# Iverson vrs Marbury



## Tailback

Everyone always says how AI is better, but i just think marbury does more things with the basketball. Marbury has the same explosiveness but also has a bigger, stronger body. Iverson takes many ill advised shots, and shoots at a mediocre percentage. However, i do think he's an amazing competitor, and doesnt have that much talent around him. Id still take marbury tho as the better basketball player.


----------



## Minstrel

Marbury is better, definitely, in my opinion. Marbury is as dangerous a scorer as anyone, yet also a great play-maker, always racking up a large number of assists.

I don't know that anyone's more dangerous in a close game, late.

And I really like Ivy, before anyone accuses me of "hating" on him. He's a warrior and a great talent. I think his shooting troubles come about from his height and if he were 6'6'', he might have been better than Bryant or McGrady.

As things are, though, I'd take Starbury.


----------



## futuristxen

Marbury does not have the same explosiveness. Iverson is easily the most explosive player in the league. And he was probably even more explosive when he first came in the league and was still dunking on people. Marbury is stronger though. And I think he's taller as well.

However, Iverson has taken his team to the NBA finals. Marbury has only recently started playing team ball(remember Marbury in Minnesota and New Jersey?). I think it's too early to say that Marbury has gotten better than AI. Iverson is capable of putting up Marbury's assist numbers and still scoring more. I think he may do that this season. The writing is on the wall if you look at how he finished the season and played in the playoffs and olympics, his assists shot up and his points fell down into the 27-29 ppg range.

Also, Iverson's heart and sheer will puts him in a diffrent league than Marbury in my mind. You can never underestimate the heart of a champion and all of that crap. If I had to take one of them into the decisive game of a playoff series I would want Iverson in my corner. You know even if he doesn't shoot well he's going to give it his all and leave it all on the floor, which is pretty inspiring to whoever you have out on the court with him.

Interesting fact:
In Iverson's rookie year when he was still playing point guard for the Sixers he averaged 23 and 7.5

Last year Marbury averaged 22 and 8.


----------



## Kunlun

I feel that if Iverson were 6'4 or something he would be considered one of the greatest to ever play the game.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> Interesting fact:
> In Iverson's rookie year when he was still playing point guard for the Sixers he averaged 23 and 7.5
> 
> Last year Marbury averaged 22 and 8.


Good point, everybody acts like Iverson didn't get other people involved, he is a playmaker, but he makes plays by pentrating, if the D collapses on him and he can make the pass he makes it, which is why he always gets 5 assists a game even at the SG spot, more than some startin PGs. This year I see him getting something like 28 and 7, because of Big Dog, and I think Kenny Thomas is going to step up this year. AI is still better than Steph, Steph will never be better. Steph is a great player, but AI is just better, I would rather have Iverson on my team than everyone except Duncan, KG and Shaq.


----------



## Johnny Mac

Iversons proven hes a better leader, and the better player as of right now. 

But its undisputed in my mind that Marbury has more talent (ability+skills combined)

Marbury showed glimpses of good leaderships skills against the Spurs in the playoffs, we'll see if he can build on that.


----------



## 1 Penny

If Allen Iverson was around 6'5~6'6, he would be the most unstoppable player in the NBA since Michael Jordan.

I can imagine this guy just dunking and doing lay ups on people's heads. I seriously do.... assuming he retains atleast 95% of his quickness and leap also.



Marbury is as skilled as Iverson imo, but Marbury is just more stronger and more physically "ready", Marbury has shown that he can score 40 a game easily. Its a tough choice, but I would say Iverson... but Marbury as a 6'2 point guard as opposed a 6'0 Shooting guard Iverson... Marbury is in a better scenario and has the better chance of having a longer career on that point guard.

Iverson will eventually go back to pg in a few years... Its a tough comparison really.


----------



## walkon4

*iverson*

Iverson owns Marbury

end of story

peace


----------



## MLKG

If Iverson was 6'6 or 6'7" he wouldn't be the same player. A lot of the things he does comes from his ability to slink his way through the lane, put him in a bigger body and he can't do that as well. 

I've always thought if you want to see what a 6'7" version of Iverson would look like look at Rip Hamilton. He'd have a better FG% and get better looks on his jump shot. But the bigger body would really hurt the drive and dish aspect of his game.


----------



## compsciguy78

> Originally posted by <b>KL Dawger</b>!
> I feel that if Iverson were 6'4 or something he would be considered one of the greatest to ever play the game.


What if Iverson was 5'5"....would he be better than Earl Boykins?

What if Yao Ming was 6'0" would he even be in the NBA?


----------



## futuristxen

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> 
> 
> What if Iverson was 5'5"....would he be better than Earl Boykins?
> 
> What if Yao Ming was 6'0" would he even be in the NBA?


Yes to both. That's why both of them are special players.


----------



## Amareca

Iverson isn't more explosive than Marbury. How could you say that and base it on the fact that you saw Iverson dunking on people when he came into the league?

Marbury was doing that too. In fact the one handed reverse alley oop dunk cutting to the baseline and with his back to the hoop in his last season with the Nets was better than any of Iverson's dunks.

And Marbury is 2 years younger than Iverson.

Last season Marbury *clearly* outplayed Iverson in their 2 games.

I think it is funny how you are saying that Iverson can get as many assists as Marbury while still scoring more when Iverson only averaged more than 6 apg in his first two career seasons but only averaged 22 and 23.5apg while Marbury is only 1 of 2 players who average better than 20 and 8 for their career, Oscar Robertson being the other.

So Iverson averaged 6.5ppg more for his career on worse shooting but Marbury averages 2.6apg more for his career than Iverson and also averages less turnovers.

Iverson is listed as 6'0 , Marbury 6'2. So what's the argument about wether Iverson was 6'7 or taller he would be the best? What if Marbury was 6'7? That's just a dumb argument.

What if Michael Jordan was 8'3?


----------



## DetBNyce

Iverson has been an elite player in the league for a while now, while Starbury stepped his game up a notch last season to a level right below the elite player status. I think Iverson is a little better, but Starbury is fast approaching.


----------



## LionOfJudah

> Originally posted by <b>1 Penny</b>!
> If Allen Iverson was around 6'5~6'6, he would be the most unstoppable player in the NBA since Michael Jordan.
> 
> I can imagine this guy just dunking and doing lay ups on people's heads. I seriously do.... assuming he retains atleast 95% of his quickness and leap also.


Wouldn't that be sweet.... Iverson at 6'6" His killer instinct and drive with all his abilities just no height disadvantage.... Maaan... He could average 40 points a game and get even more steals with a wider wingspan... and he wouldn't get knocked around as much. A 6'6" Starbury would be just as exciting but a 6'6" Stevie Franchise... He would of beat Carter in the dunk contest a few years back...  Yeah I said it, here comes the Vince worshipers to his defense...


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>DetBNyce</b>!
> Iverson has been an elite player in the league for a while now, while Starbury stepped his game up a notch last season to a level right below the elite player status.


Marbury's game has always been elite. He just hasn't been perceived as elite because he was on bad teams, and people hate to call players on bad teams "elite" (though Jordan got a semi-pass on a bad team early in his career).

My view is until a player is named GM also, they aren't responsible for the talent around him. Marbury's been putting up incredible, elite numbers at least through his New Jersey and Phoenix career...I don't recall his Minnesota numbers.

That's why Phoenix was willing to deal Kidd...because they were getting back a younger, elite point guard. Marbury is actually a brilliant play-maker *and* a brilliant scorer. If he were dropped in Sacramento or LA and put up these numbers on a top team, people would be talking about him as a possible top-five player.


----------



## chiuondis

i dont get it.. so many "if iverson was taller crap" .. the fact that he's not taller so we just gonna have this debate..

the fact is.. iverson is actually 5'11 ... they made a big deal about this in philly durin their finals run a couple of years ago...

in my opinion Iverson outshinse Marbury at this stage of their lives.. Iverson lead his team to the finals .. he has proved to be clutch. . he's a leader..

Marbury is FINALLY getting it after much critism from the media when he was traded from NJ .. .and all the other crap that JKidd is better.. that motivated Marbury and still is which is why i think in a couple of years when iverson's legs start to slow down .. marbury will be the better leader.. 

BUT.. as of today Iverson is better


----------



## DetBNyce

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury's game has always been elite. He just hasn't been perceived as elite because he was on bad teams, and people hate to call players on bad teams "elite" (though Jordan got a semi-pass on a bad team early in his career).
> 
> My view is until a player is named GM also, they aren't responsible for the talent around him. Marbury's been putting up incredible, elite numbers at least through his New Jersey and Phoenix career...I don't recall his Minnesota numbers.
> 
> That's why Phoenix was willing to deal Kidd...because they were getting back a younger, elite point guard. Marbury is actually a brilliant play-maker *and* a brilliant scorer. If he were dropped in Sacramento or LA and put up these numbers on a top team, people would be talking about him as a possible top-five player.


