Getting Smart with Statistics

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,203
Lynn
He is now at 42/37/80 with a TS pushing 58%. I predicted he would go 40/35/75 this year but I thought it would be borderline.

I'm firmly on the side that they should try to get KD via opt in and trade as opposed to going for KD. Losing Smart in an AD trade on top of Tatum would be tough to swallow.

Kyrie/KD/Tatum/Smart>>>Kyrie/AD/Jaylen. Now obviously it's a long shot, but Jackie Mac/Windhorst/Bernardoni have all said it's at least a possibility.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
I normally try to be analytical when it comes to the Cs, especially after I got too into IT4. However I cannot be so when it comes to this guy. I want him to be there when they hoist banner 18 (and 19 as well). He is perfect for the team and the city.

May he get more awards and finish his career in Boston. Marcus Smarf forever.
 

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
8,147
I normally try to be analytical when it comes to the Cs, especially after I got too into IT4. However I cannot be so when it comes to this guy. I want him to be there when they hoist banner 18 (and 19 as well). He is perfect for the team and the city.

May he get more awards and finish his career in Boston. Marcus Smarf forever.
Smurf or not, concur with this.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
He's incredibly easy to cheer for when he's hitting 3s at a league average %. That was his only real flaw.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
He's incredibly easy to cheer for when he's hitting 3s at a league average %. That was his only real flaw.
While I agree that his 3pt is very satisfying, I think that we stake way too much on that one number.

He was 75 for 249 last year (.301). If he hit 91 instead, it would have been league average (.365). That's 16 more conversions, one every five games, for a total of 48 points on the year. It's not that material.

Even his terrible .253 year, getting to league average would have netted the team 72 total points, one more basket every 3ish games.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
While I agree that his 3pt is very satisfying, I think that we stake way too much on that one number.

He was 75 for 249 last year (.301). If he hit 91 instead, it would have been league average (.365). That's 16 more conversions, one every five games, for a total of 48 points on the year. It's not that material.

Even his terrible .253 year, getting to league average would have netted the team 72 total points, one more basket every 3ish games.
That one number dictates how closely he’s guarded and stops him from getting Tony Allen’d. It’s really, really critical for his place in an offensive ecosystem.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
That one number dictates how closely he’s guarded and stops him from getting Tony Allen’d. It’s really, really critical for his place in an offensive ecosystem.
That's a fair POV. If I weren't a lazy bastard, I'd compare how close he is being covered on those attempts compared to last year. The eyes tell me that he's launching with the same confidence and rough rate as he always has, and I suspect that he's being covered the same. But I don't know.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
That's a fair POV. If I weren't a lazy bastard, I'd compare how close he is being covered on those attempts compared to last year. The eyes tell me that he's launching with the same confidence and rough rate as he always has, and I suspect that he's being covered the same. But I don't know.
Yes, he was being closed out on weirdly hard before, given his poor shooting. I think the fear was always that teams would optimize that out in the playoffs, given time to prepare. I feel a lot more comfortable about him as a starter on a championship team with that concern out of the picture.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
While I agree that his 3pt is very satisfying, I think that we stake way too much on that one number.

He was 75 for 249 last year (.301). If he hit 91 instead, it would have been league average (.365). That's 16 more conversions, one every five games, for a total of 48 points on the year. It's not that material.

Even his terrible .253 year, getting to league average would have netted the team 72 total points, one more basket every 3ish games.
But if those extra 3's get bunched into one game every 10 (as they seem to with Smart), it might lead to 3 or 4 extra wins. Not to mention the benefit of spacing as noted above.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
While I agree that his 3pt is very satisfying, I think that we stake way too much on that one number.

He was 75 for 249 last year (.301). If he hit 91 instead, it would have been league average (.365). That's 16 more conversions, one every five games, for a total of 48 points on the year. It's not that material.

Even his terrible .253 year, getting to league average would have netted the team 72 total points, one more basket every 3ish games.
The difference between a .250 and a .300 hitter is about 1 hit every 6 games. It’s not that material.

