CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: PhoSita on November 05, 2016, 02:18:42 AM
-
Just wondering....
-
Just wondering....
Kind of surprised to see this post from you honestly. If this in response to believing randle will anchor the lakers to the playoffs as their best inside player, he would surpass smart in that situation. As impressive as the win was tonight for the majority of his career he has been a less complete player than Larry nance and a net negative.
-
Just wondering....
didn't know they had a thing. Did it start in college?
-
I mean, we can revisit it now if we want.
Randle has always put up the numbers. On some occasions he even helps them win. But he still can't shoot, his defense is still subpar, he still isn't very good with his right hand. Is he a starter on a championship team? I'm not sure.
I also think that, by next year, it should be time to give up the whole idea that Smart can be an All Star caliber player in this league, or a top 3 option on a contending team, unless he proves otherwise this year. I love Marcus on defense. But, the offense has to come around. There's just no other way around it. I want to be patient with him, but for how long? How much longer do we have to watch him chuck and brick 3s early in the shot clock? How much longer do we have to watch him flop and flail around, which does get him calls, but is also not the actual way to play the game? How much longer do we have to see him try to drive to the rim, get stopped by the defense, and force up a bad shot, and then complain to the refs?
Don't get me wrong. He's a fine player off the bench for us. His defensive impact is absolutely insane. But if he can't ever develop into an even decent offensive player, then we have to wonder: do you want the defensive talent who is streaky at best on offense? Or would you rather have the guy who can't play defense, but can rebound, can bang with the big boys, and is slowly but surely getting a bit better and more comfortable on offense?
In many ways, I think we actually have to blame Brad for part of the lack of development by Marcus. While he did try to go for the wins and the team record at the time (when Evan was here), it could hurt us long term. This is Smart's third year, he should be able to at least run a pick and roll consistently. He's shown flashes of it, but can he ever put it all together? We won't know if Brad keeps putting Smart off the ball, not always getting him the ball in his strength spots. You've gotta play to the strengths of your players. On offense, that's pick and roll's, post ups, midrange jumpers, driving to the rim. You've gotta target those areas if you want him to get better at that stuff.
Long story short: it's really up to personal preference; which type of player do you want?
-
Randle's a special player, he was a monster in college and seems to be finding his own in the NBA. Creative passer, a rare touch when finishing at the rim, a nastiness that allows him to perform late in games.
I heard some talk this last summer that Ben Simmons was slated to be the next Blake Griffin, but from my perspective Randle has the inside track.
Big fan of Marcus Smart, happy he's here and hope he retires a Celtic legend, but I'd be lying if I said wouldn't rather be watching a Julius Randle/Al Horford frontcourt. Thing that stings the most is that it was probably the presence of Sullinger that kept us from drafting Randle.
It will be very interesting to see what we can do with the 2017 draft. Should be some strong frontcourt talent but not sure we're going to find someone as impactful as Randle would have been for us. Until then I'm content enjoying the rare defensive play of Marcus Smart.
-
When they hit restricted free agency
-
Randle's a special player, he was a monster in college and seems to be finding his own in the NBA. Creative passer, a rare touch when finishing at the rim, a nastiness that allows him to perform late in games.
I heard some talk this last summer that Ben Simmons was slated to be the next Blake Griffin, but from my perspective Randle has the inside track.
Big fan of Marcus Smart, happy he's here and hope he retires a Celtic legend, but I'd be lying if I said wouldn't rather be watching a Julius Randle/Al Horford frontcourt. Thing that stings the most is that it was probably the presence of Sullinger that kept us from drafting Randle.
It will be very interesting to see what we can do with the 2017 draft. Should be some strong frontcourt talent but not sure we're going to find someone as impactful as Randle would have been for us. Until then I'm content enjoying the rare defensive play of Marcus Smart.
randle is the next Blake griffin? I'm
Pretty sure Blake griffin was an all star his rookie year and averaged like 22 and 11. That's a little ridiculous praise for randle
-
He is the anti-Smart. A lot of empty stats, few intangibles and little defense. Much like the rest of his team, actually.
Smart and Randle both have a lot of room to grow. I won't be surprised if both take a big step forward soon in their areas of weakness.
-
We can revisit it at any point over the course of their careers. The answer will still be the same. Smart was the right pick
-
At this point in their career Randle is the better player. He has shown continue growth over his career where as Smart been stagnant.
-
This wave of Randle love seems like a little overreaction to the Lakers having one really good game against a dysfunctional Warriors team.
Randle put up numbers last year, too, but that didn't translate to wins. I want to see if the Lakers can sustain this, and if he actually helps them win. Then we can crown him.
-
At this point in their career Randle is the better player. He has shown continue growth over his career where as Smart been stagnant.
Really? As far as I've seen Marcus has had a positive effect on winning each season he's been in the league. He's improved as a playmaker, he's improved as a mid range shooter and he's widened his defensive abilities e.g. guarding pfs last year. He has no outside shot currently but that's the biggest hole i can see.
Randle still can't defend and has shown little progress on becoming a go to scorer on that team.
To me Randle was the right choice at 7, however retrospectively Smart could have gone ahead of Exum and Gordon
-
When they hit restricted free agency
TP for the correct answer. Personally I would have drafted Randle over Smart. However neither Smart or Randle have done enough so far to make a judgment. Both have significant areas where they need development. This is really just Randle's 2nd year of playing because of his 1st year injury. Smart has missed plenty of games due to injury. So better to wait for the end of their rookie contract to make a judgment between them.
-
At this point in their career Randle is the better player. He has shown continue growth over his career where as Smart been stagnant.
Seems that you follow Lakers more than the Celtics if you think that way.
-
I know in sports we quantify everything through numbers and if we want to base our opinion of which player we should have taken using numbers - then it's not a discussion and probably never will be imo, Randle is a guy that's going to put up numbers.
there's been plenty of players that put up the numbers and have nothing to show for it - melo anyone... and he even had a couple really good teams around him.
when Randle does anything close to what Smart did in the series against Atlanta last yr. let me know.
Smart will probably never have the numbers but he will effect the letter "W".
-
"Revisit" seems like the wrong word. This topic is brought up daily. It's beyond tired.
-
Randle's RPM ranked him 84th of 87 power forwards last year, well behind guys on his own team like Ryan Kelly, Larry Nance and Brandon Bass.
-
When the lakers and Celtics Play for a championship
-
Ever actually watch Smart? Love him.
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
-
nm
-
tony allen was a great defender. Smart's play can effect the entire game and dictate the outcome. and that's not just on the defensive end, he may be inconsistent offensively but thus far he's proven to be clutch on both ends - he makes plays that are needed.
-
I'd say it is a toss up at the moment. But we could probably use Randle rebounding ability right now.
-
A good time is when one of them is actually good. Right now they both too inconsistent and have huge holes in their game.
-
I still don't think Randle is a player who can help you win a championship. He looks like a good regular season player, but when the lights are on and championship-quality opponents are keyed in on his weaknesses, he will not be able to finish against length, he will not be able to defend anyone, he will not be able to spread the court, and he will only be able to play one position (stripping his team of flexibility on offense and defense).
Smart, on the other hand, is not a regular season "numbers" guy, but he is a guy you can win a championship with. His weaknesses like shooting, driving, or turnovers always vanish in the toughest situations. He can play multiple positions on offense or defense.
-
I'm sorry it's not even a competition at this point. Randle's ability to rebound, post up, versatility to run a fastbreak, and ability to create his own combined far exceed Smart's ability to just play defense. Smart is a PG who can't handle the basketball, a SG who can't shoot, and a SF who is 6'4". He's a grit player that's willing to do anything to win. I respect that, but by far Randle is just a better player than Smart who I've never liked ever since we drafted him. It was always Randle for me and I will continue to stand by that.
-
I'm sorry it's not even a competition at this point. Randle's ability to rebound, post up, versatility to run a fastbreak, and ability to create his own combined far exceed Smart's ability to just play defense. Smart is a PG who can't handle the basketball, a SG who can't shoot, and a SF who is 6'4". He's a grit player that's willing to do anything to win. I respect that, but by far Randle is just a better player than Smart who I've never liked ever since we drafted him. It was always Randle for me and I will continue to stand by that.
Hmm, I think I found the problem here.
-
The time to revisit this is at the end of their rookie contracts.
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
-
Anyone else think that Randle has alot of Jeff Green in him? As in...very very inconsistent....
Smart has the clutch factor. Only thing holding Smart back is his injury issues, otherwise he's going to be a stud.
-
Anyone else think that Randle has alot of Jeff Green in him? As in...very very inconsistent....
Smart has the clutch factor. Only thing holding Smart back is his injury issues, otherwise he's going to be a stud.
Inconsistency happens for 21 year old kids with 1 season of basketball on their belt.
He's actually been pretty consistent, though. Fairly efficient in every game. His shot attempts have fluctuated. That might be more a sign of the young Lakers trying to figure out what works for them.
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
That's only if you ask an unbiased basketball fan who solely looks at stats. I've said it before Lar, you're largely a numbers guy. You love per 36 stats, you love Tiers, you love rankings. Which is fine. Numbers are certainly important. But impact on the game is also important.
-
Haha. Love the line "historically bad shooting" LarBrd. Good to see you are at your best.
-
I think this is the finally season where we start to see what Smart and Randle are truly made of.
I'm optimistic about Smart and I think he could be a special player, but I do acknowledge his shooting woes last season. They were awful, but what stops me giving from giving up on him is his rookie season averages aren't nearly as bad, and there were a few times last season where Smart single-handedly almost led Celtics comebacks against the Magic and the Mavericks. Those performances are what get me to see his potential. Not to mention Smart actually placed decently well in the playoffs. You know, when it really counted. I think what's held back Smart is not being the primary ball handler on the floor. I think Smart has shown he can run an offense as long as he has the ball in his hands. The issue is he played with Evan Turner who also needed the ball in his hands and Smart played off the ball, which I don't think suits him. Now Turner's gone, so I think we're finally going to see what Smart can do now that he's a focal point. Defensively, you already know what he's capable of. Now it's time to see if he can produce consistently on both sides of the ball. So far, he hasn't looked too bad (for him) but it's only been two games.
I've criticized Randle earlier this season, thinking he could be a Carlos Boozer/David Lee type i.e. he can put up stats but not really help his team win. This season Randle is in a different situation than he was last season. Kobe and Byron Scott are both gone, which means the handcuffs are off for not just him but the rest of the Lakers too. They can start caring about winning again! They also have added a good coach and some actual NBA-caliber players so they are starting to show signs of life. I've watched some videos that detail just how well the Lakers are starting to utilize Randle as a player compared to last season. He and Russell have good chemistry together, and Randle plays within himself a little more than he did last year. His defense still leaves a lot to be desired, but again, like with Smart's offense, you just gotta give it time.
I think both of these guys have potential to be vital contributors for good teams but in their own ways. This will probably be revisited again and again throughout their whole careers. All in all, I'm happy we have Smart.
-
Anyone else think that Randle has alot of Jeff Green in him? As in...very very inconsistent....
Smart has the clutch factor. Only thing holding Smart back is his injury issues, otherwise he's going to be a stud.
I think there is a little talent called shooting that is holding Smart back. With his style of play, I'm also concerned that his injuries are going to be his norm. Missing 15-20 games each season would be a significant negative. Randle missed his 1st season with a major injury but last season he played 81 games.