I always thought Marbury was a great player, in fact I had him pretty high on my list for PG rankings entering last season when it was a pretty big thread on here a while back, but to me you have to put up those numbers and win too. In Jersey and his first year in Phoenix he didn't win and while he had good numbers. A lot of people can put up bad numbers on teams that don't win, but it takes a special player to do it and win at the same time. So in some ways I agree with you. But, I still feel he is a notch below AI and the truly elite (Kobe, Duncan, T-Mac, etc.)


----------



## Amareca

Of course the biased East Coast media helps players like Jason Kidd or Allen Iverson. Plus you have to take into account that Kidd and Iverson are big fishes in a small pond while players like Marbury and Nash are big fishes in a big pond.

Jason Kidd actually had better stats and more wins in Phoenix but never got close to the same media attention that he is getting now despite being a worse player.

Marbury really didn't change much at all between 01/02 and 02/03 yet the media insists that he has turned around and changed so much because he was more motivated.
That is because they didn't even pay attention to him they just repeated what was easy " Trouble maker, selfish..etc".

The fact is that the Suns management thought Marbury was too passive and should have been more agressive offensively looking for his shot too.
Yet the media insists that Marbury has gotten less "selfish" this season and makes up other stuff like that.


----------



## DetBNyce

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Of course the biased East Coast media helps players like Jason Kidd or Allen Iverson. Plus you have to take into account that Kidd and Iverson are big fishes in a small pond while players like Marbury and Nash are big fishes in a big pond.
> 
> Jason Kidd actually had better stats and more wins in Phoenix but never got close to the same media attention that he is getting now despite being a worse player.
> 
> Marbury really didn't change much at all between 01/02 and 02/03 yet the media insists that he has turned around and changed so much because he was more motivated.
> That is because they didn't even pay attention to him they just repeated what was easy " Trouble maker, selfish..etc".
> 
> The fact is that the Suns management thought Marbury was too passive and should have been more agressive offensively looking for his shot too.
> Yet the media insists that Marbury has gotten less "selfish" this season and makes up other stuff like that.


I actually agree with you...:yes:


----------



## compsciguy78

What if Allen Iverson was 7'1"? 

What if Marbury was 7'2"?

Who would be better? 

If you just read these questions then you realize how dumb it is to say someone would be better if they are taller or smaller. They are what they are for a reason. Everyone can't be the size of Yao Ming and everyone cant be as quick as AI.


----------



## BEEZ

I have posted on this thread before and when individuals talk about Iverson's poor FG% you first need to watch him play. He takes 10 terrible shots a game in which 2 maybe 3 tops go in. Do you know why he takes the terrible shots because in the sixers offense hes getting they ball swung back to him with 3-4 seconds left on the shot clock and his teammates are waiting for him to bail them out. The posters who are talking about Marbury being taller and heavier makes him the better player. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds. So I guess Mengke Bateer is better than Tim Duncan. Theres not a tougher player in the league than Iverson PERIOD. They're skills are comparable but to say Marbury is better than Iverson is not true up to this point in they're careers. At no time has Marbury been considered a top 5 player in this league and hes just starting to crack alot of peoples top 10. This is really not even an argument


----------



## futuristxen

what shouldn't get lost in this arguement, is that both of these players are very good. Just because someone says Iverson is better than Marbury, doesn't mean they don't also think Marbury is a terrific player.

Sometimes in the zeal to make a point people will make it seem like there's a huge gulf between two players where there really isn't.

I believe Iverson is better than Marbury. But if Iverson is the 6th best player in the league, Marbury is like 8th or 9th.

Also, I don't think height really matters that much in this arguement. Just because as short as Iverson is, it's not like Marbury is 6-8. If Marbury was playing SG in the east, he'd still get taken to the post as much as Iverson does.

Also one thing that always gets overlooked in discussions about Iverson is that he is the best player in the league at playing the passing lanes on defense. At first you could attribute that to him playing with good shotblockers behind him, but he's clearly proven that no matter what he's great at racking up the steals and getting the Sixers easy points in transition. I think Steals is probably the most stigmatized stat to lead the league in, because there's a presumption that you are gambling too much, but like shot blocking it can turn a game around.


----------



## BarrettTZ12

Marbury just got his friggin' act together last year. It's about time he stopped being such a little baby like he was on the T'Wolves and in Jersey. He's just finally realized what it takes to be a point guard and a team leader. I'd like to seem him keep that up, but who knows what'll happen in the next few years.

Iverson learned that about 4 years ago. He does whatever it takes to make his team win. Everybody saw how different he played in the Olympics versus how he plays on the Sixers. The similarity is that he's doing what it takes for success. If that means stepping back and creating opportunities for other players, he'll do it. And if it means creating shots for himself, though they're not always good ones, that what he's gonna do. 

Iverson can do anything Marbury can do, and he can probably do it better. Marbury may have equal physical and basketball skills, but Marbury does not have the heart or competitive drive that AI does. That's what separates them. Allen Iverson is a better player than Stephon Marbury, now and always.


----------



## Amareca

I think you are just one of those fans who don't watch him play and just take what the media gives you for granted.


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> I think you are just one of those fans who don't watch him play and just take what the media gives you for granted.


I actually think that, honestly this statement may be you who does it. A couple posters objectively showed why they felt a certain way, but your reasons werent as solid as the others. Also of course you would feel Marbury is better when the Suns are your favorite team


----------



## Amareca

Yeah, it is very objective to say that Iverson has more heart than anyone therefore is better or other vague arguments that aren't backed up with facts.
Or that Marbury only played one season at top level, or that Marbury will never be better than Iverson when he was already better last season if you want.

Also what does it prove that Iverson got more assists on the olympic team than he would normally? That proves nothing absolutely nothing.

Basically some of you Iverson-supporters are saying that when Iverson takes 40 shot makes only 10 and dishes out his normal 5 apg he is doing whatever it takes to win and shows heart.

Also you are talking about Marbury being a cry-baby and want to support an argument for Iverson? That's really hilarious.

But when Marbury takes many shots although he gets more assists than Iverson, than he is a bad leader, selfish, immature....:sour:


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Yeah, it is very objective to say that Iverson has more heart than anyone therefore is better or other vague arguments that aren't backed up with facts.
> Or that Marbury only played one season at top level, or that Marbury will never be better than Iverson when he was already better last season if you want.
> 
> Also what does it prove that Iverson got more assists on the olympic team than he would normally? That proves nothing absolutely nothing.
> 
> Basically some of you Iverson-supporters are saying that when Iverson takes 40 shot makes only 10 and dishes out his normal 5 apg he is doing whatever it takes to win and shows heart.
> 
> Also you are talking about Marbury being a cry-baby and want to support an argument for Iverson? That's really hilarious.
> 
> But when Marbury takes many shots although he gets more assists than Iverson, than he is a bad leader, selfish, immature....:sour:


Your post lacks validity. Is Iverson a PG? NO. Is Marbury a PG? Yes. Did you read my above post. Any avg fan of basketball that actually pays attention to the game knows that he doesnt shoot 40 times a game firstly and that he had to, out of necessity. You really arent supporting your argument here.


----------



## Amareca

I am sure I can find lots of games in the past when Iverson took like 40 shots and shot like 2X%.
Besides that it was simply an example.

So you are saying that Iverson HAD to shoot 40 times when he did? Well that's bringing us back to the point again. When Marbury shoots 40 times and dishes out his normal 8 apg he is selfish and immature.
But when Iverson shoots 40 times and dishes out his normal 5 apg he HAD to and has so much heart.

Wether Marbury or Iverson are PGs or not doesn't even matter. That's just a tag to put on players.

Lets see some facts...

Are the Suns better than the Sixers? Yes - Suns play a way tougher schedule
Did Marbury outplay Iverson this season? Yes - see boxscores
Did the Suns sweep the Sixers? Yes - see boxscores

Lets research some of your arguments...

Does Iverson have more heart than Marbury? Oh yeah we can all measure that. Great argument because Marbury doesn't show any emotion.

Is Iverson a better leader? Oh yeah because he gets along so nicely with his teammates that they all end up being traded so he can be the man and his coach leaves too while you can see Marbury hugging his teammates all the time showing great chemistry with the other guys.

Did Iverson make the finals? Yes, but did he win it? No , so it means nothing. He didn't even come close.
If that's supposed to be an argument Kidd is much better than Iverson because he made the finals twice and his team is so much better than the 76ers.


----------



## Starbury03

Marbury is better in my opinon cuz he dosen't have to shot as much to make a huge impact and he gets to the basket so easily without even seeming to try plus he is such a good passer the way he hits the crappy big men around him for baskets is incredible. I like Iverson but I jst think that Steph can do whatever he wants on the court at any time. While Iverson has to shot tough shoots.


