2016 NBA Draft

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
NBA combine invitees (per twitterverse, *has option to go back to school, excludes alternates):

Ron Baker, SG, Wichita State
Wade Baldwin, PG, Vanderbilt
Anthony "Cat" Barber, PG, North Carolina State
Malik Beasley, SG, Florida State
DeAndre Bembry, SF, Saint Joseph's
*Ben Bentil, PF, Providence
Joel Bolomboy, PF, Weber State
Malcolm Brogdon, Maryland
Jaylen Brown, SF, California
Robert Carter Jr., PF, Maryland
Marquese Chriss, PF, Washington
Elgin Cook, SF, Oregon
Isaiah Cousins, SF, Oklahoma
Deyonta Davis, PF/C, Michigan State
*Cheick Diallo, PF/C, Kansas
Kris Dunn, PG, Providence
Henry Ellenson, PF, Marquette
Perry Ellis, SF, Kansas
A.J. English, SG, Iona
Kay Felder, PG, Oakland
Dorian Finney-Smith, SF, Florida
Michael Gbinije, SG, Syracuse
Daniel Hamilton, SG/SF, Connecticut
A.J. Hammonds, C, Purdue
*Josh Hart, SG, Villanova
*Nigel Hayes, SF, Wisconsin
Buddy Hield, SG, Oklahoma
Brandon Ingram, SF, Duke
Demetrius Jackson, PG, Notre Dame
*Justin Jackson, SF, North Carolina
Bryce Johnson, PF, North Carolina
Damian Jones, C, Vanderbilt
Skal Labissière, PF/C, Kentucky
*Dedric Lawson, F, Memphis
Jake Layman, SF, Maryland
Caris LeVert, SG, Michigan
Thon Maker, PF/C, Int'l
Pat McCaw, SG, UNLV
Isaiah Miles, SF, Saint Joseph's
Dejounte Murray, PG/SG, Washington
Jamal Murray, PG/SG, Kentucky
*Malik Newman, SG, Mississippi State
Georges Niang, SF, Iowa State
*Chinanu Onuaku, C, Louisville
Marcus Paige, PG, North Carolina
Gary Payton II, PG, Oregon
Jakob Poeltl, C, Utah
Taurean Prince, SF, Baylor
*Malachi Richardson, SG, Syracuse
Domantas Sabonis, PF, Gonzaga
Wayne Selden, SG, Kansas
*Pascal Siakam, F, New Mexico State
Ben Simmons, F, LSU
Diamond Stone, C, Maryland
*Caleb Swanigan, PF/C, Purdue
*Melo Trimble, PG, Maryland
Tyler Ulis, PG, Kentucky
Jarrod Uthoff, SF, Iowa
Denzel Valentine, SG, Michigan State
*Isaiah Whitehead, SG, Seton Hall
*Troy Williams, PF, Indiana
Kyle Wiltjer, PF, Gonzaga
Zhou Qi, C, Int'l
Stephen Zimmerman, PF/C, UNLV

(64, this list will continue to be updated)
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think those 2 had more potential. I'd rather hit a home run than a single.

Plus Jabari Parker played very well in the second half and added a 3 point shot to his game. Yes, he has shown more than Marcus Smart.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Plus Jabari Parker played very well in the second half and added a 3 point shot to his game. Yes, he has shown more than Marcus Smart.
Jabari added a 3 point shot to his game? He took all of 28 threes in the second half, and made nine of them. That's a pretty low bar for adding a shot, especially if we're complaining Smart cant shoot. Plus, he's still a lousy defender, and doesn't do much to create offense for others.

I dunno. I wouldn't trade Smart for Parker, and I don't think many GMs would either. Your mileage may vary.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
Jabari added a 3 point shot to his game? He took all of 28 threes in the second half, and made nine of them. That's a pretty low bar for adding a shot, especially if we're complaining Smart cant shoot. Plus, he's still a lousy defender, and doesn't do much to create offense for others.

I dunno. I wouldn't trade Smart for Parker, and I don't think many GMs would either. Your mileage may vary.
I agree. Parker isn't a true big so you don't get that "big over small" comparison advantage. Throw in Smart's defense against high scoring wings, which Parker doesn't possess, and you have one player with an elite NBA skillset.....and Parker being pretty much a JAG.

