Author Topic: ESPN NBARank  (Read 8726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2018, 01:38:18 PM »

Offline mqtcelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2314
  • Tommy Points: 236
I think the Hayward ranking is fine. Expecting him to just step right in as if he didn’t break his leg and miss the entire season is overly optimistic, but they still have him as one of the league’s best.

Horford at 32 is pretty terrible. He is absolutely a top 20 guy in the league to me. Also think Brown and Tatum are too high.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2018, 01:49:16 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
I've been looking for a player forced turnover stat but can't find it. I think that all of his intangibles boil down to that one metric: giving his team extra possessions through crazy hustle.

I know the biggest knock on him is his scoring efficiency. It's seriously overblown for what role he is on our team.

3 pointers:
Smart shot 30% from 3 last season on 4.6 attempts per game for 4.14 points per game . Let's say you bump that up to what Klay Thompson shot from 3: 44%. That means he would be making 2.024 3's per game for 6.072 points for a difference of 1.932 points per game.

2 pointers:
Smart shot 42.9% from 2s on 4.9 attempts per game for 4.2042 points. Let's say you bump that up to what Thompson shot from 2 point shooting: 52.6%. That means he would be making 2.5774 2's per game for 5.1548 points for a difference of 0.9506.

Add those up for 2.8826 points (let's call it 3) as the difference lost per game between Smart and Klay Thompson on Thompson's efficiency & Smart's volume. Can you seriously not find 3 points per game that Smart created out of thin air through hustle?

Thompson is a pure scorer. Smart makes up for his lack of shooting ability by creating extra possessions. They're just different players. You obviously can't put Smart as the feature of a team, but if you sneak him into a team surrounded by 5 great scorers, he can play like #55 for sure just like you can't make Capela a featured player of a team, but if you put him next to two hall of fame penetrating point guards, he's going to play like a top 50 player.

His on-off splits tell some of the story.

First, the Celtics overall shot no worse with him on the floor, in eFG% terms (51.9% on, 51.7% off). Because Smart is definitely a worse shooter than anyone else on the floor, it means that everyone else shoots better with him on the floor. So, some points come there - indeed, the C's offense was about 0.5 points better per 100 possessions with him on the court. That number seems related to our turning the ball over less with him out there, which is a quantifiable way that he produces more shots and therefore points. Other teams also have fewer blocks and steals with him out there, which is more evidence along the same lines.

And then defensively, other teams shoot worse (48% vs 50%), have fewer assists and also turn the ball over more often. Overall, our defense gives up almost 5 points per 100 possessions less.

I think the statistics do a pretty good job of matching the eye test, in this instance. The one thing that is probably under-valued in the eye test is his offensive impact. If he's disruptive defensively, we get more easy shots - maybe through fast breaks or something - so everyone else's offensive games get a little easier with him out there. He's also an underrated playmaker IMO.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2018, 01:59:07 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1649
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • The voice of reason
Okay man, you do realize that referencing highlights to prove your point is like global warming skeptics pointing to snow and smugly asking "Where's your global warming now?" Highlights are 95% offensive and end with somebody scoring, meaning that almost by definition the defense did the WRONG THING. Even then your highlights arent good example of what you are describing. Mills gives Smart 10-15 feet in the first clip and is almost in the paint, while the guy guarding Morris who is a quick pass away can't leave to help because Morris can shoot a little. So ya, my point stands. Marcus Smart hurts spacing.

I'm saying to you that they guard Smart the exact same way that they guard others. You know how I know this to be true? No one ever mentions it except you two. When players play off of Simmons, Rondo, Roberson, it's a talking point. It's a big deal. The crowd taunts them. The announcers keep referencing it. There are youtube videos about
it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6UZvdYzzrY). That sag you are talking about is normal weak-side off-ball basketball defense. Every single player in the NBA does it against every single player except basically Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, Kyle Korver, Klay Thompson, etc. The reason they do it is because unless you are one of those quick release knock down shooters, you will have time to recover on a swing pass from the strong side. If I'm wrong, there should surely be some kind of film to prove it. Go find it?

