# Marbury is way overrated



## FlyingTiger

*Murbury is way overated*

all of you guys always have him in the top 3 at pg. hes a cancer and makes nobody on his team better.


----------



## Warriors4Life

You are insane. Not only is marbruy a top 3 PG, but he coould be the top pg in the league if Kidd doesn't make a complete recovery from his knee injury.


----------



## Spriggan

marbury is a top-notch PG when he's surrounded by shooters.

his game is to drive and dish out to open shooters. the US team really doesn't have any great perimeter shooters, that's why he hasn't looked very impressive.


----------



## Ben1

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> marbury is a top-notch PG when he's surrounded by shooters.
> 
> his game is to drive and dish out to open shooters. the US team really doesn't have any great perimeter shooters, that's why he hasn't looked very impressive.


Exactly.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

It's not like there is a lot of competition in the top PG spot anyways. It's old broken down Kidd and Marbury and uh... a bunch of shoot-first PGs who aren't as good as Marbury.


----------



## Drewbs

Your forgetting Steve Nash.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

Yeah Nash is a good, real, PG, but not as good as Marbury.


----------



## John

> Originally posted by <b>Ben</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly.


And can you win with just penetrating and 3 point shots?

NOPE!


----------



## John

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> marbury is a top-notch PG when he's surrounded by shooters.
> 
> his game is to drive and dish out to open shooters. the US team really doesn't have any great perimeter shooters, that's why he hasn't looked very impressive.


Dont blame other players, blame his inability to contribute in other aspects of the game. 

How about trying to jump over people to finish the play after drives?

DONT EVER JUST PASS BECUASE YOU COULDNT SHOOT THE BALL!


----------



## wild_style

i'm not even going to bother putting together a big arguement why you are "way" wrong on this one, im sure there will be a lot of people that are going to say marbury is easily a top 3 pg in the nba


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG

*Re: Murbury is way overated*



> Originally posted by <b>FlyingTiger</b>!
> all of you guys always have him in the top 3 at pg. hes a cancer and makes nobody on his team better.


He shouldn't even be top 5. He might play good some games but nothing special.


----------



## RP McMurphy

*Re: Re: Murbury is way overated*



> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> 
> 
> He shouldn't even be top 5. He might play good some games but nothing special.


I don't think he's top five either, and he looks worse than ever in the Olympics so far. He's not as good as Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell, or Steve Nash. These guys play point guard the right way and that's why their teams have all gone much further than Marbury's teams.

At best he's fifth best point guard in the league but I don't see what separates him from Baron Davis or Steve Francis either. Those three are all the same.


----------



## futuristxen

Sometimes players just don't look good in certain settings. Marbury hasn't looked good for team usa. But neither did Baron Davis.

Jason Kidd didn't look all that great for stretches of qualifying last year.

Ben Wallace looked like a CBA player in Indiaoplis.
JO looked awful for stetches, got dunked on by Verejao.

I guess basically what I'm saying is don't base your entire evaulation on a player based upon how they look in a setting such as team usa, especially when all other evidence points to the contrary of your conclusion.

Marbury's NBA play clearly puts him in the top 3 with Kidd and Nash.

Sam Cassell has gotten way overrated. One good season does not overcome what is essentially a mediocre career.


----------



## futuristxen

*Re: Re: Re: Murbury is way overated*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> At best he's fifth best point guard in the league but I don't see what separates him from Baron Davis or Steve Francis either. Those three are all the same.


Steve Francis is garbage, and doesn't possess any point guard instincts.

You could say Marbury and Baron Davis are both similiar, but throwing Francis in there, I completely disagree.

For arguements sake:
1. Kidd
2. Marbury
3. Nash
4. Baron Davis
5. Bibby(or NBA Finals MVP Billups)

If Baron could keep his fat *** in shape he'd probably be better than Nash.


----------



## RP McMurphy

See, I don't know what Marbury has done to separate himself from Steve Francis. Marbury's a proven loser. A lot of people on this board like to crap on Francis but he consistently won 40 games in Houston with a pretty bad supporting cast. The one year he got injured, they completely sucked without him. Clearly he's an impact player. By contrast, Marbury's team still sucked last year even when he had Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire. I'd say Francis and Baron Davis are both better than Marbury.

None of these guys really has the kind of point guard instincts that a good team needs. Francis and Marbury both have a drive-and-dish game. Obviously, Marbury's drive-and-dish game is better than Francis's, but like John says, you don't win with that type of game, period. At least Francis is versatile. He can finish around the basket, and he's a better rebounder and defender than Marbury, too.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> Marbury's a proven loser.


There's no such thing as a "proven loser." Teams win and lose, not individuals.



> By contrast, Marbury's team still sucked last year even when he had Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire.


For a relatively short stretch, much of which Amare Stoudemire was injured. The previous season he led them to the playoffs where they were beaten in six games by the eventual NBA champion Spurs. Marbury's Suns gave the Spurs as much trouble as the Lakers or Nets did in the playoffs that season.



> Obviously, Marbury's drive-and-dish game is better than Francis's, but like John says, you don't win with that type of game, period. At least Francis is versatile. He can finish around the basket, and he's a better rebounder and defender than Marbury, too.


Marbury can also finish around the basket extremely well, he's as solid a defender as Francis and he's a better passer than Francis in both the half-court set and the open floor.

Francis is the better rebounder, though, that's true.


----------



## Cap

Francis doesn't do anything better than Marbury except rebound. I can't believe you're even comparing the two ArtestFan. Marbury's a much better, smarter passer, better shooter, better scorer, and equally good defensive player. He was able to take his team to the playoffs in 2003 and give that year's champion tons of trouble. He's also quite clutch.

I don't believe he's a HOFer, but he's a damn fine PG. No, he's better than Baron, because Marbury actually stays healthy.


----------



## Johnny Mac

I think Marbury is very overrated, I'm with ArtestFan. I had this theory about Marbury that he is basically only really effective when he is able to control the ball a whole lot. Watching him play in the olympics only strengthened that belief. 

He struggles to get into the flow of the game if he has to play within a team setting, and he is not good enough to lead a team all the way to a title by playing his control the ball style of play. 

So what is he good for? I dont want him near my team. He can make a bad team into a mediocre team, but realistically, he is not a long term piece. He is a mediocre, a very mediocre franchise player. He is a poor mans franchise player. 

If hes not playing the role of the franchise player, he becomes extremely ineffective because he struggles to get into the flow of the game with limited chances to create. 

Theres a reason the guy has been to many teams already and he is only 25. General managers eventually realize that the team will only go as far as Marbury takes them, and that will never be far enough to win a title.


----------



## Tersk

> Murbury's overrated


I could not agree more!


But Stephon Marbury is the 2nd best PG in the League


----------



## BallBiologist

I'd take Francis over marburry any day of the week.. If he plays like he is playing in the Olympics, then someone needs to kick him off the team and bring in Tyron Lue...because Tyron would at least dribble off his feet and take 20 foot jumpers..haah


----------



## John

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I think Marbury is very overrated, I'm with ArtestFan. I had this theory about Marbury that he is basically only really effective when he is able to control the ball a whole lot. Watching him play in the olympics only strengthened that belief.
> 
> He struggles to get into the flow of the game if he has to play within a team setting, and he is not good enough to lead a team all the way to a title by playing his control the ball style of play.
> 
> So what is he good for? I dont want him near my team. He can make a bad team into a mediocre team, but realistically, he is not a long term piece. He is a mediocre, a very mediocre franchise player. He is a poor mans franchise player.
> 
> If hes not playing the role of the franchise player, he becomes extremely ineffective because he struggles to get into the flow of the game with limited chances to create.
> 
> Theres a reason the guy has been to many teams already and he is only 25. General managers eventually realize that the team will only go as far as Marbury takes them, and that will never be far enough to win a title.


If we can forgot all the hypes. Look at Lebron again, and he is what you describe marbury as.


----------



## kflo

i think we're forgetting that the pistons just won a title with chauncey billips running the show. i like billips as a player, but his advantage over marbury is that he's less talented. so he takes on a smaller burden. 

i can see marbury playing for a winning team, if the team was structured properly. isiah never would have won a title if they were just relying on him to be a franchise player. but they built a team around him, and he was able to do his thing and make big plays, carry his team when he was hot. marbury's no isiah, but he's pretty darn talented. and he's not the ballhog some make him out to be (although neither is francis - marbury is, imo, a better decision maker than francis). he's versatile offensively, and can play off the ball as well as on the ball.

marbury blended in well with the knicks when he got there. he injected alot of energy and playmaking ability. he didn't need to jack up 20+ shots for them to win. then the injuries came, and more fell onto his shoulders. and his shoulders aren't that big.

take the olympic team with a grain of salt. none of these guys are showcasing their true skills as of now.


----------



## Shanghai Kid

My only problem with Marbury is that he has to really dominate the ball and control the offense in order to get 20 and 8. I don't think any PG should be controlling the offense that much to a point where their always getting a point or an assist. How can the ball movment on the team be great when Marbury has to set up everything for himself and everybody? Watch Marbury play, he tries really hard to get assists, it's not as natural as somebody like Baron Davis getting assists in the flow of the game. Baron Davis is also a problem because you can't be a PG and take 20 shots a game. 

Marbury makes the offense revolve around him no matter what, and he's not good enough to be the main guy on a championship team, so that's why I think Marbury keeps getting traded and never wins much. When you shut down Marbury in the playoffs, your shutting down the whole team because their used to Marbury doing everything. The whole offense becomes reliant on Marbury having a good game. I think his passing abilities are good enough, his court vision is good enough, I just think he tries to do too much.

