# can knicks be like the sixers from the 2000-01 season?



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

theres all this talk about marbury to sg and all, so is he goin to be playin the AI role from 2000-01?
the rosters of the knicks r pretty much similar b/c of larry brown and some good bench players. and who knows, maybe frye can be the knick version of deke.  :clap: 



Note: even though my avatar has the nets symbol, i also root for knicks, warriors, kings and bobcats.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

inuyasha232 said:


> theres all this talk about marbury to sg and all, so is he goin to be playin the AI role from 2000-01?
> the rosters of the knicks r pretty much similar b/c of larry brown and some good bench players. and who knows, maybe frye can be the knick version of deke.  :clap:
> Note: even though my avatar has the nets symbol, i also root for knicks, warriors, kings and bobcats.


The Knicks success is highly dependent on what Brown can get out of his Bigs..He has 3 very big question marks..

Jerome James,Frye and Sweetney...

He needs production from 2 of those guys,hopefully James being one of them as i see Frye as more of a 4 initially..


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

dont think so......when the sixers were in trouble they would give the ball to iverson and let him do whatever he can to score. basically he was their go to guy,... the knicks dont really have a go-to guy,..unless u want to count marbury as a go-to guy, but if i had a choice there are a bunch of people i would put in front of marbury to make a game winning shot...marbury is more of a set up man, and i wont say he's a clutch shooter either..i think Jamal crawford is more likely to be the go-to guy then marbury and we all know how his shot selection is


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> dont think so......when the sixers were in trouble they would give the ball to iverson and let him do whatever he can to score. basically he was their go to guy,... the knicks dont really have a go-to guy,..unless u want to count marbury as a go-to guy, but if i had a choice there are a bunch of people i would put in front of marbury to make a game winning shot...marbury is more of a set up man, and i wont say he's a clutch shooter either..i think Jamal crawford is more likely to be the go-to guy then marbury and we all know how his shot selection is


Please pLEASE pLEASE.....

Take a look at Allen Iversons shooting % comapred to marbury and JC before you say the Knicks do not have a go to guy....

You openly acknowledge that JC has bad shot selection,yet he shoots the same % from the floor as A.I.. If JC improves his shot selection,he will be a far more efficient score than A.I.Iverson shoots almost 2x as much as J.C...It shouldnt suprise you that he puts up 30 anight..

And A.I is a horrific 3 pt shooter...


----------



## mjm1 (Aug 22, 2005)

You people are crazy, The Sixers literally had THE ANSWER whenever they were in trouble. Even then, it took them 5 seaons to reach the Finals with Brown.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

mjm1 said:


> You people are crazy, The Sixers literally had THE ANSWER whenever they were in trouble. Even then, it took them 5 seaons to reach the Finals with Brown.


A net fan posed the question...

A.I. and Deke in his prime


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

truth said:


> A net fan posed the question...
> 
> A.I. and Deke in his prime


im just sayin that maybe frye can develop a game like deke, i dont believe he would be the shot blocker deke was though....sadly :brokenhea 
AI and starbury r similar to me b/c both can shoot and drive in the lane for a 3pt oppurtunity :clap:


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

truth said:


> Please pLEASE pLEASE.....
> 
> Take a look at Allen Iversons shooting % comapred to marbury and JC before you say the Knicks do not have a go to guy....
> 
> ...



yes but please please please yourself...........with all that said are you're trying to tell me u would take anybody on the knicks roster over allen Iverson....NO u wouldnt so thank you, bad % or not iverson is a go-to guy and u know as well as everybody else here does too that they would take A.I over everybody on the knicks...