I'm not a huge Smart guy (pun intended) but he had a greater chance to make an impact on a contender in the future due to his one elite skill than Parker who could easily be destined as a 14/6 guy on crappy teams.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
If you want to swing for the fences, Smart is the guy you can more easily envision as a star. It's a big if, but if he learns to shoot he's a star. It's pretty much that simple.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
I think those 2 had more potential. I'd rather hit a home run than a single..
But you're still going off of their pre-draft potential, while dinging Smart for things he's shown at the NBA level.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,415
Somewhere
The upside for Smart is Billups, right? There's not a lot of precedence for players like him. And Billups' progression is a pretty uncommon one.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think he's talking about his "6th pick in a 5 player draft" thing. So he's saying he had his own benefit of saying Smart wasn't a top 5 prospect.

Then replying to the idea that Smart has been a "hit" for the Celtics as a separate point.

I still think Smart will end up being the 3rd to 5th best player from that draft, barring injury. (probably passing Embiid and Exum, potentially remaining better than Parker (who he has been better than), and potentially being passed by Jokic or Hood) Sure, that is probably an indictment on the draft, not just praise of Smart.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
The upside for Smart is Billups, right? There's not a lot of precedence for players like him. And Billups' progression is a pretty uncommon one.
Billups was an excellent perimeter shooter and smooth offensive player in college, a true combo guard, who had the physical dimensions of a PG at the next level. Smart was an elite defensive player with an erratic offensive game who was able to dominate physically against smaller guards while being a poor shooter with horrible shot selection and decision making.

So as far as a true comp they couldn't be further apart. Billups needed several years for the game to slow down for him but had that foundation of being an excellent shooter/offensive player. Smart doesn't have that foundation, can't beat quicker guards off the dribble, doesn't have the lift to finish in the paint, and will never be a full-time PG at this level. Smart does have to improve his decision making and shooting but his physical limitations of quickness and lift for his position seems to have him locked into a role playing 2/3 who can handle the ball in a multi-guard set. He has good value moving forward for what he projects to be but he doesn't have that All-Star upside like a Billups.......as even if/when the game slows down for Smart he still isn't going to be able to get to his spots as a scorer. He's more Tony Allen then Chauncey Billups......which is still a very valuable piece if he learns to understand his strengths and weaknesses to harness his potential.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,038
Yeah - I think Smart's upside is Tony Allen with a better handle. Like Allen, he'll be a valuable player for years but his upside is capped. If only OK State could hire a shooting coach...
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,931
Yeah - I think Smart's upside is Tony Allen with a better handle. Like Allen, he'll be a valuable player for years but his upside is capped. If only OK State could hire a shooting coach...
Yup. Not exactly the same type of player, but I think you're right. Smart can run the point whereas you'd never want Tony to dribble the ball at all. Smart can guard 1-3, maybe 1-4, which is really unique for someone his size. Hell, he shut down Porzingis when no one else could and you could call him a 5. He's also a better rebounder than Tony. Being 22, there's hope that his offense can continue to improve. There were some really nice stretches in the playoffs where he showed he can be a positive on that end of the floor too. I would like to see him stop settling for so many 3's early in the shot clock. Keep working on the jumper in the offseason. He'll never be Kyle Korver but if he can turn into...Avery Bradley offensively? I think we'd take that. He can be a 3rd guard on a championship caliber team (if your starting lineup has something like IT/Butler).

I was looking at some of their stats and got a laugh out of this analysis on ESPN: "Frankly, Marcus Smart plays offense as if he's being defended by Marcus Smart."
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Just looking at b-r's VORP Statistic and top 5 from each of the recent drafts (just for an easy one to pick)

2010: George, Wall, Monroe, Cousins, Hayward
2011: Leonard, Irving, Butler, Parsons, Walker
2012: Lilliard, Davis, Green, Drummond, Crowder
2013: Gobert, Dieng, Plumlee, Giannis, Oladipo
2014: Jokic, Smart, Hood, Gordon, Payton
2015: Towns, Porzingis, Cauley-Stein, Winslow, Richardson

You can dispute my use of VORP (I get it) but the names of the best players seem about right to me. Obviously it's too soon on 2015 and maybe 2014 but I'm not seeing a bunch of names of guys that are going to be making leaps soon, and even 2013 is pretty weak in comparison to the first three years.