Mike Bibby I think is an ideal PG. He can run the fastbreak and he's also effective in the halfcourt. He hits jumpshots in the clutch and when you need them, but he doesn't overly control the ball or look to score too much. I think Bibby is really the ideal PG on a championship level team.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

> Mike Bibby I think is an ideal PG. He can run the fastbreak and he's also effective in the halfcourt. He hits jumpshots in the clutch and when you need them, but he doesn't overly control the ball or look to score too much. I think Bibby is really the ideal PG on a championship level team.


Yep, I agree. Him and Sam Cassell are the two best pick and roll PGs in the league, bar none. Bibby does everything well but doesn't try to be something he's not.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> My only problem with Marbury is that he has to really dominate the ball and control the offense in order to get 20 and 8. I don't think any PG should be controlling the offense that much to a point where their always getting a point or an assist. How can the ball movment on the team be great when Marbury has to set up everything for himself and everybody? Watch Marbury play, he tries really hard to get assists, it's not as natural as somebody like Baron Davis getting assists in the flow of the game. Baron Davis is also a problem because you can't be a PG and take 20 shots a game.
> 
> Marbury makes the offense revolve around him no matter what, and he's not good enough to be the main guy on a championship team, so that's why I think Marbury keeps getting traded and never wins much. When you shut down Marbury in the playoffs, your shutting down the whole team because their used to Marbury doing everything. The whole offense becomes reliant on Marbury having a good game. I think his passing abilities are good enough, his court vision is good enough, I just think he tries to do too much.


You do realize that several of the "elite" point guards in the league are the exact same way, don't you? Marbury, Arenas, Francis and Wade are all the same way. In general, the NBA game today doesn't feature the pure point guards, or the point guards that play the game the way point guards are supposed to play. Does that necessarily make them worse? Does that make them worse point guards than Steve Nash, Mike Bibby and Sam Cassell?

Personally, I think it does. I'm with ArtestFan and JTCK on this one. If I wanted to build a winning basketball team, I definitely would prefer to have Steve Nash, Mike Bibby or Sam Cassell over a guy like Marbury. When you have a championship quality team, you need a distributing point guard who is also a capable shooter and penetrator, it's just not their first option(again, see Bibby, Nash or Cassell). All of the good teams in the league have a very good big man, which is what makes them successful. Successful teams need a point guard to be a role player rather than the star. That's why you have to take a guy like Bibby, Nash or Cassell over Marbury, as well as over Francis, Arenas or Wade because the score-first point guards are not as good of role players as the distributing point guards.


----------



## kflo

there was a 15 game stretch last season with the knicks almost right when he got there, where they went 11-4, marbury took 14.7 shots a game, had 21 ppg, 9.6 apg. houston got hurt, van horn got traded, and they didn't get it back together.

again, give him the right tools, and he can be successful.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> there was a 15 game stretch last season with the knicks almost right when he got there, where they went 11-4, marbury took 14.7 shots a game, had 21 ppg, 9.6 apg. houston got hurt, van horn got traded, and they didn't get it back together.
> 
> again, give him the right tools, and he can be successful.


Yes, he can. But without the "right tools" he's nothing more than a slightly above average point guard, incapable of leading his team to victory. Like I said in my previous post, you're not going to win a title with your star playing point guard(unless it's LeBron James sometime in the future). Your team has to be focused around a big man or a premiere swingman like Kobe or T-Mac. Either way, championship caliber teams need role-playing point guards, not stars. Guys that can hit the open shot and create their own shot occassionally, as well as creating shots for other players are the ideal point guards for great teams, and do very well in the playoffs(Mike Bibby).


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, he can. But without the "right tools" he's nothing more than a slightly above average point guard, incapable of leading his team to victory. Like I said in my previous post, you're not going to win a title with your star playing point guard(unless it's LeBron James sometime in the future). Your team has to be focused around a big man or a premiere swingman like Kobe or T-Mac. Either way, championship caliber teams need role-playing point guards, not stars. Guys that can hit the open shot and create their own shot occassionally, as well as creating shots for other players are the ideal point guards for great teams, and do very well in the playoffs(Mike Bibby).


if marbury was on the pistons last year, do you think they have a chance at a title?

you need stars and role players to win. bibby is on a stacked offensive team. cassell is a shoot first player as much as marbury is, who now has garnett by his side. payton was leading his team to the finals as a shoot first point guard. isiah won 2 titles as a shoot first pg.

ANYONE needs quality around them to be successful. if the point is that a team can't be built with marbury, or another score first pg, as the lone superstar who is expected to carry the load ala jordan, i'll agree. but guys like nash, bibby, make superstar money - marbury doesn't preclude you from getting other star pieces. so if the point is that those guys are better even if surrounded with an excellent overall team to complement their skills, i'd disagree.


----------



## RP McMurphy

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> He struggles to get into the flow of the game if he has to play within a team setting, and he is not good enough to lead a team all the way to a title by playing his control the ball style of play.
> 
> So what is he good for? I dont want him near my team. He can make a bad team into a mediocre team, but realistically, he is not a long term piece. He is a mediocre, a very mediocre franchise player. He is a poor mans franchise player.
> 
> If hes not playing the role of the franchise player, he becomes extremely ineffective because he struggles to get into the flow of the game with limited chances to create.


Yes, and that's what I meant by calling him a proven loser. His style of play doesn't work on a good team, only a mediocre team. The fact that he's been on so many different teams and none of them have been better than mediocre, is good evidence of that.

If your point guard is a player like Davis, Francis, Arenas or Marbury, then if you have a star big man, he's never going to get as many touches as he needs. For some reason, people on this website can (correctly) tell you all about the way Francis held Yao back, but a lot of people don't blame Marbury for holding back Amare. Kwame Brown obviously is no Yao or Amare, but Arenas is really holding Kwame back, too.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, and that's what I meant by calling him a proven loser. His style of play doesn't work on a good team, only a mediocre team. The fact that he's been on so many different teams and none of them have been better than mediocre, is good evidence of that.
> 
> If your point guard is a player like Davis, Francis, Arenas or Marbury, then if you have a star big man, he's never going to get as many touches as he needs. For some reason, people on this website can (correctly) tell you all about the way Francis held Yao back, but a lot of people don't blame Marbury for holding back Amare. Kwame Brown obviously is no Yao or Amare, but Arenas is really holding Kwame back, too.


Agreed, that's why I'm skeptical as a Magic fan to have Francis coming in and possibly slowing down Dwight Howard's development.



> if marbury was on the pistons last year, do you think they have a chance at a title?
> 
> you need stars and role players to win. bibby is on a stacked offensive team. cassell is a shoot first player as much as marbury is, who now has garnett by his side. payton was leading his team to the finals as a shoot first point guard. isiah won 2 titles as a shoot first pg.
> 
> ANYONE needs quality around them to be successful. if the point is that a team can't be built with marbury, or another score first pg, as the lone superstar who is expected to carry the load ala jordan, i'll agree. but guys like nash, bibby, make superstar money - marbury doesn't preclude you from getting other star pieces. so if the point is that those guys are better even if surrounded with an excellent overall team to complement their skills, i'd disagree.


I think the Pistons were better off last season with Billups instead of Marbury for three reasons. First off, defensively Billups is better than Marbury. Secondly, the chemistry on the team would've been disrupted having a star like Marbury on the team, constantly controlling the ball rather than playing Larry Brown ball, and if he did play Larry Brown ball he wouldn't be very successful. And finally, Billups is a much better long range shooter than Marbury, something the Pistons desperately needed from their point guard, and were able to have with Billups and they wouldn't have with Marbury.


----------



## PacersguyUSA

> In general, the NBA game today doesn't feature the pure point guards, or the point guards that play the game the way point guards are supposed to play.


That's why Tinsley's awesome. He plays the way point guards should.

Anyway, Marbury may be overrated because people regard him as the 2nd best point guard, but I think Baron Davis may be better.


----------



## "Matt!"

Whoever mentioned how well Marbury was playing when he got to the Knicks is right, because he had two catch and shoot players who need someone to create for them (KVH & Houston), and a good, solid rebounder down-low (KT) and as a team they played decent defense.

You all call Marbury a proven loser, but who exactly has he played with?

In Minny he had a young Garnett, and Tom Gugliotta, and they made the playoffs two years.

In NJ he had Keith Van Horn, who played like he was about to crap himself in a close game, and Kenyon Martin for a half a year, and Kerry Kittles, and Kendall Gill. Wow.

In Phoenix his first year they were okay, as he got to mesh with Shawn Marion and Penny Hardaway, but when they finally got a good big man, Amare, the team exploded into the playoffs and the Spurs were lucky to escape with their lives.

In NY, he turned a really, really bad team of weird players into something, until IT decided to trade for Tim Thomas. They still made the playoffs, something I doubt any Knicks fan thought they would do before he arrived.

Steve Nash has the pleasure of playing on teams that featured: Dirk Nowitzki, Antoine Walker, Antawn Jamison, Michael Finley, Juwan Howard, Cedric Ceballos, Raef Lafrentz, Nick Van Exel, etc. What has Steve Nash done without talent?

Mike Bibby has had: Chris Webber, Peja Stojakovic, Doug Christie, Vlade Divac, Bobby Jackson, and some good role-players. What did Bibby do with the Grizzlies without talent?

Sam Cassell was basically a poor-mans Stephon Marbury while he was in Milwaulkee, he shot better but basically controlled the ball. He also got to play with: Ray Allen, Michael Redd, Tim Thomas, Glenn Robinson, Kevin Garnett, Latrell Spreewell, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, and Rob Horry. What has he done with no talent? Lost.

