Marcus Smart is nothing special...why are yall so delusional?

[KGboss]

Smart played well but last night but I am not going to lie: Not crazy about all the three pointers he is taking (12 last night) Those are hit and miss for him and I would like to see more mid range and driving shots.

This a 3 point shooting league, especially at the PG position. Nobody goes for the mid-range jumper anymore unless youre a big. I dont mind him taking those shots as long as hes being active throughout the game, which he was.

I just wanted to comment on this because it so blatantly untrue.

Goldsberry just wrote an article about a certain star pg's elite mid range game.

Not everyone is the Rockets yet.

Its not untrue. Analytics shows that the highest percentage shots these days are 3 pointers and around the basket. Theres no room for a mid range game anymore, just an extra ability to have to throw off your defender, but not necessary.

[Mad Guru]

This a 3 point shooting league, especially at the PG position. Nobody goes for the mid-range jumper anymore unless youre a big. I dont mind him taking those shots as long as hes being active throughout the game, which he was.

I just wanted to comment on this because it so blatantly untrue.

Goldsberry just wrote an article about a certain star pg's elite mid range game.

Not everyone is the Rockets yet.

Its not untrue. Analytics shows that the highest percentage shots these days are 3 pointers and around the basket. Theres no room for a mid range game anymore, just an extra ability to have to throw off your defender, but not necessary.

What are you talking about? You just said "nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big"

I gave you an example of probably the best PG in the NBA who feasts in the mid-range and you brush it off as if what you said was correct?

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/monst ... ow-jumper/

The crow is delicious BTW, I highly recommend it.

[GuyClinch]

What are you talking about? You just said "nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big"

I gave you an example of probably the best PG in the NBA who feasts in the mid-range and you brush it off as if what you said was correct?

Wow.. Buddy that article does zero to prove your point. Talk about a math fail - LMA0. Chris Paul shoots 53% from the 'mid-range" and 39% from 3.

This means that if he takes 100 mid range jumpers he scores 106 points. But if he takes 100 3 pointers he scores 117 points - and this is the 'best' mid-range shooter at the PG spot. It's not any great surprise that Smart would take so many 3s - he probably can handle basic math and doesn't go around crowing about articles wholly unrelated to his point..

[Bluewhale]

The problem is not Smart shooting a big proportion of shot from 3 line.

The problem is that he doesn't shoot it consistent enough.

And Smart doesn't have the dribble skill to slash, up to now.

[KGboss]

Its not untrue. Analytics shows that the highest percentage shots these days are 3 pointers and around the basket. Theres no room for a mid range game anymore, just an extra ability to have to throw off your defender, but not necessary.

What are you talking about? You just said "nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big"

I gave you an example of probably the best PG in the NBA who feasts in the mid-range and you brush it off as if what you said was correct?

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/monst ... ow-jumper/

The crow is delicious BTW, I highly recommend it.

Not sure what crow you're talking about and that analogy makes no sense in this situation either. One usually eats crow when they make a prediction and their prediction is wrong. I have not made a prediction but stated facts, and thank you GuyClinch for also proving my point.

The 3 point shot is justifiably a better shot to take in todays NBA. All the top coaches including Pop know this know as they continually ask for more and more 3 point shooting throughout the course of the game. Pointing out that guys like Chris Paul make shots at the mid range area is great, but it's really the third option these days for any offensive player, and more of an "all else fails" type of shot. Important to have, but its more important to be able to shoot a 3 pointer. I have no problem with Brad asking Smart to do this to elevate his growth.

Now me saying no one was taking the shot, was obviously me just talking in generalities. OBVIOUSLY people shoot the mid range shot still, it's just not as important as it used to be for guards. Mostly bigs like Greg Monroe and Marc Gasol are asked to shoot the mid range shot as a higher valued option, because they dont have the ability to shoot a 3, and most likely never will. I hope you were able to follow along but if you need further help with the explanation of analytics in the modern era of basketball, theres lots of articles on the subject. Try finding one that matters.

[jfs1000d]

What are you talking about? You just said "nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big"

I gave you an example of probably the best PG in the NBA who feasts in the mid-range and you brush it off as if what you said was correct?