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

mjm1 said:


> You people are crazy, The Sixers literally had THE ANSWER whenever they were in trouble. Even then, it took them 5 seaons to reach the Finals with Brown.




thank you..........they dont call him the answer for nothing


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

ChosenFEW said:


> yes but please please please yourself...........with all that said are you're trying to tell me u would take anybody on the knicks roster over allen Iverson....NO u wouldnt so thank you, bad % or not iverson is a go-to guy and u know as well as everybody else here does too that they would take A.I over everybody on the knicks...


why tell him to please himself, didnt sound right lol! :angel:


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

inuyasha232 said:


> why tell him to please himself, didnt sound right lol! :angel:




lol yea i knew it wouldnt sound right but what the hell, i was just trying to quote him back on what he said :none:


and i said please 3 times...not once


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

ChosenFEW said:


> lol yea i knew it wouldnt sound right but what the hell, i was just trying to quote him back on what he said :none:
> 
> 
> and i said please 3 times...not once


3 times the pleasure lol!!!!!!!!!


:joke:


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

okay no more perverted jokes 4 me, gettin off topic...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> yes but please please please yourself...........with all that said are you're trying to tell me u would take anybody on the knicks roster over allen Iverson....NO u wouldnt so thank you, bad % or not iverson is a go-to guy and u know as well as everybody else here does too that they would take A.I over everybody on the knicks...


That was not the statement you made....

You said the Knicks dont have a "go to" guy like A.I....I am saying they do,and I dont know what makes you think A.I,a sub 40% shooter is so great.Go to guys dont shoot below 40%.....Look for yourself..Tmac,Pierce,Kobe,Wade,Dirk,Vince,Bron...

And in case you have a very short term memory,i can not imagine Coach Brown wanting to live thru A.I's antics again at the age of 65.....Hes proven he can win it all with a team approach and without a gunner who dominates the ball.....

There may be one factor which makes A.I's numbers much more favorable...If a player gets fouled on a shot attempt that he misses,does that count as a shot attempt????


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

truth said:


> That was not the statement you made....
> 
> You said the Knicks dont have a "go to" guy like A.I....I am saying they do,and I dont know what makes you think A.I,a sub 40% shooter is so great.Go to guys dont shoot below 40%.....Look for yourself..Tmac,Pierce,Kobe,Wade,Dirk,Vince,Bron...
> 
> ...




as i stated above everyone would take iverson to score the last point on a team ahead of anybody on knicks,....if you cant see that then, oh well....

also anybody can become a go-to guy i could give the ball to example: dale davis at the end of games and have him take the last shot all the time,...but does that make him a true go to guy, someone that you can depend on to lift your team past the other,...i think not,....as i said marbury is the best player on the knicks but he is not a "go-to guy" he's more of a set up man ,...and JC is more of the go-to guy on the knicks even with his bad %......what you count is shooting %'s throughout the game im talking about who would you rather have with the ball at the end of games, but your stubborness and fanboyism has seemed to blind you at this moment

but anyway we both see this different and have different opinions,...it also looks like we'll never come to a reasonable conclusion so lets just leave it at that :clap:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> as i stated above everyone would take iverson to score the last point on a team ahead of anybody on knicks,....if you cant see that then, oh well....
> 
> also anybody can become a go-to guy i could give the ball to example: dale davis at the end of games and have him take the last shot all the time,...but does that make him a true go to guy, someone that you can depend on to lift your team past the other,...i think not,....as i said marbury is the best player on the knicks but he is not a "go-to guy" he's more of a set up man ,...and JC is more of the go-to guy on the knicks even with his bad %......what you count is shooting %'s throughout the game im talking about who would you rather have with the ball at the end of games, but your stubborness and fanboyism has seemed to blind you at this moment
> 
> but anyway we both see this different and have different opinions,...it also looks like we'll never come to a reasonable conclusion so lets just leave it at that :clap:


For the record,I am not a marbury supporter....