Are we due for another great draft soon? It's probably not 2016.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,038
This is Marcus Smart today. It seems pessimistic to me to say he's reached his upside already, after 2 years in the league.
I could see incremental improvements in his shooting but his athleticism is what it is. What is your more optimistic comparison?
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I could see incremental improvements in his shooting but his athleticism is what it is. What is your more optimistic comparison?
I don't have a player in mind. Here's a list of every player 6'8" or under, with a DBPM, and assist rate as good as Smart's, but who shot at least 35% on threes for instance. And yes, that's a pretty dramatic improvement in his shooting, but if we're talking about upside, that doesn't seem unrealistic either. It's a reasonably impressive list. The size is off, but maybe Nic Batum is the closest comp I see there. I'm not a student of the history of the game, so maybe there's someone closer there however.

I agree he's never going to have the handle to be a primary scorer, but top-level perimeter defense paired with good shooting is a powerful combination, especially in today's NBA.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,386
I could see incremental improvements in his shooting but his athleticism is what it is. What is your more optimistic comparison?
Ron Artest (without the head case issues)? From this website:

Artest is a very good athlete that has terrific strength, and he can compete physically with anyone in college. He should be able to make the jump with his toughness and smarts.

Artest can defend, but has questions about how well he can move his feet. However, he has active hands and can handle himself down in the post. Really, he can play defense when he wants to, but would rather play on the other end. Artest has the ability to score, but he is not a good shooter. Rather, Artest scores along the baseline, on drives, and on the glass. He can hit the 3 with time, but has not shown the ability to get his own shot.
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
777
I have always thought Artest was a decent comp, despite the size difference. He finished his career as a 34% shooter from deep. He had a year or two where he was more than adequate in the middle of his career, the start of his career was ugly. Smart has a better handle and is a better passer - but the scouting above (from artest) could be easily be transposed.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,853
Are we due for another great draft soon? It's probably not 2016.
2017 is shaping up to be a monster draft, at least at the top. Regardless of the other moves made this offseason, I'd really hope Ainge holds onto the Brooklyn pick swap for next season. Jackson, Giles, Tatum, Fultz...if even half of the prospects from that class perform as anticipated, it's going to be the best draft class in years.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,038
I have always thought Artest was a decent comp, despite the size difference. He finished his career as a 34% shooter from deep. He had a year or two where he was more than adequate in the middle of his career, the start of his career was ugly. Smart has a better handle and is a better passer - but the scouting above (from artest) could be easily be transposed.
A smaller Artest seems like a good comparison.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
2017 is shaping up to be a monster draft, at least at the top. Regardless of the other moves made this offseason, I'd really hope Ainge holds onto the Brooklyn pick swap for next season. Jackson, Giles, Tatum, Fultz...if even half of the prospects from that class perform as anticipated, it's going to be the best draft class in years.
I really expect Ainge to hold onto each high upside projected lottery pick until we know it's true post-lottery value as he timed these acquisitions with the Nets, Mavs, and Grizzlies to hit a home run.

I also expect Ainge to move each pick on draft night each year with these Brooklyn picks for an established player unless we get the #1 or #2 pick and land that transcendent player.
 
Last edited:

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
It usually takes players only three years to reach their potential.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-sign-an-nba-player-to-the-max/
A few points:

1) Smart has been in the league two years, not three.
2) Silver is using win shares there, rather than SPM or one of the RAPM variants. Check this thread here for much better work done on aging curves using RAPM. The key result for offense:



and here's defense:




Or check out 538 own projection for projections specifically about Marcus Smart (using RPM). They project him to peak on a per minute basis in 2019.

3) Most importantly, Smart has one big skill missing from his game, and it's also one of the skills that players are most apt to improve (perimeter shooting). Treating him as a black box, as all these aging curves do is missing the point. Insofar as we're talking about upside, this is pretty salient. I agree he's not likely to develop into a 35% three point shooter, but it's also pretty well within the realm of possibility.

Personally I would be happy with Smart as a sixth man, though. He doesn't need to improve dramatically to be a very useful player.
Agreed! He's already a very useful player. I think we're talking about the possibility of whether he can be more than however (i.e., him vs. Jabari?).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
But you're still going off of their pre-draft potential, while dinging Smart for things he's shown at the NBA level.
I don't remember hearing all that much about Smart's potential pre draft. I remember people praying for a top 5 pick and hoping we wouldn't have to settle with a Smart or Julius Randle. Maybe after Rajon Rondo, I'm just tired of guards who can't shoot. If there is anything promising, he did improve his FT% this season, but really all he did was return to his college level. I'm saying I'd have rather wasted the pick on a flyer like Embiid or dream on Dante than to have settled with Smart. I just don't see much upside. Smart being better than these 2 doesn't change my opinion. I don't think the Celtics are that much worse off without Marcus Smart nor do I think Marcus Smart is a hard player to replace.