Also, the premise, and my baseball analogy, ignores that Smart shoots a lot more threes this year. It’s probably reasonable to assume a causal relationship, that is, he is taking more threes because he is shooting better. The net effect of his improved shooting is that he’s going to finish the year with probably 30-35 more threes than he’s ever made before. That’s over an additional point per game and all his shooting points are now efficient points instead of inefficient points. It’s a massive massive difference.
 
Last edited:

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
ignores that Smart shoots a lot more threes this year. It’s probably reasonable to assume a causal relationship, that is, he is taking more threes because he is shooting better.
He is taking threes at a slightly lower rate than last year. 7.5 per 100 possessions vs 7.7 per 100 possessions
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,157
But if those extra 3's get bunched into one game every 10 (as they seem to with Smart), it might lead to 3 or 4 extra wins. Not to mention the benefit of spacing as noted above.
It may have happened only once, or most painfully once, but I remember one game this year where the defense was playing way off Smart, daring him to shoot 3s in crunchtime, and he was doing exactly what they wanted (hoisting up and missing 3s).

That said, his shooting has gotten much better. But I disagree that when he wasn't shooting well it didn't matter. I really believe it did, just like I believe Morris went from being one of the most valuable players on the team (last Fall) to one of the least valuable players.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
It may have happened only once, or most painfully once, but I remember one game this year where the defense was playing way off Smart, daring him to shoot 3s in crunchtime, and he was doing exactly what they wanted (hoisting up and missing 3s).

That said, his shooting has gotten much better. But I disagree that when he wasn't shooting well it didn't matter. I really believe it did, just like I believe Morris went from being one of the most valuable players on the team (last Fall) to one of the least valuable players.
Making shots at a high percentage is a highly valuable skill.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
He is taking threes at a slightly lower rate than last year. 7.5 per 100 possessions vs 7.7 per 100 possessions
This is correct. I mistakenly only looked at raw attempts last year and forgot to adjust for games missed last year. I don’t think my other points are impacted by that mistake.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
He’s been shit-tweeting about dominating 8-year olds at dodgeball for a YMCA charity event. Dude is the best.

 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
He’s been shit-tweeting about dominating 8-year olds at dodgeball for a YMCA charity event. Dude is the best.

If he had just quoted Dodgeball, it would have been mildly funny. However, the brutally simple, declarative opening ("I pegged and eliminated six 8 year-olds.") has a great Caesar/Napoleon/Genghis Khan feel to it.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
12,529
If they could get him back by game 3 next Friday, that could be a game-changer in the series.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
O/U 15 seconds before he's laying out on the floor in his first game back. I think he hit way under last year in the playoffs.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,870
There's a non-insignificant part of me that would be very excited to watch Marcus Smart play lead guard next year. I thought he improved as a shooter, finisher, and decision-maker on offense. He had a great lob game with Horford and I'd like to see what he does with Robert Williams. And Smart's only 24! Kyle Lowry only broke out as a shooter at 24! If Marcus has, truly has improved as a shooter, that might open up the floor for him.

Of course if he regresses we have a 36% shooter running our offense. But I do want him to get a chance.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
Part of Smart’s breakout was picking and choosing his spots, which he could afford to do because of Kyrie and having other scorers. Counting on him to be more than a complementary scorer would be a mistake.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
There's a non-insignificant part of me that would be very excited to watch Marcus Smart play lead guard next year. I thought he improved as a shooter, finisher, and decision-maker on offense. He had a great lob game with Horford and I'd like to see what he does with Robert Williams. And Smart's only 24! Kyle Lowry only broke out as a shooter at 24! If Marcus has, truly has improved as a shooter, that might open up the floor for him.

Of course, if he regresses we have a 36% shooter running our offense. But I do want him to get a chance.
Agree here. There's part of me that wants to see Marcus* be our PG, let the J's be offensive options 1/2, see if TL can play, see if Gordon is healed and watch our shiny new rookies play - call it a development year with Brad back in charge...

Have Danny go bargain bin hunting for youngsters with upside (Thomas Bryant, Tyus Jones) and keep payroll flexibility, especially if Kawhi stays at TOR, and MIL/PHIL retain all.