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> Also of course you would feel Marbury is better when the Suns are your favorite team


Also of course that is an assumption because you are running out of arguments.

Actually I have an old suns Kidd jersey and an Iverson jersey but no Marbury jersey.


----------



## futuristxen

Look. Even last year it's hard to make a statistical arguement that Marbury is better than Iverson.

Marbury averaged: 22.3ppg, 8apg, and 1.21 spg and 3rpg

Iverson: 27.6 ppg, 5.5 apg, 2.23spg and 4.20 rpg.

So Iverson outscored, out rebounded, and outstole Marbury while only averaging 3 assists less.

And led his team to a 48-34 record, compared to Marbury leading his team to 44-38. And Phoenix has a MUCH more talented team around him than does Iverson. Marion, Amare, Penny so on and so forth, compared to Snow, Thomas, and Keith Van Horn.

And he got his team out of the first round. Marbury, excuses or not, has never done any winning in the playoffs. This was his first season where he's actually led a team even into the playoffs.

oh. And Iverson has the most heart of anybody in the league, and that includes Marbury.

sorry for the errors. Shootaround has started on ESPN and I keep looking over there.


----------



## Starbury03

What are you talking about the Suns played the Spurs better than anyone in the whole playoffs and they 76ers only won 4 more games in the East how is Iversons supporting cast that bad. He has the most heart is that why he says he dosen't want to practice and things like do you thin I want to play basketball everyday.


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> I am sure I can find lots of games in the past when Iverson took like 40 shots and shot like 2X%.
> Besides that it was simply an example.
> 
> So you are saying that Iverson HAD to shoot 40 times when he did? Well that's bringing us back to the point again. When Marbury shoots 40 times and dishes out his normal 8 apg he is selfish and immature.
> But when Iverson shoots 40 times and dishes out his normal 5 apg he HAD to and has so much heart.


Where have I ever argued this. Also hes only shot over 40 times 
6 times in his entire career. 



> Wether Marbury or Iverson are PGs or not doesn't even matter. That's just a tag to put on players.


It does matter. Ones job is to get his teammates the ball anothers job is to score points. Why dont you get that??



> Lets see some facts...
> 
> Are the Suns better than the Sixers? Yes - Suns play a way tougher schedule
> Did Marbury outplay Iverson this season? Yes - see boxscores
> Did the Suns sweep the Sixers? Yes - see boxscores


Wow the Suns played good last season and they swept the Sixers and Marbury outplayed Iverson in both games. And???? It has happened on a regular over the course of they're careers so once again your argument voids itself.



> Lets research some of your arguments...
> 
> Does Iverson have more heart than Marbury? Oh yeah we can all measure that. Great argument because Marbury doesn't show any emotion.


Its leaguewide known that he has more heart than any other player. Whats there to argue about. Its not me saying it or another poster. Its both of those players PEERS



> Is Iverson a better leader? Oh yeah because he gets along so nicely with his teammates that they all end up being traded so he can be the man and his coach leaves too while you can see Marbury hugging his teammates all the time showing great chemistry with the other guys.


Who cares about this leader stuff. I never brought that up.



> Did Iverson make the finals? Yes, but did he win it? No , so it means nothing. He didn't even come close.


It does mean something. He took a team to the Finals. Something that Marbury didnt do when he was in Jersey and hasnt so far since he was in Phoenix with much better players than the Sixers have and the Sixers had a better record than Phoenix last year as well.



> If that's supposed to be an argument Kidd is much better than Iverson because he made the finals twice and his team is so much better than the 76ers.


Kidd is better than AI


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Marbury is better in my opinon cuz he dosen't have to shot as much to make a huge impact and he gets to the basket so easily without even seeming to try plus he is such a good passer the way he hits the crappy big men around him for baskets is incredible. I like Iverson but I jst think that Steph can do whatever he wants on the court at any time. While Iverson has to shot tough shoots.


What dont you understand of them playing 2 different positions. Iverson's job is to score and Marbury job is to pass. Iverson is just as equal as a passer and no one can stay in front of AI, so to say Ai cant get to where he wants to on the court makes no sense at all because he has one of the best handles in the league and is one of the faster players in the league


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> What are you talking about the Suns played the Spurs better than anyone in the whole playoffs and they 76ers only won 4 more games in the East how is Iversons supporting cast that bad. He has the most heart is that why he says he dosen't want to practice and things like do you thin I want to play basketball everyday.


Do you watch basketball??? The Sixers had a much worse supporting cast its not even funny.


----------



## Starbury03

They are not even close in passing MArbury is a far better passer I think he is the best passer on pick and rolls in the NBA for sure and maybe the best passer in the league. If Iverson can get by everyone why does he force tons of shots adn shoot hard shoots.


----------



## Starbury03

The suns had no depth last year what are yo talking about Derrick Coleman is good and no one even got a chance when AI shoots so much and I do watch basketball I have league pass


----------



## futuristxen

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> What are you talking about the Suns played the Spurs better than anyone in the whole playoffs and they 76ers only won 4 more games in the East how is Iversons supporting cast that bad. He has the most heart is that why he says he dosen't want to practice and things like do you thin I want to play basketball everyday.


You actually have to watch Iverson play, more than just reading headlines. Otherwise I could totally understand your confusion. If you've ever seen him play you would understand why he is considered by many to have the most heart of anybody in the league.

If you played the games as hard as Iverson does, and got as banged up as he does, would you really want to get out for practice when all you know is a 110%? Larry Brown didn't think Iverson needed to practice for Iverson's benefit, he wanted Iverson to practice for his teammates benefit. And that's something that has been completely blown out of proportion because of Larry Brown's whining. I guarantee you go to any NBA roster, and most of the stars don't practice every practice during the season. Last year I think Michael Jordan skipped quite a few wizards practices to rest his banged up body.

And so what if the Suns played the spurs better than anyone in the playoffs--they still lost. They were lucky they drew the spurs because they match up well with them. If they had to play the lakers in the second round the lakers would have swept them.

And if you think Iverson's supporting cast is as good as Phoenix's I'd like to see that arguement. Marbury is playing with an all-star in Marion, a former all-star in Penny, a future all-star in Amare...their team is loaded, that's why people like them out west. What are you even trying to say? I'm a sixers fan so I do like Eric Snow, Aaron Mckie(though he's been ****ty since they went to the finals), Coleman and Kenny Thomas. But if those guys actually got respect in the league, then we wouldn't have people picking the sixers to miss the playoffs this year in the east after finishing 4th.

And if you don't care about that standings out east, I would say then you have to look at the stats. Iverson playing guard out east is a lot tougher than Marbury playing guard out west. The east is so far ahead of the west at guard it isn't even funny.

Last year at the 2, the east had: Mcgrady, Paul Pierce, Rip Hamilton, Ray Allen--you got 1's like Jason Kidd and Baron Davis--every team in the east has somebody in the backcourt that you have to worry about. Eastern Guards are MVP candidates, Western ones are role players for the all the all-star 4's.


----------



## Starbury03

So now the East is better and If a player says things like Iverson about practicing and gets payed that much money I have no respect for them. Just because there are 4 good guards in the east dosen't make it hard it's the big men shoot blockers that clog up the lane and if you haven't noticed that basketball is a team sport and it's the team you play not the plaer ever heard of help defense. You probbly havn't but now you have.


----------



## futuristxen

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> The suns had no depth last year what are yo talking about Derrick Coleman is good and no one even got a chance when AI shoots so much and I do watch basketball I have league pass


Well you might want to watch all of the season next year. You missed Iverson after the all-star break where he really started distributing the ball and changing up his game. Against Detroit in the playoffs he averaged close to 30 points and got 10apg. Surely you watched that?

You'd think Marbury fans would have some sympathy for the media calling a player greedy. Considering up until this season Marbury has had that same label attatched to him.

I guarantee if you put Iverson on the Suns they will be a better team. You put Marbury on the Suns and you'll get something akin to the New Jersey Nets when Marbury was there.

Iverson and Amare, and Iverson and Marion? That'd be sick.

I'm glad you think the Sixers are better than the Suns. Because few people give them that respect. This year Big Dog and AI are going to the finals.


----------



## Starbury03

Iverson isn't a point there is no way the Suns would be better with Iverson. Marbury is the best point in the league and he wil be an MVP candidate this year. Annoucers on ESPN were saying at the end of the year Marbury is playing better than any guard in the league.


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does matter. Ones job is to get his teammates the ball anothers job is to score points. Why dont you get that??


No, there job is to play as good basketball as possible. And both do the same thing. They dominate the ball.

Iverson outstole Marbury? Yeah that's great. If Shaq gamble on the passing lanes 20 times a game he might outsteal Iverson too.

Also Marbury together with Garnett lead the league in crunch time statistics.

