# Stephon Marbury



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

Now, this topic is about Marbury supposedly being a ball hog, a shoot first guard.

Has Marbury grown as a player?

first lets look at some numbers:

first, we look at shot attempts, minutes FG percentage and points per game.

in the year we got stephon, check his numbers in those areas:
with PHO- 17.8 shots per game, 41.6 mins, 43 percent, 22 ppg
with NYK- 16.6 shots per game, 39 mins, 43 percent, 19.8 ppg

now fast forward to last season:
NYK- 16 shots per game, 40 mins, 46 percent, 21.7 ppg

16 shots in 40 mins- thats ball hog type stats?

Larry Hughes needed 18 shots to average 22 PPG, and hes the second or third option on his team.

now that brings me to another point.......

the only scorer i found to be more efficient then marbury is Paul Pierce, who you guys seem to think is a super ball hog. Yet he averaged 22 points a game last season on 15 shots. 

so having marbury and Paul on the same team would work, contrary to popular belief.

if Arenas and Hughes(and Jamison, who took 17.5 shots a game) worked, why the hell wouldnt marbury and pierce? Marbury is a much more willing passer then Arenas, and pierce takes 3 less shots then hughes while averaging the same amount of points.

im not saying bringing paul here is a possibility, im just saying, it would work.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

penny,when you sat work,are you saying more wins???thats the bottom line..

and who/what are we giving up......

not that #8 is going to bring us a franchise player,but

PP is not coming cheaply....


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

i have no idea what Danny Ainge would take...i mean, the nba's trading system has been erratic over the last season. we saw Baron Davis being traded for dale davis, Boston got Antoine Walker back for absolutely nothing,vince was pretty cheap,webber got traded for a bunch of role players with bad contracts...

so, who knows. i really hate making up trades....so i wont.

and yeah, it would be more wins. Cause Pierce is consistant. he always gets to the foul line. they wont fight over the ball. id rather have steph passing it off to paul then having jamal, or tim, or anybody else shoot. that would be the best backcourt in the league, probably. 

really, what center do you expect to save the knicks anyway? no good centers exist that are on the trading block, or that can be signed. Kwame brown isnt about basketball.........


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The problem with Stephon Marbury is he's playing with bums. That's the problem. Layden destroyed this franchise and there will be no real movement until Allen Houston is off the books.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Marbury's issues are not a scorer but as a playmaker. He used to have poor shot selection issues but he seemed to put them to rest last year.

But that efficiency rating of points per shot doesn't seem all that telling to me, knowing Marbury's game. My problem with his style is that his penetrations (which is what gives him his good FG% and efficiencies) rarely come in the flow of the game, the way they do for someone like Arenas or Parker. Marbury typically pitter patters down the shot clock first on the perimeter with little passes to guys who aren't open, or to PF who are out of range. So the clock dwindles without much going on, then the team senses Marbury's gonna make something happen, so they come to a virtual standstill on the perimeter in order to clear the lane for him, and wait for a dish out.

Now that's not to say that's all Marbury's fault. The next coach has to institute some more motion in the offense and force the tempo when appropriate. But what I'm saying is Marbury can have very good personal stats inside of an offense that has no life, no flow and no continuity. In fact I think that aides him.

I for one have never called Marbury selfish, but I do find him somewhat limited in his playmaking abilities. IMHO, this creates a style of play some confuse with selfish.

