◦ ARCHIVE INDEX — browse every page
Red's Army

Ainge takes a dig at Philly (I think), suggests a superstar might be here

danny ainge

Danny Ainge appeared on Toucher & Rich today… and among the topics discussed was the “lack of a superstar”… and whether the Celtics will be able to attract a premier free agent or find one through the draft. Part of his answer included a shot at what I assume is the Philadelphia 76’ers when he said… 

“You can be like some franchises and have nine straight years of top-10 picks and still not be relevant,” Ainge said. “So I think that, there’s … we’re trying to be the best that we can be.”

Zing!

Ainge will deny that he’s taking a shot at any particular team there, but if it’s not them, they’re certainly in the team picture of shitty teams that can’t draft their way out of the cellar. And because I hate Philly’s plan sooooo much, I’m just going to project my rage onto Ainge’s comments and move forward.

The superstar talk is going to be a running theme in Boston until one comes to Boston… or until one develops here. We’ll have to endure the talk until one of those two things actually happens. As for the latter…

And while all of them as well as the rest of their Celtics teammates have specific roles on this team, there’s no way to tell if any of them could develop into being the kind of difference-making player that would strengthen Boston’s hopes of becoming a title contender.

“Who knows if one of them could develop and become a superstar player?” Ainge said.

I’m assuming that he’s talking about Marcus Smart there… and not just for the chance to promote the fact that Jay King and I discussed this exact topic in our latest Rainin’ J’s podcast (OK, maybe a little). But the, ahem, Smart money is on Marcus, a sixth overall pick, to become that level of a player. We predicted yesterday that he’d become a 16 point, 5 assist guy (and boy did he come close to that last night). If he can do that in year two… the who knows what kind of player he can become in years three and four?

Like this Article? Share it!

  • Kevin

    According to FiveThirtyEight’s statistical analysis, Smart is closest to James Harden: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/nba-boston-celtics-preview-carmelo/

    Remember that Harden’s ppg averages for the first 3 years of his career were: 9.9, 12.2, 16.8.

    I think Smart has what it takes to average that and be on Harden’s path.

    • Case

      Harden didn’t have a starting gig and ball in his hands with the green light the first few years (like smart does right now). When he did, his numbers looked much different. Smart is a combo guard not a point guard. So his ceiling would be like jimmy butler

      • jrleftfoot

        36 minute stats average some of that out. he probably won`t be Harden on offense , but defense is often undevalued these days

        • Case

          Per 36 min are a farce. If you currently took Jordan Mickey’s per 36 min stats for this season he would have 36 points, 36 rebounds, 18 assists.

          • Curt Hays

            Any normalized stat is a farce without the statistically significant sample size. That’s why NBA League Pass is still showing stats from last year.

            Per 36 is no different.

          • Case

            You missed my point. I meant to say that per 36 stats are rarely achieved because of the decrease in efficiency as time goes on. Which is why mickey is very unlikely to pull down 36 rebounds even if he played 36 mins. You can’t extrapolate that kind of data because all the factors are not being accounted for. Has nothing to do with sample size or mins.

          • jrleftfoot

            I didn`t really miss your point.I am simply saying that the closer your minutes are to the standard the more meaningful the stat becomes. For instance , if you average 36 minutes per game, it is a perfect sample . I`m not interested enough to keep debating this. All your points are well taken . Ciao.

          • Case

            Actually i was specifically replying to Curt Hays about “statistically significant sample size.” A term that I’m not sure even exists.

            I agree with you saying if you play significant mins, like 31 vs. 34 mpg.

          • Curt Hays

            Wait, so you are not aware of something as elementary as the concept statistical significance, and you’re telling ME that I missed your point?

            I thought we were being polite and rational here, but now you’re just being an ass.

            Welcome to Reds Army, but please, go read a book.

          • Case

            Wow, that book reading part was unnecessary. Especially since I was actually trying to be polite.

            There’s no such thing as “statistically significant sample size.” There is such a thing as statistically significant, which is irrespective of sample size. And there is a thing as power of the study, which refers to the sample size and whether the study is sufficiently powered. So, they’re completely different. Significance relates to whether the values being compared are actually different or not. You can’t have a “statistically significant sample size.” You can have an adequately powered study, which is sample size. The combined term makes zero sense.