Quote
Doesn't mean he doesn't help a lot with his hustle, and like I said hes a net positive. But lets not kid our self. If the point you are trying to make is even remotely accurate than why does virtually every team load up on high efficiency players or try to? Its because the cumulative difference in efficiency is more than the difference between FG%.

Ag

This is a straw man. I didn't say being a high efficiency shooter isn't ideal. I just stated that Smart's intangibles put him on pace with an otherwise above average shooter with average hustle in terms of overall points contributed to the team: like Eric Bledsoe. I'd rather have Smart even though he is a less efficient scorer. There's also the psychological factor of hustle being contagious. My belief is that Smart has earned his position at #55 on the Celtics. With a couple exceptions (mainly due to injury), I don't prefer any of the players above him.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2018, 02:09:09 PM »

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
Numeracy wise, assuming that Smart averages 3 points more than the players he competes against through hustle is crazy math abuse. Klay Thompson makes hustle plays too. Take a look at the differentials between Atlanta and GS as teams. Three point differentials for individual players can wash you out of the league.

As to not being covered, he clearly is the guy teams cheat off. It does make it harder for the other guys on the floor. Stevens does put him out there because he is very good at exploiting the lack of attention and getting to the ball.

Most C's fans just think he's a genius at making plays on loose balls at the end of games, and he is, but a huge part of that is that people are cheating off him. He makes less of those plays with the second unit.

OK, how many extra points do you think he earns for his team compared to other NBA players?  This is completely subjective because that stat doesn't exist or is not public. The reason I'm asking is because I used Klay Thompson (probably the best overall shooter in the NBA?) for the 2.8 points. If you'd like to make sure we don't have any math abuse, let's use the average player and recalculate just how much he needs to be "above average" as a first step. I'm thinking that number will be close to about 1 point that he costs us for not being an average shooter. 1 point is roughly 1 possession in the NBA.

I've also seen no evidence that teams cheat off him and I've provided evidence of at least one team that doesn't. Care to provide evidence ?

Given the lack of objective data, I think the best way to look at Smart's intangibles is to watch how Stevens and Ainge value him.

We saw the contract he got (although part of that was its tradeability) and he's gotten close to starter's minutes so far. I've always thought he has never had strong competition for minutes. That would have changed last year, but stuff happened. I think we will find out exactly what Stevens and Ainge really think this year and the measuring stick will be Terry Rozier. For the first time, minutes will be a direct tradeoff with a specific player.

Rozier is just a "good defender" but not special, so he's a good baseline. If Smart beats him out for minutes, the C's will believe his defensive advantage is greater than Rozier's more measurable offensive advantage. The offensive statistical gap between the two will be a reasonable measure of what the C's think his defense is worth. If he gets more of the minutes, add a bit to that. If he doesn't, subtract a bit.


Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2018, 02:40:06 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1649
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • The voice of reason
Given the lack of objective data, I think the best way to look at Smart's intangibles is to watch how Stevens and Ainge value him.

We saw the contract he got (although part of that was its tradeability) and he's gotten close to starter's minutes so far. I've always thought he has never had strong competition for minutes. That would have changed last year, but stuff happened. I think we will find out exactly what Stevens and Ainge really think this year and the measuring stick will be Terry Rozier. For the first time, minutes will be a direct tradeoff with a specific player.

Rozier is just a "good defender" but not special, so he's a good baseline. If Smart beats him out for minutes, the C's will believe his defensive advantage is greater than Rozier's more measurable offensive advantage. The offensive statistical gap between the two will be a reasonable measure of what the C's think his defense is worth. If he gets more of the minutes, add a bit to that. If he doesn't, subtract a bit.



Agreed. I think his contract falls in line with other players around his NBA Rank, or at least how much they SHOULD be making -- let's face it there are some dumb GMs. One thing to note about Smart is that his contribution to the lineup increases significantly during the end of the game/quarter situations when the team goes more towards an ISO setup for clock control. You can basically put him out there for free because he's not going to be shooting and he can make stuff like this happen: https://streamable.com/l2gxm

I expect him to be out there for end of games despite us having 5 better players than him. He's just too unique to sit down.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2018, 11:58:52 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
Mike Conley at #44 is incredibly disrespectful. I know he's been hurt a lot, but come on. Would anybody in the world really rather have Eric Gordon than Mike Conley?