It's the NBA. I guess I should have said "I'd rather hit a HR or strikeout trying than hit a single" or "In Sports, you don't trade a $1 player for 5 players worth 25 cents." Or w/e.

And Jabari Parker's 28 games after the all star break: 18.9 ppg on 50% shooting, and 32% from 3 point range, which isn't great but he took 28 3's in those 28 games after only taking 7 in the first 48. I'd love to have him.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,415
Somewhere
I don't remember hearing all that much about Smart's potential pre draft. I remember people praying for a top 5 pick and hoping we wouldn't have to settle with a Smart or Julius Randle. Maybe after Rajon Rondo, I'm just tired of guards who can't shoot.
Well, the Celtics did take James Young in that draft. It's just that the 2013 draft is looking increasingly like one of the shittier drafts of all time.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
dante, parker and embiid were gone by the time the Cs were on the board. Who should we have taken instead of Smart? Vonleh was a high upside guy still available. anyone else would have been a major reach. All of Smart's combine measurables were very similar to Dwyane Wade's btw, another shooting-challenged guard.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
It usually takes players only three years to reach their potential.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-sign-an-nba-player-to-the-max/

Personally I would be happy with Smart as a sixth man, though. He doesn't need to improve dramatically to be a very useful player.
This generalization is like saying you should always bring a loogy in to face a left-handed batter and that the individuals skillset don't factor at all.

A savvy, less athletic player who already has developed ball skills has a much lower ceiling and thus needs a shorter amount of time to reach it if he isn't already there even at a very young age. He isn't going to improve his primary deficiency which is athleticism. A long and elite athlete otoh, could take years to develop the ball skills and experience to catch up to his immense physical skills while they are still prevalent.

The word "upside" is often misconstrued as it is primarily based on a players length and athleticism and how well ball skills and experience can catch up to the players physical skills. Smart and Parker are examples of lower upside players.....that doesn't mean they can't develop improved perimeter shots to improved only to say that they will never have a blinding first step or quick jump explosiveness to improve to become elite players......hence the lower upside or ceiling. The opposite end of the spectrum are players like Hassan Whiteside or Antetokounmpo from a year or two ago. Or even a Gerald Green/Fab Melo as Celtic examples.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
This generalization is like saying you should always bring a loogy in to face a left-handed batter and that the individuals skillset don't factor at all.

A savvy, less athletic player who already has developed ball skills has a much lower ceiling and thus needs a shorter amount of time to reach it if he isn't already there even at a very young age. He isn't going to improve his primary deficiency which is athleticism. A long and elite athlete otoh, could take years to develop the ball skills and experience to catch up to his immense physical skills while they are still prevalent.