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
That's only if you ask an unbiased basketball fan who solely looks at stats. I've said it before Lar, you're largely a numbers guy. You love per 36 stats, you love Tiers, you love rankings. Which is fine. Numbers are certainly important. But impact on the game is also important.
How do you determine the impact on the game? That's arbitrary. Randle's "impact on the game" is pretty clear as well. He's helped lead his team to a 3-3 record and just knocked off the Golden State Warriors by dropping 20 points and 14 rebounds. That's clearly an "impact on the game". That passes the "eye test".
What's your rebuttal? Advanced stats show Smart makes a great impact? Advanced stats are still stats. Don't criticize me for being a "numbers guy" and then quote some numbers.
Bottom line, we are probably in agreement that if you ask some people outside of Laker/Celtic fandom, Randle is probably seen as the superior prospect at this point.
Maybe not though. Personally, I still have Smart a hair above Randle... this despite being a "numbers guy", I guess. And I think some analysts still give Smart a lot of credit. Perhaps more than he deserves. In fact, I think I read something on ESPN this Summer that pegged Smart as a player likely to make a leap... they came up with that using.... numbers.
Smart still might make a big leap this Summer. I'm hoping it happens.
-
Haha. Love the line "historically bad shooting" LarBrd. Good to see you are at your best.
I didn't come up with that, Celtics18. Google "Marcus Smart historically bad" and you'll find several articles about how Marcus Smart is coming off the worst shooting season in NBA history. Note: It's in reference to his shot attempts from 3. He's the worst in NBA history out of any player who consistently took 3 point shots. His shooting last season was historically bad.
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
That's only if you ask an unbiased basketball fan who solely looks at stats. I've said it before Lar, you're largely a numbers guy. You love per 36 stats, you love Tiers, you love rankings. Which is fine. Numbers are certainly important. But impact on the game is also important.
How do you determine the impact on the game? That's arbitrary. Randle's "impact on the game" is pretty clear as well. He's helped lead his team to a 3-3 record and just knocked off the Golden State Warriors by dropping 20 points and 14 rebounds. That's clearly an "impact on the game". That passes the "eye test".
What's your rebuttal? Advanced stats show Smart makes a great impact? Advanced stats are still stats. Don't criticize me for being a "numbers guy" and then quote some numbers.
Bottom line, we are probably in agreement that if you ask some people outside of Laker/Celtic fandom, Randle is probably seen as the superior prospect at this point.
Maybe not though. Personally, I still have Smart a hair above Randle... this despite being a "numbers guy", I guess. And I think some analysts still give Smart a lot of credit. Perhaps more than he deserves. In fact, I think I read something on ESPN this Summer that pegged Smart as a player likely to make a leap... they came up with that using.... numbers.
Smart still might make a big leap this Summer. I'm hoping it happens.
What i mean, is looking at skill set and how that player uses his skill set to lead his team to wins.
Randle: has no right hand. good rebounder. has tunnel vision sometimes, but also has shown good passing skills under Walton, has no jump shot. isnt a great defender. for all intents and purposes, he's an energy rebounder who can sometimes get a bucket in the post.
Smart: streaky shooter. underrated PnR ball handler. elite defense. knows when to pass vs not pass. cant always get to the rim easily. solid rebounder for a guard. He's an energy defender who can sometimes bring his team some offense.
I'm not saying to use advanced stats (although I suspect that those also favor Smart). If you ask some unbiased fans, theyll say Randle. If you ask other unbiased fans, theyll say Smart. If you ask me, the only reason this debate even exists is because of the Lakers vs Celtics rivalry. Not even the fact they were picked back to back. You don't see anyone arguing Exum vs Gordon do you? Or LaVine vs. Warren.
They're completely different players with completely different skill sets, and each team who prefers one or the other does so for their own reasons.
-
Randle is the kind of player that people that play fantasy basketball think is a lot better than he actually is (much like Okafor)
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
That's only if you ask an unbiased basketball fan who solely looks at stats. I've said it before Lar, you're largely a numbers guy. You love per 36 stats, you love Tiers, you love rankings. Which is fine. Numbers are certainly important. But impact on the game is also important.
How do you determine the impact on the game? That's arbitrary. Randle's "impact on the game" is pretty clear as well. He's helped lead his team to a 3-3 record and just knocked off the Golden State Warriors by dropping 20 points and 14 rebounds. That's clearly an "impact on the game". That passes the "eye test".
What's your rebuttal? Advanced stats show Smart makes a great impact? Advanced stats are still stats. Don't criticize me for being a "numbers guy" and then quote some numbers.
Bottom line, we are probably in agreement that if you ask some people outside of Laker/Celtic fandom, Randle is probably seen as the superior prospect at this point.
Maybe not though. Personally, I still have Smart a hair above Randle... this despite being a "numbers guy", I guess. And I think some analysts still give Smart a lot of credit. Perhaps more than he deserves. In fact, I think I read something on ESPN this Summer that pegged Smart as a player likely to make a leap... they came up with that using.... numbers.
Smart still might make a big leap this Summer. I'm hoping it happens.
I respect your opinion, Lar, but disagree.
We will need a full year to determine this, but I suspect that the numbers Randle puts up this year will be on a sub-500 team. Whereas the numbers Smart puts up will be on a top 5 team in the NBA. Both will get similar playing time and usage (Randle had 20% last year to Smart's 17%), but given that, I think Smart's is more impressive.
Because there are no controls (like playing time, wins, or even competition), its really difficult to straight compare per 36 minute stats. Looking at those numbers are not useless, but they are incomplete. That's why usage rate, competition, wins, and defensive impact (which is very difficult to quantify) all have to be looked at when comparing players.
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
That's only if you ask an unbiased basketball fan who solely looks at stats. I've said it before Lar, you're largely a numbers guy. You love per 36 stats, you love Tiers, you love rankings. Which is fine. Numbers are certainly important. But impact on the game is also important.
How do you determine the impact on the game? That's arbitrary. Randle's "impact on the game" is pretty clear as well. He's helped lead his team to a 3-3 record and just knocked off the Golden State Warriors by dropping 20 points and 14 rebounds. That's clearly an "impact on the game". That passes the "eye test".
What's your rebuttal? Advanced stats show Smart makes a great impact? Advanced stats are still stats. Don't criticize me for being a "numbers guy" and then quote some numbers.
Bottom line, we are probably in agreement that if you ask some people outside of Laker/Celtic fandom, Randle is probably seen as the superior prospect at this point.
Maybe not though. Personally, I still have Smart a hair above Randle... this despite being a "numbers guy", I guess. And I think some analysts still give Smart a lot of credit. Perhaps more than he deserves. In fact, I think I read something on ESPN this Summer that pegged Smart as a player likely to make a leap... they came up with that using.... numbers.
Smart still might make a big leap this Summer. I'm hoping it happens.
I respect your opinion, Lar, but disagree.
We will need a full year to determine this, but I suspect that the numbers Randle puts up this year will be on a sub-500 team. Whereas the numbers Smart puts up will be on a top 5 team in the NBA. Both will get similar playing time and usage (Randle had 20% last year to Smart's 17%), but given that, I think Smart's is more impressive.
Because there are no controls (like playing time, wins, or even competition), its really difficult to straight compare per 36 minute stats. Looking at those numbers are not useless, but they are incomplete. That's why usage rate, competition, wins, and defensive impact (which is very difficult to quantify) all have to be looked at when comparing players.
We aren't disagreeing. I said I personally still have Smart a hair above Randle.
-
Randle's a special player, he was a monster in college and seems to be finding his own in the NBA. Creative passer, a rare touch when finishing at the rim, a nastiness that allows him to perform late in games.
I heard some talk this last summer that Ben Simmons was slated to be the next Blake Griffin, but from my perspective Randle has the inside track.
Big fan of Marcus Smart, happy he's here and hope he retires a Celtic legend, but I'd be lying if I said wouldn't rather be watching a Julius Randle/Al Horford frontcourt. Thing that stings the most is that it was probably the presence of Sullinger that kept us from drafting Randle.
It will be very interesting to see what we can do with the 2017 draft. Should be some strong frontcourt talent but not sure we're going to find someone as impactful as Randle would have been for us. Until then I'm content enjoying the rare defensive play of Marcus Smart.
randle is the next Blake griffin? I'm
Pretty sure Blake griffin was an all star his rookie year and averaged like 22 and 11. That's a little ridiculous praise for randle
Sorry your right this was definitely a hyperbolic statement, if I could shamelessly backtrack off my original point, I meant more the type of play than the production of Blake Griffin. BG was a consensus number 1 pick and a 1%er of an athlete. In no way did I mean to infer that Randle is going to average anywhere close to 22 and 11 at this or eve any other point in his career.
What I meant more is that he has the opportunity to be the next physically big, strong PF that also has enough passing skills to run a section of your offense through him in the mid post. He's not going to dunk all over people at the rim, but he can achieve a similar result by using that touch to finish through contact around the basket.
As for the folks saying that this is a knee jerk to the Lakers beating the Warriors, hard to argue giving the timing of this thread but I will say that I've always been high on Randle and the guy we're seeing in a limited sample size this year is much closer to the who I thought he would be as an NBA player to the borderline malcontent we saw last year.
I cut Randle an obscene amount of slack for events that transpired last year. Kobe's final year... under Byron Scott... for a team that was still incentivized to not only tank, but tank for a top 3 pick since they would have lost it to the 6'ers if it fell out of the top 3. This year's team under Luke Walton looks like an entirely different monster and Randle has been one of the key contributors.
-
Haha. Love the line "historically bad shooting" LarBrd. Good to see you are at your best.
I didn't come up with that, Celtics18. Google "Marcus Smart historically bad" and you'll find several articles about how Marcus Smart is coming off the worst shooting season in NBA history. Note: It's in reference to his shot attempts from 3. He's the worst in NBA history out of any player who consistently took 3 point shots. His shooting last season was historically bad.
Oh well, I guess I was giving you too much credit.
-
When they hit restricted free agency
TP for the correct answer. Personally I would have drafted Randle over Smart. However neither Smart or Randle have done enough so far to make a judgment. Both have significant areas where they need development. This is really just Randle's 2nd year of playing because of his 1st year injury. Smart has missed plenty of games due to injury. So better to wait for the end of their rookie contract to make a judgment between them.
Didn't Smart get some votes for All-NBA defense? Didn't he play well in a playoff series?
Let's see Randle get a few of those down before discussing this further.
-
They're both 22 and are done developing so I think it's safe to make a definitive statement on this right now.
-
First, it's weak to give Marcus Smart credit for the team winning, as they were winning this year before he came back. And their defense hasn't been great with him back. Randle is on a team with no veterans and a roster that was just tanking last year.
Second, ask yourself this question, who would have more trade value? I think Randle would and that's how I determine if a player is better.
I hope Smart is better, he shot well against Cleveland. I belive 5-9 with 14 points. If he averages that then yeah he's better than Randle. However if he plays like last year then he isn't.
Also, I think Randle is better than Rozier today as well so please don't think this has anything to do with my feelings on Smart as I like him. Just don't see him as a starter in the future.