Could Marbury and Pierce thrive together? Possibly. I still think those who most like to play with Steph are the pick and rollers, like Kurt, KG, and Gugliotta. Some of the more athletic and post oriented players, like Kmart, Amare, and Marion have been pretty relieved when Steph was gone. With Pierce, Marbury's time with the ball in his hands would decrease considerably, which would adversely effect his scoring style. Not sure how comfortable Steph would be with declining stats, and more importantly, to a whole new offensive methodology.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

thats true that marbury kicks the ball to the wing and nothing happens except him getting the ball right back. and again your right that its not really his fault. Neither herb, lenny or chaney had an offense that did anything but freelance.

i think the offense was at its best when we fed tim thomas in the post early in the shot clock. Now if only some players would cut while tim was posting up...

also, we were good very early in the season when we ran jamal crawford off of screens,but we really went away from that for some reason....

we need motion.......some plays.....a real coach. and some real players.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

PennyHardaway said:


> thats true that marbury kicks the ball to the wing and nothing happens except him getting the ball right back. and again your right that its not really his fault. Neither herb, lenny or chaney had an offense that did anything but freelance.
> 
> i think the offense was at its best when we fed tim thomas in the post early in the shot clock. Now if only some players would cut while tim was posting up...
> 
> ...


Agreed. The thing is, that's often stated as a defense of Steph, but it's the truth with or without him. The team if just full of holes at every spot. Naturally if we can get great players at every spot they'll carry us along, and in effect they'll carry Steph with them. The problem I have with the whole newfangled rebuild we are in is that Launching it with an expensive "producer" like Steph, rather than with the draft and payroll reductions, is that in effect acquiring Steph has set back our chances of getting those other great players thru the draft and/or FA.

But yeah, one way or another we gotta fill holes on this team, and as Alpha has suggested, I'm not convinced we've got a single starting position filled yet. I think the raw second round kid (Ariza) is the closest we come. We need a 108M payroll for that?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> But yeah, one way or another we gotta fill holes on this team, and as Alpha has suggested, I'm not convinced we've got a single starting position filled yet. I think the raw second round kid (Ariza) is the closest we come. We need a 108M payroll for that?


Totally agree,but i still havent figurd out the type of offense Steph fits best in..

Lets start with a fast breaking squad...NOT...Steph is not great on the break.one down..

In the half court set,he pounds the ball for way too long.Is that because our offense sucks,and hes forced to create??? probably..lets give him the benefit of a doubt there...

Defense??? There is no defense of his defense..It stinks....

Penny mentions stephs high fg%...maybe,just maybe steph should not be playing the point..there is no denying he is a great scorer...Nash has a pure PG mentality..Kidd does as well..AI doesnt...Ben Gordon doesnt either..In my eyes Ben Gordon is in the mold of Steph,but Chi recognises Gorans game and despite being 6'1 he is their go to guy in the 4th quarter....not the point guard...our brilliant braintrust has steph playing the point,and being the go to guy in crunchtime....Brilliant :curse: 

The more I think about it,the less I would want Steph and Pierce together..In fact unless JC develops a basketball IQ over the summer,and Sweets loses a ton or two,we need upgrades at every position with the possible exception of Ariza...and Steph at the 2....


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Assumption...*

Truth, you are making a HUGE assumption. While I agree Marbury can be an explosive scorer, there is no evidence that he can thrive without the ball in his hands a majority of the time. As a 2 guard, he would need to play off the ball and I have never seen him do that well. Also, Marbury never seems to want the ball with the game on the line....not the kind of quality you are looking for in your main gun. Sure, he will light it up to get the team back in the game(good quality), but you damn sure have somebody else that has the onions to take and make the big shot at crunch time 'cause he don't want it.

Lastly, his scoring is usually the result of one on one moves or drives. While you need some of this, it goes against the principle of motion..catch and shoot...fast breaks...pretty much everything the league is getting back to.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

making marbury as a fulltime sg is a problem in itself.

marbury i believe would do it no problem if it meant his team would be better....as he has often said before.

but a pg sized 2 guard needs a 2 guard sized pg to offset him.

currently there is not one setup like that in the nba for good reason undersized 1's who can play the 2 aren't that rare but they aren't on every team but outside of shaun livingston and marko jaric there probably isn't a legitamite shooting guard sized point guard who is of starter quality and they both play for the clippers.

