# Is Stephon Marbury a good decision maker



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Although Marbury bashing has become the latest trend, I wanted to focus on one part of his game. Does Marbury make good decisions with ball?

We all know that he has a career average of 20 & 8, but when you watch him play, are your really comfortable that he is going to make the best decision with the ball?

I don't think he makes good decisions and actually amazed that he averages as many APG as he does. I think he is a very good player that needs the ball in his hands to be effective and he will always be able to score. In an uptempo offense, I think he will make the right decision the majority of the time because there tend to be less options on the break. Against zones and doubles teams, I think he will make a poor decision the majority of the time.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Most of the time yes, but occasionly he does something stupid


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Marbury has the ball in his hands the majority of the time because he is often the best player on his team and its best scorer. Therefore, calling his own number *is* often the best decision.

In the halfcourt offense, he does make good decisions the majority of the time. Sometimes he's too aggressive, but he's smart and he knows how to draw the defense and find open teammates. The drive and dish is his most well-known weapon, but he's also capable of cutting into the lane and bouncing a pass between defenders to a cutting teammate.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Marbury has the ball in his hands the majority of the time because he is often the best player on his team and its best scorer. Therefore, calling his own number *is* often the best decision.
> 
> In the halfcourt offense, he does make good decisions the majority of the time. Sometimes he's too aggressive, but he's smart and he knows how to draw the defense and find open teammates. The drive and dish is his most well-known weapon, but he's also capable of cutting into the lane and bouncing a pass between defenders to a cutting teammate.


Did you watch the playoff series against the Nets? His 4th quarter decision making in games 3 & 4 was horrible. Sure he got some assists (3, 7, 10, & 7) but he never looked in control the entire series.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Yes, I agree with Minstrel, especially on his ability to make passes in tight situations. He's a very good decision maker.


----------



## lakerking8 (Jul 5, 2003)

In that NJ series the whole nets defense was to get the ball out of marburys hands and let people such as shandon anderson beat them, especially after tim thomas got hurt.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cpawfan</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you watch the playoff series against the Nets? His 4th quarter decision making in games 3 & 4 was horrible. Sure he got some assists (3, 7, 10, & 7) but he never looked in control the entire series.



Exactly, he looked lost in that series, didn’t know when to try and take over, couldn’t control the pace at all. 

I think Marbury is overrated quite a bit on this board. He is a special talent but is not as effective as some people believe.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

I think that Marbury is an average-above average decision maker. He's certainly not on the level of a John Stockton or a Jason Kidd but he's better than players like Steve Francis and Gilbert Arenas. Everyone complains about him handling the ball too much but that is what PGs do. However, there is a difference between handling the ball alot and dominating it. Marbury often does the latter. Either he doesn't see things as quickly as he should or he doesn't trust his teammates that much so tends to dribble and dribble and dribble. He's excellent when he reacts quickly and has his mind set on something. He's among the best drive and dish PGs in the league. He can absolutely rip a defense to shreds when he utilizes this part of his game. However, there are also times where he has no idea what he wants to do. It seems like he tries too hard to balance his scoring and playmaking sometimes. He's got a bit of a scorer's mentality but in the back of his mind he knows that he's a PG. Sometimes things don't come naturally for him and he forces his scoring and passing just to reach an equilibrium. It's very apparent when you watch him play. When he scores alot in the first half, he'll deliberately pass up shots in the second half. I've seen him pass up wide open jumpers because he doesn't want to shoot the ball too often. I've also seen him rack up a ton of assists in one half and rarely pass the ball in the next half. It seems like he's always trying to balance everything out and in the end that ends up hurting his team. I love watching him play because he's one of the best pure talents in the game. He's got every physical trait you could possibly ever want in a PG. I'm just not sure I'd want him running my team, especially if I was a title contender. It seems like he plays better with mediocre players than talented ones.


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

He'd rather have the ball into his hand approximately 80% of the game time. He wanted to do the whole play to himself, dribbling through the paint and made some nasty layups but won't make teammates and coaches happy. Sometimes when it comes to pressuring him, he would have to pass to any player who is free from being pressured, etc.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cpawfan</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you watch the playoff series against the Nets? His 4th quarter decision making in games 3 & 4 was horrible. Sure he got some assists (3, 7, 10, & 7) but he never looked in control the entire series.


He was playing with absolutely *no* talent around him. His only good teammate, Allen Houston, was injured. He was down to a supporting cast rivaling McGrady's last year and up against a top defensive team. And that defensive team was targeting Marbury and no one but Marbury.