Until you come up with statistical evidence that A.I goes from being a sub 40% shooter to well over in the final seconds,the numbers prove you 100% incorrect....But dont let that stop you...Unless you enjoy playing games that are mathematically skewed against you with negative expected returns


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

truth said:


> For the record,I am not a marbury supporter....
> 
> Until you come up with statistical evidence that A.I goes from being a sub 40% shooter to well over in the final seconds,the numbers prove you 100% incorrect....But dont let that stop you...Unless you enjoy playing games that are mathematically skewed against you with negative expected returns




as i said its not about shooting %'s throughout 48 minute games....its about who would you rather have with the ball in their hands at the end of games.....i would take iverson over anyone on the knicks as would 99.99999% of the people in the U.S


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

ChosenFEW said:



> as i said its not about shooting %'s throughout 48 minute games....its about who would you rather have with the ball in their hands at the end of games.....i would take iverson over anyone on the knicks as would 99.99999% of the people in the U.S


Hey that's not nice!  , but the sad part is that it's true.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

go knicks! go finals like sixers did!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> as i said its not about shooting %'s throughout 48 minute games....its about who would you rather have with the ball in their hands at the end of games.....i would take iverson over anyone on the knicks as would 99.99999% of the people in the U.S


Until you come up with a statistic that conclusively substantiates your claim regardin A.I.'s final minute FG%,your claim is mathematically false...The guy shoots sub 40% overall.What makes you believe that his numbers go up substantailly in the last 60 seconds,or other players go down.I am not saying you are wrong.You may be 100% right,but his stats do not lend creedence to what you claim.

The only 2 people that matter are Coach Brown and Zeke.Coach Brown MAY despise Marbury after one week.On the other hand,Marbury may prove to be a far superior Chauncey Billups...Only time will tell.Do you think Coach Brown would have traded A.I for Chauncey???

Do you think Coach Brown could live thru another year of A.I's antics???

And once again,you may be 100% right.Brown may love him and want him..non biblically..But regardless,A.I's FG% sucks and his 3 point shooting is even worse...Its very hard to build a team around that


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Chosen,oak posted what is called "clutch" stats on the topic NBA leaders...It should put an end to the discussion


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

truth said:


> Chosen,oak posted what is called "clutch" stats on the topic NBA leaders...It should put an end to the discussion



you dont want to lose, dont you???

alright off the stats that he put im going to place them here and im going to get it from the same resources he got his 

82games
*knicks "clutch" marbury*
<table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="500"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#33cc33"><td><center>*Min*</center></td> <td><center>*Net Pts*</center></td> <td><center>*Off*</center></td> <td><center>*Def*</center></td> <td><center>*Net48*</center></td> <td><center>*W*</center></td> <td><center>*L*</center></td> <td><center>*Win%*</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="center"> 96%</td> <td align="center">-108</td> <td align="center"> 93.9</td> <td align="center"> 120.9</td> <td align="center">-27.0</td> <td align="center"> 11 </td> <td align="center"> 32 </td> <td><center> 25.6%</center></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> These stats represent how the team performed in clutch situations while the player was on the floor.
The Net48 number shows the average +/- net points over a full game.



*76's "clutch" iverson*
<table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="500"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#33cc33"><td><center>*Min*</center></td> <td><center>*Net Pts*</center></td> <td><center>*Off*</center></td> <td><center>*Def*</center></td> <td><center>*Net48*</center></td> <td><center>*W*</center></td> <td><center>*L*</center></td> <td><center>*Win%*</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="center"> 84%</td> <td align="center">+20</td> <td align="center"> 105.9</td> <td align="center"> 100.2</td> <td align="center"> 5.7</td> <td align="center"> 20 </td> <td align="center"> 19 </td> <td><center> 51.3%</center></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> These stats represent how the team performed in clutch situations while the player was on the floor.
The Net48 number shows the average +/- net points over a full game.