Wow.. Buddy that article does zero to prove your point. Talk about a math fail - LMA0. Chris Paul shoots 53% from the 'mid-range" and 39% from 3.

This means that if he takes 100 mid range jumpers he scores 106 points. But if he takes 100 3 pointers he scores 117 points - and this is the 'best' mid-range shooter at the PG spot. It's not any great surprise that Smart would take so many 3s - he probably can handle basic math and doesn't go around crowing about articles wholly unrelated to his point..

Maybe Chris Paul is just a really good shooter?

I like Smart taking 3s, I would also like more penetration to get to the rim for easy shots and fouls.

People get too hung up on what they think is fundamentals:

1. The mid range game is supposed ot be a the fundamental play that "today's players" ignore. When, in fact, it's an inefficient shot at high volume for the reasons stated above (shooting a 3 is more value).

2. Also, the pass first point guard. This goes back to the high school days when the PG passes, the shooter shoots, and the center rebounds. This has no place in the NBA. Point guards have to be able to score and shoot except in rare cases.

[Mad Guru]

Its not untrue. Analytics shows that the highest percentage shots these days are 3 pointers and around the basket. Theres no room for a mid range game anymore, just an extra ability to have to throw off your defender, but not necessary.

What are you talking about? You just said "nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big"

I gave you an example of probably the best PG in the NBA who feasts in the mid-range and you brush it off as if what you said was correct?

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/monst ... ow-jumper/

The crow is delicious BTW, I highly recommend it.

Not sure what crow you're talking about and that analogy makes no sense in this situation either. One usually eats crow when they make a prediction and their prediction is wrong. I have not made a prediction but stated facts, and thank you GuyClinch for also proving my point.

The 3 point shot is justifiably a better shot to take in todays NBA. All the top coaches including Pop know this know as they continually ask for more and more 3 point shooting throughout the course of the game. Pointing out that guys like Chris Paul make shots at the mid range area is great, but it's really the third option these days for any offensive player, and more of an "all else fails" type of shot. Important to have, but its more important to be able to shoot a 3 pointer. I have no problem with Brad asking Smart to do this to elevate his growth.

Now me saying no one was taking the shot, was obviously me just talking in generalities. OBVIOUSLY people shoot the mid range shot still, it's just not as important as it used to be for guards. Mostly bigs like Greg Monroe and Marc Gasol are asked to shoot the mid range shot as a higher valued option, because they dont have the ability to shoot a 3, and most likely never will. I hope you were able to follow along but if you need further help with the explanation of analytics in the modern era of basketball, theres lots of articles on the subject. Try finding one that matters.

"There is no room for a mid range game any more"
"Nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big."

Those aren't generalities, those are absolutes.

All I was doing was pointing out that there is room for a mid range game, and that it isn't just bigs who take them. What you are doing is acting like I am making some overarching statement on the efficiency of the shot. Frankly, you didn't have to be so condescending about it, it wasn't appreciated.

[HeartBreakKid]

Not having a mid ranger jumper is fine if you want to be a roleplayer. To be a franchise player a PG likely needs to be able to hurt the team from mid range. Look at the top 3 point guards today - Curry, Paul and Westbrook, they all utilize the mid range game significantly, Paul and Westbrook even default to it.

What are you talking about? You just said "nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big"

I gave you an example of probably the best PG in the NBA who feasts in the mid-range and you brush it off as if what you said was correct?

Wow.. Buddy that article does zero to prove your point. Talk about a math fail - LMA0. Chris Paul shoots 53% from the 'mid-range" and 39% from 3.

This means that if he takes 100 mid range jumpers he scores 106 points. But if he takes 100 3 pointers he scores 117 points - and this is the 'best' mid-range shooter at the PG spot. It's not any great surprise that Smart would take so many 3s - he probably can handle basic math and doesn't go around crowing about articles wholly unrelated to his point..

This doesnt really make that much sense, as you're ignoring shot creation and not taking into context how volume would affect the %'s.