There's *no* point guard in the game who would have looked good in such a situation. So that's a completely invalid way to gauge his decision-making.

As Pinball said, he's not John Stockton, but very few people are. Marbury is a perfectly fine decision-maker with other aspects to his game that he does at extremely high levels.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> He was playing with absolutely *no* talent around him. His only good teammate, Allen Houston, was injured. He was down to a supporting cast rivaling McGrady's last year and up against a top defensive team. And that defensive team was targeting Marbury and no one but Marbury.
> ...


Did you watch game 3 of that series? The Knicks, for all of their problems, had a good chance to win that game until Stephon took a couple of very bad 3 point shots. Those are the types of decisions I'm talking about


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> I love watching him play because he's one of the best pure talents in the game. He's got every physical trait you could possibly ever want in a PG. <b>I'm just not sure I'd want him running my team, especially if I was a title contender. It seems like he plays better with mediocre players than talented ones.</b>



I think you have hit upon the crux of the Marbury debate.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cpawfan</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you watch game 3 of that series? The Knicks, for all of their problems, had a good chance to win that game until Stephon took a couple of very bad 3 point shots. Those are the types of decisions I'm talking about


Did you even watch the series? Marbury did look silly but thats because the entire nets defense was collapsing on him. He couldnt even get the ball over half court because kittles was all over him with Kidd also helping out and Jefferson waiting for Marbury to even try and pass it so that he could pick it off. WIthout the threat of Houston or even Tim Thomas for that matter the situation was completely out of his hands. When Marubury tried to force the issue in game three he made some nice plays to keep the knicks in the game but at the same time he missed some big shots that would have helped the knicks win. IF he hadnt taken those shots people would have critized him for not taking charge on a team without anyone else that was capable of scoring. Marbury did the best he could with what he had to work with. Why do you think they didnt just put kidd on him? Oh kidd couldnt keep up, and they didnt even just go straight up kittle on marbury because kidd was there to helpout and double. I think there are just alot of marbury haters who are waiting to critize him for whatever mive he makes. GIve the man his props already.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cpawfan</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you watch game 3 of that series? The Knicks, for all of their problems, had a good chance to win that game


This is a typical "have it both ways" in an attempt to attack a player. *Why* was that no-talent, outside of Marbury, team in a position to win that game? Because Marbury was spending most of the game making his teammates better, helping scrubs like Penny Hardaway and Nazr Mohammed score *way* over their normal rates.

You act like Marbury had no hand in putting the team in position to win, like he was just parachuted into a late, fourth-quarter game that the Knicks were shockingly close in and then Marbury proceeded to lose the game for them.

Marbury, with his unselfish play-making, made his untalented teammates better but it ultimately wasn't enough against a much better team. Maybe if Marbury had had *one* good teammate, like Allen Houston, they could have won that game.

That whole series put paid to the notion that Marbury thinks of nothing but his own scoring. Confronted by a defense that was keying on him, he did the *smart* thing and spent most of the series trying to set his teammates up. Only when his teammates failed to do anything did Marbury look to score himself.

It's not easy being the only good player on a team up against a team with several good players. Marbury handled it as well as possible.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Jmonty580</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you even watch the series? Marbury did look silly but thats because the entire nets defense was collapsing on him. He couldnt even get the ball over half court because kittles was all over him with Kidd also helping out and Jefferson waiting for Marbury to even try and pass it so that he could pick it off. WIthout the threat of Houston or even Tim Thomas for that matter the situation was completely out of his hands. When Marubury tried to force the issue in game three he made some nice plays to keep the knicks in the game but at the same time he missed some big shots that would have helped the knicks win. IF he hadnt taken those shots people would have critized him for not taking charge on a team without anyone else that was capable of scoring. Marbury did the best he could with what he had to work with. Why do you think they didnt just put kidd on him? Oh kidd couldnt keep up, and they didnt even just go straight up kittle on marbury because kidd was there to helpout and double. I think there are just alot of marbury haters who are waiting to critize him for whatever mive he makes. GIve the man his props already.


I don't want a Kidd vs Marbury debate. Of course the Nets focused their defense to stop Marbury. I was pointing out a very memorable situation that I believe is indicative of Marbury's career to date.