_ i mean you wanted stats, there you go and if you can see they are all considerably favoring Iverson Enuff said i rest my case,,... Finito!

you even mentioned a couple of people that were better clutch performers than Iverson like Paul Pierce,...But if you looked at his clutch stats you could see that they are worse than iversons also


Pual pierce 
_ <table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="500"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#33cc33"><td><center>*Min*</center></td> <td><center>*Net Pts*</center></td> <td><center>*Off*</center></td> <td><center>*Def*</center></td> <td><center>*Net48*</center></td> <td><center>*W*</center></td> <td><center>*L*</center></td> <td><center>*Win%*</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="center"> 92%</td> <td align="center">+6</td> <td align="center"> 95.9</td> <td align="center"> 94.6</td> <td align="center"> 1.3</td> <td align="center"> 20 </td> <td align="center"> 24 </td> <td><center> 45.5%</center></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> These stats represent how the team performed in clutch situations while the player was on the floor.
The Net48 number shows the average +/- net points over a full game.
_ 
dam now if you continue on with this then i dont know what is your problem..you have something against me or iverson i dont know one or the other:raised_ey......:clap::clap:_


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

you also keep talking about Iverson and his antics and that larry brown wouldnt put up with him for another season and tradeing iverson for chauncy....

so at this point i think you have something against iverson because what does his arguments with larry brown have to do with being a playmaker or a go-to guy...

one thing that Iverson mentioned is that larry brown never questioned whether he could play or perform he always knew what Iverson would do....the things i remember that they were arguing about was about being late for meetings not showing up for practice etc. all things which are OFF THE COURT ISSUES..if he produces in the game then so what,...but with all this said dont think i am an IVERSON fanatic or all that stuff but you have to give credit where credit is due.....

if you would like to see a very good game...watch the game where boston takes on philly in the playoff's ,..it was the year the sixers went to the finals. It was game 7 i think or 5 and in the last 5 minutes iverson basically took the sixers on his back and carried them to the victory,..that was one of the best iverson performances ive seen,...pierce and iverson going back and fourth but allen Iverson ended up winning the battle...it was a great game,..try and find it somewhere on the net i think iverson had like 46 in that game

try and find it on the net and hopefully you will begin to appreciate what he does on the floor not off it


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> you dont want to lose, dont you???
> 
> alright off the stats that he put im going to place them here and im going to get it from the same resources he got his
> 
> ...


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

yea im not a fan of iverson,...but i appreciate what he does 

marbury is a knick and is from NY so i have to support him but im never a fanatic or fanboy i appreciate most players from all different teams....


but like you said 

TO BE CONTINUED?!?!?!?!??!?!?!!


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

truth said:


> Your stats are a bit diffferent than Oaks...He presented FG% in the last 5 minutes.Yours appears to be team wins...As I have never looked at the numbers and am unfamiliar with the terms,I cant make an assessment.
> 
> I have nothing vested in Marbury....nor A.I....Truth is,I dont like either...at all!!!!!!!!



I have even less invested in this than you but I think the individual shooting stats were morer relevant to the topic at hand then team wins. I mean so much goes into team wins, including coaching and clutchness of teammates, it makes for a terribly convoluted comparison. And did Iverson even play PG last year? Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. At least individual shooting stats are more comparable between players, rather than judging individuals through team performance. But to each their own...

But truth, since we are throwing things passed you that you are unfamiliar with can check out the full sources for yourself and see what stst you find most relevant:

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

http://www.82games.com/04PHI1E.HTM

Chosen drew from the first line of stats, team play, while I drew from the second, individual shooting. You might find something else more telling entirely. For instance Iverson has a better asst/48 but Marbury is better at drawing fouls and passing (less turnovers), etc.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> yea im not a fan of iverson,...but i appreciate what he does
> 
> marbury is a knick and is from NY so i have to support him but im never a fanatic or fanboy i appreciate most players from all different teams....
> 
> ...


You know my feelings on A.I....or anyone that shoots sub 40%....As in JC...

We will continue this,as soon as i figure out what the hell those stats mean..You did pull the old switcheroo on me with wins and losses as opposed to shooting %. I got into the same debate with Nets fans and Jason Collins..They go so far to say that the Nets are designed to have J Kidd their leading rebounder and have stats backing it up....

To be continued,but it will be a discussion regarding GO TO guys...And that means shooting % in the last X minutes..Not wins vs losses as that is way too subjective and highly skewed in favor of strong teams....