*Marcus put in a ton of work a few summers back on his 3pt shot (w/Chauncey) but battled hand injuries all of 2017-18 which affected his shot. With the ink dry on his new contract, he seemed more confident last year. With expectations and pressure lower, I could see his 3pt shooting take another bump this season.
 
Last edited:

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Part of Smart’s breakout was picking and choosing his spots, which he could afford to do because of Kyrie and having other scorers. Counting on him to be more than a complementary scorer would be a mistake.
Yes, I read that tweet (admittedly very vague) and I get nervous that his new approach is just going to be chucking up a ton more shots, which isn't great, obviously. To be fair, maybe it's more nuanced than that - for example, he could be intending to work on his driving to the basket, which is an area he could potentially improve upon as he was dead last among all Celtics last year in percentage of points resulting from shots "in the paint."
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
If the conventional wisdom that PGs take longer to develop is true, my hope is that there’s still room for Smart to ultimately become a floor-general type on offense who’s development was further slowed by his relatively heavy defensive responsibilities. Even if he can be a 35% shooter from three, his upside on offense is limited because I can’t really see him becoming good at getting to/finishing at the rim and he’s susceptible to pressure on the ball, but if he can grow comfortable initiating the offense to the extent that he’s a league-average PG while maintaining his energy level on D, then he becomes a really valuable player. That’s a big ask, but it seems like a good time to find out. Run him out there as the lead guard with Hayward or Edwards as a secondary and see if he can handle it. I suppose there’s some risk if asking him to do much causes other aspects of his game he’s recently improved start to regress, namely spot up shooting and shot selection, but a Smart, Hayward, Brown, Tatum, Big Man X lineup is really versatile is he can make it run.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Was I the only one who read that to be about off-court leadership rather than on-court play? We know how much Kyrie tried (ineffectively) to be a leader; and I imagine that Al was a leader as well. Seems to me that Smart looks around and sees a huge leadership vacuum.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Was I the only one who read that to be about off-court leadership rather than on-court play? We know how much Kyrie tried (ineffectively) to be a leader; and I imagine that Al was a leader as well. Seems to me that Smart looks around and sees a huge leadership vacuum.
Not the only one. Smart was clearly referring to assuming more of a leadership role and NOT playing out of position on both ends of the floor. Why anyone would want to expose Smart on both ends of the floor is beyond me. As was said above, he's improved as a shooter, finisher, and decision maker as an off-guard...…..so let's scrap that and force him into a completely different role as a full-time lead guard? And this is offensively where I don't have a huge problem with it provided Hayward or another initiator is on the floor......it is defensively you lose your best wing defender while exposing him to check quick guards who are the ones he can struggle against.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
If that’s what being more involved with the young guys means, I don’t think Jayson and Jaylen are going to like it.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
I dislike assholery as much as the next guy, but he isn't mean to the kid, it's more of tongue in cheek teasing. Everyone's having fun.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
That was a great throw in. He could double as a special teams sub for the Revolution.

Back to basketball, if Smart can improve on his .364 3P% from last season and he can stay healthy for the year I will be quite happy.
I’ve been bullish on him as a shooter for awhile, just because the improvements to his form are so clear. He’s a great Iggy if we can ever find Steph, Klay, and Draymond.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,275
Clearly, adjusting to shooting the FIBA Molton-made ball isn’t a problem for Smart. I actually used to love those balls back in the day even though they were slightly bigger. Not sure if the circumstance still is larger or if it is now same as NBA. Reggie Cleveland, are you in this thread?
Ball still is bigger. Windhorst was just on the BS Pod talking about how the ball was giving Joe Harris and Khris Middleton fits but Tatum was still shooting the lights out
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Hmm - I thought the thinking was that the FIBA ball was smaller? I have one of those Molton made ones and I love it, but whenever I bring it to a pickup, it is inevitable that someone bitches about the size of it.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Hmm - I thought the thinking was that the FIBA ball was smaller? I have one of those Molton made ones and I love it, but whenever I bring it to a pickup, it is inevitable that someone bitches about the size of it.
The men’s was always bigger when I played , and according to tbb345 still is, but the one you have could very well be a women’s Molton, which is only slightly smaller than an NBA ball to where it’s hard to differentiate between the two.