Marbury averages better shooting percentages, more assists, less turnovers,less minutes... his team won only 4 games less than the Sixers despite a much tougher schedule.
His team played the champions at least as good as anyone while the Sixers lost to the Pistons who were absolutely destroyed by the Nets.
Marbury dominated Iverson in 1 game and outplayed him in the other. Marbury won both games against Iverson.

So yeah Marbury was better than Iverson last season and it wasn't the first time he made the playoffs like you make it sound.

What are the reasons for Iverson having more heart than anyone? That's just a stupid thing to say to say something good about someone when you are running out of arguments. 
It's just the same as saying Jason Kidd is the best at making everyone better .

So why does Iverson have so much heart? 
Because he attacks the basket and challenges the big guys? Well that's what Marbury does at least as well. 
Because he puts the team on his shoulder in the 4th quarter? Well that's why Marbury is in the top4 in 4th quarter scoring and top 2 in crunch time statistics.
Because he plays through injuries? Marbury played the last 2 seasons with bum ankles that needed surgery at the beginning of the offseason and played through shoulder injuries late in the season and playoffs.
Because Iverson shows emotion? See Game 1 and Game 4 Suns-Spurs for example.
Because Iverson has street cred? Marbury is like the King of NYC playgrounds, out of Coney Island and still returns to his streetball roots every summer.


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Against Detroit in the playoffs he averaged close to 30 points and got 10apg. Surely you watched that?


Yeah we all watched how Iverson faded out of the Eastern Conference playoffs also known as the "losers bracket".


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> And led his team to a 48-34 record, compared to Marbury leading his team to 44-38.


That's a terrible metric to use. Iverson's team plays in a pathetic conference. Marbury's Suns play in a meat-grinder conference. And you're going to compare records straight up? The Suns' 44-34 record in the West is *far* more impressive than the Sixers' 48-34 record in the East. The Sixers wouldn't sniff a .500 record if they were in the West.



> And he got his team out of the first round. Marbury, excuses or not, has never done any winning in the playoffs.


This is even more incredible. The Suns played the eventual NBA champions in the first round and took them to the brink...the Sixers played the Hornets who don't exist in the same realm as the Spurs.

If the Sixers had to play the Spurs, they would have been stomped. The Spurs would have swept the Sixers without even paying attention.

And yet, you completely ignore any differences in level of competition.

If Iverson scored his 27 ppg at a good percentage, I'd have no problem placing him above Marbury. Considering that he shoots such a terrible percentage and gets volume points on volume shots, I think Marbury is the better, more effective scorer. He doesn't score as much because he doesn't *shoot* as much. But when he shoots, he's more likely to get points.

And why do you note the talent around Marbury and the general lack of it around Iverson, but don't note that Marbury would also score more if he weren't sharing shots with players like Stoudemire and Marion?

Iverson's a wonderful talent and perhaps the guttiest player in the league. But I think there's a perfectly solid case to be made for Marbury over Iverson. Marbury may have been immature early in his career (like Ivy can't be accused of that) but I think he's been a better team player than his reputation ever since Jersey days. He was mired on a terrible team, so he didn't win. Now, he's actually got talent around him and he's starting to win. Nobody can do it alone.


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Last year at the 2, the east had: Mcgrady, Paul Pierce, Rip Hamilton, Ray Allen--you got 1's like Jason Kidd and Baron Davis--every team in the east has somebody in the backcourt that you have to worry about. Eastern Guards are MVP candidates, Western ones are role players for the all the all-star 4's.



That's ridiculous

Kobe Bryant, Ray Allen, Michael Finley, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Steve Nash, Nick Van Exel, Gilbert Arenas, John Stockton...

Eric Snow is guarding the 2s anyway and the East PGs were definately not as good as the West'.

The only reason the Eastern Guards are MVP candidates is because there are no real MVP candidates in the East but the East Coast media especially in New York needs to have some players in the East tagged as MVP candidates to generate interesst and the East best players just happen to be guards.

As already pointed out before Jason Kidd won MORE games in Phoenix and had clearly better statistics but was not a MVP candidate playing in the west.


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> This is even more incredible. The Suns played the eventual NBA champions in the first round and took them to the brink...the Sixers played the Hornets who don't exist in the same realm as the Spurs.
> 
> If the Sixers had to play the Spurs, they would have been stomped. The Spurs would have swept the Sixers without even paying attention.
> 
> .


Of course the 76ers beat the Hornets minus a healthy Baron Davis while Marbury suffered a shoulder injury in game 4 against the Spurs which ultimately cost them game 5, 6.


----------



## BarrettTZ12

The stats are against Marbury. The heart and level of competition is against Marbury. The overall team results are against Marbury. What else is there to say? Iverson is better than Marbury.

You have predictions and opinions as your proof, and you're going up against statistics and hard facts. Just face it man, it doesnt matter that he's on your favorite team -- he's not better than Iverson. He's damn good, don't get me wrong, but he ain't better than AI. Like I said before, I'm happy that he's put all that selfishness behind him that he had in Jersey, and the Suns have played well, but no single team in sports relies more on one player than the Sixers and Iverson. And AI gets the job done and he does it well. It's not a knock on Marbury to say he isn't as good as Iverson. It's really just a credit to AI, that's all.


----------



## futuristxen

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That's a terrible metric to use. Iverson's team plays in a pathetic conference. Marbury's Suns play in a meat-grinder conference. And you're going to compare records straight up? The Suns' 44-34 record in the West is *far* more impressive than the Sixers' 48-34 record in the East. The Sixers wouldn't sniff a .500 record if they were in the West.
> 
> 
> 
> This is even more incredible. The Suns played the eventual NBA champions in the first round and took them to the brink...the Sixers played the Hornets who don't exist in the same realm as the Spurs.
> 
> If the Sixers had to play the Spurs, they would have been stomped. The Spurs would have swept the Sixers without even paying attention.
> 
> And yet, you completely ignore any differences in level of competition.
> 
> 
> And why do you note the talent around Marbury and the general lack of it around Iverson, but don't note that Marbury would also score more if he weren't sharing shots with players like Stoudemire and Marion?


I think it's fine to compare the records, you're right if the Sixers played in the west they'd have problems. But they play in the east. And relative to that, taking in their talent level, they did much better than the Suns. Against similiarly talented teams in the east AI's team was 4th best. Where as the Suns relative to their conference finished 8th. I mean, if you don't want to take the records, then you should do it relative to how they ended up in their conferences. That's probably the best way to compare across conferences, and it still favors Iverson.

And beating the Hornets is saying something. The Hornets have arguably the most talented team in the east. Of course they had injuries, but it's not like the Sixers team doesn't have a lot of injuries that they play through(or were playing through)(and really Keith Van Horn is like playing with an injury). In the east, you don't find as many teams who make excuses out of injuries like you do out west where the living is easy. If Penny Hardaway breaks a nail he's out for a month. Whereas out east, Baron Davis can barely walk and he's out there draining 3's. Chauncy Billups is playing with a mangled ankle. And Iverson is perrinially the most banged up. It's because out East you can't take games off like they do out west.

Not only does Allen Iverson have more heart than anyone else in the league. The Easter Conference as a whole has more heart than the West. There I said it.


----------



## futuristxen

> Originally posted by <b>BarrettTZ12</b>!
> The stats are against Marbury. The heart and level of competition is against Marbury. The overall team results are against Marbury. What else is there to say? Iverson is better than Marbury.
> 
> You have predictions and opinions as your proof, and you're going up against statistics and hard facts. Just face it man, it doesnt matter that he's on your favorite team -- he's not better than Iverson. He's damn good, don't get me wrong, but he ain't better than AI. Like I said before, I'm happy that he's put all that selfishness behind him that he had in Jersey, and the Suns have played well, but no single team in sports relies more on one player than the Sixers and Iverson. And AI gets the job done and he does it well. It's not a knock on Marbury to say he isn't as good as Iverson. It's really just a credit to AI, that's all.


And really this is all one needs to say.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>BarrettTZ12</b>!
> The stats are against Marbury. The heart and level of competition is against Marbury. The overall team results are against Marbury. What else is there to say?


The stats are not against Marbury, unless you pick and choose your stats. Iverson's horrible field goal percentage and Marbury's superior assists are not in Iverson's favour.

The level of competition is *against* Marbury? How do you figure? Marbury has the much higher level of competition, which *helps* his case.

The overall team results are meaningless, due to the level of competition. Iverson's Sixers could go 82-0 against a junior high league, but it wouldn't mean anything. His team's better record is purely a result of playing weak opponents.



> You have predictions and opinions as your proof, and you're going up against statistics and hard facts.


Unfortunately not. Which stats are used are opinion, regardless of whether you prefer Marbury or Iverson. Some of the stats favour Marbury, some of them favour Iverson. And, as I pointed, all your other "hard facts" are, in fact, completely wrong.



> It's not a knock on Marbury to say he isn't as good as Iverson. It's really just a credit to AI, that's all.