marbury can play off the ball especially if you basically relieve him of the burden of looking to get other players involved, i dont think thats a problem when he has scorers he feeds them when he was 1st a knick that was the main problem with him ...that he deferred to the likes of TT and houston and didn't try to score as much as he should have. 

i believe marbury was given too much to do last season , he was on bad knees playing 40 min. a game after the olympics so he had no rest. Offensively he was fine , but he did try very hard to slow the game up to steal rest whenever he could. Defensively he got worse as the season went on, to the point where ty lue is throwing up career games on him.

i think he has matured as a player , he takes better shots , he got his, but at the same time made sure others got their touches too. I dont think anyone can really say marbury was the reason any player had an underwhelming season . Kurt for most people's taste got too many touches ditto with crawford. TT was focused on when he was playing well...and was generally removed from the game if he wasn't.

basically if you fix many of the problems around marbury , the problems with marbury will for the most part disappear.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Also, Marbury never seems to want the ball with the game on the line....not the kind of quality you are looking for in your main gun.


nah,marbury has the "onions"....hes clutch...

Maybe you guys are right in that ther are no Finishers for steph to penetrate and dish to.its usually a kickout or pick and roll...

Most of out bigs dont finish with "gusto".....

this team makes my head spin...

and i do not want Wright....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Marbury does best with low mobility shooters. Houston, Doleac, KVH, Googs, KT do really well with him. And of course the tremendously gifted, like KG and Amare, will still find a way.

But if you read any of Marion's and Amare's comments this year you'd know how overjoyed they are to have a PG who's pass first, and who gives them "easy buckets", as "that's what a PG is supposed to do." And former coach D'Antoni even went so far as to say, "Some think Steph is a great PG, but I don't think that's his strong suit."

I used to have the articles saved, I'd love to post them, but I lost them in a hard drive crash.

Anyway, Marbury is certainly a talented player of some sort or another, but he is a difficult fit. Which isn't to say he'll never find himself in a winning situtation, it's a question of whether we are in a position to create one for him, or with him. For instance, Walker and Francis similarly have powerful skill sets qualitatively roughly equal to Steph's, but are also tough fits. The only difference is that Knicks fans don't usually challenge that notion like they do with Marbury, and few would want to sacrifice draft and free agency positioning in order to launch a rebuild around them.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Truth...*

He most certainly did not show "onions" last year. I watched several close games and with him with the ball for the last shot. Guess what? He dribbled aroound then passed it to someone...anyone else. We had all sorts of guys taking the last shot. Show me an instance where he was clutch. Then show me a few more and I'll believe it. He is also not a catch and shoot guy at all. He needs to pull up off the dribble to shoot a jumper because it is how he has always done it because the ball has always been in his hands. Oak has it about right. Personality issues aside, he is a talented guy who really doesns't seem to thrive in a true team setting. Plus....the defensive thing really pissses me off. As good an athlete as he is, he should excel. I can think of 10-12 guys I would rather have at point, between guys already in the league and guys coming in.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

alfa,marbury has onions!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Truth....*

Where's the beef? I hear about how clutch he is from you, but not many others. I need to have facts, not sentiment. I only know what I saw. If that was his attempt to get others involved with 10 seconds on the clock and the game on the line when he has been the entire offense for the previous 5 minutes,then his IQ is lacking and we have bigger problems than we think.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Watch the game aganist the Bobcats at the end of the year. He played a great point guard game and hit big shots toward the end. That was one of the better games I have seen from Steph and I think that is the way he should play.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Truth....*



alphadog said:


> Where's the beef? I hear about how clutch he is from you, but not many others. I need to have facts, not sentiment. I only know what I saw. If that was his attempt to get others involved with 10 seconds on the clock and the game on the line when he has been the entire offense for the previous 5 minutes,then his IQ is lacking and we have bigger problems than we think.


Well here are some stats to chew on. I've not put a whole lot of thought into them yet and not trying to make a case one way or another.