Who has Stephon gotten to play with? Allan Houston and KVH for 14 games, Tim Thomas, Amare, Shawn Marion, Kenyon Martin for a little bit in his rookie year when he coming off a broken leg, Tom Gugs, and a very young KG. When he's had talent he's won. When he hasn't, he's lost. How is he any different from any other NBA player? Chauncy Billups isn't magically a better player because he played with better players, he fits a role on a team built with his role in mind. Marbury has never had this pleasure.


----------



## "Matt!"

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> That's why Tinsley's awesome. He plays the way point guards should.


A point guard who shoots under 40% and whose only job is to make sure his big man gets the ball is the way its supposed to be played? Hell, sign me up for the NBA!


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> I think the Pistons were better off last season with Billups instead of Marbury for three reasons. First off, defensively Billups is better than Marbury. Secondly, the chemistry on the team would've been disrupted having a star like Marbury on the team, constantly controlling the ball rather than playing Larry Brown ball, and if he did play Larry Brown ball he wouldn't be very successful. And finally, Billups is a much better long range shooter than Marbury, something the Pistons desperately needed from their point guard, and were able to have with Billups and they wouldn't have with Marbury.


the pistons, with billups, were not a very good offensive team. like i said, i like billips, and what he can contribute to a team. but marbury is a good defender. i don't think they desperately needed a long range shooter from their pg - the needed someone who could score, and billups did that often with the long range 3's. marbury's a much better creator, and i think his need to dominante the ball is a bit overstated. he doesn't make them a worse offensive team, he makes them better, and he doesn't hurt them alot defensively.

if you want marbury to simply dribble the ball up and dump it to someone else (ala payton in la), he's not the guy for you. but if you want someone who can create offensively, make big shots, and play defense, he can be a good player for a winning organization. he can play on the ball or off the ball. and he can pass. he's certainly got alot to prove, but i don't think that means i'd rather have a nash, a bibby, or a billups.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> the pistons, with billups, were not a very good offensive team. like i said, i like billips, and what he can contribute to a team. but marbury is a good defender. i don't think they desperately needed a long range shooter from their pg - the needed someone who could score, and billups did that often with the long range 3's. marbury's a much better creator, and i think his need to dominante the ball is a bit overstated. he doesn't make them a worse offensive team, he makes them better, and he doesn't hurt them alot defensively.
> 
> if you want marbury to simply dribble the ball up and dump it to someone else (ala payton in la), he's not the guy for you. but if you want someone who can create offensively, make big shots, and play defense, he can be a good player for a winning organization. he can play on the ball or off the ball. and he can pass. he's certainly got alot to prove, but i don't think that means i'd rather have a nash, a bibby, or a billups.


I'm not saying I'd necessarily rather have Billups than Marbury, Billups and Detroit really aren't the perfect examples for this because they weren't the typical championship team. In general, the best teams in the league have distributing point guards that are capable scorers, but scoring isn't their first priority. More than any other position, great teams need point guards to role players and leaders of the team, not the leading scorer on the team.


----------



## RP McMurphy

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> Agreed, that's why I'm skeptical as a Magic fan to have Francis coming in and possibly slowing down Dwight Howard's development.


Is it just me, or have we been on the same side in like every single thread recently? I don't remember disagreeing with a single one of your posts in the past month, and it's starting to freak me out a little bit.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about that if I were a Magic fan. Dwight Howard isn't ready to be a go-to-guy on offense yet. Until he is, Francis won't be hurting his development. This year, Dwight needs to concentrate on playing defense, getting rebounds, and maybe scoring 10 or 12 ppg as a garbageman.

If Dwight is as good as you and I both think he might be, then in three years he'll be ready to be the franchise player. If Steve Francis hasn't learned how to be a better role player by then (and I doubt he will learn), it'll be time to trade him. But in the meantime, Francis will bring excitement to the fans, make the Magic the fifth or sixth best team in the East, and maybe even win a playoff series one of these years. That's something that the Magic franchise sorely needs after last year's disaster. And it wouldn't hurt for Dwight to get some solid playoff experience early in his career. So even if Francis isn't the long-term answer, he can still be a valuable player for your franchise.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, he can. But without the "right tools" he's nothing more than a slightly above average point guard


That isn't true. Without the "right tools," he's still a superstar, averaging around 8-9 assists per game and 20+ points per game.



> incapable of leading his team to victory.


Now, that's highly unfair, especially coming from a Magic fan. You, of all people, should know full well that without the "right tools" around a player, no player can "lead his team to victory," considering you watched McGrady be "incapable of leading his team to victory."



> Like I said in my previous post, you're not going to win a title with your star playing point guard(unless it's LeBron James sometime in the future).


But teams have won titles with superstar scoring point guards. Oscar Robertson, Isaiah Thomas. Such scoring and play-making point guards are rare, but have had championship success.



> Your team has to be focused around a big man or a premiere swingman like Kobe or T-Mac. Either way, championship caliber teams need role-playing point guards, not stars. Guys that can hit the open shot and create their own shot occassionally, as well as creating shots for other players are the ideal point guards for great teams, and do very well in the playoffs(Mike Bibby).


Magic Johnson wasn't a role-player. He was the Lakers' pre-eminent star for many of those title-contending/winning years.

You're espousing *one* theory that has worked, as though it's proven as the *only* theory that works. It's definitely not the only one that works. People have had success with a variety of types of teams. The common thread is that all the teams were generally either very talented through and through or had two of the biggest talents in the game at the time. What position the stars on the team were is not a very unifying theme between champions (well, except maybe for the fact that top centers have been a great help...but even great centers haven't guaranteed anything).


----------



## The Mad Viking

Yes, he sucks. He led the league in assists while scoring 20ppg, he is awful.

Minstrel - of all the crap post here, the most consistently offensive is the notion that good players are losers because they play on a bad team. Over and over you get this crap. When a good player finally gets on a good team and wins, what do these people say? "He finally learned how to win." AAAARRRRGH!

So I will be adding your very concise little rebuttal to this to my signature:



> There's no such thing as a "proven loser." Teams win and lose, not individuals.


Thank you.


----------



## Starbury03

One players cant make a team win he needs help even MJ needed help. It's crazy how all of a sudden he isnt a good point ecause how he played in the three olympic games. he isnt playing the way he likes to play. He needs the ball and so do alot of other players on the US team. That is why they are struggling. Marbury has proven year to year how good of a plyer he is and that is all he needs to do. It doesnt matter if a bunch of computer nerds see him play bad for a couple games and think he sucks. He will have another great year next year and there will be a thread about (Is Marbury the best pg in the league?)


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b>!
> 
> Minstrel - of all the crap post here, the most consistently offensive is the notion that good players are losers because they play on a bad team. Over and over you get this crap. When a good player finally gets on a good team and wins, what do these people say? "He finally learned how to win." AAAARRRRGH!
> 
> So I will be adding your very concise little rebuttal to this to my signature:
> 
> Thank you.


Glad you appreciated it!


----------



## Yyzlin

Marbury is at the cusp of a top-five point guard right now. Jason Kidd, Baron Davis, Sam Cassell and Mike Bibby definately rank above him, while others such as Francis, Nash, and Billups are at the same level or just below Marbury. 

Like most point guards near that ranking, he doesn't have the talent to be a franchise player. I can't really imagine a team going very far with Marbury as its best player. Having him control the ball so long every possession doesn't lead to the highest percentage scoring opportunities. However, with him as a secondary option and adopting a reduced role with the right mix of players, he could very well break out of that "loser" reputation.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Marbury is at the cusp of a top-five point guard right now. Jason Kidd, Baron Davis, Sam Cassell and Mike Bibby definately rank above him


Why does Baron Davis definitely rank above Marbury? He's also a ball-dominating, score-first point guard who shoots a worse percentage (an abysmal .377 from the field) and averages fewer assists.

Kidd, Cassell, Bibby I'd argue as definitely above Marbury, but at least I can see some support for them.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or have we been on the same side in like every single thread recently? I don't remember disagreeing with a single one of your posts in the past month, and it's starting to freak me out a little bit.
> 
> Anyway, I wouldn't worry about that if I were a Magic fan. Dwight Howard isn't ready to be a go-to-guy on offense yet. Until he is, Francis won't be hurting his development. This year, Dwight needs to concentrate on playing defense, getting rebounds, and maybe scoring 10 or 12 ppg as a garbageman.


Sure we did, I think Boston's a playoff team and you think they're one of the worst teams in the league 

Seriously though, you are correct in the fact that Howard isn't ready to be a go to guy offensively, I'd be thrilled if he could give us 10-12 points a game. I fully expect him to be a good defender and rebounder this season, anything less than 8 boards, 2 blocks and above average man to man and team defense will be a slight disappointment in my opinion. I'm not too worried about his offense, it will come in time, and the Magic aren't counting on it for this season.



> If Dwight is as good as you and I both think he might be, then in three years he'll be ready to be the franchise player. If Steve Francis hasn't learned how to be a better role player by then (and I doubt he will learn), it'll be time to trade him. But in the meantime, Francis will bring excitement to the fans, make the Magic the fifth or sixth best team in the East, and maybe even win a playoff series one of these years. That's something that the Magic franchise sorely needs after last year's disaster. And it wouldn't hurt for Dwight to get some solid playoff experience early in his career. So even if Francis isn't the long-term answer, he can still be a valuable player for your franchise.


