energy into the game- he can run.

I worry about his falling stats though. He may not ever reach his very modest peak of a few years ago again.

Joe Smith is much better but as the old saying goes, "A Moore in the hand is worth a Smith in the bush." ...or something like that.

[tlee324]

You guys are probably right, it might be repetitive to have another big.. but we're better off having another big on the roster than not...

unlike what I feel would happen with Marbury... we're better off without him, IMO.

[MyInsatiableOne]

You guys are probably right, it might be repetitive to have another big.. but we're better off having another big on the roster than not...

unlike what I feel would happen with Marbury... we're better off without him, IMO.

Same here. For all of his skill the rest of the package is just not appealing to this team...

[FederalePDT]

would anybody else rather sign Chris Mihm than Mikki Moore? Mihm has more familiarity with the celtics, hes more of a banger on the boards than Moore or Smith, he has a decent shot, and most importantly he has familiarity with the Lakers big men that could prove helpful during the playoffs...

[Frank Lucas]

take this for what it's worth but my boy out in LA just sent me a text message and it was a picture of Mikki Moore who is staying at some 5 star hotel in LA. I know the Cs play Denver tonight but don't they play the Clippers on the 25th? Or he could be headed to the Lakers.

[MyInsatiableOne]

would anybody else rather sign Chris Mihm than Mikki Moore? Mihm has more familiarity with the celtics, hes more of a banger on the boards than Moore or Smith, he has a decent shot, and most importantly he has familiarity with the Lakers big men that could prove helpful during the playoffs...

Problem is Mihm is always hurt...

[FederalePDT]

they play the clippers tonight...

[Frank Lucas]

they play the clippers tonight...

The Cs play Denver tonight and they play the Clippers on the 25th.

[Jammer]

I tend to agree with the thoughts of several posters who feel
that Mikki Moore, motivated and with a defined role,
will perform closer to his New Jersey days (that got him his big contract)
than his Sacramento days.

Why that is probably true, despite aging two years to 33,
is that the Celtic system enables
Glen Davis and Leon Powe to perform better
than you would expect from their raw skill set (including height and athleticism).