From the 02/03 season where he went to the playoffs with Phoenix we get these:

http://www.82games.com/02PHO1E.HTM

And from last season in NY we get these:

http://www.82games.com/04NYK1E.HTM

Now we see he was a much more effective clutch scorer in Phoenix. This can be looked at in two ways. 1) when he has more offensive helpers it takes pressure off of him which allows him better shots. 2) but with more offensive option they need him to be clutch less than us. We are the ones who truly NEEDED clutch play from him and he couldn't produce. One example of this is his lower clutch FT% here. That's an effect of clutch pressure, not defensive pressure. Nobody is zoning Steph out of the lane on his free throws.

Another thing I find interesting, and that fuels my theory that he does feed athletes well on the interior is if you look at his clutch passing stats you see he assisted on as many clutch dunks here (all of 2) as he did with Marion and Amare in Phoenix. You know all those lobs we see Kidd feed K-mart and jefferson that we never saw from Steph? Remember Steph in the Olympics? All those great athletes (Wade, Amare, Marion, Lebron, Jefferson, etc) and virtually no lobs?

Anyway, just food for thought. I think Marbury has been more "onionated" in his past. I think part of his problem is he's trying to live down the selfish label that has haunted him his entire year, and dogged him with Marion and Amare last year. 

On the one hand that's a good thing. He's trying to become a Larry Brown designed Chauncy Billips type conservative, good decision making PG who can still hit some shots when needed. But on the other hand he'll be 29 next year, on tired legs with a lot of miles on them, and for the "best PG" to still be trying to figure out his identity is a little weird. I mean last year he went entire half games as two different players. Low energy distributor for the first 24 mins, peppy scorer for the second 24. He seemed to work his way out of that as the season wore on, but I don't think his teammates knew what to expect from him.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

> As a 2 guard, he would need to play off the ball and I have never seen him do that well.


just like AI. iverson moved back to point guard and had his best season to date. 30 and 9????? rediculous.

keep him at point, but get a damn playbook! run jamal off screens, tim, allan, whoever. make guys cut to the hoop.....something. too much of nothing was going on and that really made us suck. the defenders wasted hardly any energy guarding our team cause there was nothing to guard except whoever had the ball. everyone else just watched

and the pick n roll doesnt count as a play...come on


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

marbury's effectiveness at the end of games has everything to do with how much help he gets from his teammates in those situations.

last season , crawford was good and Tim Thomas was decent as was allan houston when they played , but the previous year TT and H2O were exceptional living off of marbury's kick outs .

http://www.82games.com/03NYK10E.HTM
Scoring Tim Thomas 2004-05 in clutch situations 
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 13.2 25.3 .524 .619 45% 10% 18.0 49.3 

http://www.82games.com/03NYK6E.HTM
Scoring Allan houston in 2003-04 clutch situations
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 12.4 27.5 .451 .500 50% 7% 6.6 34.1 

if a team knows collapsing on marbury will basically be giving away 3 points they tend to be reluctant to do it. this opens things up for him.
http://www.82games.com/03NYK1E.HTM

Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 9.1 18.2 .500 .583 28% 3% 13.2 34.4 


this past season houston was mostly hurt and crawford is at his best as shown over the last couple of weeks as the guy running things, but can hit an open jumpshot , but not like houston. TT played pretty bad for most of the year but was decent at the end of games especially as the season came to a close.

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4E.HTM 
crawford
Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 8.8 22.1 .400 .479 39% 1% 6.6 27.7 

TT
http://www.82games.com/04NYK10E.HTM
Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 6.2 17.8 .351 .446 77% 5% 2.4 18.2 

Houston
http://www.82games.com/04NYK5D.HTM
Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 5.4 14.5 .375 .438 100% 0% 7.2 19.9 

KT
http://www.82games.com/04NYK14E.HTM
Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 5.6 13.1 .429 .439 67% 10% 3.5 14.9 


marbury actually shot the ball more than usual in clutch situations this past season ...he just wasn't as effective at it. 
http://www.82games.com/04NYK1E.HTM
Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 9.0 26.3 .343 .357 19% 7% 11.8 30.5 

so yes marbury has "onions"