To be CONTINUED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :eek8:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> I have even less invested in this than you but I think the individual shooting stats were morer relevant to the topic at hand then team wins. I mean so much goes into team wins, including coaching and clutchness of teammates, it makes for a terribly convoluted comparison. And did Iverson even play PG last year? Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. At least individual shooting stats are more comparable between players, rather than judging individuals through team performance. But to each their own...
> 
> But truth, since we are throwing things passed you that you are unfamiliar with can check out the full sources for yourself and see what stst you find most relevant:
> 
> ...


Thanks OAK...I have openly said Iverson may be phenomenol in the last 5 minutes of a game,which would make up for his abysmal shooting %.You brought up that stat,but I am clueless to what they mean.....As for my nemeisis Chosen,he likes to switch up on me...I noticed he shifted towards team wins,which was NOT the debate...Obviously,there are far too many dependent variables in team wins,and a great deal of statistical bias....

I may be uneducated in this 82 game stuff,but i am not dumb...

I am very curious to see who is clutch and who isnt...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

The research is done and MARBURY is a much better go to guy in the last 5 minutes than A.I..In fact A.I is dreadful when you factor in his excessive turnovers..Remeber the topic was Fg% and scoring which you changed to whos the better Go To guy....

Let me ask you,how did you manage to leave out and omit the CLUTCH SCORING STATS?? Your post before was nonsense,The topic never was which team wins when player X is on the floor,and you know it....

Lets stick to the topic...Go to guy..that implies offense,scoring,not defense....Its clear from the very same webpage that A.I is anything but a go to guy...

Field Goals Attempts per 48 Minutes
Player Team Clutch All 
Bryant LAL 35.2 23.5 
Richardson GS 34.7 24.5 
O'Neal IND 30.3 26.7 
Francis ORL 29.9 21.9 
Cassell MIN 28.9 21.3 
*Marbury NY 28.3 18.9 * 
Webber SAC 27.9 26.4 
*Iverson PHI 27.8 27.2* 

Not shockingly marbury has GONADS...He has the largest increase of any player in the NBA in the differential between "clutch "number of shots and the rest of the game...He saves it for when the game is on the line....A.I.,keeps on chucking regardless of the situation,whether its the opening minute or final 5 minutes...If you look closelythough,A.I and Marbury fire away at the same rate in the final minutes...Interesting,wouldnt you say??

Even more interesting is Marbury slightly scores more per 48 min in crunch time than A.I....On the same number of shots..The major difference is A.I doesnt score any more in crunch time than in the rest of the game..Marbury steps up Big come crunch time..

Points Scored per 48 Minutes
Player Team Clutch All 
Bryant LAL 46.3 32.4 
Gordon CHI 45.5 30.3 
Francis ORL 43.5 27.6 
O'Neal IND 43.1 33.5 
Nowitzki DAL 42.7 32.2 
Ginobili SA 41.6 25.7 
Wade MIA 41.4 29.6 
Richardson GS 41.3 28.2 
Nash PHO 39.5 22.4 
Stoudemire PHO 38.9 34.8 
Hughes WAS 38.1 27.6 
Arenas WAS 37.5 29.9 
Rose TOR 36.2 26.0 
Redd MIL 36.1 28.6 
Cassell MIN 35.3 24.3 
*Marbury NY 34.9 25.3 * 
Stackhouse DAL 34.8 24.3 
*Iverson PHI 34.3 34.4 *

Dont know if you care,but Marbury aslo has a higher PER than Iverson in Clutch time..Iverson is ranked 50th!!!!It should be obvious why..

Rank Player Team FGA eFG% FTA iFG Reb Ast T/O Blk PF Pts PER* 

29 Marbury NYK 28.3 .370 17.5 34% 3.1 8.0 2.1 0.0 5.2 34.9 27.2 

50 Iverson PHI 27.8 .370 14.9 31% 5.0 7.2 5.0 0.0 4.6 34.3 21.1 

And as you can see Marbury is a more efficient scorer and sets up his teamates better..What really stands out is A.I's turnovers..Hes KILLING the team in crunch time!!!!!!!!!!