That's a pretty good point you make there. By having Francis in Orlando for a few years, the Magic can potentially make the playoffs a few times and give Howard some experience playing in those big game situations for down the road when he's the franchise player(hopefully). It's highly unlikely that the Magic will be a good enough team to seriously compete for a title any time soon barring a miraculous comeback by Grant Hill and Dwight Howard developing into a superstar overnight, but by putting a couple solid players around Howard and the rest of the young guys who can potentially help the Magic in a few years, the Magic could ultimately be benefitting the team and giving them the edge over a team without the playoff experience that Orlando should gain. 



> That isn't true. Without the "right tools," he's still a superstar, averaging around 8-9 assists per game and 20+ points per game.
> 
> Now, that's highly unfair, especially coming from a Magic fan. You, of all people, should know full well that without the "right tools" around a player, no player can "lead his team to victory," considering you watched McGrady be "incapable of leading his team to victory."


But the difference then is that he's not winning games. There's a difference in having the right tools and not having any tools at all. A player like Marbury absolutely has to have spot up shooters to have team success. That is a weakness of his, not something that every superstar has. Most superstars can win games when they have good solid role players around them, regardless of their playing style. Marbury can only play one style of basketball effectively, which really limits the options of a team he's on and for the GM to make acquisitions. 



> But teams have won titles with superstar scoring point guards. Oscar Robertson, Isaiah Thomas. Such scoring and play-making point guards are rare, but have had championship success.


They are few and far between. Isaiah Thomas is really the only scoring point guard in the past 25 years to win Finals MVP. 



> Magic Johnson wasn't a role-player. He was the Lakers' pre-eminent star for many of those title-contending/winning years.


I knew "role player" was the wrong term, what I meant was more of a role player in terms of scoring the ball. Magic Johnson wasn't a big time scorer(although he was capable of it).


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> But the difference then is that he's not winning games. There's a difference in having the right tools and not having any tools at all. A player like Marbury absolutely has to have spot up shooters to have team success. That is a weakness of his, not something that every superstar has.


No he doesn't. Marbury didn't have "spot-up shooters" of any particular note in Phoenix. Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, his main "tools," were as far from that as possible. However, he did a great job of setting up Stoudemire for inside baskets and played very well...leading Phoenix to the playoffs in a year no one expected it from them and led them to giving the Spurs a ton of trouble.



> Most superstars can win games when they have good solid role players around them, regardless of their playing style. Marbury can only play one style of basketball effectively, which really limits the options of a team he's on and for the GM to make acquisitions.


As noted above, that's not true. He just needs good players. He made the playoffs with Kevin Garnett. He did well with Stoudemire and Marion. Last year, after a strange poor start for Phoenix (some/much of it due to Stoudemire being hurt early), Marbury was sent to New York, where he galvinized them to a playoff spot with precious few "tools."



> They are few and far between. Isaiah Thomas is really the only scoring point guard in the past 25 years to win Finals MVP.


That's because they are rare players. It's not like there have been a ton of top scoring / play-making point guards, most of whom failed. Very few point guards with Marbury's play-making skill have the scoring abilities Marbury possesses.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Why does Baron Davis definitely rank above Marbury? He's also a ball-dominating, score-first point guard who shoots a worse percentage (an abysmal .377 from the field) and averages fewer assists.
> 
> Kidd, Cassell, Bibby I'd argue as definitely above Marbury, but at least I can see some support for them.


Actually, using eFG%, they both rank exactly the same at .463 eFG%, while Davis does so at a higher volume. As for the ball-dominating factor, I entirely disagree. While Marbury changes the complex of a team by playing his way, Davis flows in an offense far better, and actually moves the ball around the perimeter frequently, something that Marbury rarely ever does. In addition to all that, Davis is simply a better rebounder, and ranks 17th in the league in Dan R's adjusted +/- statistics while Marbury ranks a very pedestrian 162th. I never advocate +/- as a be-all stat, but it certainly has use as being simply another set of information to be considered, just like RPG, APG, and PPG.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> No he doesn't. Marbury didn't have "spot-up shooters" of any particular note in Phoenix. Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, his main "tools," were as far from that as possible. However, he did a great job of setting up Stoudemire for inside baskets and played very well...leading Phoenix to the playoffs in a year no one expected it from them and led them to giving the Spurs a ton of trouble.


He had a few very good spot up shooters. Marion has an unorthodox shot, but he made 141 3's that year on 39% shooting from behind the arc. Casey Jacobsen didn't play a huge role on that team, but the one thing he is good at is catching and shooting. Penny Hardaway was still on that team too, and he's a capable shooter too. 




> As noted above, that's not true. He just needs good players. He made the playoffs with Kevin Garnett. He did well with Stoudemire and Marion. Last year, after a strange poor start for Phoenix (some/much of it due to Stoudemire being hurt early), Marbury was sent to New York, where he galvinized them to a playoff spot with precious few "tools."


Then why did the Knicks struggle when Van Horn got traded for Tim Thomas? Say what you want about Van Horn, but he's a spot up shooter that plays well with Marbury, not coincidentally. He had his best pro season playing in New Jersey with Marbury. 




> That's because they are rare players. It's not like there have been a ton of top scoring / play-making point guards, most of whom failed. Very few point guards with Marbury's play-making skill have the scoring abilities Marbury possesses.


If they're so rare, why is it there are so many of them in the league right now? What seperates Marbury from Baron Davis, Steve Francis, Dwyane Wade or Gilbert Arenas in your mind?


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> No he doesn't. Marbury didn't have "spot-up shooters" of any particular note in Phoenix. Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, his main "tools," were as far from that as possible. However, he did a great job of setting up Stoudemire for inside baskets and played very well...leading Phoenix to the playoffs in a year no one expected it from them and led them to giving the Spurs a ton of trouble.


Actually, from the few games I watched of the Suns that season, Marion was a perfect complement to Marbury. Marion is a very adept mid-range scorer and a large volume of his points simply came off Marbury drive and dishes.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Actually, from the few games I watched of the Suns that season, Marion was a perfect complement to Marbury. Marion is a very adept mid-range scorer and a large volume of his points simply came off Marbury drive and dishes.


Correct. It was BigAmare I think who said a couple days ago that some stat showed that Shawn Marion shot the best percentage on 14-18 foot jumpers in the entire league.


----------



## Cap

I can see arguing for Cassell and Bibby as better PGs, as both are wonderfully gifted at running the P&R and hitting jump shots. But Cassell is a seive defensively and Bibby is probably the worst starting defensive PG in the league. At least Marbury is at worst average, and arguably a good defender. 



> Actually, using eFG%,


Well, that's a pretty dishonest way of rating someone, knowing that Baron routinely kills his team by jacking up more threes than anyone in the league.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Well, that's a pretty dishonest way of rating someone, knowing that Baron routinely kills his team by jacking up more threes than anyone in the league.


Don't expect to see that again. I blame Tim Floyd for that, not having control over his team and watching Baron Davis chuck up 582 3-pointers at a 32% clip and not do anything about it. Considering he took 582 in just 67 games, and his previous career high was 478 attempted in 82 games, I don't expect to see him chucking up so many 3's next season with Byron Scott. To further prove it was the coach and system rather than the player, backup PG Darrell Armstrong threw up 429 3-pointers, most in his entire career despite playing the least number of total minutes since the 1998-1999 season.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> As for the ball-dominating factor, I entirely disagree. While Marbury changes the complex of a team by playing his way, Davis flows in an offense far better, and actually moves the ball around the perimeter frequently, something that Marbury rarely ever does.


Well, we disagree entirely on that, yes.



> In addition to all that, Davis is simply a better rebounder


True. And I think Marbury is the better defender and passer.



> and ranks 17th in the league in Dan R's adjusted +/- statistics while Marbury ranks a very pedestrian 162th.


I'm not sure how much stock to put in that. It provides some extremely unorthodox claims. Not that that necessarily means its wrong (maybe it's showing some revelatory things we've been missing all our lives), but it does make me suspicious.


----------



## Cap

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't expect to see that again. I blame Tim Floyd for that, not having control over his team and watching Baron Davis chuck up 582 3-pointers at a 32% clip and not do anything about it. Considering he took 582 in just 67 games, and his previous career high was 478 attempted in 82 games, I don't expect to see him chucking up so many 3's next season with Byron Scott. To further prove it was the coach and system rather than the player, backup PG Darrell Armstrong threw up 429 3-pointers, most in his entire career despite playing the least number of total minutes since the 1998-1999 season.


Baron has been a 3-point chucker since he started being the focus of his offense, last year was just his worst 3-point chucking year. I haven't seen anything that'll stop him from chucking 400-500 3-pointers a year when he's healthy (if that ever happens).


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> He had a few very good spot up shooters. Marion has an unorthodox shot, but he made 141 3's that year on 39% shooting from behind the arc. Casey Jacobsen didn't play a huge role on that team, but the one thing he is good at is catching and shooting. Penny Hardaway was still on that team too, and he's a capable shooter too.


My point is not that he didn't have people who can hit shots. My point was that it's not true that you have to build a certain type of team around him. Marion's game/role is not "spot-up shooter." The Suns weren't built as a spot-up shooting team, to add Marbury to. Almost every team has *some* spot-up shooters, so the Suns had some, but they weren't built that way. Marbury, therefore, could be added to a lot of teams and help them with dribble penetration, his own scoring, kick-outs to spot-up shooters and set-ups for inside players, as he did for Stoudemire. He's also very capable on the break. That's a perfectly diverse skillset, offensively, for a point guard.

I think it's a total myth that Marbury can succeed only in one, tightly-constrained, situation and is nothing special in any other circumstance.



> Then why did the Knicks struggle when Van Horn got traded for Tim Thomas? Say what you want about Van Horn, but he's a spot up shooter that plays well with Marbury, not coincidentally. He had his best pro season playing in New Jersey with Marbury.