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I'm not sure that's as conclusive as you suggest disgruntled. Houston missed 30 games in 03-04, most during Marbury's time. You can't attribute so much of Marbury's better stats to him when he they didn't play all that many games together. In fact, the case could be made that Marbury was more effective with the lowly Shandon Anderson manning the spott.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> I'm not sure that's as conclusive as you suggest disgruntled. Houston missed 30 games in 03-04, most during Marbury's time. You can't attribute so much of Marbury's better stats to him when he they didn't play all that many games together. In fact, the case could be made that Marbury was more effective with the lowly Shandon Anderson manning the spott.



the 2002-03 season houston was without marbury and he wasn't nearly as good late in games 
Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 10.6 26.7 .397 .448 48% 7% 6.7 30.6 

and houston did play 21 of his 50 games with marbury, they suit each other perfectly on the court, i think its was somewhat obvious at the time that houston benefitted from open looks he got off of marbury's penetrations and passing ability, and that despite the fact it was an off year from houston he still was pretty clutch ...moreso than usual, and some of that has to be attributed to marbury for making it easier for him.

but none of that really effects who was the main helper of stephon who was Tim Thomas ...who avg. more than a point a minute in clutch situations ...something i dont believe any player accomplished this past season i think the best was kobe at 43 per 48 min. and he did it far less efficiently. and something Tim thomas surely wasn't doing as a member of the bucks.
http://www.82games.com/03MIL9E.HTM
Scoring
By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts 
48 Min 3.2 13.0 .250 .292 33% 0% 1.1 8.6 

i think its pretty obvious when watching the games when the 3 of them were on the court together marbury drove and kicked alot and it made all 3 of them better players.

marbury is the best of the 3 but he just cant do it alone.

most players lose effectiveness shooting the ball in these situations , thats just a fact whether due to nerves , but more than likely the other team playing harder. the knicks have been and can still be the rare team that actually plays better at the end of games because the talents on the team fit very well together...at least on the perimeter.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> the 2002-03 season houston was without marbury and he wasn't nearly as good late in games
> Scoring
> By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts
> 48 Min 10.6 26.7 .397 .448 48% 7% 6.7 30.6


Of course Houston was playing extended minutes on career threatened knees heading into surgery.



> and houston did play 21 of his 50 games with marbury,


Yes, but that's only 21 of Marbury's 47 games as a Knick. That was my point.




> they suit each other perfectly on the court, i think its was somewhat obvious at the time that houston benefitted from open looks he got off of marbury's penetrations and passing ability, and that despite the fact it was an off year from houston he still was pretty clutch ...moreso than usual, and some of that has to be attributed to marbury for making it easier for him.


Well I'm not sure what is meant by pretty clutch and moreso than usual. Certain clutch statistics are inflated merely by wins, and the Knicks have been losing for some years now.



> but none of that really effects who was the main helper of stephon who was Tim Thomas ...who avg. more than a point a minute in clutch situations ...something i dont believe any player accomplished this past season i think the best was kobe at 43 per 48 min. and he did it far less efficiently. and something Tim thomas surely wasn't doing as a member of the bucks.
> http://www.82games.com/03MIL9E.HTM
> Scoring
> By FG. FGA FG% eFG% Ast'd Blk'd FTM Pts
> 48 Min 3.2 13.0 .250 .292 33% 0% 1.1 8.6



mmmm, yes, I had such high hopes for him this year... but now I just can't trust him. Once again, like so many others, I expect this, 05/06 will be his breakout season, and a contract season at that, but I'm just not buying it anymore. If TT wants to remain a Knick for MLE type money, with a possible role off the bench that's fine, otherwise I'm ready to cut ties with him. In spite of the good performance I expect from him this year.

He's just another guy who's too flaky and tempermental.