The word "upside" is often misconstrued as it is primarily based on a players length and athleticism and how well ball skills and experience can catch up to the players physical skills. Smart and Parker are examples of lower upside players.....that doesn't mean they can't develop improved perimeter shots to improved only to say that they will never have a blinding first step or quick jump explosiveness to improve to become elite players......hence the lower upside or ceiling. The opposite end of the spectrum are players like Hassan Whiteside or Antetokounmpo from a year or two ago. Or even a Gerald Green/Fab Melo as Celtic examples.
You've said this before. What does it mean? Players who aren't necessarily long and athletic can have immense upside. There are other traits that correlate with success in the NBA.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
You've said this before. What does it mean? Players who aren't necessarily long and athletic can have immense upside. There are other traits that correlate with success in the NBA.
There are always exceptions like a Paul Millsap however a young players ceiling from where he is today is primarily based on his existing physical traits as those are something a player cannot control. It's why Thon Maker will be at the Combine in two weeks. Everyone is intrigued by his upside due to his length/athleticism and what he could become if he learns how to play basketball. Nobody is intrigued by Ron Baker's upside at the Combine....he's a guy pretty close to his ceiling as his arms aren't growing 8" nor is he able to increase his athleticism/explosiveness more than a nominal level.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
Paul Pierce comes to mind.
As which type? Pierce was a crazy athlete when he arrived at Kansas just as Wade was at Marquette and are pretty good example of a high upside young players with explosive first steps who developed their floor game to reach their perceived ceilings when they were 20.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,930
When PP was with the Celtics I never thought of him as excelling with athleticism. He was brainier than most, very efficient at using his moves and his energies to maximum effect with the least effort necessary. I didn't see his college game except for a few highlights, but at the NBA level I always thought that there were many better athletes but few better basketball players.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
When PP was with the Celtics I never thought of him as excelling with athleticism. He was brainier than most, very efficient at using his moves and his energies to maximum effect with the least effort necessary. I didn't see his college game except for a few highlights, but at the NBA level I always thought that there were many better athletes but few better basketball players.
Pierce really developed those skill as Wade has over the years. He struggled his first year at Kansas fitting in with Roy Williams more team-oriented game (Jacque Vaughn, Scot Pollard, and Raef) as all he was back then was an individual iso player with athleticism. When PP was in High School he was in the Finals of the McDonald's Dunk Contest vs. Vince Carter.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,038
Pierce wasn't an elite athlete like Vinsanity but he could get off the ground when he was younger. I'll never understand why he fell to #10. He had a great skill set, good athleticism, and a high bball IQ.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,081
San Francisco
Pierce's game evolved throughout his career. Its easy to remember just the wily veteran who wasn't quick but still got shots with guile and that elbow jumper, but in the beginning he was a slasher and he was quick as hell.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
There are always exceptions like a Paul Millsap however a young players ceiling from where he is today is primarily based on his existing physical traits as those are something a player cannot control. It's why Thon Maker will be at the Combine in two weeks. Everyone is intrigued by his upside due to his length/athleticism and what he could become if he learns how to play basketball. Nobody is intrigued by Ron Baker's upside at the Combine....he's a guy pretty close to his ceiling as his arms aren't growing 8" nor is he able to increase his athleticism/explosiveness more than a nominal level.
Right, but there are relevant existing traits beyond length and athleticism. Marcus Smart, for instance, has upside due to his unusual strength for a guard, which gives him the ability to guard multiple positions. Like a player who is particularly long or athletic, this is a unique trait that has a ton of value in the NBA, and that gives Smart a lot of upside.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,930
Pierce's game evolved throughout his career. Its easy to remember just the wily veteran who wasn't quick but still got shots with guile and that elbow jumper, but in the beginning he was a slasher and he was quick as hell.
Yes, he was very quick early on. I'd forgotten that.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,664
Pierce's game evolved throughout his career. Its easy to remember just the wily veteran who wasn't quick but still got shots with guile and that elbow jumper, but in the beginning he was a slasher and he was quick as hell.
Pierce was more strength and leverage than sheer quickness. He was very good at getting past his man using that combination, and once he had position at 6'6" 245, he was impossible for the defender to stop. And because of his size he absorbed the pounding in the paint in a way that the faster/quicker guys couldn't.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
Right, but there are relevant existing traits beyond length and athleticism. Marcus Smart, for instance, has upside due to his unusual strength for a guard, which gives him the ability to guard multiple positions. Like a player who is particularly long or athletic, this is a unique trait that has a ton of value in the NBA, and that gives Smart a lot of upside.
Yes Smart has these traits that you speak of but that isn't upside.......that is what he already possesses to perform at a high level in those areas today. A players upside is just the opposite.....a player who can potentially "develop" that strength to become the type of defender that Smart is today.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Sorry, you're misunderstanding. I'm equating Smart's strength to length and athleticism, as a unique, existing trait. Adding a more refined offensive game would help him achieve his upside. Because he'd have a refined offensive game and his already existing traits. Just like ball skills and a jump shot added to Thon Maker's athleticism would would help him achieve his upside.

Point being, there are plenty of examples of players who have upside without elite length and athleticism.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
Sorry, you're misunderstanding. I'm equating Smart's strength to length and athleticism, as a unique, existing trait. Adding a more refined offensive game would help him achieve his upside. Because he'd have a refined offensive game and his already existing traits. Just like ball skills and a jump shot added to Thon Maker's athleticism would would help him achieve his upside.

Point being, there are plenty of examples of players who have upside without elite length and athleticism.
If that's how you wish to determine a players ceiling I won't stop you. All I'm saying is that existing strength for an NBA player is not comparable to length/athleticism as a player who already possesses strength as Smart does by definition limits his ceiling.....as there isn't the strength component to improve upon. Strength/weight gain is an area a player can grow and improve upon (think Porzingis).....Smart doesn't have this ability as he already possesses it.
 