Well, you're right here. Marbury's not *as* good as Iverson; he's better. But, that's no knock on Iverson...he's still quite good, even if Marbury's better.

Or, we can drop the condescension and recognize it's pure opinion regardless which of the two you like...there's certainly no compelling *proof* for either player. Which factors you use to decide are going to depend on your opinion as to what it meaningful and what is important.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> The Easter Conference as a whole has more heart than the West. There I said it.


Well, if you're just going to make things up, that certainly makes the discussion difficult.

How about this: Marbury's better because the West has more magical power.

And no, the best way to compare the Suns and the Sixers is not to look at their finish in the conference. If we put the Suns in a junior high conference and they finished first, would that mean that they're better than the Lakers, who didn't top their conference?

Obviously not. Level of competition matters. The Suns are clearly a superior team to the Sixers...if we're going to rate players by how good their teams are, Marbury wins. He's "led" his team to being better than the Sixers. The Sixers wouldn't make the playoffs in the West...the Suns *did* make the playoffs in the West.

And no, beating a Hornets team with an injured Baron Davis is *not* a significant achievement. I like how you pass off Baron Davis' injury as, "Sure, they had *some* injuries." Like, not having their only star healthy?


----------



## futuristxen

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> How about this: Marbury's better because the West has more magical power.


I find it hard to believe that the west could have more magical power than a conference that has both the Wizards and the Magic.

Point: Eastern Conference.

Try again.


----------



## BarrettTZ12

> The level of competition is against Marbury? How do you figure? Marbury has the much higher level of competition, which helps his case.


That was my bad. I meant to write something about desire, drive and his own fire, you know? That was a misprint on my part.



> Or, we can drop the condescension and recognize it's pure opinion regardless which of the two you like...there's certainly no compelling proof for either player. Which factors you use to decide are going to depend on your opinion as to what it meaningful and what is important.


You couldn't be more correct. I'm a believer in the fact that you cant measure a player strictly on stats, although stats are pretty important in measuring ability. There really isn't any great evidence of either player being better, which is why nobody is going to change sides in this argument, making it absolutely pointless to debate. No one is gonna be convinced differently here, so let's just cease right here.

The end.


----------



## BEEZ

I was going to continue to argue this with you all but its clear on both sides of the argument that some posters are picking and choosing. Simple fact of the matter is, is that Marbury first season in Phoenix a bunch of posters where calling for Marbury's head. He had a really good season now hes the best thing since slice bread. Marbury has never been an MVP. Marbury has never been in the top 5 in MVp voting and like I said up until this past season no one had Marbury in they're top 10 players in the league Period. More facts Phoenix has gone farther with Kidd. Minstrel you keep pointing out the fact of Iverson's terrible shooting percentage and yes it is horrible, but honestly from a BASKETBALL FAN point of view, not a fan of Iverson or marbury. Why is Iverson's FG% low. When you guys come to terms with that then maybe you will understand why so many say that AI is better.


----------



## futuristxen

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> And no, beating a Hornets team with an injured Baron Davis is *not* a significant achievement. I like how you pass off Baron Davis' injury as, "Sure, they had *some* injuries." Like, not having their only star healthy?


Like Iverson and the Sixers weren't playing with injuries. You didn't hear the hornets or hornets fans make excuses about injuries afterwards like you do every team that lost in the west.

Every team in the west except for the lakers' fanbase made up excuses as to why they lost. Cry me a river. Suck it up. It's playoff basketball. It's not like Dirk couldn't go out and play game 6. He just was worried about his career. He didn't want to be like Grant Hill who out east killed his career trying to get out of the first round with the pistons. Aaron Mckie is still recovering from the sixers final run.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe that the west could have more magical power than a conference that has both the Wizards and the Magic.
> 
> Point: Eastern Conference.
> 
> Try again.


The Eastern Magic have never done much of note. The Western Magic (Magic Johnson) won five titles and was one of the three greatest players ever.

The Wizards are imposters. They renamed themselves in a weak attempt to capture some magic. So far, quite a failure.

Good try, though.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> Like Iverson and the Sixers weren't playing with injuries.


If the Sixers didn't have Iverson at a high level, due to injury, that would be comparable. Otherwise, the Sixers injuries are hardly as significant as the Hornets.



> It's not like Dirk couldn't go out and play game 6. He just was worried about his career. He didn't want to be like Grant Hill who out east killed his career trying to get out of the first round with the pistons.


So what you're saying is that the Western Conference is smarter? Cool.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> Minstrel you keep pointing out the fact of Iverson's terrible shooting percentage and yes it is horrible, but honestly from a BASKETBALL FAN point of view, not a fan of Iverson or marbury.


I'm not a specific fan of either Marbury or Iverson, nor am I a Sixers or Suns fan. I like both players. Therefore, I *am* approaching this as a "basketball fan."



> Why is Iverson's FG% low.


A few reasons: His size places him at a disadvantage, as almost every shooting guard defending him is taller than him. Iverson often shoots whether he has a good shot opportunity or not. Finally, he doesn't have a pure shot from outside, yet shoots a lot from outside, which kills his field goal percentage.

None of those reasons "excuse" his percentage. He has no control over his size, but reality is what it is. His small size makes him a less effective player.

I'm sure Iverson-boosters will say, "He's got no one to pass to! Of course he's going to take bad shots. He has to!"

Tracy McGrady also has had few good scorers to pass to, and yet he's carried the scoring load with a good shooting percentage. He takes better shots, he's taller allowing him to clear his shot better, and he *does* pass more, creating ball movement. Outside of the height thing, those are things Iverson could do to improve his scoring efficiency.


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not a specific fan of either Marbury or Iverson, nor am I a Sixers or Suns fan. I like both players. Therefore, I *am* approaching this as a "basketball fan."
> 
> 
> 
> A few reasons: His size places him at a disadvantage, as almost every shooting guard defending him is taller than him. Iverson often shoots whether he has a good shot opportunity or not. Finally, he doesn't have a pure shot from outside, yet shoots a lot from outside, which kills his field goal percentage.
> 
> None of those reasons "excuse" his percentage. He has no control over his size, but reality is what it is. His small size makes him a less effective player.
> 
> I'm sure Iverson-boosters will say, "He's got no one to pass to! Of course he's going to take bad shots. He has to!"
> 
> Tracy McGrady also has had few good scorers to pass to, and yet he's carried the scoring load with a good shooting percentage. He takes better shots, he's taller allowing him to clear his shot better, and he *does* pass more, creating ball movement. Outside of the height thing, those are things Iverson could do to improve his scoring efficiency.


So you are negating the fact that as I pointed out earlier that he at least 10 times a game gets the ball swung back to him with 2-4 seconds on the shot clock thus forcing him to take bad shots? Also yes McGrady does have a better FG% but doesnt he post up a lil bit more than AI. Also AI passes the ball alot. His teammates more often then not do not finish. He PASSES much more than McGrady does


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> So you are negating the fact that as I pointed out earlier that he at least 10 times a game gets the ball swung back to him with 2-4 seconds on the shot clock thus forcing him to take bad shots?


I think that happens to a lot of players. Just about every team looks to their best perimeter scorer to bail them out when the shot clock is running down.

I think *10 times a game* is a huge exaggeration. I don't think that happens to any player at that rate. I think it happens to Iverson, Kobe, McGrady, Marbury, etc. several times a game.


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I think *10 times a game* is a huge exaggeration. I don't think that happens to any player at that rate. I think it happens to Iverson, Kobe, McGrady, Marbury, etc. several times a game.


Not at all actually it was more. On ESPN toward the end of last season they said if I am not mistaken the avg was 10.6 times a game that Pollack had counted that, that happens to Iverson. Also Kobe NO, Marbury no. The only other one I see that happening with is McGrady. The others have shooters and team members to fall back on that they wouldnt think twice about passing the ball to


----------



## Minstrel

Well, I've watched Iverson play and I didn't see that happen to Iverson ten times a game. So I suppose I disagree with Pollack.

And while the Lakers or Suns have better players, they still throw out to Kobe or Marbury when they're trapped and the clock is running down. Not 10 times a game for them, either, though.


----------



## futuristxen

However with the sixers, you will see most of their guys passing up wide open shots with the clock going down to give to iverson with a man in his face.

You won't see Derek Fisher or Rick Fox or Devean George passing up too many wide open shots when Kobe is covered and the clock is going down.


----------



## Kunlun

Iverson is better than Marbury. What has Marbury accomplished? What has Iverson accomplished? Yeah, that's what I thought.


----------



## "Matt!"

The only thing I have to say is, nobody displays the effort Iverson displays night in, night out, for so many minutes. Nobody leaves more on the floor, nobody plays with more heart.

Nobody.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>KL Dawger</b>!
> Iverson is better than Marbury. What has Marbury accomplished? What has Iverson accomplished?