The Horfrod thing is interesting. ESPN says, "Horford is already 32 and likely to play a somewhat reduced role on a loaded Celtics roster." So it's saying that Horford isn't ranked higher because his role might be diminished. Not because he's lesser of a player but because his role is changing. So what is this list ranking, exactly?

I don't like Devin Booker at 31. Too high for someone who plays no defense and has never won 25 games in a season.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2018, 12:01:21 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I think ESPNs entire list is screwy. While the SI list had some head stratchers, I find it a whole lot more credible than this ESPN list, thus far.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #37 on: September 19, 2018, 01:11:19 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Tatum at 25.

I love Tatum but that's nuts.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2018, 02:34:23 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Tatum at 25.

I love Tatum but that's nuts.
He is actually 24th.  Crazy.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2018, 08:54:26 AM »

Offline RLewis35

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 440
  • Tommy Points: 20
  • I drink and I know things
Kyrie at 20.  Seems low.

Of 11-20, I take Kyrie over Simmons, Draymond, Oladipo, and Jimmy Buckets and think he's pretty much even with Klay.  I guess that means I'd have Kyrie around 15-16.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2018, 08:58:01 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Kyrie at 20.  Seems low.

Of 11-20, I take Kyrie over Simmons, Draymond, Oladipo, and Jimmy Buckets and think he's pretty much even with Klay.  I guess that means I'd have Kyrie around 15-16.
Wait, they had Simmons ahead of Kyrie? LOL

ESPN once again proving that is a complete and utter joke
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2018, 09:01:31 AM »

Offline RLewis35

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 440
  • Tommy Points: 20
  • I drink and I know things
Kyrie at 20.  Seems low.

Of 11-20, I take Kyrie over Simmons, Draymond, Oladipo, and Jimmy Buckets and think he's pretty much even with Klay.  I guess that means I'd have Kyrie around 15-16.
Wait, they had Simmons ahead of Kyrie? LOL

ESPN once again proving that is a complete and utter joke

Simmons is at 18.  So much Philly hype - I think they are one of the best bets you can make this NBA season (betting the under on 54.5)

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2018, 09:33:17 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
They probably are factoring in Kyrie's knee problem into this. If his knee proves healthy, he will climb up in next year's polling.

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2018, 09:41:38 AM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
One thing I appreciate about the SI ranking vs the ESPN one is that SI seemed to be on top of their news, and would at least note if something has changed, unlike ESPN.

For example, in the SI ranking, Westbrook has a note in the beginning of his write up that says:
Quote
Note: Westbrook’s rank was determined before the announcement of his most recent knee surgery.

While ESPN's whole write up on Butler is talking about how he'll do this year with Minnesota.  They've had like 20 hours to edit that before it was published or to just put a note in saying "this was written before Butler's trade request."

Nice professionalism SI.  Lazy work ESPN.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: ESPN NBARank
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2018, 10:29:43 AM »

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6043
  • Tommy Points: 766
Kyrie at 20.  Seems low.

Of 11-20, I take Kyrie over Simmons, Draymond, Oladipo, and Jimmy Buckets and think he's pretty much even with Klay.  I guess that means I'd have Kyrie around 15-16.
Wait, they had Simmons ahead of Kyrie? LOL

ESPN once again proving that is a complete and utter joke

Simmons is at 18.  So much Philly hype - I think they are one of the best bets you can make this NBA season (betting the under on 54.5)

Not only that, but Jokic is at 11. He is a really good player, but that seems high for a guy who only plays one side of the court.

Here's my thing: where do you think Irving was picked for the all-star game last year?

If there was a pickup game with the top 20 players in the NBA, where do you think he'd be picked?

He's not getting picked last.

Also, Tatum made the most "overrated" player in a sister article on ESPN. I kinda' agree, but it makes up for the way they treat Al, Hayward, and Irving.