-
When they hit restricted free agency
TP for the correct answer. Personally I would have drafted Randle over Smart. However neither Smart or Randle have done enough so far to make a judgment. Both have significant areas where they need development. This is really just Randle's 2nd year of playing because of his 1st year injury. Smart has missed plenty of games due to injury. So better to wait for the end of their rookie contract to make a judgment between them.
Didn't Smart get some votes for All-NBA defense? Didn't he play well in a playoff series?
Let's see Randle get a few of those down before discussing this further.
He shot 39% from the field in the playoffs last year and he was taking AB's minutes since AB was injured.
http://www.espn.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2990992/seasontype/3/marcus-smart
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
That's only if you ask an unbiased basketball fan who solely looks at stats. I've said it before Lar, you're largely a numbers guy. You love per 36 stats, you love Tiers, you love rankings. Which is fine. Numbers are certainly important. But impact on the game is also important.
Yes impact on a game is important. How impactful has Smart been in the playoffs against Cleveland? I mean neither player makes an impact imo. An impact player would be like oh say Thomas and Horford. We were losing before we traded for Thomas. But people like to forget that. Oh and we played the same D this year so far with him and without him.
And most of the people I work with, who went to college here but are from a different state don't think Smart is as great you guys make him out to be. He is clearly becoming overrated on this board. I mean you truly can't say Smart is better than Randle.
-
Still a chance randle ends up the next Zach Randolph while smart ends up the next Tony Allen. I still have smart a hair ahead of him, but that's me being a homer.
I'd be surprised at either being as good as the established players, but Smart would seem a better bet. As far as raw talent though, Tony was a freak until the injuries. Who knows how good he could have been. Not a fan of Randle's game so far. Pretty much the same flaws he came into the NBA with.
Actually, I still think Randle is very much on pace to be a 20/10 Randolph type. Remember that this is only his second season and last year he was coming off an injury.
So I'd say the time to revisit it would actually be at the end of this season. Smart might make a leap this year. If he doesn't, I think the idea that Smart has star potential all but vanishes. He regressed from season 1 to 2. If he doesn't make major improvements in year 3, he'll be seen as a long-term bench role player. Also, once we get a look at how Randle progresses in his second season, we'll have an idea of what he'll turn into.
Should be noted that both players look pretty good so far this season.
Randle's per-36: 17.9 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.1 blocks with 59% shooting, 16% from three and 64% fromt he line.
Smart's per-36: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 0.6 steals, 1.2 blocks, 41% shooting, 33% from three, 60% from the line.
It's only been two games for Smart, though. Let's see if he goes back to his historically bad shooting or is actually able to shoot over 40% this year.
Let's be honest here... if you ask an unbias basketball fan, Randle has already leapfrogged Smart.
That's only if you ask an unbiased basketball fan who solely looks at stats. I've said it before Lar, you're largely a numbers guy. You love per 36 stats, you love Tiers, you love rankings. Which is fine. Numbers are certainly important. But impact on the game is also important.
How do you determine the impact on the game?
Simple. Watch actual games. Players looking uncomfortable/comfortable doesnt show on stat sheet. Offense ran smoother everytime Smart is on the court and you can actually see players getting easier shots with him running the point. The ball doesn't stick to his hands, so again it doesn't show on stat sheet much often.
Things that you won't see on the individual stat sheet:
- screen sets
- forced turnovers
- plays made
- etc.
You can score many points with very efficient FG% and still ruin the offensive flow of plays. E.g. Carmelo
-
Also, I think Randle is better than Rozier today as well so please don't think this has anything to do with my feelings on Smart as I like him. Just don't see him as a starter in the future.
Neither is Randle. Like someone said, he is Carlos Boozer or Zach Randolph at best. He can't be your starting player on a championship team until he develop his defense and jump shots. He have more glaring holes in his game than Smart. Meanwhile, Smart only have shooting as his problem. Randle is neither a great defensive player nor the best player on his team.
Shooting is much easier to develop than defensive instincts. You can only get away with the lack of defensive abilities if you are the best player on your team with capable defensive team mates. Lakers have mediocre-average defenders.
Randle is neither the best player of his team nor a great defensive presence.
-
Also, I think Randle is better than Rozier today as well so please don't think this has anything to do with my feelings on Smart as I like him. Just don't see him as a starter in the future.
Neither is Randle. Like someone said, he is Carlos Boozer or Zach Randolph at best. He can't be your starting player on a championship team until he develop his defense and jump shots. He have more glaring holes in his game than Smart. Meanwhile, Smart only have shooting as his problem. Randle is neither a great defensive player nor the best player on his team.
Shooting is much easier to develop than defensive instincts. You can only get away with the lack of defensive abilities if you are the best player on your team with capable defensive team mates. Lakers have mediocre-average defenders.
Randle is neither the best player of his team nor a great defensive presence.
Quite the opposite. To be a good defender all you have to do is more your feet and put in the effect.
-
I was ecstatic when Randle dropped to the Celtics in the draft, only to flip a Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. when they took Smart instead, so it's pretty disheartening to see Randle improve on the Lakers while Smart has made only minimal strides. I still believe in Smart's potential, but man..what if.
Everyone keeps bringing up Randle's defense but I think a lot of it happens to because there are no defenders on his team. Z-Bo, a guy he's been compared to, didn't develop defense until he was put onto a team that knew defense (Memphis). Stevens has been able to get good team defense from a guy with god-awful individual defense in Olynyk, he could have turned Randle into a 2-way behemoth
-
Randle grew up a die hard Laker fan and wanted to be a Laker. That alone makes me prefer the Smart pick.
-
Randle grew up a die hard Laker fan and wanted to be a Laker. That alone makes me prefer the Smart pick.
And he reportedly didn't wanna work out for us a second time because he went to a GQ photo shoot instead.
-
Hind sight is 20-20.
Look forward, not backward.
-
The Celtics live and die on their tough 1-2-3 defense, and Smart is an important part of that. He's more valuable to them than Randle.
-
Just wondering....
Kind of surprised to see this post from you honestly.
I'm full of surprises.
:D
But really, the reason I bring this up is that Randle appears to be coming into his own now that his injury is well behind him and he has a real coach and a defined role on a roster that makes sense.
I like a lot of things about Smart. He's a fun player to have on the team. But I don't think he's ever going to be much more than he is. He's a defensive role player who is a bit of a liability on offense.
Randle looks like a versatile offensive forward with a lot of talent.
There's also Zach Lavine, who continues to look like a professional scorer in the making.
I'm starting to resign myself to Smart being a nice player but not really good enough to justify his draft position. It's looking like 2014 was solidly not a great draft for Danny Ainge. Which is surprising to me, because I really liked it at the time.
-
Just wondering....
Kind of surprised to see this post from you honestly.
I'm full of surprises.
:D
But really, the reason I bring this up is that Randle appears to be coming into his own now that his injury is well behind him and he has a real coach and a defined role on a roster that makes sense.
I like a lot of things about Smart. He's a fun player to have on the team. But I don't think he's ever going to be much more than he is. He's a defensive role player who is a bit of a liability on offense.
Randle looks like a versatile offensive forward with a lot of talent.
There's also Zach Lavine, who continues to look like a professional scorer in the making.
I'm starting to resign myself to Smart being a nice player but not really good enough to justify his draft position. It's looking like 2014 was solidly not a great draft for Danny Ainge. Which is surprising to me, because I really liked it at the time.
I've said this a Million Times. Stop bringing up Lavine, he was garbage in college, he was not going to be drafted at #6.
It was between Randle and Smart and that's it. I don't mind Crying about Randle that is who I wanted and I couldn't believe he slipped to 7.
Stop with the Smart will never live up to the #6 pick though because besides Randle there was simply no one else that was any better. The end.
-
I think most NBA fans would say Randle has leapfrogged Smart. So far, Randle has a made a more positive impact on this season. Lakers are 4-3 and he's been the stand-out. It is what it is.
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player. That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position. We took Jaylen Brown for similar reasons... taking Dunn would have caused a log jam at guard. Jaylen fits a position need. Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction. Jaylen/Dunn were seen as similar tier-3 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
-
I think most NBA fans would say Randle has leapfrogged Smart. So far, Randle has a made a more positive impact on this season. Lakers are 4-3 and he's been the stand-out. It is what it is.
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player. That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position. We took Jaylen Brown for similar reasons... taking Dunn would have caused a log jam at guard. Jaylen fits a position need. Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction. Jaylen/Dunn were seen as similar tier-3 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
Did he actually say that? I've never heard that sentiment from Danny, ever.
-
I think most NBA fans would say Randle has leapfrogged Smart. So far, Randle has a made a more positive impact on this season. Lakers are 4-3 and he's been the stand-out. It is what it is.
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player. That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position. We took Jaylen Brown for similar reasons... taking Dunn would have caused a log jam at guard. Jaylen fits a position need. Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction. Jaylen/Dunn were seen as similar tier-3 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
lol. The tiers!
-
I think most NBA fans would say Randle has leapfrogged Smart. So far, Randle has a made a more positive impact on this season. Lakers are 4-3 and he's been the stand-out. It is what it is.
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player. That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position. We took Jaylen Brown for similar reasons... taking Dunn would have caused a log jam at guard. Jaylen fits a position need. Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction. Jaylen/Dunn were seen as similar tier-3 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
Did he actually say that? I've never heard that sentiment from Danny, ever.
Yeah, I suspect this one is a real reach and Danny said nothing of the sort.
-
I think most NBA fans would say Randle has leapfrogged Smart. So far, Randle has a made a more positive impact on this season. Lakers are 4-3 and he's been the stand-out. It is what it is.
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player. That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position. We took Jaylen Brown for similar reasons... taking Dunn would have caused a log jam at guard. Jaylen fits a position need. Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction. Jaylen/Dunn were seen as similar tier-3 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
Did he actually say that? I've never heard that sentiment from Danny, ever.
it was in an article I read months ago. I'm too lazy to look it up. Essentially said that the team realized randle was more talented, but loved smarts toughness and thought he had the mentality of someone who would work extremely hard to improve. Boston was on the fence about drafting randle or smart. In the day leading up to the draft there were lots of reports about them still considering randle. Their belief in smart's work ethic along with the fact rondo was a goner pushed smart over the top. The team remained interested in randle though. They reportedly tried to trade rondo to the Lakers and wanted randle, but the Lakers refused to send out randle.
-
Talk to me when Randle manages to hit 0 career VORP and BPM.
-
I'm with you on the Smart/Randle thing
Even with Randle missing a whole season with injury he looks like a real player
We also need to revisit
The James young over Gary Harris thing
The Fab Melo over Draymond Green Thing
The Jr Giddens over DeAndre Jordan thing
-
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player.
Are you saying that Ainge said that Randle was more NBA-ready coming into the league but that Ainge thought that Smart would be the better player long-term because he had a better mentality? That makes sense. The way you phrased it, it sounds like Ainge purposely took the weaker player.
That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position.
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. With the sixth pick in a draft, you want to pick a player who'll start for a long time. By the 2014 draft, Sully and KO had demonstrated that they weren't long-term starting PF material.
Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
But if Randle is the better player now, then Ainge made the wrong choice.
It's pretty simple - if Randle has developed into the better player, then Ainge made the wrong choice in taking Smart over Randle. Not the end of the world. Smart wasn't a bad choice. It wasn't like he picked Noah Vonleh.