They struggled because Van Horn has some useful skills (spot-up shooting being the biggest) and Tim Thomas has virtually no useful skills. It was a terrible trade no matter who you have at point.



> If they're so rare, why is it there are so many of them in the league right now? What seperates Marbury from Baron Davis, Steve Francis, Dwyane Wade or Gilbert Arenas in your mind?


I disagree that Francis or Davis are the exceptional play-makers that Marbury is. Wade is also not a great play-maker, which is why he's going to be moved from point guard. I like Arenas' talent a lot, but I'm starting to doubt he has the play-making skills I thought he had when he was a Warrior. None of them are the passer/play-maker that Marbury is, though Davis comes the closest.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> If they're so rare, why is it there are so many of them in the league right now? What seperates Marbury from Baron Davis, Steve Francis, Dwyane Wade or Gilbert Arenas in your mind?


besides scoring more, dishing more assists, turning it over less and playing better defense (arguably)?


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> My point is not that he didn't have people who can hit shots. My point was that it's not true that you have to build a certain type of team around him. Marion's game/role is not "spot-up shooter." The Suns weren't built as a spot-up shooting team, to add Marbury to. Almost every team has *some* spot-up shooters, so the Suns had some, but they weren't built that way. Marbury, therefore, could be added to a lot of teams and help them with dribble penetration, his own scoring, kick-outs to spot-up shooters and set-ups for inside players, as he did for Stoudemire. He's also very capable on the break. That's a perfectly diverse skillset, offensively, for a point guard.


That's not necessarily true, and even if it were true it doesn't really change anything. Maybe the Suns weren't built to be a spot up shooting team, but it certainly worked out well. Why would they draft Casey Jacobsen for any reason other than to be a spot up shooter for Marbury to kick it out to?



> I think it's a total myth that Marbury can succeed only in one, tightly-constrained, situation and is nothing special in any other circumstance.


We disagree there.




> They struggled because Van Horn has some useful skills (spot-up shooting being the biggest) and Tim Thomas has virtually no useful skills. It was a terrible trade no matter who you have at point.


Whether it's a terrible trade or not, you're saying the difference in KVH and Tim Thomas is enough to totally turn around the team? They were playing very well up until that trade, and I don't think chemistry was a problem following the trade, I find it hard to believe Van Horn was hanging out with very many of his teammates after practice. He's a better player than Thomas, yes, but is the difference in the two that big?





> I disagree that Francis or Davis are the exceptional play-makers that Marbury is. Wade is also not a great play-maker, which is why he's going to be moved from point guard. I like Arenas' talent a lot, but I'm starting to doubt he has the play-making skills I thought he had when he was a Warrior. None of them are the passer/play-maker that Marbury is, though Davis comes the closest.


Wade has made a lot more plays in the Olympics with his penetration, dealing with the same role players on the same team, which doesn't include any real shooting threats. Coincidence? I don't think so.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> True. And I think Marbury is the better defender and passer.


I would say that Davis is the better defender, while Marbury is a slightly superior passer. So, I partly disagree. Anyway, my contention with Marbury is that he seems too content in running mere two-player possessions. He rarely involves more than two people in each possession. A large majority of possessions encompass these two situations. The first is he tosses an entry pass and lets the post player attempt a shot, or waits on the perimeter for a kickout jumper. The second is he attempts drive and finish, or dish the ball out to the most open shooter. That's it, and frankly, those are fairly low-percentage scoring opportunities. I'm not positive whether it's the lack of a strictly run coaching environment in his career, but that seems to be an issue with Marbury. 



> I'm not sure how much stock to put in that. It provides some extremely unorthodox claims. Not that that necessarily means its wrong (maybe it's showing some revelatory things we've been missing all our lives), but it does make me suspicious.


I don't quite understand what's "unorthodox" about it. There are a lot of factors that affect the result of every game that go uncharted: picks, screens, boxing out, non-assist passing, good hands(just like the passer, the receiver is equally as important, though curiously if he drops a pass, the fault is directed to the passer, not him), correctly spaced players, etc. That's just on the offensive end. The ability to measure defensive performance is another huge positive in terms of +/- stats as well. Is it a coincidence that Glenn Robinson, a player who has always put up gaudy numbers in traditional statistics fails to measure as favorably in +/- statistics? I think not.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> besides scoring more, dishing more assists, turning it over less and playing better defense (arguably)?


He doesn't score more than Baron Davis, I don't think he'll score more than Francis or Arenas this season either. The defense is very debateable as well, I don't think you can give him the edge over Francis or Wade necessarily. Despite struggling mightily last season, Francis did benefit greatly from playing under Van Gundy defensively. Wade also plays about average defense, good for a rookie learning the NBA game. You also can't discount Davis' ability to make plays defensively. I don't think getting steals makes a good defender, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're not a good defender. Davis makes plays happen by getting steals. Sure he is forced to take gambles and sometimes hurts the team, but it helps them a lot at time too. Davis may not be the man to man defender that Marbury is, but Stephon isn't exactly Ron Artest here.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> He doesn't score more than Baron Davis, I don't think he'll score more than Francis or Arenas this season either. The defense is very debateable as well, I don't think you can give him the edge over Francis or Wade necessarily. Despite struggling mightily last season, Francis did benefit greatly from playing under Van Gundy defensively. Wade also plays about average defense, good for a rookie learning the NBA game. You also can't discount Davis' ability to make plays defensively. I don't think getting steals makes a good defender, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're not a good defender. Davis makes plays happen by getting steals. Sure he is forced to take gambles and sometimes hurts the team, but it helps them a lot at time too. Davis may not be the man to man defender that Marbury is, but Stephon isn't exactly Ron Artest here.


i'm just pointing out there is reason to believe marbury is better than all of them. some of them don't come close to his assist numbers, none are close on ast/to, and most don't come too close in scoring. it's easy to argue he's more well rounded than all of them, and has been consistently productive throughout his career. he's at 20 / 8 for his career, and noone else has done that once. just an argument on his side.


----------



## bballlife

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> See, I don't know what Marbury has done to separate himself from Steve Francis. Marbury's a proven loser. A lot of people on this board like to crap on Francis but he consistently won 40 games in Houston with a pretty bad supporting cast. The one year he got injured, they completely sucked without him. Clearly he's an impact player. By contrast, Marbury's team still sucked last year even when he had Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire. I'd say Francis and Baron Davis are both better than Marbury.
> 
> None of these guys really has the kind of point guard instincts that a good team needs. Francis and Marbury both have a drive-and-dish game. Obviously, Marbury's drive-and-dish game is better than Francis's, but like John says, you don't win with that type of game, period. At least Francis is versatile. He can finish around the basket, and he's a better rebounder and defender than Marbury, too.


Good post. I can not begin to fathom how so many people on 
this board have Marbury as the 2nd or 3rd best pg in the league.


----------



## John

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "proven loser." Teams win and lose, not individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> For a relatively short stretch, much of which Amare Stoudemire was injured. The previous season he led them to the playoffs where they were beaten in six games by the eventual NBA champion Spurs. Marbury's Suns gave the Spurs as much trouble as the Lakers or Nets did in the playoffs that season.
> 
> 
> 
> Marbury can also finish around the basket extremely well, he's as solid a defender as Francis and he's a better passer than Francis in both the half-court set and the open floor.
> 
> Francis is the better rebounder, though, that's true.



Wait for me, I will talk about the Suns Vs Spurs series there.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> i'm just pointing out there is reason to believe marbury is better than all of them. some of them don't come close to his assist numbers, none are close on ast/to, and most don't come too close in scoring. it's easy to argue he's more well rounded than all of them, and has been consistently productive throughout his career. he's at 20 / 8 for his career, and noone else has done that once. just an argument on his side.


You want to talk about being well rounded, look no further than Steve Francis. Marbury may be 20/8 for his career, but Francis is one of only four players in NBA history to average at least 15/5/5 in each of his first 5 seasons in the NBA. Francis is 19.3/6.4/6.1 for his career, I don't think you can really argue Marbury is more well rounder when he's clearly missing one aspect of the game that Francis has mastered for his position(rebounding).


----------



## futuristxen

Judging from the posts in this thread, it's not Marbury who's overrated.

It's Sam Cassell. 

Stephon over his career averages 20.3 ppg and 8.3 apg.
Sam is at 16.4 and 6.3 apg.

Sam is playing with KG so he looks better now. But he wasn't doing **** in Milwaukee with Ray Allen and Big Dog. And his stop in New Jersey wasn't exactly jaw dropping either.

Also Stephon is nearly 10 years younger than Sam.


----------



## Amareca

Marbury did a poor job setting up Amare. Sure every once in a while he would get him a good look with his penetration but he is clueless about feeding the post. Something that Penny did much better.

That doesn't make him overrated though. Nobody of the team USA perimeter players has a clue how to work the ball in the post either.


----------



## P2TheTruth34

hmmmm.... I dont like Nashy but I think hes the best overall PG because he can pass so well/handle/shoot 3s/drive and penetrate or make floaters. The only question with nash has nothing to do with his offense, Its his questionable defense but I still think hes comparable defensively than some of the other top PGs. Bibby is nice in clutch for sure, but I dont think hes "great" all year altho i no hes nasty. I love J-Will White Chocolate but he obviously isn't this good because he is sometimes out of control altho Hubie made him a lot better last year. I think that Marbury has struggled because he hasn't tried to create his own shots by dribbling nor has he set up for some open 3s that he can hit despite what it looks like right now. I mean the US team obviously can't shoot but even with the current squad we should shoot better from 20 feet, I mean you can't say that the Italians are unbelievable shooters just because they buried us in one game. We played like **** all over and we would of lost regardless, but I bet we have maybe a little worse but similar abilities in shooting as some of the other countries but noone looks comfortable like they are playing their own games including Marbury.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> Marbury may be 20/8 for his career, but Francis is one of only four players in NBA history to average at least 15/5/5 in each of his first 5 seasons in the NBA.