> i think its pretty obvious when watching the games when the 3 of them were on the court together marbury drove and kicked alot and it made all 3 of them better players.
> 
> marbury is the best of the 3 but he just cant do it alone.
> 
> most players lose effectiveness shooting the ball in these situations , thats just a fact whether due to nerves , but more than likely the other team playing harder. the knicks have been and can still be the rare team that actually plays better at the end of games because the talents on the team fit very well together...at least on the perimeter.


Which are the talents on the Knicks that fit so well together? Some of the better fits were traded or are cooked (Doleac, KVH, and Houston), and others are more than likely on the trade block (KT and TT). So who's really left, JC? Is he a good fit with Marbury? 

I'm far from convinced of that. First off, from what I've seen of him he, like Marbury, works better with the ball in his hands. Second he's not a good spot up shooter which Marbury works well with. Third, he and Marbury make for a very weak defensive tandem.

In sum, sure, more talent should help Marbury's stats and he should help theirs. However I'm less convinced that the collapse of last season was due to the usual suspect excuses: an off year for TT, a few missed games by JC and Nazr, and the demise of Houston. My reasoning is we went 16-13 despite of almost nothing from Houston, and the worst of TT's dread. It was after Marbury's "I'm the best comments" and the turmoil within the locker room that ensued after that which brought the team down. Notice at the end of the season JC was back, Nazr was replaced with a healthy Rose, and TT was showing signs of life again, but the Knicks did not. I believe the collapsed chemistry of the team, of which Marbury played a large role, sucked the will to live from the team.

This is my biggest issue with Marbury, and why I believe he's on his 4th team in 9 years. His game isn't good enough to outweigh his personality defects, and his personality isn't good enough to outweigh his playmaking defects. The deficiencies seem to augment each other, and he finds himself in the center of team controversy that threatens to implode the clubhouse, and teams seem to breath a collective sigh of relief when he moves on, even while acknowledging he's "a great talent".


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

son of oakley i dont know exactly what you are arguing.

as for houston clearly the strain was greater in a season where he missed 32 games than in a season where i dont think he missed any. and clutch stats are influence by what happens wins or losses really dont matter as far as him hitting shots ...either you hit them or you dont ...and if you dont you usually lose , one year they usually hit them and they won more. its not rocket science.

it was originally about whether marbury had it in him to be clutch. If he had "onions" i think its pretty clear he does want the ball and will take shots when needed but to be more effective he needs help because he is not quite good enough to get the job done consistently by himself...no one is.

the marbury "i'm the best" comments were not at all inflametory and have been explained at an extreme amount. and i dont really see what they have to do with what the direction of the posts preceeding it.

the knicks were a 16-13 team and tailspinned....in jan. the team essentially went to heck

TT's dec. stats 16 games 11.8 points .457 fg% .444 3pt%
TT's jan. stats 7 games 9.3 points .333 fg% .167 3 point %

nazr 's dec stats 16 games 12.1 points 9.5 rebs. .521 fg% 1.5 blocks
nazr's jan. stats 15 games 10.8 points 7.7 rebs .474 fg% 0.8 blocks

jamal's dec. stats 13 games 20.3 points .408 fg% .379 3pt %
jamal's jan. stats 8 games 18.5 points .386 fg% .293 3 pt%

H2O dec stats 11 games 22 min.10.8 points .442 fg% .448 3 pt%
allan's jan stats 9 games 32 min. 13.8 points .391 fg% .353 3pt %

KT dec. stats 16 games 11.1 points 9.9 reb .460 fg%
KT's jan stats 15 games 12.2 points 9.0 reb. .456 fg%

these are marbury's 5 best teammates and 4 of the 5 were noticably worse(and often hurt) in jan. and kurt was basically the same, more points less boards.

marbury's dec. stats 16 games 19.9 points 8.2 ast .440 fg%
marbury's jan. stats 15 games 20.4 points 7.7 ast. .472 fg%

i dont see how its fair to blame marbury when his teammates were clearly the ones who didn't keep up the pace.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> as for houston clearly the strain was greater in a season where he missed 32 games than in a season where i dont think he missed any. and clutch stats are influence by what happens wins or losses really dont matter as far as him hitting shots ...either you hit them or you dont ...and if you dont you usually lose , one year they usually hit them and they won more. its not rocket science.