Everyone knows that 3 is higher than 2, if you think you've disprove that article with your elementary (literally) math skills then you're not analyzing hard enough. The mid range jumper's value exist in its ability to bypass defenses, not to out score the 3 point shot. Someone like Chris Paul's mid range shot can hurt the opposing team from nearly any side at the court at multiple distances - Paul's 3 point shot is primarily just from the top of the key, some times the shoulder, much easier to stop the latter.

You're comparing a shot that is typically created off the dribble to a shot that is usually spotted up.

[Slartibartfast]

Not having a mid ranger jumper is fine if you want to be a roleplayer. To be a franchise player a PG likely needs to be able to hurt the team from mid range. Look at the top 3 point guards today - Curry, Paul and Westbrook, they all utilize the mid range game significantly, Paul and Westbrook even default to it.

What are you talking about? You just said "nobody goes for the mid-range jumper unless you are a big"

I gave you an example of probably the best PG in the NBA who feasts in the mid-range and you brush it off as if what you said was correct?

Wow.. Buddy that article does zero to prove your point. Talk about a math fail - LMA0. Chris Paul shoots 53% from the 'mid-range" and 39% from 3.

This means that if he takes 100 mid range jumpers he scores 106 points. But if he takes 100 3 pointers he scores 117 points - and this is the 'best' mid-range shooter at the PG spot. It's not any great surprise that Smart would take so many 3s - he probably can handle basic math and doesn't go around crowing about articles wholly unrelated to his point..

This doesnt really make that much sense, as you're ignoring shot creation and not taking into context how volume would affect the %'s.


Everyone knows that 3 is higher than 2, if you think you've disprove that article with your elementary (literally) math skills then you're not analyzing hard enough. The mid range jumper's value exist in its ability to bypass defenses, not to out score the 3 point shot. Someone like Chris Paul's mid range shot can hurt the opposing team from nearly any side at the court at multiple distances - Paul's 3 point shot is primarily just from the top of the key, some times the shoulder, much easier to stop the latter.

You're comparing a shot that is typically created off the dribble to a shot that is usually spotted up.

Agreed. Having a strong mid-range game to go with a spot-up shot and finishing ability makes you a complete threat and much harder to contain.

[DakoBarr]

He does lack quickness, but he can develop his handle and get some moves to shake guys off enough to moonlight as a playmaker on a good team. James Harden isn't particularly quick either but he can drive and dish. Good thing is, Smart doesn't look completely incompetent with the ball in his hands right now, so all is not lost yet.

He'll always be valuable, though, being able to hit 3s and play defense like he does. If he can develop a decent offensive game, which it's pretty plausible to think he will, that's a very valuable guy.

[KGboss]

Hes a rookie he can and will develop everything you guys are suggesting, im just pointing out that his weakness coming out of college was shooting and specifically 3 point shooting. throughout the year he has improved throughout in that category, and you notice now he is trying to drive more and test those waters, hes also tried the mid range a bit, but he is only trying to put all this together and from what ive seen things can only go up from here.

[Celtic Esquire]

I just don't know why Smart isn't driving to the hoop and drawing contact.

In college, he averaged 6.5 and 8 FTA per game. In his first season in the NBA, he's at 2 FTA per game. Is he just afraid contact all of a sudden?

[humblebum]

I just don't know why Smart isn't driving to the hoop and drawing contact.

In college, he averaged 6.5 and 8 FTA per game. In his first season in the NBA, he's at 2 FTA per game. Is he just afraid contact all of a sudden?

Simply, I don't think he feels or that the coaching staff wants him to be using a lot of possessions "developing" his game during this playoff push. I mean, be opportunistic and confident, but stay in your lane offensively. Turner, Bradley and Thomas all have earned more "free license" offensively on this team or in this league.

Smart came in under Rondo and Turner... And then IT was brought in. The tools are there but Smart is going to have to learn how to use his body, angles, change of speeds to get in the lane more consistently. That's tough when the game is still moving a bit fast around you because afterall you're a rookie, playing one of the deepest and most difficult positions in one of the most ruthlessly competitive professional leagues in the world of sports.

I have full confidence that Smart is on a really great career track. He's in that Jason Kidd-Gary Payton mold of leader.