> as i said its not about shooting %'s throughout 48 minute games....its about who would you rather have with the ball in their hands at the end of games.....*i would take iverson over anyone on the knicks as would 99.99999% of the people in the U.S*


ChosenFew,I would suggest not following the masses..Are you not familair with the herd theory??

Once again,

A.I has a horrific shooting % and an even worse 3 point %...He does not step up in crunch time...However,he is a turnover machine in the final minutes..Did you even look at his Assists/Turnover ratio in crunch time???

The numbers dont lie..Now i know why you avoided them and tried to make it a "team" topic... :raised_ey


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

when did the thread i made become a AI vs Marbury thread???


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

inuyasha232 said:


> when did the thread i made become a AI vs Marbury thread???


Where would you expect such a discussion to go? Could the Knicks be the Sixers without Marbury being Iverson? Would you prefer we compare James to Dekembe?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

inuyasha232 said:


> when did the thread i made become a AI vs Marbury thread???


It became a discussion the second a poster claimed the Knicks dont have a "go to guy like A.I"..


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> Where would you expect such a discussion to go? Could the Knicks be the Sixers without Marbury being Iverson? Would you prefer we compare James to Dekembe?


BTW,that website was very interesting......I was very suprised by some of the crunch time numbers...


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

It is an interesting place. You did a good job of digging below the surface.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Jamal Crawford can go to PG or can Nate and Marb can become the scorer for us that Ivy was in 2001. Anything is possible but unless Jerome James becomes the next Mutumbo FAST or Frye develops quicker than expected we're in trouble. BTW Im back after a long absence cause I had some problems with this site. Looks like its better though.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

knicksfan said:


> Jamal Crawford can go to PG or can Nate and Marb can become the scorer for us that Ivy was in 2001. Anything is possible but unless Jerome James becomes the next Mutumbo FAST or Frye develops quicker than expected we're in trouble. BTW Im back after a long absence cause I had some problems with this site. Looks like its better though.


Knicksfan,I said the exact same thing.......Our question marks are not the backcourt,or whos gonna score.....Its what kind of production James can bring.He got to be big on the defensive end and stay out of foul trouble....the thing about that 76er team was they were a very good defensive team,5th in the league at 99.5 pts per game.They had Mckie,Lynch,Deke,Hill,Snow and an injured ratliff..

The problem with that team was offense.they were 13th in the league,which isnt bad.But look at the distribution
-----------------------------fga-------- 
Allen Iverson 71 71 2979 762 *1813* 42%
Aaron McKie 76 33 2394 338 *714 * 47%
Tyrone Hill 76 75 2363 278 *587* 47%
George Lynch 82 80 2649 274 *616 * 44%

Iverson literally took as many shots (1813 vs 1917 )as mckie,Hill and Lynch combined..And as you can see,he has the worst shooting %.They lived and died with A.I..

That was a great Defensive team,and thats what Brown needs to mold us into...That will be the only thing in common with the sixer team.Marbury may play the combo guard and step up his shot attempts early in the game,but I dont see him taking 25-30 shote per game....We have much better scorers than that team,hence more balance


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

truth said:


> .Remeber the topic was Fg% and scoring which you changed to whos the better Go To guy....



i never made it about fg% you started talking about fg% when i was talking about who would you rather have with the ball at the end of games....you obivously know just like everybody else that is a basketball fan that iverson jacks way too many shots and has a low %.......


but like i said I WOULD RATHER HAVE IVERSON WITH THE BALL ON MY TEAM AT THE END OF GAMES THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER ON THE KNICKS......

THE ONLY OTHER PLAYERS I WOULD PICK AHEAD OF IVERSON ARE

KOBE
BIBBY
AND F***ING ROBERT HORRY

THATS IT!!!!!! 