-
Well, then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Danny felt Randle was better but took Smart. There were reports that Randle ditched a second workout with us to go for a GQ photo shoot. I'm sure Danny didn't like that very much. Also, Smart has all the things that Danny loves: "heart, work ethic, grit, passion". All that good stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if Danny sacrificed a little bit of talent for that stuff. It's what he does, can't really do anything about it.
-
i think some people were saying we should revisit year 3 or year 5 or something back when both were drafted. I think it's also appropriate to start talking about the two.
Given the same situation again, I would still take Smart, because of his defense tenacity and the things that does not show up on the stat sheet. I like Randle as well but felt Smart is a piece every championship team needs. His offense does look a little bit improved this year, still hope he tones down the 3s and attack the basket more...loving his floaters as of late, I think that is a weapon he can use, like Rondo and Rose did.
Aside from stats, Smart's leadership is showing as well. I am sure this debate will continue as long as the two continues to play
-
I think most NBA fans would say Randle has leapfrogged Smart. So far, Randle has a made a more positive impact on this season. Lakers are 4-3 and he's been the stand-out. It is what it is.
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player. That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position. We took Jaylen Brown for similar reasons... taking Dunn would have caused a log jam at guard. Jaylen fits a position need. Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction. Jaylen/Dunn were seen as similar tier-3 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
Did he actually say that? I've never heard that sentiment from Danny, ever.
it was in an article I read months ago. I'm too lazy to look it up. Essentially said that the team realized randle was more talented, but loved smarts toughness and thought he had the mentality of someone who would work extremely hard to improve. Boston was on the fence about drafting randle or smart. In the day leading up to the draft there were lots of reports about them still considering randle. Their belief in smart's work ethic along with the fact rondo was a goner pushed smart over the top. The team remained interested in randle though. They reportedly tried to trade rondo to the Lakers and wanted randle, but the Lakers refused to send out randle.
That wasn't the C's that was me lol
-
Ainge supposedly thought hard about taking Randle and later even admitted that Randle was better than Smart. The reasons he took Smart was because Smart had a killer mentality that hopefully could be developed into a better player.
Are you saying that Ainge said that Randle was more NBA-ready coming into the league but that Ainge thought that Smart would be the better player long-term because he had a better mentality? That makes sense. The way you phrased it, it sounds like Ainge purposely took the weaker player.
That, and the team already had invested draft picks in Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk as their power forwards. The team needed a guard to take the mantle with Rondo likely leaving. It made some logical sense at the time. We picked for position.
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. With the sixth pick in a draft, you want to pick a player who'll start for a long time. By the 2014 draft, Sully and KO had demonstrated that they weren't long-term starting PF material.
Smart/Randle were seen a similar tier-2 level players so we went with the one that fit our roster construction.
But if Randle is the better player now, then Ainge made the wrong choice.
It's pretty simple - if Randle has developed into the better player, then Ainge made the wrong choice in taking Smart over Randle. Not the end of the world. Smart wasn't a bad choice. It wasn't like he picked Noah Vonleh.
adding a third young power forward when rondo had one foot out the door wouldn't have been the smartest move. It makes sense why we took Marcus.
-
In a league gone small, I think that perimeter defense will be a priority. Randle, at the time of the draft, was thought of as an interior scorer and rebounder, but was lacking on the defensive end. A skinnier Zach Randolph.
Smart was considered to be a premier defender and a bull who could get to the line. He hasn't proen the later, but his defensive chops have been evident.
I'm a huge Smart fan and I'll be the first to admit that I expect more from the 6th pick of the draft. That being said, both players are still very young and have the ability to improve in due time.
I think it is still too early to consider either to be a bust/stud.
-
The Lakers blog has a topic called:
So When Is It Time to Revisit the Ingram / Brown Thing?
;)
-
Projections from RealGM
clearly this is not just about who is better, but team needs and such...
Smart 4 years- 80 million, I hope Danny can get him to stary for less...
Randle 4 years - 70 million
6. Marcus Smart – Boston Celtics: In his third year, Smart is still primarily a backup, but he’s turned into somewhat of a “super sub” for Boston. He plays 1-3 on a regular basis, plays starter level minutes and continues to be one of the best defensive players in the league. The Celtics love everything he brings and he’s a big part of the scrappy, tough culture that Boston has built under Brad Stevens. His continued development as a point guard and improved shooting help a lot as well.
Extension Prediction: Four years/$80 million. The Celtics signed Avery Bradley to a deal that many considered an overpayment when he was a free agent and they similarly re-signed Jae Crowder as well in 2015. Smart is beloved by the coaching staff and front office and they’ll pay to keep him around, especially with some uncertainty around the guard position given Isaiah Thomas and Bradley’s impending free agency in 2018.
7. Julius Randle – Los Angeles Lakers: After missing almost his entire rookie year, Randle has shown promise over the last two seasons. Luke Walton has him playing as the Lakers’ light version of Draymond Green, as a playmaking power forward. The challenge is that while Randle does a lot of things well, he doesn’t excel in any one area. And the Lakers have to consider his fit with D’Angelo Russell, Brandon Ingram and what they hope will be another high pick in the 2017 NBA Draft.
Extension Prediction: No extension if the Lakers keep their pick in 2017. Four years/$70 million if LA loses the pick. This one is a little complicated. If Los Angeles loses their pick in 2017, they also lose their pick in 2019. That would leave the Lakers a little short on young talent. That alone could drive them to keep Randle. If they get to keep the pick and can add another young player, they can let him get to restricted free agency in the summer of 2018 and make a decision at that point. It also gives them another year of development for Ingram and Larry Nance Jr. as well.
-
I wouldn't want to pay that much for either player. 20 million a year for Smart just seems crazy to me at this point, especially since I don't think he would get that sort of contract in restricted free agency a year from now.
-
I know salary context is all out of whack with the cap exploding, but it'd still be shocking to me if Marcus Smart pulled in 20 million a year. And even though I like Smart I'd probably be pretty angry if it came from us.
-
I know salary context is all out of whack with the cap exploding, but it'd still be shocking to me if Marcus Smart pulled in 20 million a year. And even though I like Smart I'd probably be pretty angry if it came from us.
Yeah, I have a hard time looking at the numbers they are suggesting for a lot of those players.
At some point, the cap explosion catches up and teams will not throw out such big numbers for players that are not stars.
-
I know salary context is all out of whack with the cap exploding, but it'd still be shocking to me if Marcus Smart pulled in 20 million a year. And even though I like Smart I'd probably be pretty angry if it came from us.
Yeah, I have a hard time looking at the numbers they are suggesting for a lot of those players.
At some point, the cap explosion catches up and teams will not throw out such big numbers for players that are not stars.
20 million is basically 2/3 max, that is just too much for Smart unless he takes a giant leap forward next year (and then 20 million seems like the best he could do, not something you extend him for this summer).
-
I'm with you on the Smart/Randle thing
Even with Randle missing a whole season with injury he looks like a real player
We also need to revisit
The James young over Gary Harris thing
The Fab Melo over Draymond Green Thing
The Jr Giddens over DeAndre Jordan thing
1. Nuggets have done nothing and will continue to do nothing. Congrats on drafting Harris
2. Dubs got lucky with a 2nd rounder who flourishes on a two with two all-nba players. Lucky. If DA missed so bad, why wasn't he taken at 7 or 30 by Golden State?
3. Clippers have done nothing and will continue to do nothing. Congrats on drafting Jordan
-
I'm with you on the Smart/Randle thing
Even with Randle missing a whole season with injury he looks like a real player
We also need to revisit
The James young over Gary Harris thing
The Fab Melo over Draymond Green Thing
The Jr Giddens over DeAndre Jordan thing
1. Nuggets have done nothing and will continue to do nothing. Congrats on drafting Harris
2. Dubs got lucky with a 2nd rounder who flourishes on a two with two all-nba players. Lucky. If DA missed so bad, why wasn't he taken at 7 or 30 by Golden State?
3. Clippers have done nothing and will continue to do nothing. Congrats on drafting Jordan
So I guess Ainge gets no credit for the IT trade, since the Celtics have done less than nothing (IE at least the Clippers made the second round).
-
Hindsight is always 20-20.
This is a futile game of "see I'm right, and you're wrong"
We don't have Randall, we do have Smart.
-
The Lakers blog has a topic called:
So When Is It Time to Revisit the Ingram / Brown Thing?
;)
Can you link that? Thanks!
-
The Lakers blog has a topic called:
So When Is It Time to Revisit the Ingram / Brown Thing?
;)
Can you link that? Thanks!
I was joking
-
The Lakers blog has a topic called:
So When Is It Time to Revisit the Ingram / Brown Thing?
;)
Can you link that? Thanks!
I was joking
Ha! TP for you! I'm dense. Or else I really think Brown has a chance to be much better than Ingram.
-
I think the discussion is over and I don't really see how you could prefer Randle over Smart at this point. They're both about as good as each other (high-end role players with significant limitations), but Smart plays a role that is valuable in the modern NBA, whereas Randle doesn't.
-
Smart was the Smart pick,
Randle does not fit on any team but the Grizzlies.
-
both very flawed players, I pick Zach Lavine.
-
The Lakers blog has a topic called:
So When Is It Time to Revisit the Ingram / Brown Thing?
;)
Can you link that? Thanks!
I was joking
Ha! TP for you! I'm dense. Or else I really think Brown has a chance to be much better than Ingram.
I think it is 50 50 which one ends up better at this point
-
To me the real bad draft by Danny was Giddens.
Fab Melo was a long, big guy who can block shots. Plus he had 2 picks so he took a risk with the second after getting a steal at the first. Didn't work out but you could see why he was drafted. I think it was Melo or Ezeli, and Melo had more potential while Ezeli had better floor. Didn't work out but good try.
James Young was projected to be a big guard who can shoot and was young. Upside is the key. Nurkic went to the previous slot and Harris had more physical limitation than Young. Again another shoot for the fences that didn't work out.
Kelly Olynyk was considered a safe pick, while Giannis was a shoot for the stars kind. This time Ainge choose the safer option, but was on the wrong side of it. Olynyk still outplayed his draft slot though.
Giddens meanwhile was a huge question mark. He was from a smaller program, had question marks on his attitude, who wasn't polished and relied on his athleticism. These kind of guys you pick for the upside, but there was the problem that Giddens was an older rookie.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
I have Olynyk at around 10-12. Bigs are more of a commodity than dime a dozen guards. And yes its Moranis, so his opinion doesnt count.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
I had to look at this again. It seems like a no brainer he passed Bennett, Len, Mclemore, MCW and probably Trey Burke.
I think most would prefer him over Zeller. So that is 6 out of the 13 people in front of him.
What 6 people clearly pass him?
1) Greek Freak
2) Schroder (probably)
3) Mason Plumlee (not a 100% would depend on team need probably)
4) Gobert
Then there are a few maybe depending on team need (Hardaway Jr., Dieng)
Maybe goes a smidge higher, but not a crazy amount.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
They are in order by original draft pick selection.