[shawn unkempt]

It'd be nice if we could make a new thread to talk about Marcus instead of doing it in a troll thread made by 6er fans.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Smart has improved his game. He has a good A/TO, has looked real good passing the ball and seems to make the right reads. He's also an excellent rebounder for his size, though I wish he'd try to battle for offensive boards more often.

The problem is that he is dreadfully bad as a shooter. Like truly horrendous. He shot better from 3 last month than he did from 2. It really doesn't even make sense to be honest-- he shot 70% from the line last month and clearly is capable. I just think that his confidence is shot right now. I keep hoping that one big game will help to boost him up, but after he failed to steady himself after the OKC game I am less than optimistic that he'll figure it out this year.

I think his struggles have to do with his adjustment from being an on-the-ball player to an off-the-ball player. He looks timid with the ball when ET is on the court, rarely looking for his own shot, almost like a little brother playing with his older brother. Like others have speculated, I have a feeling the other players have "told" him that now isn't the time to develop yourself, so to speak.

Smart has been a vocal guy, I always hear him chirping on TV, much like KG. He strikes me as a hard worker, and I really hope he uses this humbling experience as fuel for the fire to develop this off-season. I'm excited to see him at summer league next year. If he is unable to dominate after one year in the league with an additional summer to hone his craft, I will truly start to worry about his long term potential. I'm hoping he spends this offseason vigorously working at his handles, trimming 10 pounds or so off of his frame in the process.

[VeryMuchWoke]

Marcus Smart isn't suddenly terrible on offense, he's a rookie. He's adjusting to the NBA game. It takes time. Sauce Castillo didn't become a bad shooter overnight and look at his numbers - pretty close to Marcus efficiency wise, and that's with far fewer shots.

Code: Select all

                  FG    FGA        FG%   3P     3PA      3P%   2P       2PA     2P%
Sauce Castillo   3.5    9.5      .364   1.5     4.7      .318   2.0     4.8       .409   


Marcus will be fine. The fans on this message board will remain impatient.

[CollegeToPros]

Hes a rookie he can and will develop everything you guys are suggesting, im just pointing out that his weakness coming out of college was shooting and specifically 3 point shooting. throughout the year he has improved throughout in that category, and you notice now he is trying to drive more and test those waters, hes also tried the mid range a bit, but he is only trying to put all this together and from what ive seen things can only go up from here.

Yes sir. He is trying to expand on his game. We wish it would be faster, but he is on a normal development track.

Some of the passes he makes are sneaky good. His awareness on the court is excellent.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[sam_I_am]

Right now, Smart is too slow to beat his man off the dribble. Right now he lacks the leaping ability to finish at the rim. Right now he has sub par playmaking skills. Right now he has a pretty poor outside shot. He is savvy and physically mature so it's unclear to me where the upside will come from.

I think he is a solid role player - the kind of guy that Ainge excels at getting in the late first round. However, he has great strength and size and toughness for his position - that will always give him somewhat of an advantage.

[jfs1000d]

The problem is not Smart shooting a big proportion of shot from 3 line.

The problem is that he doesn't shoot it consistent enough.

And Smart doesn't have the dribble skill to slash, up to now.

Mid range game is still valuable if you get run off the 3, and, you can't get to the hoop. The problem with a 3 or layup is when you miss, it opens up more defensive rebound opportunities that potentially could harm you.

So, 39 from 3 vs. 53 from mid range may be better efficiency, we must recognize the downside.

What you don't like is 21 foot jumpers, the avery bradley special. 15-19 footers are OK. But, that 21-22 foot jumper drives me crazy at times.

[165bows]

It'd be nice if we could make a new thread to talk about Marcus instead of doing it in a troll thread made by 6er fans.

Seriously, I was just thinking the troll threads (like our multiple personality whackamole) somehow get the longest run. Sensationalism sells, I guess.

Smart's a good player already, he'll get better on offense.

Interesting thing is that both Philly and Boston front offices have a general theme of drafting athletes that can play defense, as offense is generally found to be more improvable than defense/athleticism. Dean D. did a big write-up last spring about it, saying that is what smart teams are doing, and that Philly/Boston are likely in agreement on that point.