Er, nothing for both? I guess you're referring to the Sixers winning the weakest Eastern conference in history...that's not particularly impressive. Marbury's current Suns would have won that East, too.



> Yeah, that's what I thought.


Cool.


----------



## Kunlun

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Er, nothing for both? I guess you're referring to the Sixers winning the weakest Eastern conference in history...that's not particularly impressive. Marbury's current Suns would have won that East, too.


Why don't you count how many ROY, Rookie Game MVP, All-Star Game MVP, Regular Season MVP, Scoring Titles Marbury has and then still say Iverson has accomplished nothing.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>KL Dawger</b>!
> 
> Why don't you count how many ROY, Rookie Game MVP, All-Star Game MVP, Regular Season MVP, Scoring Titles Marbury has and then still say Iverson has accomplished nothing.


Fair enough, I thought you were referring to team success, which is an oft-played card.

Much of that award success has to do with how he's perceived. I agree that most people *perceive* Iverson to be the better player. I'm just arguing that they're wrong, in my opinion, and Marbury is actually a more valuable player.

It's very similar to a point a poster earlier made about Kidd never being considered for MVP when he was with Phoenix and playing at least as well (higher stats in Phoenix)...as soon as he moves out East and lifts a Nets team that also became more talented around the same time, he's suddenly a super MVP-caliber player.

Hype matters, perception is often flawed. Awards are fine, but not the ultimate arbitor of talent, in my opinion.


----------



## futuristxen

You really can't taint a league MVP award though. You generally have to play at a special level over an entire season to generate the consensus neccessary to win that award.


----------



## Tailback

as the original starter of this thread, the point was that i knew everyone would bash marbury for his past and all that. The fact of the matter is we are comparing them as basketball players NOW, and not a few years ago. I think its fair to say they are pretty close. What baffles me is when people make really stupid posts that say "Iverson is better" hands down. That really doesnt accomplish anything other than making yourself look bad. I still think Marbury is the better player, but I may be biased because I am a marbury fan, so i think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

Wouldnt it be great to see these two go at it 1 on 1???
Thanks.


----------



## John

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Iverson isn't a point there is no way the Suns would be better with Iverson. Marbury is the best point in the league and he wil be an MVP candidate this year. Annoucers on ESPN were saying at the end of the year Marbury is playing better than any guard in the league.



You know why the Suns dont make what Iverson does for the sixers and let Penny be the point guard of the team, who is the better play maker than Mabury not necessarily a better assister in the game??? because Mabury was never the same off the ball player like Allen Iverson. 

Allen Iverson can play without the ball, he can just catch and shoot, his scoring repitore is way ahead of Mabury who does get assists in some occasions because he "has to pass", not that he wants to pass.

Fans are saying Iverson put up ill-advised shots, but u know many players dont put up the so called "ill-advised" shots because they couldnt even get to the shooting situation...

I really dont dun understand why fans made so much deal about the Suns made the playoffs. If it wasnt for Penny, somone could suggested it was the lack of depth? LOL, my *** he only scores 10 a game... But he made key shots, key plays where many suns players just couldnt....

Now, back to the topic, Mabury is send-tier baller where Iverson is the first... Dont put them on the same sentence!!!


----------



## Amareca

There comes the Penny-worshipper.


----------



## CP26

Whered Anfernee get his nickname Penny from?


----------



## Mavs Dude

Iverson is way better than Marbury. I admit Marbury is pretty good but he also has a better supporting cast.


----------



## John

FIRST ROUND EXIT GROUP:




















NBA FINAL GROUP:


----------



## Showtyme

In NBA Live, Marbury is traditionally the faster player. When I first started playing that game, with Live 99, I would take Marbury and just use him on turbo the whole time, dish the ball off, then pass it back to him to run circles around guys and score. Literally, he could grab the rebound and still manage to get in front of EVERYONE and score.

Since Live 99 is right about everything in life there is to know, I go with Marbury.

:laugh:

On a more serious note,

AI is pound-for-pound the best basketball player in the NBA. I don't know how that works for a team like the Sixers, but if we're going to just go on singular player talent, Iverson is the one. Marbury has better stroke on his shot, but Iverson edges him out in handles, penetration, and ability to just will a team onward.


----------



## TMOD

> Originally posted by <b>popeyejones54</b>!
> Whered Anfernee get his nickname Penny from?


From his grandmother I think, can't remember why though...


> In NBA Live, Marbury is traditionally the faster player. When I first started playing that game, with Live 99, I would take Marbury and just use him on turbo the whole time, dish the ball off, then pass it back to him to run circles around guys and score. Literally, he could grab the rebound and still manage to get in front of EVERYONE and score.


 Iverson was rated faster than Marbury...

Anyways...I love Marbury but it is hard to say he is better than Iverson.


----------



## Blau

If I had to choose one player for my team it would be Starbury. That is saying alot b/c we Minny fans are still pissed at him for leaving Garnett!


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Marbury has better stroke on his shot, but Iverson edges him out in handles, penetration, and ability to just will a team onward.


No way.

Marbury is better at driving to the basket, getting into the paint. He is strong enough to absorb contact, he can turn the corner, he will find the open man and he has the best floater in the NBA that he learned from Gervin.

Marbury's handle and crossover are off the charts anyway.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Marbury put up a hell of a season... and it got him closer to Iverson´s status, but just not there yet (IMO).
Iverson seems to make the most with less (supporting cast, i mean).
I know the East is the weakest conference (as in weeeeaaalest!), but AI gives me the feeling that if he was playing with Matrix and Amare, the sky would be the limit for that team (independent of conferences).


----------



## Sir Magic

AI fa sho, Starbury is pretty nice and his game is ill.

That's like comparing which meat would u prefer on your sandwich ham or turkey.


----------



## Like A Breath

> Originally posted by <b>popeyejones54</b>!
> Whered Anfernee get his nickname Penny from?


His grandma called him "Pretty" but his friends thought she said "Penny" so they just started calling him that.


----------



## walkon4

*yep*

Penny meant Pretty.

I still love my man Penny. Ever since I was in like the 2nd Grade.

Id like to see him have a good year.


----------



## The lone wolf

Here is to all who say iverson shoots way too much, and marbury would score a lot more if he shot so much bla bla..

Now that's the only thing which marbury supporters hold against iverson right. Field goal percentage.

Last season 

FGA 
iverson 1,940 marbury 1,530

Points 
iverson 2,262 marbury 1,806

points scored per FGA 
iverson 1.166 marbury 1.180

If marbury took as many shots as iverson he would score 
1.18 X 1940 = 2289 points

There u have it. He would score 27 points more than iverson in a span of 82 games = 0.3 points a game more than iverson

so much so for poor FG %

BigAmare, 
heart is something that cannot be described accurately in words.. that's why they give that attribute an abstract name "heart". so don't ask why do u say iverson has more heart. you have to watch him play to feel it. And most people around the league accept that iverson has the most of that intangible attribute called "heart"


----------



## The lone wolf

lets see how the suns would have fared had they been in the east

they played 52 games against west teams and 30 games against east teams

26-26(.500) against west, and 18-12(.600) against east

now if they were in the east they would play 54 games against east teams and 28 against west teams

they win 54 X .6 = 32.4 games in the east and
they win 28 X .5 = 14 games in the west

total wins = 46 or 47 if u made 32.4 as 33

and guess what.. iverson had 48 wins. iverson played with snow and coleman while marbury played with marion and amare 

SUNS WOULD BE WORSE THAN PHILY EVEN IF THEY PLAYED IN THE EAST.

Stats don't show everything. but stats usually don't lie.


----------



## futuristxen

holy crap lone wolf. we were just speculating here. knocking around loose generalities. and you had to come in and drop the science...jeebus.

If I could give you a million star rating I would.


----------



## The lone wolf

just some math for arguement


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> 
> SUNS WOULD BE WORSE THAN PHILY EVEN IF THEY PLAYED IN THE EAST.
> 
> Stats don't show everything. but stats usually don't lie.


:no:


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> Here is to all who say iverson shoots way too much, and marbury would score a lot more if he shot so much bla bla..
> 
> Now that's the only thing which marbury supporters hold against iverson right. Field goal percentage.
> 
> Last season
> 
> FGA
> iverson 1,940 marbury 1,530
> 
> Points
> iverson 2,262 marbury 1,806
> 
> points scored per FGA
> iverson 1.166 marbury 1.180
> 
> If marbury took as many shots as iverson he would score
> 1.18 X 1940 = 2289 points
> 
> There u have it. He would score 27 points more than iverson in a span of 82 games = 0.3 points a game more than iverson
> 
> so much so for poor FG %


You're either being deceptive here or you simply designed a poor model.

The reason for the disparity in points per FGA and FG% is free throw attempts. Iverson shoots more free throw attempts. If Marbury shot more, he'd generate more free throw attempts as well, and so his point per shot would also increase.