Dude, I was responding to your infinitely vague quote of "he still was pretty clutch ...moreso than usual." Now for a guy who spends as much time staring at clutch stats as you, you should know that some of the clutch stats are floor time figures, which are affected by simple things like how good their backups are, and win percentages, which are effected by the quality of the team itself, and passing stats, which can be affected by the hands of your teammates. Indeed it's not rocket science, but then rocket scientists would never be so vague as you were. I have no idea what data you referenced for your "moreso than usual" comments, nor the degree of improvement or decline. And "moreso than usual" also infers less so than before. What does it say about Marbury if Houston's clutch peaked under Eisley or Ward?



> son of oakley i dont know exactly what you are arguing.


Oh a few things at once I suppose. Mostly just discussing why Marbury is such a complex character, why he's a difficult fit, why I suspect teams give up on him in spite of his impressive stats, why he's divisive even among fans. Stuff like that.

There were other things too. Like early in the season when the coaches where showing him tape of how he was blowing the defensive assignments. He told them to stick it, the problems were their defensive schemes "stink", and Wilkens didn't confront him on it for fear of being fired. And one report suggested that Wilkens was in fact fired when he suggested Marbury should be traded.

Or later in the season, he followed up Wilkens speech to the team on self sacrifice with one of his own, then while the rest of the team went out to scrimmage he stayed behind for a massage.

Remember the reports that Kurt and Marbury were feuding? The report from some insiders was that sometime while Penny was banished to Memphis Steph said F Penny. Kurt said now I see why you lose everywhere you go. They almost came to blows. Isiah was present and Kurt told him to get out of his way so he could kick his azz. The problem for me in it was that apparently half the team was on Kurt's side.

That also was around the time of the derailment. So I think what happens is that Marbury has certain prima donna behaiviors, an entitlement complex if you will, that works to alienate himself from certain teammates. If those same teammates feel the behavior extends itself on the court it's a double whammy. I don't think Kurt can justifiably feel it did with him, but reports are that Marion and Amare did. The reports out of Phoenix were that Penny and Marbury found themselves "in the center of turmoil that engulfed the team". They also didn't happen to buy into D'Antoni's uptempo style BTW.

Then in another article Isiah validated many of the reports by explaining that the reason Marbury was available to us was because of his flaws. Particularly his leadership through intimidation, and an unwillingness to accept criticism. People wouldn't confront him even to teach him. Once things statrted to go in a bad direction Steph was lost. We saw this in NJ for sure, I learned this was happening in Phoenix, and through these reports I witnessed it to a degree here as well. 



> the marbury "i'm the best" comments were not at all inflametory and have been explained at an extreme amount. and i dont really see what they have to do with what the direction of the posts preceeding it.
> 
> the knicks were a 16-13 team and tailspinned....in jan. the team essentially went to heck


IMO, the "I'm the best" comments were a certain straw that broke the camel's back. In an interview on WFAN, Brian Scalabrini from the nets explained that from what he sees and hears of what went on in the Knicks locker room "the team gave up on Steph. The Nets players would walk through a wall to support Kidd, but Steph doesn't have that." This was said near the beginning of the derailment, and we saw a lot of heartless performances during that time, as you demonstrated through your stats. It's rare for all members of a team to collapse simultaneously outside of a breakdown of chemistry.