Almost every team would select ahead of Olynyk (11 players)
Oladipo
Porter
Noel
Caldwell-Pope
McCollum
Adams
Antetokounmpo
Schroder
Dieng
Plumlee
Gobert
Some teams might select ahead of Olynyk (10 players)
Zeller
Len
McLemore
Muhammad
Roberson
Crabbe
Covington
Curry
Dedmon
Dellavedova
Then you have these guys who while wouldn't go ahead of Olynyk right now, but have either outplayed him at various times (MCW) or are trending in a more positive direction than KO is (the other 3)
Carter-Williams
Snell
Hill
Hardaway
Some of those guys you could argue belong in a different category, but 15 seems about right. Olynyk is a very good outside shooter, but he does almost nothing else well and even his shooting is much worse than last year. His first three years, he never played more than 70 games (though is on pace for better than that this year), so he isn't exactly a picture of health. Additionally, per minute he is scoring less than any other season this year, though he is rebounding a bit better (but still terrible for a 7 footer). KO is best suited as the 2nd big off the bench/need a shooter role and doesn't have much to offer other than shooting. That shooting pedigree will give him a nice long NBA career, but he isn't anything more than a role player and will never be more than that. He is also basically the same player now as he was a rookie, which isn't all that surprising since he was an older rookie.
EDIT: I forgot that Curry and Dedmon were undrafted in this draft and added them. Also, slightly adjusted a tier.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
I had to look at this again. It seems like a no brainer he passed Bennett, Len, Mclemore, MCW and probably Trey Burke.
I think most would prefer him over Zeller. So that is 6 out of the 13 people in front of him.
What 6 people clearly pass him?
1) Greek Freak
2) Schroder (probably)
3) Mason Plumlee (not a 100% would depend on team need probably)
4) Gobert
Then there are a few maybe depending on team need (Hardaway Jr., Dieng)
Maybe goes a smidge higher, but not a crazy amount.
I put Oladipo, Porter, McCollum, Adams, Giannis, and Gobert as definitely ahead of him (so that's 6 so far). There are strong arguments to be made for Noel, Schroder, and Plumlee, so that's another 3. But that still leaves another 5 players to put Kelly at 15, and I don't see where they would come from (and, for the record, I don't think I'd put Plumlee ahead of Kelly, but it seems like Denver probably would). I guess you could argue Dieng (although I would disagree) or Crabbe (ditto) or KCP, but that still leaves 2 slots to fill, and at that point your best arguments are people like Covington, Isaiah Canaan, or Seth Curry, none of which I would put in even the same tier as Kelly (although Curry has played very well of late)
So I guess you can make the argument if you heavily underrate Kelly and overrate guys with minor roles on lottery teams
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
They are in order by original draft pick selection.
Almost every team would select ahead of Olynyk (12 players)
Oladipo
Porter
Noel
Caldwell-Pope
McCollum
Adams
Antetokounmpo
Schroder
Dieng
Plumlee
Gobert
Covington
Some teams might select ahead of Olynyk (7 players)
Zeller
Len
McLemore
Muhammad
Roberson
Crabbe
Dellavedova
Then you have these guys who while wouldn't go ahead of Olynyk right now, but have either outplayed him at various times (MCW) or are trending in a more positive direction than KO is (the other 3)
Carter-Williams
Snell
Hill
Hardaway
Some of those guys you could argue belong in a different category, but 15 seems about right. Olynyk is a very good outside shooter, but he does almost nothing else well and even his shooting is much worse than last year. His first three years, he never played more than 70 games (though is on pace for better than that this year), so he isn't exactly a picture of health. Additionally, per minute he is scoring less than any other season this year, though he is rebounding a bit better (but still terrible for a 7 footer). KO is best suited as the 2nd big off the bench/need a shooter role and doesn't have much to offer other than shooting. That shooting pedigree will give him a nice long NBA career, but he isn't anything more than a role player and will never be more than that. He is also basically the same player now as he was a rookie, which isn't all that surprising since he was an older rookie.
I feel like you are really underrating KO here. Why can he not be the first big off the bench? He shoots 50% from the field, 36% from the field and averages 9 and 5 in just and 2 assists in only 21 minutes. If you put him on some of these other teams and pumped his minutes up a bit they would look even better.
Some of the names you have on this list are pretty debatable. For example, Dieng averages 10 and 7 but he is also given 30 minutes a game in Minnesota's endless rebuild. Why would you say he is clearly better than KO? Also why is Plumlee clearly better? I think he has put up some nice numbers at times but he is already on his 3rd team and he may end up just being a first bench off the big like KO.
As far as your list of players that maybe would go in front of him. Some of these are downright comical. Mclemore? The Kings are letting him walk and he is considered a fringe NBA player. He was routinely racking up DNP CD on a horrible Sacramento team for a lot of the season and his numbers have declined the last 3 years. He does nothing besides shoot, and he hasn't been lights out at that even 41% overall and 35% from 3. The idea that any team would take him in the first round at all at this point is debatable.
Then you got Len? A guy that was also racking up DNPCD for the Suns this year and is now losing minutes to Alan Williams?
I can't really think many teams or anyone would prefer Snell or Delladova. Delladova parlayed a nice couple of games in the playoffs but seems like at best a backup point guard (he lost the starting job to a pretty meh rookie already). Muhammad has had the chance to prove he is a legit rotation player with Lavine, but has not lived up to the task.
I am not even as high on Kelly as some others, but think on a lot of these worse teams he would get a few more minutes and his stats would look a lot better. Some of the guys being compared to him (mclemore and Len) have not even proven they will stay in the league.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
-
I feel like you are really underrating KO here. Why can he not be the first big off the bench? He shoots 50% from the field, 36% from the field and averages 9 and 5 in just and 2 assists in only 21 minutes. If you put him on some of these other teams and pumped his minutes up a bit they would look even better.
The thing is, Olynyk has plenty of opportunity for increased minutes and has his entire career, yet he doesn't get them. There is an obvious reason for that, in that Olynyk is who he is, which is a quality bench player and nothing more. He is basically the same player now as he was as a rookie. You know exactly what he is going to give you night in and night out, but he isn't going to give you more than that.
Some of the names you have on this list are pretty debatable. For example, Dieng averages 10 and 7 but he is also given 30 minutes a game in Minnesota's endless rebuild. Why would you say he is clearly better than KO? Also why is Plumlee clearly better? I think he has put up some nice numbers at times but he is already on his 3rd team and he may end up just being a first bench off the big like KO.
Dieng has shown a more varied overall game, is a better defender and rebounder, etc. He isn't much better than Olynyk, I just think he provides a bit more overall than Olynyk. Plumlee is a much better overall player than Olynyk. Significantly better rebounder and passer. Not an outside shooter at all, but Plumlee is pretty clearly a better overall player.
As far as your list of players that maybe would go in front of him. Some of these are downright comical. Mclemore? The Kings are letting him walk and he is considered a fringe NBA player. He was routinely racking up DNP CD on a horrible Sacramento team for a lot of the season and his numbers have declined the last 3 years. He does nothing besides shoot, and he hasn't been lights out at that even 41% overall and 35% from 3. The idea that any team would take him in the first round at all at this point is debatable.
McLemore is an odd case, I think most teams would select Olynyk, but there is something about McLemore that is appealing (he just scored 14 points in Sacto's last game and over his last 16 games is averaging over 11 a games (he has started 11 of those 16 games as well), and on the season he is shooting nearly 40% from three in just under 3 shots a game). I have no idea what is going on in Sacto, that team is a trainwreck.
Then you got Len? A guy that was also racking up DNPCD for the Suns this year and is now losing minutes to Alan Williams?
Len has started the last 8 games for the Suns. His per 36 this year are 13.7/11.6. He is two full years younger than Olynyk and has shown a natural progression. Again, depending on team need, a team could absolutely decide to take the interior player over the spot up shooter.
I can't really think many teams or anyone would prefer Snell or Delladova. Delladova parlayed a nice couple of games in the playoffs but seems like at best a backup point guard (he lost the starting job to a pretty meh rookie already). Muhammad has had the chance to prove he is a legit rotation player with Lavine, but has not lived up to the task.
Dellavedova in March has played just under 27 mpg is averaging 11.6/3.8/1.6 and shooting 50% from three on 3.5 attempts a game. He has started 49 games including the last 3. He is a better career shooter than Olynyk and is a better defender. Not hard to see a team taking the player that does the one thing Olynyk does well better than Olynyk. Snell was in the bottom category i.e. a guy that is trending in the positive direction, not a guy that would go ahead of Olynyk now. Not sure why you even mentioned him. Muhammad is similar to McLemore. Does some thing really well and shows these flashes of greatness, and other times looks totally lost.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
KO is 10th by win Shares, 11th by WS48, 8th by BPM and 9th by VORP. Yes they're metrics, but they all tell pretty much the same story. Slotting KO in the 10-15 range seems about right. A straight "par" by Danny on that one, I think, and in a draft where reading talent was far more difficult than usual.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2013.html
-
Mclemore
and Zeller? are you kidding?
Edit: thought you were talking about our Zeller
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
KO is 10th by win Shares, 11th by WS48, 8th by BPM and 9th by VORP. Yes they're metrics, but they all tell pretty much the same story. Slotting KO in the 10-15 range seems about right. A straight "par" by Danny on that one, I think, and in a draft where reading talent was far more difficult than usual.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2013.html
I hate using win shares because they are based on a team's actual wins and thus it is very difficult to compare players on vastly different team situations.
-
I feel like you are really underrating KO here. Why can he not be the first big off the bench? He shoots 50% from the field, 36% from the field and averages 9 and 5 in just and 2 assists in only 21 minutes. If you put him on some of these other teams and pumped his minutes up a bit they would look even better.
The thing is, Olynyk has plenty of opportunity for increased minutes and has his entire career, yet he doesn't get them. There is an obvious reason for that, in that Olynyk is who he is, which is a quality bench player and nothing more. He is basically the same player now as he was as a rookie. You know exactly what he is going to give you night in and night out, but he isn't going to give you more than that.
Some of the names you have on this list are pretty debatable. For example, Dieng averages 10 and 7 but he is also given 30 minutes a game in Minnesota's endless rebuild. Why would you say he is clearly better than KO? Also why is Plumlee clearly better? I think he has put up some nice numbers at times but he is already on his 3rd team and he may end up just being a first bench off the big like KO.
Dieng has shown a more varied overall game, is a better defender and rebounder, etc. He isn't much better than Olynyk, I just think he provides a bit more overall than Olynyk. Plumlee is a much better overall player than Olynyk. Significantly better rebounder and passer. Not an outside shooter at all, but Plumlee is pretty clearly a better overall player.
As far as your list of players that maybe would go in front of him. Some of these are downright comical. Mclemore? The Kings are letting him walk and he is considered a fringe NBA player. He was routinely racking up DNP CD on a horrible Sacramento team for a lot of the season and his numbers have declined the last 3 years. He does nothing besides shoot, and he hasn't been lights out at that even 41% overall and 35% from 3. The idea that any team would take him in the first round at all at this point is debatable.
McLemore is an odd case, I think most teams would select Olynyk, but there is something about McLemore that is appealing (he just scored 14 points in Sacto's last game and over his last 16 games is averaging over 11 a games (he has started 11 of those 16 games as well), and on the season he is shooting nearly 40% from three in just under 3 shots a game). I have no idea what is going on in Sacto, that team is a trainwreck.
Then you got Len? A guy that was also racking up DNPCD for the Suns this year and is now losing minutes to Alan Williams?