Marbury slashes as much, as a percentage of total shots, as Iverson does. Therefore, more drives to the hoop would translate into more shooting fouls, at the same rate Iverson or anyone else generate them on drives.

More shooting fouls = more free throws = more points per shot, which is *already* higher, despite Iverson shooting more free throws, due to field goal percentage.

Basically, if you even up shot attempts, you'd probably also end up evening up free throw attempts, based on the dynamics of the game, and thus field goal percentage would be the only factor differentiating each player's field goal percentage...and Marbury shoots a considerably better percentage.


----------



## BEEZ

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> and Marbury shoots a considerably better percentage.


Why?


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> lets see how the suns would have fared had they been in the east
> 
> they played 52 games against west teams and 30 games against east teams
> 
> 26-26(.500) against west, and 18-12(.600) against east
> 
> now if they were in the east they would play 54 games against east teams and 28 against west teams
> 
> they win 54 X .6 = 32.4 games in the east and
> they win 28 X .5 = 14 games in the west
> 
> total wins = 46 or 47 if u made 32.4 as 33
> 
> and guess what.. iverson had 48 wins. iverson played with snow and coleman while marbury played with marion and amare


Let's see how the Sixers would have fared in the West.

The Sixers went 35-19 in the East, or won at a .648 clip. They went 13-15 against the West, or won at a .464 clip.

Giving them the Suns' schedule, they would have played 30 games against the East and 52 games against the West.

Applying their winning percentages to their new schedule:

0.648 * 30 games = 19 wins
0.464 * 52 games = 24 wins

Total: 43 wins

Phoenix had 44 wins.



> SUNS WOULD BE WORSE THAN PHILY EVEN IF THEY PLAYED IN THE EAST.


Philly would have been worse than the Suns if they had played in the West.

Additionally, you note that Marbury played with Amare and Marion. Amare Stoudemire is obviously a fantastic talent and *future* star...but you toss him into the conversation as if he were a star last year, when he most certainly wasn't.



> Stats don't show everything. but stats usually don't lie.


Sure, and mathematic models don't lie but certainly can be convenient, depending on which you choose and which you ignore, eh?


----------



## The lone wolf

Minstrel,

I had made that analysis to show that the arguement a lot of people use.. saying that a team in the west would do a lot better if they were in the east... is not all that correct.
there is a difference but not that much.. just about 2 or 3 games.



> by Minstrel
> Iverson's team plays in a pathetic conference. Marbury's Suns play in a meat-grinder conference. And you're going to compare records straight up? The Suns' 44-34 record in the West is far more impressive than the Sixers' 48-34 record in the East. The Sixers wouldn't sniff a .500 record if they were in the West.





> by Minstrel
> His team's better record is purely a result of playing weak opponents.





> by BigAmare
> Are the Suns better than the Sixers? Yes - Suns play a way tougher schedule


- Basically to refute statements like these.

As u pointed out philly would have won 43 games (44 if favourably rounded  ) had they been in the west and suns won 44 games - there is not so much disparity in the team performances. Posts in this thread implied that the suns were a lot better than philly because they were in the west. This was just to show that the arguement was wrong.

Pheonix's second and third best players were marion and amare. 
Marion was an all star last year, and amare ofcourse was ROY. 

Philly's second best player - snow played steadily and put up decent numbers. Philly did not even have a defined third best player. Van horn? please..

I never implied that amare was a star... just that he and marion were way better than snow, van horn and coleman. Marbury has a much better supporting cast than iverson. let's not argue about it at all. 

Regarding the FG% 

Here is a much improved model. It doesn't get more accurate than this.
As u say free throws are something which have to be accounted for.

The PPFGA (points per field goal attempt) calculated in the earlier post is a bit flawed. Here is the right way it has to be calculated.

efficiency index = points divided by sum of field goal attempts and half of free throw attempts 
(2 fta count as 1 fga)

courtesy - hoopshype.
(http://www.hoopshype.com/columns/numbers_hans.htm)
check out section where they describe how to get ppso.

efficiency index for iverson

points - 2262
fga - 1940
fta - 736

index = points / (fga+(fta/2))

= 2262 / (1940 + 368)
= 2262/2308
= 0.980

now efficiency index for marbury 

points - 1806
fga - 1530
fta - 467

index = 1806 / 1763.5

= 1.024

Now if marbury shot 1940 times then accordingly he'll attempt more free throws right. 
For 1530 fga he had 467 fta
for 1940 fga he will have 

1940 X 467 / 1530 
= 592 fta


now lets calculate how many points marbury would have scored
using the same formula

index = points / (fga+(fta/2))

1.024 = points / (1940 + (592/2))

1.024 = points / (2236)

points = 2236 X 1.024 = 2289

Still just 27 points more than iverson for the whole season.

Now i've taken into account that marbury will take more free throw attempts if he takes more field goal attempts. I checked out google for some acccurate way for calculating shooting efficiency and landed at hoopshype. 

So there ends the arguement that marbury is a more efficient scorer than iverson. He is- but by an extremely small and negligible margin.


----------



## MVPlaya

I only read part of the first page and this is all I have to say...

How do you compare Iverson to Stephon? 

Iverson Leader- lead team to finals, gotten MVP, proven a lot more, proved he can play team ball, and proved he can get far. Also, with a poor team.

Marbury- Has Marion and Amare for help... tho he still can't accomplish what Ivo did...

I can't believe this was ever made.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> Minstrel,
> 
> I had made that analysis to show that the arguement a lot of people use.. saying that a team in the west would do a lot better if they were in the east... is not all that correct.


I can't speak for everyone, but my point was that comparing raw records was meaningless, considering difference in quality of competition.

I don't think it's surprising that they were of rather similar record, once competition is accounted for. Phoenix wasn't a very good team all year. Amare got better over the course of the season and the three talents gelled late.

Good evidence of that is their playoff performance, giving the World Champion Spurs all they could handle. The Spurs had more trouble with the Suns than the Lakers, in the playoffs.

So, while I think the Suns were much better than the Sixers by the *end* of the year, and could very well be all of this year, their records being similar isn't too surprising.



> I never implied that amare was a star... just that he and marion were way better than snow, van horn and coleman


Amare wasn't *way* better than Van Horn. In fact, he wasn't better at all, statistically, last season. 13.5 points per gane and 9 boards per game. It's solid, but hardly amazing. Van Horn had 16 points per game and 7 rodmans per game. Very similar. Amare's greatness lies in the future, not in his rookie season.

Marion was better than anyone on the Sixers outside of AI, that much is true.



> Regarding the FG%
> ...
> now efficiency index for marbury
> 
> points - 1806
> fga - 1530
> fta - 467
> 
> index = 1806 / 1763.5
> 
> = 1.024
> 
> Now if marbury shot 1940 times then accordingly he'll attempt more free throws right.
> For 1530 fga he had 467 fta
> for 1940 fga he will have
> 
> 1940 X 467 / 1530
> = 592 fta


Okay. I'm with you so far.



> now lets calculate how many points marbury would have scored
> using the same formula
> 
> index = points / (fga+(fta/2))
> 
> 1.024 = points / (1940 + (592/2))


Woah, woah, woah there.  You're using his index to determine his NEW points scored. But you're using his OLD index. His index should be different with the higher number of free throw attempts, since index relies on free throw attempts as a factor.

Essentially you have two unknowns: new points scored and new index. You can't use one equation to solve for two unknowns.

But it's easy to find new points scored another way.

Take the points he actually scored, multiply the extra free throws he would get by his free throw percentage and add them together. Then take those points, and divide them by his shot attempts...that will give a fair points per shot.

125 extra free throws * .803 free throw percentage = 100.3 points.

1806 actual points scored + 100.3 extra points = 1906.3 adjusted points scored.

1906.3 points / 1503 shot attempts = 1.27 points per shot.

Now, we can multiply Marbury's adjusted points per shot by Ivy's shot attempts:

1.27 points per shot * 1940 shot attempts = 2464 points.

Iverson scored 2262 points on his 1940 shot attempts.



> Still just 27 points more than iverson for the whole season.


Marbury would have scored 202 more points with the same number of shots.



> Now i've taken into account that marbury will take more free throw attempts if he takes more field goal attempts. I checked out google for some acccurate way for calculating shooting efficiency and landed at hoopshype.


I've taken it into account much more directly, without involving an indirect measure of efficiency index. I believe my methodology is prefectly sound: I took your linear projection of Marbury's extra free throws, calculated how many of them he'd hit based on his free throw percentage, added them to his total points and divided by his total shots.

Simple, logical and accounts for more shots leading to more free throws.



> So there ends the arguement that marbury is a more efficient scorer than iverson. He is- but by an extremely small and negligible margin.


202 points over the course of a season is nearly 2.5 points per game. That's massively significant.


----------



## futuristxen

If he took the extra shots, wouldn't his assist numbers go down? Is their a mathmatical formula to account for that in your figurings?