That 20/8 is even rarer. Only Oscar Robertson and Stephon Marbury have done it, in NBA history.


----------



## bballlife

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Judging from the posts in this thread, it's not Marbury who's overrated.
> 
> It's Sam Cassell.
> 
> Stephon over his career averages 20.3 ppg and 8.3 apg.
> Sam is at 16.4 and 6.3 apg.
> 
> Sam is playing with KG so he looks better now. But he wasn't doing **** in Milwaukee with Ray Allen and Big Dog. And his stop in New Jersey wasn't exactly jaw dropping either.
> 
> Also Stephon is nearly 10 years younger than Sam.



WAY OFF. You didnt see Sam play last year did ya?

His shooting and passing, especially his clutch shooting, was CRUCIAL to the T-Wolves success last season. 

20 and 7, shooting 49%, and 87 from the line. He was a big part of why the Wolves got to the Western Conference finals. And if he had not been injured, the Wolves might have gotten to the finals. 


No way is he overrated.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Anyway, my contention with Marbury is that he seems too content in running mere two-player possessions. He rarely involves more than two people in each possession. A large majority of possessions encompass these two situations. The first is he tosses an entry pass and lets the post player attempt a shot, or waits on the perimeter for a kickout jumper. The second is he attempts drive and finish, or dish the ball out to the most open shooter. That's it, and frankly, those are fairly low-percentage scoring opportunities. I'm not positive whether it's the lack of a strictly run coaching environment in his career, but that seems to be an issue with Marbury.


Well, we have different opinions on how he plays. I think he's done a very good job of making secondary assists, passes that lead to good assist opportunities as well as passes to cutters, in addition to driving and dishing. All of those things together make for a diverse passing game and benefit flow.



> I don't quite understand what's "unorthodox" about it. There are a lot of factors that affect the result of every game that go uncharted


"Claim" was the wrong word to use, as you've misinterpreted me. I don't mean the underlying concept of the measure is unorthodox. I meant that it provides a number of very unorthodox results. And, as I said in my last post, unorthodox results aren't a defacto reason to discount the measure...a great measure could tell us things we never knew. But it does create some suspicions.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> WAY OFF. You didnt see Sam play last year did ya?
> 
> His shooting and passing, especially his clutch shooting, was CRUCIAL to the T-Wolves success last season.
> 
> 20 and 7, shooting 49%, and 87 from the line. He was a big part of why the Wolves got to the Western Conference finals. And if he had not been injured, the Wolves might have gotten to the finals.


Future's point is that one year doesn't make a career. Cassell's established career level is below what he did last season. Perhaps Cassell was the first- or second-best point guard *last season*, but overall positional rankings should have some element of established levels.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That 20/8 is even rarer. Only Oscar Robertson and Stephon Marbury have done it, in NBA history.


I'd be willing to bet Marbury doesn't finish his career with 20/8. There's a reason it's that rare, and it's because guys tail off at the end of their careers, bringing them below those numbers. Marbury will be no exception, he's only 20.4 and 8.3 for his career, just one subpar season at the end of his career and he'll dip below in one or the other, or both. What Francis did is done, you can never take it away from him. How many guys have had averages of 20/8 at some point in their career before tailing off? Far more than 4, and this is sort of off the topic anyway, because I was arguing that Francis is more well rounded, not which feat is more impressive.


----------



## Cap

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to bet Marbury doesn't finish his career with 20/8. There's a reason it's that rare, and it's because guys tail off at the end of their careers, bringing them below those numbers. Marbury will be no exception, he's only 20.4 and 8.3 for his career, just one subpar season at the end of his career and he'll dip below in one or the other, or both. What Francis did is done, you can never take it away from him. How many guys have had averages of 20/8 at some point in their career before tailing off? Far more than 4, and this is sort of off the topic anyway, because I was arguing that Francis is more well rounded, not which feat is more impressive.


What? Then what about Francis' accomplishment? He only did it for 5 seasons. 

And please name all the players in NBA history who have averaged 20/8 for at least 8 seasons like Marbury has? I believe the names Payton and Oscar come up.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> What? Then what about Francis' accomplishment? He only did it for 5 seasons.
> 
> And please name all the players in NBA history who have averaged 20/8 for at least 8 seasons like Marbury has? I believe the names Payton and Oscar come up.


Again, this is off topic because it's not what the point I'm trying to make because I was arguing the point of being well rounded, 15/5/5 is more well rounded than 20/8. Besides the fact that Marbury's averaged 20/8 over his first 8 seasons, he hasn't averaged 20/8 in each of those 8 seasons, only 5 of them actually. Francis would have to seriously trip up to not average 15/5/5 in his first 8 seasons, in all likelihood he'll be at 20/6/6 for his career after 8 seasons.


----------



## Shanghai Kid

Does Marbury or Francis's career numbers really mean anything if they never win a playoff series? In the end, that's basically where your legacy comes from correct? If you were able to step up your game in the playoffs and help your team win the important games. Obviously someone is going to say Garnett, but his legacy would be different if he never won a playoff series also. Can you build a Championship level team around Marbury putting up his 20/8? 

Really the most well rounded PG is Kidd, he brings the defense, leads the league in tripple doubles, and his play translates to wins in the playoffs and the regular season.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

Cassell was the first best last year. I'm still pissed he didn't make first team all nba. He had a way better year than kidd.


----------



## Amareca

Steve Francis is a lot worse than Stephon Marbury, A LOT.

The reason 20/8 is rare is that there are almost no PG who could average 20+ points for more than a couple of season and few who can average ~8 in their rookie seasons already.

Marbury started compiling those stats when he was 19yrs old. Even when he levels off after his prime he should have quite some room to not drop below 20/8.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Does Marbury or Francis's career numbers really mean anything if they never win a playoff series? In the end, that's basically where your legacy comes from correct? If you were able to step up your game in the playoffs and help your team win the important games. Obviously someone is going to say Garnett, but his legacy would be different if he never won a playoff series also. Can you build a Championship level team around Marbury putting up his 20/8?
> 
> Really the most well rounded PG is Kidd, he brings the defense, leads the league in tripple doubles, and his play translates to wins in the playoffs and the regular season.


Not winning a playoff series really doesn't mean much, especially this early in their careers(both are 27, should be hitting their primes now). Garnett didn't win a playoff series until last season and T-Mac still hasn't won one(he's still only 24) yet they're still both Top 5 players in the league, and Garnett was even before he won a playoff series.


----------



## Amareca

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Really the most well rounded PG is Kidd, he brings the defense, leads the league in tripple doubles, and his play translates to wins in the playoffs and the regular season.


First of all Kidd's defense is totally overrated. I witnessed him being schooled by quick PGs for years.

Also Kidd's game translates to wins in the playoffs? Maybe in the East where fastbreak basketball could work to a degree in the playoffs.

In the West Kidd has never won a series in which he played more than a game and that is despite winning 50+ pretty much every season.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Steve Francis is a lot worse than Stephon Marbury, A LOT.
> 
> The reason 20/8 is rare is that there are almost no PG who could average 20+ points for more than a couple of season and few who can average ~8 in their rookie seasons already.
> 
> Marbury started compiling those stats when he was 19yrs old. Even when he levels off after his prime he should have quite some room to not drop below 20/8.


How do you figure that? Marbury averaged 20.2 ppg and 8.9 apg this past season, how much better do you expect him to get before he declines? 

Also, can you make your case as to why Marbury is better than Francis, I'd like to hear it.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Well, we have different opinions on how he plays. I think he's done a very good job of making secondary assists, passes that lead to good assist opportunities as well as passes to cutters, in addition to driving and dishing. All of those things together make for a diverse passing game and benefit flow.


Well, I guess we just disagree, then. 



> "Claim" was the wrong word to use, as you've misinterpreted me. I don't mean the underlying concept of the measure is unorthodox. I meant that it provides a number of very unorthodox results. And, as I said in my last post, unorthodox results aren't a defacto reason to discount the measure...a great measure could tell us things we never knew. But it does create some suspicions.


If the underlying concept is fundamentally strong, then it gives much credence to the reliability of the end result. Plus/minus stats hold true to that. I never championed plus/minus stats as a definative measure, but merely a valuable to use; one that is on par with the three major traditional stats (PPG, APG, RPG). After all, if there was a holy grail stat that showed the true value of every player, then even the staple statistics would show suprising results. For such a poor overall player, Glenn Robinson sure scores a lot of points. For such a poor overall player, Jeff McInnis still managed to crack the top-10 list in APG last year. For such a poor overall player, Danny Fortson is one of the best rebounders in the league.


----------



## JNice

I dont want to try to argue who is better than who. I've personally never liked Marbury and thought he was overrated. If he was so good, he wouldnt be getting passed around from team to team like he has been. I've never been a fan of Francis either but I would personally take Francis over Marbury.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Does Marbury or Francis's career numbers really mean anything if they never win a playoff series? In the end, that's basically where your legacy comes from correct? If you were able to step up your game in the playoffs and help your team win the important games. Obviously someone is going to say Garnett, but his legacy would be different if he never won a playoff series also. Can you build a Championship level team around Marbury putting up his 20/8?
> 
> Really the most well rounded PG is Kidd, he brings the defense, leads the league in tripple doubles, and his play translates to wins in the playoffs and the regular season.