Len has started the last 8 games for the Suns. His per 36 this year are 13.7/11.6. He is two full years younger than Olynyk and has shown a natural progression. Again, depending on team need, a team could absolutely decide to take the interior player over the spot up shooter.
I can't really think many teams or anyone would prefer Snell or Delladova. Delladova parlayed a nice couple of games in the playoffs but seems like at best a backup point guard (he lost the starting job to a pretty meh rookie already). Muhammad has had the chance to prove he is a legit rotation player with Lavine, but has not lived up to the task.
Dellavedova in March has played just under 27 mpg is averaging 11.6/3.8/1.6 and shooting 50% from three on 3.5 attempts a game. He has started 49 games including the last 3. He is a better career shooter than Olynyk and is a better defender. Not hard to see a team taking the player that does the one thing Olynyk does well better than Olynyk. Snell was in the bottom category i.e. a guy that is trending in the positive direction, not a guy that would go ahead of Olynyk now. Not sure why you even mentioned him. Muhammad is similar to McLemore. Does some thing really well and shows these flashes of greatness, and other times looks totally lost.
Why use per 36 numbers for Len. He has never been able to stay on the court for 30 minutes a game his entire career. His averaging 3 fouls in 19 minutes is part of that. I feel like you are not understanding a pretty basic premise of tanking when you are start pointing out the stats and minutes for Mclemore and Len. They are playing more minutes because they are bad players and their teams are actively trying to lose games to improve their draft pick.... this is the opposite of what we do with KO. Just bizarre to lump these two guys for a comparison to KO and seems to suggest a lack of basic understanding of the NBA and player values.
-
KO has never played more than 22.2 mpg and is at just 21.1 right now (he is also at 2.7 fouls in those 21.1 minutes, so only slightly less foul prone than Len). His career average is 20.9. Len's career average is 19.6 and his career high is 23.6. In other words, both Len and Olynyk have played pretty similar minutes in their careers.
This year Len's stats are 7.5/6.4 with 1.2 blocks, while Olynyk is at 8.9/4.8 with 2.0 assists (I used points and rebounds and then the next best stat for each). Len plays in 1.4 less minutes per game (so not much difference). Len is slightly better from the line, but Olynyk is significantly better from the field. So you have one guy that is the better rebounder and defender and one guy that is the better offensive player (who is also 2 years older). Depending on team need it is very easy to see a team wanting Len over Olynyk and vice versa.
-
KO has never played more than 22.2 mpg and is at just 21.1 right now (he is also at 2.7 fouls in those 21.1 minutes, so only slightly less foul prone than Len). His career average is 20.9. Len's career average is 19.6 and his career high is 23.6. In other words, both Len and Olynyk have played pretty similar minutes in their careers.
This year Len's stats are 7.5/6.4 with 1.2 blocks, while Olynyk is at 8.9/4.8 with 2.0 assists (I used points and rebounds and then the next best stat for each). Len plays in 1.4 less minutes per game (so not much difference). Len is slightly better from the line, but Olynyk is significantly better from the field. So you have one guy that is the better rebounder and defender and one guy that is the better offensive player (who is also 2 years older). Depending on team need it is very easy to see a team wanting Len over Olynyk and vice versa.
I guess I would argue if you have two players putting up similar stats and one is doing so for a 50 win team and one is doing it for a 24 win team that is a pretty significant difference. You also have to realize that the Suns really have not seemed to express a lot of confidence in Len bringing in Chandler over him and now still not giving him major minutes during their youth movement.
Also what is your basis that Len is a better defender? Have you watched Len play very much? He really looks like a stiff on the times I have seen him this season and last. Kind of painfully slow and very plodding on offense. I think KO, as most have mentioned, would go about 12-15th in a redraft where Len may be an end of first round flyer. They are just not comparable assets/players at this point and Len has been given numerous opportunities to succeed.
-
KO has never played more than 22.2 mpg and is at just 21.1 right now (he is also at 2.7 fouls in those 21.1 minutes, so only slightly less foul prone than Len). His career average is 20.9. Len's career average is 19.6 and his career high is 23.6. In other words, both Len and Olynyk have played pretty similar minutes in their careers.
This year Len's stats are 7.5/6.4 with 1.2 blocks, while Olynyk is at 8.9/4.8 with 2.0 assists (I used points and rebounds and then the next best stat for each). Len plays in 1.4 less minutes per game (so not much difference). Len is slightly better from the line, but Olynyk is significantly better from the field. So you have one guy that is the better rebounder and defender and one guy that is the better offensive player (who is also 2 years older). Depending on team need it is very easy to see a team wanting Len over Olynyk and vice versa.
I guess I would argue if you have two players putting up similar stats and one is doing so for a 50 win team and one is doing it for a 24 win team that is a pretty significant difference. You also have to realize that the Suns really have not seemed to express a lot of confidence in Len bringing in Chandler over him and now still not giving him major minutes during their youth movement.
Also what is your basis that Len is a better defender? Have you watched Len play very much? He really looks like a stiff on the times I have seen him this season and last. Kind of painfully slow and very plodding on offense. I think KO, as most have mentioned, would go about 12-15th in a redraft where Len may be an end of first round flyer. They are just not comparable assets/players at this point and Len has been given numerous opportunities to succeed.
so has KO and KO is basically the same player he was as a rookie. Len produces as well as Olynyk does in similar minutes. They are very similar players. Yes Boston has a better record than Phoenix, but it isn't because of Olynyk. I mean Olynyk has less starts than Jerekbo this year. KO just hasn't stepped up because he can't. That is why he still lets Jerekbo, Zeller, and even occasionally Mickey take minutes from him. At this point, Olynyk is what he is always going to be, which is a 2nd big off the bench type player. There is a role for that and he is an excellent shooter so he will be in the league a long time because of that, but that is what he is. That is also basically Len (minus the shooting). Len seems likely to be nothing more than a quality big on the bench type player. A guy who will bang on the boards, block some shots, and who generally won't hurt the team. Depending on team need, I could easily see Len go ahead of Olynyk in a redraft (especially with age factored in), though I do think most teams would prefer the shooter.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
KO is 10th by win Shares, 11th by WS48, 8th by BPM and 9th by VORP. Yes they're metrics, but they all tell pretty much the same story. Slotting KO in the 10-15 range seems about right. A straight "par" by Danny on that one, I think, and in a draft where reading talent was far more difficult than usual.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2013.html
I hate using win shares because they are based on a team's actual wins and thus it is very difficult to compare players on vastly different team situations.
Which is why he gave you a number of different stats to look at.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
Even if you can find 14 or 10, it is a meaningless argument. The question is: has Kelly performed about as expected for someone in his position, and the answer is unequivocally yes.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
You don't grade on players you miss, you grade on the player drafted. Kelly is no lower than a B as he has performed exactly as you would expect a mid-first rounder to perform. He is starter-level talent and 6th - 7th guy on a good team.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
Even if you can find 14 or 10, it is a meaningless argument. The question is: has Kelly performed about as expected for someone in his position, and the answer is unequivocally yes.
I'd absolutely agree with that (and I've never said otherwise), he went 13 so as long as he performed in the 11-15 range, then it is an average selection or about what you would expect to get.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
You don't grade on players you miss, you grade on the player drafted. Kelly is no lower than a B as he has performed exactly as you would expect a mid-first rounder to perform. He is starter-level talent and 6th - 7th guy on a good team.
No you grade players on the actual draft they are drafted in. If you draft a guy 10th, but in a redraft he would go 5th that is a good selection, even if in some other draft he would go 25th.
And KO is not the 6th or 7th player on a good team. He isn't even that on the Celtics and the Celtics aren't a legit contender.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
You don't grade on players you miss, you grade on the player drafted. Kelly is no lower than a B as he has performed exactly as you would expect a mid-first rounder to perform. He is starter-level talent and 6th - 7th guy on a good team.
No you grade players on the actual draft they are drafted in. If you draft a guy 10th, but in a redraft he would go 5th that is a good selection, even if in some other draft he would go 25th.
And KO is not the 6th or 7th player on a good team. He isn't even that on the Celtics and the Celtics aren't a legit contender.
Who do you think is our 7th player? He is actually 6th in minutes per game. It seems like you think he is behind Jerekbro and Mickey or something weird. He is clearly our first big off the bench.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
Even if you can find 14 or 10, it is a meaningless argument. The question is: has Kelly performed about as expected for someone in his position, and the answer is unequivocally yes.
I'd absolutely agree with that (and I've never said otherwise), he went 13 so as long as he performed in the 11-15 range, then it is an average selection or about what you would expect to get.
I tend to put a more of a positive spin on getting what you expect out of any draft pick. Kelly to me is an above-average pick (why my grade would be B, and no lower) simply because he is performing at worst like a low-end lottery pick, so it is safe to say that was a "good" selection by Ainger. In that range of the draft, there is at least a 1 in 4 chance of getting a bust. As I said above, Kelly is a 6th-7th guy off the bench on a very good team and would easily start on half of the teams in the league.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
You don't grade on players you miss, you grade on the player drafted. Kelly is no lower than a B as he has performed exactly as you would expect a mid-first rounder to perform. He is starter-level talent and 6th - 7th guy on a good team.
No you grade players on the actual draft they are drafted in. If you draft a guy 10th, but in a redraft he would go 5th that is a good selection, even if in some other draft he would go 25th.
And KO is not the 6th or 7th player on a good team. He isn't even that on the Celtics and the Celtics aren't a legit contender.
Who do you think is our 7th player? He is actually 6th in minutes per game. It seems like you think he is behind Jerekbro and Mickey or something weird. He is clearly our first big off the bench.
I'd put him behind the 5 starters, Smart and Brown (though I would listen to arguments on Brown since he is just a rookie), which would make him 8th. I would expect that if he is on the Celtics next year, he will be more like the 9th or 10th best player.
-
I don't think KO outplayed his draft slot at all. I think he goes around 15 in a re-draft, a couple of slots behind where he actually went. He would go ahead of plenty of players taken in front of him, but there are a lot of guys that went after him that would go ahead of him in a redraft (including someone like Covington that wasn't even drafted).
Would you mind posting the 14 or so players you have ahead of him from the 2013 draft? I can see like 7 that definitely go ahead of him, but I don't even see enough guys that have an argument for going ahead of Kelly in a redraft to put him at 15
Even if you can find 14 or 10, it is a meaningless argument. The question is: has Kelly performed about as expected for someone in his position, and the answer is unequivocally yes.
I'd absolutely agree with that (and I've never said otherwise), he went 13 so as long as he performed in the 11-15 range, then it is an average selection or about what you would expect to get.
I tend to put a more of a positive spin on getting what you expect out of any draft pick. Kelly to me is an above-average pick (why my grade would be B, and no lower) simply because he is performing at worst like a low-end lottery pick, so it is safe to say that was a "good" selection by Ainger. In that range of the draft, there is at least a 1 in 4 chance of getting a bust. As I said above, Kelly is a 6th-7th guy off the bench on a very good team and would easily start on half of the teams in the league.
The problem with doing it that way is Kenyon Martin. He was pretty convincingly the best player in his draft (Redd and Crawford are really his main competition), but as #1 picks go he doesn't measure up with most. Of course the Nets made the right call in selecting him. Kenyon Martin is also the reason that tanking makes some degree of sense, since you not only have to win the lottery, you have to do so in the right draft.