DONT GIVE ME T-MAC CAUSE HE CANT EVEN MAKE IT OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> i never made it about fg% you started talking about fg% when i was talking about who would you rather have with the ball at the end of games....you obivously know just like everybody else that is a basketball fan that iverson jacks way too many shots and has a low %.......
> 
> but like i said I WOULD RATHER HAVE IVERSON WITH THE BALL ON MY TEAM AT THE END OF GAMES THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER ON THE KNICKS......
> THE ONLY OTHER PLAYERS I WOULD PICK AHEAD OF IVERSON ARE
> ...


Few,you are more than welcome to love A.I,but dont expect anyone who can look at statistics to agree with your,emotionally based OVERHYPED analysis of Iverson...He is NOT a top crunch time player,hes not even as CLUTCH as Marbury,and you refuse to acknowledge that he is a turnover machine with a terrible assist to turnover ratio in the last 5 minutes...

A.I is fun to watch and has alot of heart,but please dont say we dont have a go to guy like A.I,because we have Marbury who is proven to be better in Crunch time...

I think this should conclude our discussion :cheers: 







Y


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

truth said:


> Few,you are more than welcome to love A.I,but dont expect anyone who can look at statistics to agree with your,emotionally based OVERHYPED analysis of Iverson...He is NOT a top crunch time player,hes not even as CLUTCH as Marbury,and you refuse to acknowledge that he is a turnover machine with a terrible assist to turnover ratio in the last 5 minutes...
> 
> A.I is fun to watch and has alot of heart,but please dont say we dont have a go to guy like A.I,because we have Marbury who is proven to be better in Crunch time...
> 
> I think this should conclude our discussion :cheers:




i thought more people would agree with me but I dont know it looks like im the only one here who would take iverson over everyone on the knicks............so maybe i am a closet iverson fan:eek8:........i guess?!?!?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

ChosenFEW said:


> i thought more people would agree with me but I dont know it looks like im the only one here who would take iverson over everyone on the knicks............so maybe i am a closet iverson fan:eek8:........i guess?!?!?


I like Iverson better than Marbury too, but for different reasons. I think he plays harder, more fearlessly, better defensively, greater will to succeed, etc, and is ultimately just plain ol' MORE FUN TO WATCH.

But I think he'd be a pain to coach and he's just as hard as Marbury to fit a team around, so who knows who'd be more successful - but if you're gonna be stuck in mediocrity I'd rather do it watching Ivy than Steph.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> i thought more people would agree with me but I dont know it looks like im the only one here who would take iverson over everyone on the knicks............so maybe i am a closet iverson fan:eek8:........i guess?!?!?


Few,I am not a marbury fan.I dont want to give you the wrong impression...I dont think he is the warrior A.I is,and is certainly not as good on D...I think the case could be made that A.I is the better all around player...And I havent researched it,so dont jump me!!!!

What was very interesting from our debate is A.I plays all out for 48 minutes..He comes out blazing...Marbury appears to coast for 40 minutes and then takes it up 10 notches in crunch time.He has the largest increase in shots from the first 43 min to the final 5...

To me A.I vs Marbury is 6 of one,half dozen of another..


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> I like Iverson better than Marbury too, but for different reasons. I think he plays harder, more fearlessly, better defensively, greater will to succeed, etc, and is ultimately just plain ol' MORE FUN TO WATCH.
> 
> But I think he'd be a pain to coach and he's just as hard as Marbury to fit a team around, so who knows who'd be more successful - but if you're gonna be stuck in mediocrity I'd rather do it watching Ivy than Steph.


Oak,after digging thru all the numbers I have to say marbury is the least of the Knicks problems.What intersesting is that when hes on the floor,the team doesnt outscore opponents.But when hes off,they get killed..Hes one of the leaders in "positive" Net +/- on a team in the league in a very bizzare manner..The Knicks really suck ..If he could just shut his mouth and play D,he would be worth half of what hes paid


----------