Also to touch on another of your points, the last sentence of your first paragraph; that's the point I've been trying to make the whole time. I don't think Marbury is nearly good enough to build a championship level team around, and neither is Francis, Arenas or Baron Davis. 

Stephon Marbury has really under-performed in the playoffs for his career. He's never won a series, and his numbers have been less than pretty. He's played in 18 playoff games and has a playoff career average of 19.4 ppg on 36.5% shooting and 27.6% from behind the arc and only 6.7 apg despite playing almost 5 minutes more per game than his regular season career average. Sure he's made it to the playoffs more than Francis, but he's had Garnett, Marion/Amare and other very good players on his playoff teams. 

Francis pretty much won 40 games with Rockets year in and year out Pre-Yao era, and the one year where he was injured and has migraines the Rockets sucked and winded up with Yao. Francis stepped up his game in the playoffs and came up huge against the Lakers in the clutch, and almost single handedly won them their only game down the stretch, and put up a triple double in a loss. For the series he averaged 19.2 ppg, 8.4 rpg and 7.6 apg on 43% shooting including 41% from behind the arc.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Judging from the posts in this thread, it's not Marbury who's overrated.
> 
> It's Sam Cassell.
> 
> Stephon over his career averages 20.3 ppg and 8.3 apg.
> Sam is at 16.4 and 6.3 apg.
> 
> Sam is playing with KG so he looks better now. But he wasn't doing **** in Milwaukee with Ray Allen and Big Dog. And his stop in New Jersey wasn't exactly jaw dropping either.
> 
> Also Stephon is nearly 10 years younger than Sam.


Obviously, this isn't a topic about career value, which is why age doesn't factor into this conversation. Secondly, Cassell's career averages are inaccurate because of his role coming off the bench for the first few years of his career. This topic is simply about current value, and Cassell is simply a better player than Marbury. 

It fails me how people continue to claim Cassell was nothing before coming to Minnesota. Do people even bother to check the facts of their ridiculous accusations? Cassell has been posting almost the exact same numbers for the last three years. Yes, he has benefited from playing with Garnett(who doesn't?), but prior to, he was clearly a top-five point guard as well.


----------



## John

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, we have different opinions on how he plays. I think he's done a very good job of making secondary assists, passes that lead to good assist opportunities as well as passes to cutters, in addition to driving and dishing. All of those things together make for a diverse passing game and benefit flow.



This mod is as good as you can get "fan wise", he is a good poster as in fan standpoint.

Mabury creates POTENTIAL Secondary assists. So what's the difference? Those so called second secondary assists were from 3 pointers once again. 

Fans always overlooked that defense didnt need to HELP on him as much as defense had to on Iverson, and Carter.

Iverson and Carter those are the trues one that creating great secondary assists. 

Marbury, T-mac, James created it also but still need to relie on the finishers to have high skills to score despite it's easier shot than you try to create on your own.

like semi open 3 point shots, semi open shots where defense do have time to bother your shots but could still count as an assist if u make it.

GOD, I should not allow to post in here, I am not a fan anymore. I am the NBA coaching staff level.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> GOD, I should not allow to post in here, I am not a fan anymore. I am the NBA coaching staff level.


Thank you for blessing us with your wisdom, John. We know you could go to the majors, but you try and help us learn, instead.

True pro here.


----------



## John

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Also to touch on another of your points, the last sentence of your first paragraph; that's the point I've been trying to make the whole time. I don't think Marbury is nearly good enough to build a championship level team around, and neither is Francis, Arenas or Baron Davis.
> 
> Stephon Marbury has really under-performed in the playoffs for his career. He's never won a series, and his numbers have been less than pretty. He's played in 18 playoff games and has a playoff career average of 19.4 ppg on 36.5% shooting and 27.6% from behind the arc and only 6.7 apg despite playing almost 5 minutes more per game than his regular season career average. Sure he's made it to the playoffs more than Francis, but he's had Garnett, Marion/Amare and *other very good players* on his playoff teams.
> 
> Francis pretty much won 40 games with Rockets year in and year out Pre-Yao era, and the one year where he was injured and has migraines the Rockets sucked and winded up with Yao. Francis stepped up his game in the playoffs and came up huge against the Lakers in the clutch, and almost single handedly won them their only game down the stretch, and put up a triple double in a loss. For the series he averaged 19.2 ppg, 8.4 rpg and 7.6 apg on 43% shooting including 41% from behind the arc.


So Penny wasnt even worth mentioning but "other very good players"?


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> So Penny wasnt even worth mentioning but "other very good players"?


I didn't mention him, but if you want to consider him in that group, by all means do so, it just helps to prove my point.


----------



## bballlife

> Originally posted by <b>BigAmare</b>!
> Steve Francis is a lot worse than Stephon Marbury, A LOT.
> 
> The reason 20/8 is rare is that there are almost no PG who could average 20+ points for more than a couple of season and few who can average ~8 in their rookie seasons already.
> 
> Marbury started compiling those stats when he was 19yrs old. Even when he levels off after his prime he should have quite some room to not drop below 20/8.


Francis is all over the place, almost all the time. Marbury drifts A LOT, and can easily disappear in games. He gets his numbers and does his thing, but he is a career loser.

Franchise gives a better effort imo, is more athletic, and a better defender.

Marbury is better setting guys up and taking people of the dribble, along with a few other things.

I take Francis though, he wants to win badly, you can easily see that watching his demeanor on the court.


----------



## hobojoe

I'm still waiting for an argument as to why Stephon Marbury is "A LOT" better than Steve Francis. I personally think they're very close, I don't see how one is "A LOT" better than the other.


----------



## JNice

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> I'm still waiting for an argument as to why Stephon Marbury is "A LOT" better than Steve Francis. I personally think they're very close, I don't see how one is "A LOT" better than the other.


He isnt, there is no argument to be made. More a matter of preference.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>JNice</b>!
> 
> 
> He isnt, there is no argument to be made. More a matter of preference.


That's how I see it, but BigAmare said that Marbury was much better, so I'm just interested in what his reasoning for that is.


----------



## Arclite

It's going to be funny when Francis has a great season statistically, Orlando slides into the playoffs with ease and everyone jumps back on the Steve Francis bandwagon.

It seems to me that the only hate Steve Francis gets is about his stats. He'll have free reign in Orlando and will be able to create for himself and his teammates, instead of being confined to an offense that limited his opportunites to drive to the basket (which is when he is at his best) and didn't utilize ANY of his strengths as a combo guard. He is an effective mid-range shooter, but not when that it is the only one of his weapons he's using. Francis really asserted himself against the Lakers in the playoffs, and I expect that's the Steve Francis we'll see in Orlando.

Francis and Marbury are similar players - Francis has a clear edge in athleticism and defense, and Marbury has much better court vision and is a much more accurate passer in terms of setting up teammates for spot-up shots (you will almost never see a Marbury pass that doesn't hit his target in the chest). No way is one a lot better than the other.


----------



## JNice

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> It's going to be funny when Francis has a great season statistically, Orlando slides into the playoffs with ease and everyone jumps back on the Steve Francis bandwagon.
> 
> It seems to me that the only hate Steve Francis gets is about his stats. He'll have free reign in Orlando and will be able to create for himself and his teammates, instead of being confined to an offense that limited his opportunites to drive to the basket (which is when he is at his best) and didn't utilize ANY of his strengths as a point guard.
> 
> Francis and Marbury are similar players - Francis has a clear edge in athleticism and defense, and Marbury has much better court vision and is a much more accurate passer in terms of setting up teammates for spot-up shots (you will almost never see a Marbury pass that doesn't hit it's target in the chest). No way is one a lot better than the other.



I agree. The way I see it Marbury is a slightly better outside shooter and passer. Francis is a better athlete, rebounder, and slasher. Neither is spectacular on defense, but imo Francis is slightly better. Neither is a true PG or a real floor general or leader.

It is like the Kobe vs Tmac argument. You can make an argument either way, but to say with any certainty one or the other is a lot better is just unrealistic.


----------



## farhan007

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> It's going to be funny when Francis has a great season statistically, Orlando slides into the playoffs with ease and everyone jumps back on the Steve Francis bandwagon.
> 
> It seems to me that the only hate Steve Francis gets is about his stats. He'll have free reign in Orlando and will be able to create for himself and his teammates, instead of being confined to an offense that limited his opportunites to drive to the basket (which is when he is at his best) and didn't utilize ANY of his strengths as a combo guard. He is an effective mid-range shooter, but not when that it is the only one of his weapons he's using. Francis really asserted himself against the Lakers in the playoffs, and I expect that's the Steve Francis we'll see in Orlando.
> 
> Francis and Marbury are similar players - Francis has a clear edge in athleticism and defense, and Marbury has much better court vision and is a much more accurate passer in terms of setting up teammates for spot-up shots (you will almost never see a Marbury pass that doesn't hit his target in the chest). No way is one a lot better than the other.


I think you summed it up great...

but francis has an edge on one aspect that is very important. He wants to and tries to win more than marbury. Marbury is a career loser while francis is an above .500 career player.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>farhan007</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you summed it up great...
> 
> but francis has an edge on one aspect that is very important. He wants to and tries to win more than marbury. Marbury is a career loser while francis is an above .500 career player.


I don't think that's necessarily fair either, because Marbury has been in the playoffs far more often than Francis despite Francis consistenly winning around 40 games for his career.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

Marbury and KG would have had 2 titles by now.


----------



## NYKBaller

When Francis averages 8 aspg then you can say they are similar. Marbury is a point guard while Francis is an undersized SG...


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>NYKBaller</b>!
> When Francis averages 8 aspg then you can say they are similar. Marbury is a point guard while Francis is an undersized SG...


