The amount of time Smart spends at SF is absolutely insignificant compared to the amount of time Harden spends there.
And remember, most of the time Smart is guarding a SF, he's not actually the SF in the lineup.
I'm not sure how a guy like Harden can have the wingspan of an average SF, weight of the average SF, rebounds better than the average SF, spends his time trying to score in the paint like a forward, and spends substantial time actually playing the SF in games, yet people are reluctant to call him a guard-forward, or a swingman? Why? Just because he starts the game at SG?
The main problem here is that the definition of SF is starting to change, because teams are increasingly playing 3 guard lineups (Kobe mostly plays SF from a lineup perspective at this point).
For the record, that was the list I was referring to when I asked which of those players (outside of maybe Iggy) could realistically play the 1 full time.
If Tony Allen is considered a swingman or guard-forward and he's 1 inch shorter and 11 pounds lighter than Harden, how is Harden solely a SG and not a swingman/guard-forward?
I think it's because people are judging style of play and role in the offense. Harden is ball dominant so he is always looked at as a SG. If he was actually more off the ball and on the wing then people would be more inclined to accept him as a guy who plays some SF. Measurements aren't what defines you its your game.
No, by the traditional definition Harden and LeBron would be PGs because they are the floor generals and are the players who initiate the offense. However, they're bigger/longer/stronger than PGs, they rebound better than PGs, they are in the paint more than average PGs, and they're never the shortest player on the court, so that's why I (and some other people) refer to them as "point forwards."
We're coming up with new terms like point forwards, because the "traditional" definitions of positions, when basketball was invented a century ago, are outdated. Positions have evolved due to different rules and different skill sets being desirable, the game is constantly changing through the eras.
Thus why a genius like Stevens doesn't look at traditional positions.
You're better off just calling the positions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Positions are better defined by your size relative to other players at this point (though it usually ends up being some arbitrary combination of your size and skills).
Your guards no longer have to be your main ball-handlers, and the bigs no longer have to be your main rebounders.
You can debate and have your personal opinion about what position a player is, but at the end of the day, what physically makes a player a SG, or a SF, or a SG/SF, is whether the coach puts him into the game at one, the other, or both. Isn't that more important than the "ideals" of what the position is supposed to be, or am I sounding like Aristotle?
Anybody can be "considered" capable of playing a certain position, but unless a coach actually puts you there and you're actually playing it....