          • jrleftfoot

            Interesting conversation guys. Very Smart . ( pun intended). No need for enmity, Curt can tell you that`s usually my department Case , and I`m not even here that often.

          • Case

            No worries, I’m sure its a misunderstanding. It is still a valid discussion however. Statistics are obviously very useful. But sometimes people use numbers to promote arguments without realizing the caveats. And I think it’s good to argue the absolutes that statistics seem to imply. There’s always a statistic lying around to support a predetermined conclusion. Should be the other way around. Looks at the numbers and then decided. It just doesn’t make sense that some algorithm is comparing smart to harden. And when something doesn’t make sense, I always question it. And so should everyone……who is living in a free country.

          • jrleftfoot

            They’re not ridiculous if you play significant minutes, as does Smart. Of course, they are not the be a end all

        • Case

          Defense is not undervalued these days. Tristan thompson, draymond green, kawhi leonard. All defensive studs- got max deals.

          • jrleftfoot

            It is undervalued with respect to awards and fandom. I wasn’t saying you can’t get paid for defensive prowess.

          • Case

            I assumed you defined the term “value” by cash/money/hoes. If you’re talking fandom, defense is/has been always “undervalued.” It kind of goes with the nature of all competitive sports (with the exception of a goalkeeper). Award wise, there are dedicated awards for defense, so I’m not sure I understand how it is undervalued there.

            Anyway, not looking to argue about it too much. But I do feel defense is appropriately awarded. Scoring is fundamentally the aim of the game, so naturally it attracts more fans.

          • jrleftfoot

            Yeah, I forgot for a minute that cash is the only acceptable standard of value these days. Of course an award dedicated to a certain skill set will not undervalue it. Can`t argue with you there. I figured it was obvious that I meant awards that all players are eligible for. Sorry for not making myself clear.

    • Billy Kingmaker

      Check out Smart’s per 36 averages: 10-4-4 on 37%/34%/65% shooting splits. Harden’s rookie year per 36 was 16-5-3 with 40%/38%/81% shooting splits. Pretty huge gulf in terms of scoring volume and efficiency.

      The guy to compare Smart to is Ron Artest, but smaller and more disciplined.

      • Curt Hays

        And also, not a terrible human.

  • Billy Kingmaker

    Seems to be talking about Minny (though Minny obviously serves as warning for Philly). They haven’t made the playoffs since 03/04 and they still aren’t on pace to be relevant for another several years.

    • swissflix

      Did they not pick two guards before Curry back in 09? Even though Rubio turned out to be ok this is epic stuff.

      • stephen

        nobody really thought curry would be as good as he is now tho, but even then i was really doubtful of what flynn could do even with his hype

    • Richard Jensen

      Yeah. Them and/or the Kings.

  • swissflix

    I love Smart’s game but coming close to predictions is not an achievement. He made some nice passes, played the point guard position against a very weak team (guard wise) and did not create by driving to the basket. He did make some very nice passes, though. He took many threes as well.
    I know it is only the first game but i want to see him dictate the game, put pressure on a team and create with the ball in his hands. Put his signature on.

    • KGino

      he did play fantastic on defense

      • swissflix

        Jup, he did. But they were talking about 16 and 5 on offense for the season.

  • KGino

    Still can’t believe the Lakers took a PG over Okafor. Idiots!

    • MJ

      Yeah, especially since it looks like so far Russell may not even be the best point guard in his class.

  • RedsLoveChild

    The Celtics were 26 of 27 {.96%} from the FT line last night.

    IF this is part of some “team-wide commitment” to focus on the fundamentals and/or little things….the early results are phenomenal!!!

    • Curt Hays

      Wait…are you saying that having players that can shoot, at all positions (even PG), is a good thing?

      Remember, I loved Rondo as a Celtic, but this team is so much better than it would have been.

      • RedsLoveChild

        Yes, what I`m really trying to say is : Rondo will always be Rondo.

        There is a refreshing breeze blowing thru Boston….Rondo is now Sacramento`s problem….major Tommy points go to Ainge, for his determination in getting rid of RR at any cost!!

  • Zach

    9 straight years? Gotta be the Kings.

    • jrleftfoot

      bingo