So that's my little spiel on his ineffective leadership style, which is what gets him in his biggest trouble. Other than that, while I haven't had the privilege of watching Steph all that closely before NY I have seen here how a player can dominate (and to some measure stagnate) an offense and still chalk up 8 assists. I don't think he's a horror show of a PG but I do think his style is more suited to an offense that is in contrast to what isiah had led us to expect. I don't see Steph doing well in an up tempo offense with athletic players. I don't think he has that court vision to see a fast paced game evolving before others on the court do, I think his vision is average. I don't hink he feeds athletic players to the rim well. You don't get a lot of opps and easy buckets from him. A lot of his passes are backwards, he penetrates in and he kicks it out. He needs shooters who spread the floor. He needs good spacing, he likes to know where guys are. He doesn't make a Richard jefferson type (Ariza?) better. You wont see him living above the rim with Steph. Jefferson better know how to put it on the floor and hit an open J to excel with Steph.

All that said, like I said before, I do think Steph has onions and has shown them in the past, particularly when he is the focal point of the offense. The star leading his team through scoring. When that is his role he's happy to put em up. But he's working to evolve into a new role as distributor, and he's still confused in it, and I'm not suggesting it's an easy transformation for him under any circumstances, least of all with lackluster teammates.

One thing I know is that Steph will not be able to transform himself into Kidd or Nash. I think Billips is a better model. The guy isn't particularly flashy or exciting, but he's a good decision maker, cool under pressure, clutch when it matters. He also makes ~6M per year to Stephs ~15M, and these things matter when considering the direction of a rebuild. Is it wise to give up youth and picks for an exorbitant PG with no one to pass to and poor leadership skills? But that's another conversation for another day...

So yeah, all these things play into my own complex feelings on the guy, and why I and others question whether he's an asset to our rebuild efforts or a detriment.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> IMO, the "I'm the best" comments were a certain straw that broke the camel's back. In an interview on WFAN, Brian Scalabrini from the nets explained that from what he sees and hears of what went on in the Knicks locker room "the team gave up on Steph. The Nets players would walk through a wall to support Kidd, but Steph doesn't have that." This was said near the beginning of the derailment, and we saw a lot of heartless performances during that time, as you demonstrated through your stats. It's rare for all members of a team to collapse simultaneously outside of a breakdown of chemistry.


Once again,Steph has onions..i love saying that,forgive me

Oak,that paragraph is all you need to say..Steph is not a leader,never has been and never will..He has fatal character flaws which he has demonstrated in every enviorment he has been placed.Forget about running thru walls to support him,most guys want to run thru walls to kill him...

Dont get me wrong..Hes talented..But he is the wrong guy for the job,and needs to be traded...


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

truth said:


> Oak,that paragraph is all you need to say..Steph is not a leader,never has been and never will..He has fatal character flaws which he has demonstrated in every enviorment he has been placed.Forget about running thru walls to support him,most guys want to run thru walls to kill him...
> 
> Dont get me wrong..Hes talented..But he is the wrong guy for the job,and needs to be traded...



Yeah, there are plenty who aren't leaders. Houston is a non leader, Ward never lead anything more than a congregation, Sprewell and Camby were anything but. But then there are anti-leaders. These guys become distractios, and sadly Marbury, like Sprewell, fit more into that camp than leader. 

Now I still supported Spree when he was dealt, so I can understand how the Marbury supporters do the same with Steph. But at the same time now that Spree has revealed himself again with Minny I can see how much his head takes away from his skillset, and his value is indeed LESS to a club than mere on-court performance would indicate.

It's one thing to have a dominant coach and an unsavory role player (Riley and Mason?), but you certainly don't franchise these guys.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

We all know Steph has a lot of problems, but we are stuck with him unless we give him away for draft prospects. His problems are no secret so we're not unloading him anytime soon. He'll never be a leader or a franchise player, however, he will always be a dominant pointguard. Given that it is in my opinion best to keep. Unless we trade him for a picks and a young pointguard... someone like Devin Harris and some draft picks. Someone of that caliber. Other than that is no reason to give up that advantage we have at the position stephon plays in.


----------



## VC3 (Apr 14, 2005)

It's not that's he's a ballhog. He just can't win.


----------