And Olynyk can't even start over Amir Johnson and Jerekbo has more starts than Olynyk does this year. You are greatly overrating KO. Heck when Horford was out a few games ago it was Jerekbo that got the start not Olynyk.
-
And Olynyk can't even start over Amir Johnson and Jerekbo has more starts than Olynyk does this year. You are greatly overrating KO. Heck when Horford was out a few games ago it was Jerekbo that got the start not Olynyk.
I think that has a lot to do with how Brad likes to keep roster continuity. Like when he started Mickey in place of Amir in January. Mickey is obviously not as good as Olynyk, but it kept Olynyk in his same role. Same with Jerebko's starts. If Brad actually thought Jerebko was better, why would be play Olynyk 5 more minutes a game?
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
You don't grade on players you miss, you grade on the player drafted. Kelly is no lower than a B as he has performed exactly as you would expect a mid-first rounder to perform. He is starter-level talent and 6th - 7th guy on a good team.
No you grade players on the actual draft they are drafted in. If you draft a guy 10th, but in a redraft he would go 5th that is a good selection, even if in some other draft he would go 25th.
And KO is not the 6th or 7th player on a good team. He isn't even that on the Celtics and the Celtics aren't a legit contender.
Who do you think is our 7th player? He is actually 6th in minutes per game. It seems like you think he is behind Jerekbro and Mickey or something weird. He is clearly our first big off the bench.
I'd put him behind the 5 starters, Smart and Brown (though I would listen to arguments on Brown since he is just a rookie), which would make him 8th. I would expect that if he is on the Celtics next year, he will be more like the 9th or 10th best player.
I think most fans would put him ahead of Amir. Both are inconsistent, but KO is better when he is on. Saying Brown is already better than him this year is insane. You really hate the guy!
-
And Olynyk can't even start over Amir Johnson and Jerekbo has more starts than Olynyk does this year. You are greatly overrating KO. Heck when Horford was out a few games ago it was Jerekbo that got the start not Olynyk.
I think that has a lot to do with how Brad likes to keep roster continuity. Like when he started Mickey in place of Amir in January. Mickey is obviously not as good as Olynyk, but it kept Olynyk in his same role. Same with Jerebko's starts. If Brad actually thought Jerebko was better, why would be play Olynyk 5 more minutes a game?
Yea this 1000X. These are some strange arguments here.
-
And Olynyk can't even start over Amir Johnson and Jerekbo has more starts than Olynyk does this year. You are greatly overrating KO. Heck when Horford was out a few games ago it was Jerekbo that got the start not Olynyk.
I think that has a lot to do with how Brad likes to keep roster continuity. Like when he started Mickey in place of Amir in January. Mickey is obviously not as good as Olynyk, but it kept Olynyk in his same role. Same with Jerebko's starts. If Brad actually thought Jerebko was better, why would be play Olynyk 5 more minutes a game?
Yea this 1000X. These are some strange arguments here.
What's strange about acknowledging that not even the sorcerous Brad Stevens can hide Olynyk in a starting lineup?
Also, why all the love for Olynyk and none for Amir Johnson? Amir is a better defensive player than Olynyk and has a higher PER (although he does score 2 less points a game) while playing similar minutes.
-
Here is hoopshype's redraft from March 7 of this year.
http://hoopshype.com/2017/03/07/2013-nba-re-draft-the-way-it-should-have-been/#slideIdslide-13
Olynyk is 14th.
Not a bad list. I'd have Oladipo much lower and Noguira much higher. Danny gets a B- in hindsight. Lots of GM's missed a lot of good players in this draft.
You don't grade on players you miss, you grade on the player drafted. Kelly is no lower than a B as he has performed exactly as you would expect a mid-first rounder to perform. He is starter-level talent and 6th - 7th guy on a good team.
No you grade players on the actual draft they are drafted in. If you draft a guy 10th, but in a redraft he would go 5th that is a good selection, even if in some other draft he would go 25th.
And KO is not the 6th or 7th player on a good team. He isn't even that on the Celtics and the Celtics aren't a legit contender.
Who do you think is our 7th player? He is actually 6th in minutes per game. It seems like you think he is behind Jerekbro and Mickey or something weird. He is clearly our first big off the bench.
I'd put him behind the 5 starters, Smart and Brown (though I would listen to arguments on Brown since he is just a rookie), which would make him 8th. I would expect that if he is on the Celtics next year, he will be more like the 9th or 10th best player.
I think most fans would put him ahead of Amir. Both are inconsistent, but KO is better when he is on. Saying Brown is already better than him this year is insane. You really hate the guy!
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
-
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
Olynyk is better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer/has better court vision, better rebounder on the defensive side, and I think he's just as good of a defender. Olynyk is always in the right spot, plays hard and Amir isn't any more athletic.
We might disagree on the defense, but aside from that, what is it that Amir does better than Olynyk?
-
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
Olynyk is better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer/has better court vision, better rebounder on the defensive side, and I think he's just as good of a defender. Olynyk is always in the right spot, plays hard and Amir isn't any more athletic.
We might disagree on the defense, but aside from that, what is it that Amir does better than Olynyk?
Amir is consistent which is apparently an underrated quality, he is a better shot blocker, better at holding his position, better at contesting without fouling. Better at screening, better at finishing around the rim, better at being aggressive.
KO is a good shooter and good passer, he can do more than Amir off the dribble but i think the opportunities coming out of that are limited. He has good positional defense but is often caught out.
Oh and Amir boxes out more often. Amir is definitely more athletic than KO..
The biggest difference is consistency. If KO performed consistently then he'd be Jokic, but he doesn't and that's why he's not as important to this team as Amir
-
Let's revisit it when LA wins 30 games
-
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
Olynyk is better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer/has better court vision, better rebounder on the defensive side, and I think he's just as good of a defender. Olynyk is always in the right spot, plays hard and Amir isn't any more athletic.
We might disagree on the defense, but aside from that, what is it that Amir does better than Olynyk?
Amir is consistent which is apparently an underrated quality, he is a better shot blocker, better at holding his position, better at contesting without fouling. Better at screening, better at finishing around the rim, better at being aggressive.
KO is a good shooter and good passer, he can do more than Amir off the dribble but i think the opportunities coming out of that are limited. He has good positional defense but is often caught out.
Oh and Amir boxes out more often. Amir is definitely more athletic than KO..
The biggest difference is consistency. If KO performed consistently then he'd be Jokic, but he doesn't and that's why he's not as important to this team as Amir
More consistent? Absolutely and you're right that that is important. Has to be taken into account any time and especially when talking about Olynyk who is wildly inconsistent.
And yes, Amir is a better shot blocker. The rest, I'm not sure I agree with. Amir is not more athletic than Olynyk, no way. Contesting without fouling? Their fouling is pretty much identical (Amir averages 0.2 more fouls per 36 min). Holding position? I don't know how you'd measure that but I don't think Amir is any better in this area than Olynyk, either.
-
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
Olynyk is better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer/has better court vision, better rebounder on the defensive side, and I think he's just as good of a defender. Olynyk is always in the right spot, plays hard and Amir isn't any more athletic.
We might disagree on the defense, but aside from that, what is it that Amir does better than Olynyk?
Amir is consistent which is apparently an underrated quality, he is a better shot blocker, better at holding his position, better at contesting without fouling. Better at screening, better at finishing around the rim, better at being aggressive.
KO is a good shooter and good passer, he can do more than Amir off the dribble but i think the opportunities coming out of that are limited. He has good positional defense but is often caught out.
Oh and Amir boxes out more often. Amir is definitely more athletic than KO..
The biggest difference is consistency. If KO performed consistently then he'd be Jokic, but he doesn't and that's why he's not as important to this team as Amir
More consistent? Absolutely and you're right that that is important. Has to be taken into account any time and especially when talking about Olynyk who is wildly inconsistent.
And yes, Amir is a better shot blocker. The rest, I'm not sure I agree with. Amir is not more athletic than Olynyk, no way. Contesting without fouling? Their fouling is pretty much identical (Amir averages 0.2 more fouls per 36 min). Holding position? I don't know how you'd measure that but I don't think Amir is any better in this area than Olynyk, either.
Pretty much every single advanced metric says Johnson is better than Olynyk. He has a higher PER, higher VORP, higher BPM, higher win shares (both offensively and defensively and they've played nearly identical minutes on the same team, so you can actually use WS in that situation), etc. Amir is a better rebounder, he is a significantly better shot blocker, he turns the ball over less, he has a higher TS%, etc. Olynyk is a much better 3 point shooter (though Johnson is actually shooting 40% this year which is better than Olynyk) and is the better passer, but that is about it. Johnson is the better all around player and it isn't all that close.
-
Pretty much every single advanced metric says Johnson is better than Olynyk. He has a higher PER, higher VORP, higher BPM, higher win shares (both offensively and defensively and they've played nearly identical minutes on the same team, so you can actually use WS in that situation), etc. Amir is a better rebounder, he is a significantly better shot blocker, he turns the ball over less, he has a higher TS%, etc. Olynyk is a much better 3 point shooter (though Johnson is actually shooting 40% this year which is better than Olynyk) and is the better passer, but that is about it. Johnson is the better all around player and it isn't all that close.
Amir plays with the starters, AKA the team's best players. So all of the advanced metrics that are derived from lineups (like Win Shares) are going to be skewed. If you switch their place in the rotation, Olynyk would be the one with higher numbers in those areas.
PER? Johnson's PER is 0.3 points higher. Mostly because he's more efficient. Higher FG%, lower TO's. But the reason for this is because he can't be trusted to handle the ball. Amir gets his points almost exclusively on put-backs, dump-offs, and wide open 3's. Olynyk is a far superior offensive player both as scorer and passer. If there is an area in which they are not close, it is on offense where Olynyk is miles ahead of Amir.
Defensively, as I said, we can disagree but aside from being a better shot blocker I just don't see Amir as being better than Olynyk.
-
Let's revisit it when LA wins 30 games
I would take Smart over Randle but take away the likes of Thomas, Horford, maybe Bradley and essentially you get what Randle is dealing with on the Lakers.
-
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
Olynyk is better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer/has better court vision, better rebounder on the defensive side, and I think he's just as good of a defender. Olynyk is always in the right spot, plays hard and Amir isn't any more athletic.
We might disagree on the defense, but aside from that, what is it that Amir does better than Olynyk?
Amir is consistent which is apparently an underrated quality, he is a better shot blocker, better at holding his position, better at contesting without fouling. Better at screening, better at finishing around the rim, better at being aggressive.
KO is a good shooter and good passer, he can do more than Amir off the dribble but i think the opportunities coming out of that are limited. He has good positional defense but is often caught out.
Oh and Amir boxes out more often. Amir is definitely more athletic than KO..
The biggest difference is consistency. If KO performed consistently then he'd be Jokic, but he doesn't and that's why he's not as important to this team as Amir
More consistent? Absolutely and you're right that that is important. Has to be taken into account any time and especially when talking about Olynyk who is wildly inconsistent.
And yes, Amir is a better shot blocker. The rest, I'm not sure I agree with. Amir is not more athletic than Olynyk, no way. Contesting without fouling? Their fouling is pretty much identical (Amir averages 0.2 more fouls per 36 min). Holding position? I don't know how you'd measure that but I don't think Amir is any better in this area than Olynyk, either.