Last edited:

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
If that's how you wish to determine a players ceiling I won't stop you. All I'm saying is that existing strength for an NBA player is not comparable to length/athleticism as a player who already possesses strength as Smart does by definition limits his ceiling.....as there isn't the atrength component to improve upon. Strength/weight gain is an area a player can grow and improve upon (think Porzingis).....Smart doesn't have this ability as he already possesses it.
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. How does Marcus Smart already being strong limit his ceiling? Did Kawaii Leonard's elite athleticism limit his ceiling? Fundamentally, I don't understand how a player already possessing an elite skill set -- whether it's strength, athleticism, etc. "by definition limits his ceiling." In those cases, a player's ceiling would just be dictated by his ability to add other skills. If Porzingis had come into the league 25 pounds bigger, that wouldn't limit his ceiling. It would just mean he's closer to reaching his ceiling, and his floor is higher. Your ceiling doesn't get lower because you're standing on a chair.
 
Last edited:

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,435
Haiku
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. How does Marcus Smart already being strong limit his ceiling? Did Kawaii Leonard's elite athleticism limit his ceiling? Fundamentally, I don't understand how a player already possessing an elite skill set -- whether it's strength, athleticism, etc. "by definition limits his ceiling." In those cases, a player's ceiling would just be dictated by his ability to add other skills. If Porzingis had come into the league 25 pounds bigger, that wouldn't limit his ceiling. It would just mean he's closer to reaching his ceiling, and his floor is higher. Your ceiling doesn't get lower because you're standing on a chair.
A great athlete can add muscle; a tall one can add heft. That makes them projectable, if I'm reading HRB right. There's no point in projecting Marcus Smart: he already has the attribute that is easiest for other players to add. He doesn't need to get stronger, he can't get taller, and he is unlikely to become more athletic than he is (though I wonder if his quickness would benefit from losing 10 pounds).

I think Smart's offensive game will improve to substantially better than Tony Allen's, mostly by Smart learning when to shoot less. Better shot selection could make him nearly a league-average three-point shooter. I still like DJ as a comp for Smart.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
A great athlete can add muscle; a tall one can add heft. That makes them projectable, if I'm reading HRB right. There's no point in projecting Marcus Smart: he doesn't need to get stronger, he can't get taller, and he is unlikely to become more athletic than he is (though I wonder if his quickness would benefit from losing 10 pounds).
Right. And players improve their shooting all the time. They improve their ball handling all the time. Marcus Smart's ceiling isn't dictated by the need to add muscle or heft, it's dictated by his ability to improve on other elements of his game. That doesn't change that he has a high ceiling, it just changes how he'd achieve it.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,028
Right. And players improve their shooting all the time. They improve their ball handling all the time. Marcus Smart's ceiling isn't dictated by the need to add muscle or heft, it's dictated by his ability to improve on other elements of his game. That doesn't change that he has a high ceiling, it just changes how he'd achieve it.
Ugh yes it actually does as ceiling from a scouting viewpoint is based on how much a player can grow into their existing length and athleticism. Of course Smart can improve certain areas of his game however unlike high ceiling players he doesn't have the length and athleticism to grow into.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Ugh yes it actually does as ceiling from a scouting viewpoint is based on how much a player can grow into their existing length and athleticism. Of course Smart can improve certain areas of his game however unlike high ceiling players he doesn't have the length and athleticism to grow into.
And we're back to square one. Why is having a high ceiling limited only to long, athletic players? Are you saying that, for instance, the term "ceiling" isn't allowed to be applied to a player like Paul Milsap because he he's neither particularly long nor particularly athletic? Isn't a player's "ceiling" just shorthand for how good they can ultimately be?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,038
Why didn't I think of DJ as a Smart comparison? I think that's the best one I've heard.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,040
Why didn't I think of DJ as a Smart comparison? I think that's the best one I've heard.
Of all the guys about whom people said "he could be another DJ", how many actually turned out to be another DJ?

I'm not high on Smart. I'll be very happy if they can use him as a significant trade piece,
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,038
Of all the guys about whom people said "he could be another DJ", how many actually turned out to be another DJ?

I'm not high on Smart. I'll be very happy if they can use him as a significant trade piece,
Well, he's obviously not DJ now but if we're talking ceilings and projections, I think it's an apt comparison. Even 75-80% DJ would be a very good player.