My opinion of Marbury is that, when motivated (i.e. not the 2000-2001 Nets) he can make a below average or average team better and that he will have tremendous stats at the end of his career. However, in the 4th quarter with the game on the line, I would rather not be in a position to count on him to deliver. I believe that the chances are greater that he will take a poor shot or make the wrong pass than make the proper decision.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a typical "have it both ways" in an attempt to attack a player. *Why* was that no-talent, outside of Marbury, team in a position to win that game? Because Marbury was spending most of the game making his teammates better, helping scrubs like Penny Hardaway and Nazr Mohammed score *way* over their normal rates.
> ...


First off, this is not an attack on a player, so I am not trying to have it both ways. You are bringing up other tangential items into this discussion. The focus of my comments is on his decision making and I should have been more specific in mentioning with the game on the line. Yes I did say that I'm surprised that he has such a high APG average, but you are taking this discussion as a slam on Marbury.

I'm aware that the Knicks were in that game because of Marbury, but you can't deny he made some questionable decisions near the end.

I don't think Marbury can be counted on to make the correct decision with the game on the line in the 4th quarter. Mistakes get magnified in the 4th.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a typical "have it both ways" in an attempt to attack a player. *Why* was that no-talent, outside of Marbury, team in a position to win that game? Because Marbury was spending most of the game making his teammates better, helping scrubs like Penny Hardaway and Nazr Mohammed score *way* over their normal rates.
> ...


I am sure the Penny hardaway scrub comment is to get me attention to reply here.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cpawfan</b>!
> 
> 
> First off, this is not an attack on a player, so I am not trying to have it both ways.
> ...


Wrong. I'm not taking the "discussion" as an attack, I considered your claim that Marbury cost his team a close game an attack. Not the whole discussion.



> You are bringing up other tangential items into this discussion. The focus of my comments is on his decision making and I should have been more specific in mentioning with the game on the line.


Then one game is meaningless. Not that I agree that Marbury cost his team with bad decisions but you can find games for every single player in the league where they had a tough stretch late in the game.

It's harder to make good decisions and good plays when the entire defense is keying on you. That's a ton of pressure. I don't believe any point guard would have functioned particularly well in that situation.

I didn't think pointing to his decision-making all throughout that game was "tangential" because I didn't know you were limiting the discussion to just the final quarter (a quarter in which he *still* made some good decisions to set up teammates even if he made other questionable ones).



> I don't think Marbury can be counted on to make the correct decision with the game on the line in the 4th quarter. Mistakes get magnified in the 4th.


I don't think that's borne out at all over his career. I've heard many people mention Marbury as one of the most dangerous fourth-quarter players. Much of it revolves around his clutch shooting (shot selection is a form of decision-making; witness Kobe Bryant's shot selection throughout much of the 2004 Finals) but he's also perfectly likely to make a big pass for a big basket down the stretch.

You're taking one game, in which everything was stacked against Marbury, and putting an inordinate amount of importance upon it.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Then one game is meaningless. Not that I agree that Marbury cost his team with bad decisions but you can find games for every single player in the league where they had a tough stretch late in the game.
> 
> It's harder to make good decisions and good plays when the entire defense is keying on you. That's a ton of pressure. I don't believe any point guard would have functioned particularly well in that situation.
> ...


I'm only bringing up one game because it is a recent example. In no way am I basing any significant portion of my opinion on it. It simply was something tangible and recent. This a purely subjective question, so there is no right or wrong, just a tallly of votes and a bunch of opinions


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Marbury, with his unselfish play-making, made his untalented teammates better but it ultimately wasn't enough against a much better team. Maybe if Marbury had had one good teammate, like Allen Houston, they could have won that game.


You don't think either of the Thomas' are good?


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*would've made it more entertaining for sure.*



> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> You don't think either of the Thomas' are good?


Tim Thomas was clotheslined by Collins so he was out too. And Kurt Thomas might as well not have been there, his "defense" was making KMart look like a 1st ballot HoFer.

Either way the Knicks lose the series, but with Houston + Mr. Fugazi in I think the Knicks would've at least grabbed both home games.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Ohh, i didn't know Tim was injured.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cpawfan</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't want a Kidd vs Marbury debate. Of course the Nets focused their defense to stop Marbury. I was pointing out a very memorable situation that I believe is indicative of Marbury's career to date.
> ...


I understand what your trying to get at but the exmpale you use with the Knicks against the Nets in the playoffs is a bad one. WHo else could Marbury have past it to? Penny? Maybe Nazr, or I know Shandon Anderson would have delivered right? No shot that Marbury took could possibly be a bad one in that series, I dont care if he shot it from the opposing teams freethrow line because nobody on the Knicks was ever even close to being a better scoring option.


----------