Pretty much every single advanced metric says Johnson is better than Olynyk. He has a higher PER, higher VORP, higher BPM, higher win shares (both offensively and defensively and they've played nearly identical minutes on the same team, so you can actually use WS in that situation), etc. Amir is a better rebounder, he is a significantly better shot blocker, he turns the ball over less, he has a higher TS%, etc. Olynyk is a much better 3 point shooter (though Johnson is actually shooting 40% this year which is better than Olynyk) and is the better passer, but that is about it. Johnson is the better all around player and it isn't all that close.
Is he, though? He gets more offensive rebounds, but that's hardly a surprise given the role that Kelly plays on offense (ie sitting on the perimeter). But on the defensive side, Kelly is the better rebounder (and it's not particularly close). Kelly grabs 19.9% of defensive rebounds (top on the team) while Amir picks up only 17.7% (5th on the team behind Kelly, Al, Jerebko, and Zeller). Amir leads for TRB%, but that lead is just from his higher offensive rebound rate (which is easily explained by his role on offense that often puts him closer to the basket).
Amir is definitely better than Kelly at some things (like interior defense), but rebounding is not one of them. I'm getting tired of seeing things like "Kelly is a bad rebounder" passed off as an undeniable fact that needs no supporting evidence when, actually, he's one of the best rebounders on our team. Is he elite? No. But he's above average, which is great for a guy that stretches the floor
-
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
Olynyk is better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer/has better court vision, better rebounder on the defensive side, and I think he's just as good of a defender. Olynyk is always in the right spot, plays hard and Amir isn't any more athletic.
We might disagree on the defense, but aside from that, what is it that Amir does better than Olynyk?
Amir is consistent which is apparently an underrated quality, he is a better shot blocker, better at holding his position, better at contesting without fouling. Better at screening, better at finishing around the rim, better at being aggressive.
KO is a good shooter and good passer, he can do more than Amir off the dribble but i think the opportunities coming out of that are limited. He has good positional defense but is often caught out.
Oh and Amir boxes out more often. Amir is definitely more athletic than KO..
The biggest difference is consistency. If KO performed consistently then he'd be Jokic, but he doesn't and that's why he's not as important to this team as Amir
More consistent? Absolutely and you're right that that is important. Has to be taken into account any time and especially when talking about Olynyk who is wildly inconsistent.
And yes, Amir is a better shot blocker. The rest, I'm not sure I agree with. Amir is not more athletic than Olynyk, no way. Contesting without fouling? Their fouling is pretty much identical (Amir averages 0.2 more fouls per 36 min). Holding position? I don't know how you'd measure that but I don't think Amir is any better in this area than Olynyk, either.
Pretty much every single advanced metric says Johnson is better than Olynyk. He has a higher PER, higher VORP, higher BPM, higher win shares (both offensively and defensively and they've played nearly identical minutes on the same team, so you can actually use WS in that situation), etc. Amir is a better rebounder, he is a significantly better shot blocker, he turns the ball over less, he has a higher TS%, etc. Olynyk is a much better 3 point shooter (though Johnson is actually shooting 40% this year which is better than Olynyk) and is the better passer, but that is about it. Johnson is the better all around player and it isn't all that close.
Is he, though? He gets more offensive rebounds, but that's hardly a surprise given the role that Kelly plays on offense (ie sitting on the perimeter). But on the defensive side, Kelly is the better rebounder (and it's not particularly close). Kelly grabs 19.9% of defensive rebounds (top on the team) while Amir picks up only 17.7% (5th on the team behind Kelly, Al, Jerebko, and Zeller). Amir leads for TRB%, but that lead is just from his higher offensive rebound rate (which is easily explained by his role on offense that often puts him closer to the basket).
Amir is definitely better than Kelly at some things (like interior defense), but rebounding is not one of them. I'm getting tired of seeing things like "Kelly is a bad rebounder" passed off as an undeniable fact that needs no supporting evidence when, actually, he's one of the best rebounders on our team. Is he elite? No. But he's above average, which is great for a guy that stretches the floor
Interesting that you complain about people diminishing KOs rebounding ability yet do exactly the same to Amir. I would not say he is down low more often than KO, our system takes the bigs out to the perimeter often for dribble handoffs, which Amir does a lot of. Brad has also been getting KO more opportunities in the post recently as that is an area he has improved in. I would more likely attribute Amir's superior offensive rebounding to his ability to fight for said rebounds.
Equally I could suggest that Amir, who is always guarding the Center of the opposing team, spends more time boxing his opponent out than jumping for the rebound, a product of our system. He also tends to play against the starting big man whereas KO is up against the bench.
KO is a good rebounder, and improving, but Amir is the better. You can't just dismiss offensive rebounds
-
Can we keep the conversation on topic here?
This is a thread about Randle and Smart
-
since Brown got consistent minutes he has been better than KO.
Amir is better than KO and I don't think it is all that close. KO does only one thing well and that is shoot. It is great skill to have and guys have had long productive careers for that one skill but it doesn't make you good at basketball, it just makes you a good shootwr.
Olynyk is better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer/has better court vision, better rebounder on the defensive side, and I think he's just as good of a defender. Olynyk is always in the right spot, plays hard and Amir isn't any more athletic.
We might disagree on the defense, but aside from that, what is it that Amir does better than Olynyk?
Amir is consistent which is apparently an underrated quality, he is a better shot blocker, better at holding his position, better at contesting without fouling. Better at screening, better at finishing around the rim, better at being aggressive.
KO is a good shooter and good passer, he can do more than Amir off the dribble but i think the opportunities coming out of that are limited. He has good positional defense but is often caught out.
Oh and Amir boxes out more often. Amir is definitely more athletic than KO..
The biggest difference is consistency. If KO performed consistently then he'd be Jokic, but he doesn't and that's why he's not as important to this team as Amir
More consistent? Absolutely and you're right that that is important. Has to be taken into account any time and especially when talking about Olynyk who is wildly inconsistent.
And yes, Amir is a better shot blocker. The rest, I'm not sure I agree with. Amir is not more athletic than Olynyk, no way. Contesting without fouling? Their fouling is pretty much identical (Amir averages 0.2 more fouls per 36 min). Holding position? I don't know how you'd measure that but I don't think Amir is any better in this area than Olynyk, either.
Pretty much every single advanced metric says Johnson is better than Olynyk. He has a higher PER, higher VORP, higher BPM, higher win shares (both offensively and defensively and they've played nearly identical minutes on the same team, so you can actually use WS in that situation), etc. Amir is a better rebounder, he is a significantly better shot blocker, he turns the ball over less, he has a higher TS%, etc. Olynyk is a much better 3 point shooter (though Johnson is actually shooting 40% this year which is better than Olynyk) and is the better passer, but that is about it. Johnson is the better all around player and it isn't all that close.
Is he, though? He gets more offensive rebounds, but that's hardly a surprise given the role that Kelly plays on offense (ie sitting on the perimeter). But on the defensive side, Kelly is the better rebounder (and it's not particularly close). Kelly grabs 19.9% of defensive rebounds (top on the team) while Amir picks up only 17.7% (5th on the team behind Kelly, Al, Jerebko, and Zeller). Amir leads for TRB%, but that lead is just from his higher offensive rebound rate (which is easily explained by his role on offense that often puts him closer to the basket).
Amir is definitely better than Kelly at some things (like interior defense), but rebounding is not one of them. I'm getting tired of seeing things like "Kelly is a bad rebounder" passed off as an undeniable fact that needs no supporting evidence when, actually, he's one of the best rebounders on our team. Is he elite? No. But he's above average, which is great for a guy that stretches the floor
Interesting that you complain about people diminishing KOs rebounding ability yet do exactly the same to Amir. I would not say he is down low more often than KO, our system takes the bigs out to the perimeter often for dribble handoffs, which Amir does a lot of. Brad has also been getting KO more opportunities in the post recently as that is an area he has improved in. I would more likely attribute Amir's superior offensive rebounding to his ability to fight for said rebounds.
Equally I could suggest that Amir, who is always guarding the Center of the opposing team, spends more time boxing his opponent out than jumping for the rebound, a product of our system. He also tends to play against the starting big man whereas KO is up against the bench.
KO is a good rebounder, and improving, but Amir is the better. You can't just dismiss offensive rebounds
I'm not entirely disregarding Amir's rebounding, but comparing offensive rebounding ability of two players with vastly different roles is at best difficult (and at worst grossly misleading), so I generally use defensive rebounding to compare their actual rebounding ability. Even with Amir's dribble handoffs and occasional standing out on the perimeter, he spends more time inside than Olynyk does. This leads to more offensive rebounds. I'm not saying that he spends all his time inside, or that there's no way he's a better offensive rebounder, but comparing their ORB% doesn't help in that regard because of their different roles (contested ORB% would help, if anyone knows where to find that). Bench vs. starters could certainly play a role, but it's not gonna be the difference between 20% and 17.1%. That's a 14.5% difference.
And again, "Amir is the better [rebounder]" with no actual hard evidence to support it. I would 100% agree that Amir was better than Kelly last year, but Kelly's improvement combined with a bit of a dropoff from Amir put Kelly ahead of him at this point
-
I would say it doesn't make a ton of sense to start until the end of the season after next, at the end of Smart's first year on his second contract. He and Randle are still so young, and I know his percentages aren't great still, but having attended most Celtics home games this year I believe his shot is getting better and can keep improving until it's respectable. As many have pointed out, if he shot like two 3's a game instead of his routine 4-6 it would be helpful, and that's doable. And as one poster said, he's actually shooting great on corner 3's now, which is a good sign.
I suggest that time because I want to see how much they each cost in the open market, and then to take a year to evaluate whether they are living up to that billing. As they're both 21-23 years old and on cost controlled rookie contracts, I feel there are still too many things in limbo with them. We all know about his intangibles.
I'm honestly more interested in Yab vs Skal, and Jaylen vs Ingram even though we weren't getting Ingram. And depending on who we draft (and I'm assuming here), Fultz vs Ball or Josh Jackson vs Tatum, as those are the 4 guys I've seen and liked (nothing new to pick those guys).
-
It is settled , Smart is better ;)
-
It is settled , Smart is better ;)
I think they're both set up for interesting years. Randle will be on a new team and the presumptive starter next to Anthony Davis. I think Smart, feeling a bit of security for maybe the first time in his life, could have his best year this year.
Personally, I'm glad we have Smart.
-
I think that they're both flawed players who need to be a good fit for whatever team they're on.
New Orleans is a great fit for Randle. Davis' gravity and outside shooting will magnify Randle's exceptional skill at finishing and getting to the line - the paint will be more open than he's used to. Since his shooting drops off dramatically away from the rim, he badly needs some room to operate.
Smart and Randle have both been turnover-prone. Like, horribly. Marcus' uptick in that area last season was more alarming than his self-inflicted injury. Smart's big issue is bad passes, Randle's is offensive fouls. The offensive fouls raise the question of how good his feel for the game is.
Boston would have been a very different team the last few years if they'd taken Randle instead of brother Marcus; I believe the Boston brass considered it.
Who's better? I don't know for sure, hard to say. I guess I prefer Smart - he lets you play a more open game, more motion. And he "does hard things", in the words of Brad Stevens. Gets 50/50 balls, saves possessions.