Kudos to Minstrel and Lone Wolf for putting more math in the past two posts than I've see in the past 4 years(english major).


----------



## Derrex

Sorry I havent read all 7 pages of the post but I thought i'd just get my input in. In my mind, Iverson is better, no doubt at all. Iverson just carries his team with his play. Marbury has not. Thats from my personal judgement. Well some people might start "stats this and stats that" and "if the roles were reversed"... it doesnt matter. Iverson IS the sixers. He plays his heart out on the court every game. Theres a reason he was MVP and an all star for i dont know how many times... I can tell you its NOT because of his 40% FG, its because he plays hard and plays with heart and carries his team when he needs to. Whoever here judging this by stats needs to get a TV and watch some NBA basketball.


----------



## The lone wolf

Minstrel,

Ofcourse , u have to use the old index. there is only one unknown and that is points. The index calculated is a measure of how many points he scores per FGA taking into account the fta. If both increase linearly then the index does not change. I was right in using the same index. 

I'll try to illustrate it with a simple example

say these are a person x's stats

10 fga 4 made 
4 fta 3 made - 

points - 11 (assume no 3 pointers)

Now based on these stats if he had 20 fga's he would have made 8 of them. additionally he would have gone to the line 8 times and made 6 free throws.

so points = 16 + 6 = 22.

Clear upto this point.


Using my method

index = points/fga+(fta/2))

"old" index = 11/(10 + (4/2)) = 0.9167

now using the same old index

0.9167 = points / (20 + (8/2)) (20 is the new fga and 8 is the new fta)

points = 24 * 0.9167 = 22.

Fair enough?

Note that this is exactly the way i calculated how many points marbury would score if he had more fga's
and the answer i got was 2289 

"old" index = 1806/(1530+233.5) = 1.024

1.024 = points / (1940 + (592/2)) (592 is the fta if he had 1940 as fga)

points = 2289


but according to the method u described



> 125 extra free throws * .803 free throw percentage = 100.3 points.
> 
> 1806 actual points scored + 100.3 extra points = 1906.3 adjusted points scored.
> 
> 1906.3 points / 1503 shot attempts = 1.27 points per shot.
> 
> Now, we can multiply Marbury's adjusted points per shot by Ivy's shot attempts:
> 
> 1.27 points per shot * 1940 shot attempts = 2464 points.


4 extra free throws = 3 points

10 actual points scored + 3 extra points = 13 adjusted points

13/10 = 1.3 points per shot

now multiply that adjusted points per shop by the new shot attempts

1.3 * 20 = 26 points ??????

THAT'S WAY WRONG

your method is completely wrong. My method is right. No doubt about that.

Marbury will score only 0.3 points per game more than iverson

*********************************************
I hit upon one very simple and direct method to see if marbury is more efficient

he took 1530 fga to score 1806 points

if he took 1940 attempts he would score (1940 * 1806) / 1530
right?

Guess what the answer is ....

2289 !!!!!!!!

still only 27 points more than ivy

NO WAY that figure - 2464 - is right

Whichever way u look at it, if he took as many shots as iverson, 

Marbury will score only 0.3 points per game more than iverson

************************************************


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> 
> THAT'S WAY WRONG
> 
> your method is completely wrong. My method is right. No doubt about that.


But *why* is it wrong? I realize it doesn't yield the result you believe it should, but why don't you point out what *part* of my method is wrong. I correctly calculated his new points with extra free throws. I correctly calculated his points per shot, with the extra free throws. And then I correctly multiplied his points per shot by Iverson's shots.

Which step there is wrong? Unless you can find a place where the logic isn't correct, I think the methodology is correct.


----------



## The lone wolf

You are pushing me at 3.30 am...

gimme some time i'll try to find where u went wrong


----------



## Derrex

I think you guys gotta chill out, theres really no definitive better player, but the consensus seems to be towards iverson. Your never gonna be able to prove one way or the other whos better. basketball players arent mathematical formulas, its all based on opinion.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> 
> gimme some time i'll try to find where u went wrong


I didn't go wrong. But I'll give you as much time as you like to come up with a reason why you'd rather not believe Marbury is the more efficient scorer.

(Or rather, by any measure, Marbury is better. You simply don't like to believe Marbury is the *much* better scorer. That seems to be the debate.)


----------



## The lone wolf

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't go wrong. But I'll give you as much time as you like to come up with a reason why you'd rather not believe Marbury is the more efficient scorer.
> 
> (Or rather, by any measure, Marbury is better. You simply don't like to believe Marbury is the *much* better scorer. That seems to be the debate.)


Hey.. come on..

Atleast mathematically u goofed up somewhere.. and know ur calculation is wrong.. 

as far as reasons why i don't believe marbury is a more efficient scorer.. 
I have my own reasons.. as everyone has their own.
There is no way to prove whus better..

But i do believe that i showed in a very valid way that one cannot tell marbury is more efficient based on stats. If there is some other reason like he's a better playmaker, stronger etc fine.. i cannot prove otherwise.. 
But if you say "hey, look at the fg% - marbury is a more efficient scorer than iverson" - then i've shown that it's not true.

i'll tell u tomorrow regarding the math part.. now i'm too sleepy to do that.. 
I can vaguely say that it has got something to do with adding the points while the fga remains the same.. this results in a far higher index than it should be..

anyways it felt nice posting some math


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey.. come on..
> 
> Atleast mathematically u goofed up somewhere.. and know ur calculation is wrong..


Nope, I went back and checked the calculations. They're correct.



> But i do believe that i showed in a very valid way that one cannot tell marbury is more efficient based on stats.


No, even your way showed that Marbury would score more given the same number of shots.

However, I presented a way I consider to be more valid which showed the difference is actually quite large.



> But if you say "hey, look at the fg% - marbury is a more efficient scorer than iverson" - then i've shown that it's not true.


No, we've both shown it to be true. I've shown it to actually be a very large difference.



> I can vaguely say that it has got something to do with adding the points while the fga remains the same.. this results in a far higher index than it should be.


I don't even bother with indexes. I calculated it directly. Your "vague explanation" was too vague to have meaning.


----------



## The lone wolf

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope, I went back and checked the calculations. They're correct.


The calculations are right but your method is wrong



> No, even your way showed that Marbury would score more given the same number of shots.
> 
> However, I presented a way I consider to be more valid which showed the difference is actually quite large.
> 
> No, we've both shown it to be true. I've shown it to actually be a very large difference.



Yes marbury would score more but only 0.3 points per game. THAT"S IT. You can present ways as long as they are not flawed.



> I don't even bother with indexes. I calculated it directly. Your "vague explanation" was too vague to have meaning.


by index i meant the figure of 1.27 which u get. 
You are calculating that number based on the number of shots he would take. (based on fta which in turn was calculated from projected fga)
And then you are using the same number and multiplying that with the new number of shots. By your method that number 1.27 will vary according to the number of projected shots he takes. It should only be dependant on the number of shots he has taken and number of fta. 
So that was your mistake in the method of calculation. 
Your "direct" method is not all that direct at all. If you are unable to accept my above explanation fine.. I really cannot explain it any further


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> 
> Yes marbury would score more but only 0.3 points per game. THAT"S IT.


I'm afraid not. I used a perfectly logical method, that didn't rely on an indirect equation, and it showed Marbury would average almost 2.5 points more per game. Your explanation of why it doesn't work doesn't make sense, which I'll show further down.



> You are calculating that number based on the number of shots he would take. (based on fta which in turn was calculated from projected fga)
> And then you are using the same number and multiplying that with the new number of shots. By your method that number 1.27 will vary according to the number of projected shots he takes. It should only be dependant on the number of shots he has taken and number of fta.
> So that was your mistake in the method of calculation.


You present no proof about why it should only depend on those things. Yes, the points per shot changes *for the very reason* we started all of this...to adjust for more free throws, which is based on taking more shots.

The "index" I use is what his index *would be* if he fired up as many shots as Iverson. Since points per shot relies on free throws, and free throws rely on shots taken, of course index relies on shots taken and would change given a different number of shots.

That's not a flaw.



> Your "direct" method is not all that direct at all. If you are unable to accept my above explanation fine.. I really cannot explain it any further


Your explanation isn't correct. His index *should* change, since points per shot is dependant on shots taken. If he takes more shots, he'll shoot more free throws and his index will change.

That's correct methodology.

If you don't like it, we can dispense with these models altogether and return to the fact that Marbury shoots better, so is the more effecient scorer. You haven't shown, at all, that your model is more valid than mine.

Still, it was interesting to use slightly more sophisticated analysis for once. Too bad we didn't reach any agreement.


----------



## kflo

the effeciency index shouldn't vary by # of shots taken (based on the formula). it's not an unknown in the formula.

it is likely, however, that in reality, effeciency index will tend to decrease the more shots you take.


----------