That's just unfair, and I think you know it. So Eric Snow isn't a point guard, he's never averaged 8 apg, he's just an undersized SG. Neither are your typical, pure point guard, Steve Francis is just as much of a PG as Stephon Marbury.


----------



## remy23

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> Steve Francis is just as much of a PG as Stephon Marbury.


I would argue against that. If a player is not an exceptional passer or playmaker like Francis, then it's hard to say that individual is a fullbown point guard. Many fans have thought Francis would be better as a small 2-guard (in the way Gordon may be used this season). Both Marbury and Francis can overdribble the ball but Marbury has the radar-passing skills and drive-and-kick thing down a little beter than Francis.


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>remy23</b>!
> 
> 
> I would argue against that. If a player is not an exceptional passer or playmaker like Francis, then it's hard to say that individual is a fullbown point guard. Many fans have thought Francis would be better as a small 2-guard (in the way Gordon may be used this season). Both Marbury and Francis can overdribble the ball but Marbury has the radar-passing skills and drive-and-kick thing down a little beter than Francis.


Marbury is without a doubt the better and more accurate passer, but that's not the point. Neither are pure point guards, and look to score first.


----------



## remy23

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury is without a doubt the better and more accurate passer, but that's not the point. Neither are pure point guards, and look to score first.


The point is you said Francis is as much as PG as Marbury and that doesn't seem to be true. Even though both look to score first, Francis seems much more like a SG than Marbury. They are somewhat in the same boat but Francis is further downstream.


----------



## Kezersoze

anyone believe the knicks would have done better in the playoffs if they had nash/bibby instead of marbury?


----------



## NYKBaller

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> That's just unfair, and I think you know it. So Eric Snow isn't a point guard, he's never averaged 8 apg, he's just an undersized SG. Neither are your typical, pure point guard, Steve Francis is just as much of a PG as Stephon Marbury.


I meant that as he scores he doesn't have a main objective to pass. Eric Snow doesn't avg as many points as Steve does.


----------



## bballlife

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Marbury and KG would have had 2 titles by now.


No way.


----------



## FlyingTiger

anybody eles watch todays game?? Nuff said!! ill take Nash any day over that fool


----------



## Shanghai Kid

Can anyone explain why Marbury, a supposedly top 3 PG, makes the USA team worse when he's at PG?

Can anyone explain why the offense runs better when Wade/AI/Lebron are at point? Can anyone explain why the team goes on runs when Marbury leaves the game?

Can anyone explain why Marbury is so bad defensively that he let the guy hit 3 straight 3s on him in the 4th quarter? 

Marbury has been the weak link on Team USA. Something about his style stagnates the offense, and he can't hit an open jumper to save his life. 2-14 in an olympic game? WTF? If your shooting that bad you don't keep shooting. Marbury needs the ball in his hands to be effective, and that's why a team built around him will never be successful.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG

> Originally posted by <b>Kezersoze</b>!
> anyone believe the knicks would have done better in the playoffs if they had nash/bibby instead of marbury?


I Know for sure they would have done better. I think that people don't like bibby and nash because they don't act like gangstas. :whoknows:


----------



## nyknicks888

> Marbury needs the ball in his hands to be effective, and that's why a team built around him will never be successful.


unless you build around him with shooters, as the knicks are trying to do. With allan houston and jamal crawford and tim thomas, all who can knock down the open jumper, marbury will easily keep his avg 20-8...which i think NOBODy should overlook, this proves that he can be a score first PG, 8 apg...not even some of these arguably best PGs in the league you say can average 8 apg. look at the team marbury had with the knicks last season, it obviously was not the greatest scoring team around, and allan houston was injured. Shandon anderson filled in for houston, but anderson couldnt knock down an open jumper if there was EVEN MORE MONEY in the bottom of the net. think if houston was where anderson was, all the more assits for marbury. houston has one of the most pure jumpers in the game aside from, Peja, Ray allen, Michael Redd, and arguably Reggie Miller (but not anymore).

and with the newly structured atlantic, look for the knicks to compete as a division leader. the only team tough in this division now are the sixers (with the nets impending death) and arguably the cavs, who still dont have enough experience IMO.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

> unless you build around him with shooters, as the knicks are trying to do. With allan houston and jamal crawford and tim thomas, all who can knock down the open jumper, marbury will easily keep his avg 20-8...


Crawford shoots 28%.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

Marbury is definitely not overrated. He's an extremely good player when the ball is in his hands. His poor performance in the olympics is either because he's not jelling with LB's system, or maybe he's just in a slump, I'm not sure, but it has nothing to do with him as a ball player, because he is great.


----------



## Johnny Mac

Marbury is overrated. He is not good enough to lead a team to a title, and if he is to be utilized fully, he needs the ball in his hands a lot, so the team will only go as far as he takes them. He can make a bad team into a mediocre team, but I cant imagine him ever being able to play a major role on a title team. 

I think his numbers and stats are decieving because he limits the effectiveness of his teammates by controlling the ball so much and picking and choosing what *he* wants his teammates to do in the way he sets them up. Theres no freedom for the team. Its the Stephon Marbury show out there, and unfortunetly, he is not a good enough player to win a title as the feature player. 

He will have to be a roleplayer, and I cannot see him ever being effective in that role because of how much he controls the ball.


----------



## Drewbs

> Originally posted by <b>Kezersoze</b>!
> anyone believe the knicks would have done better in the playoffs if they had nash/bibby instead of marbury?


Probably, but you can't ignore Nash's poor playoff performance. But he did get 9 assists a game.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

> Marbury is overrated. He is not good enough to lead a team to a title, and if he is to be utilized fully, he needs the ball in his hands a lot, so the team will only go as far as he takes them. He can make a bad team into a mediocre team, but I cant imagine him ever being able to play a major role on a title team.
> 
> I think his numbers and stats are decieving because he limits the effectiveness of his teammates by controlling the ball so much and picking and choosing what he wants his teammates to do in the way he sets them up. Theres no freedom for the team. Its the Stephon Marbury show out there, and unfortunetly, he is not a good enough player to win a title as the feature player.
> 
> He will have to be a roleplayer, and I cannot see him ever being effective in that role because of how much he controls the ball.


All of those criticisms can also apply to Gary Payton.

I don't think he's overrated because I don't think very people think he can lead a team to a title as "the man". Very few people think that. I'm pretty sure that his play making ability, clutch shooting, and penetration is enough that he could win a title with another star of his calibur.


----------



## jmk

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Marbury is definitely not overrated. He's an extremely good player when the ball is in his hands. His poor performance in the olympics is either because he's not jelling with LB's system, or maybe he's just in a slump, I'm not sure, but it has nothing to do with him as a ball player, because he is great.


You're one funny guy. Looking at your comments in this thread, I found this particular post by you in the RJ thread hilarious.



> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> In a zone environment, slashing doesn't work. So Jefferson is rendered useless, because he's a horrible shot. That's why he sucks. You're not a good basketball player if you can't do *anything* when being played by a zone.


You contradicted yourself there, didn't you? With this argument, you then admit that Marbury is "not a good player" because he can't do "*anything* when being played in a zone." I think your hate for one player and love for another is more than obvious.


As for Stephon, I would call him a little overrated in general, a lot on this board. He barely makes my top 5 PG in the NBA list. Still a very good talent, though.


----------



## 22ryno

I don't understand why people hate on Marbury. He finally has players around him and will show how good of a point guard he can be this year. As far as the Francis arguement. They are very similar but I give Marbury the edge because of passing and that floater in the lane gives big men fits. Also this is a hard arguement. Point guards are good for different teams as we saw with the Lakers this year.


----------



## MemphisX

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Can anyone explain why Marbury, a supposedly top 3 PG, makes the USA team worse when he's at PG?


Yeah because he is a drive and dish PG surrounded by players who can't shoot 25% from the perimeter.



> Can anyone explain why the offense runs better when Wade/AI/Lebron are at point? Can anyone explain why the team goes on runs when Marbury leaves the game?


From what I have seen, the team is equally ineffecient regardless of who is at PG except LeBron and I want argue if you want to say LeBron is better than Marbury.




> Can anyone explain why Marbury is so bad defensively that he let the guy hit 3 straight 3s on him in the 4th quarter?


The same reason Gary Payton looked like crap vs. Tony Parker. His teammates don't know how to rotate and his coach has him going under picks.



> Marbury has been the weak link on Team USA. Something about his style stagnates the offense, and he can't hit an open jumper to save his life. 2-14 in an olympic game? WTF? If your shooting that bad you don't keep shooting. Marbury needs the ball in his hands to be effective, and that's why a team built around him will never be successful.


So who should be shooting? Who is shooting so well? Am I the only one that saw everyone shy away from shooting except Richard Jefferson today. Didn't he feed RJ as much as possible? What do you want him to do? Is it his fault that he is playing on a team that can't create space in the interior?


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Can anyone explain why Marbury, a supposedly top 3 PG, makes the USA team worse when he's at PG?
> 
> Can anyone explain why the offense runs better when Wade/AI/Lebron are at point? Can anyone explain why the team goes on runs when Marbury leaves the game?
> 
> Can anyone explain why Marbury is so bad defensively that he let the guy hit 3 straight 3s on him in the 4th quarter?
> 
> Marbury has been the weak link on Team USA. Something about his style stagnates the offense, and he can't hit an open jumper to save his life. 2-14 in an olympic game? WTF? If your shooting that bad you don't keep shooting. Marbury needs the ball in his hands to be effective, and that's why a team built around him will never be successful.


Can anyone explain why International games are being used as reasons for a player being overrated or better/worse than another player in the NBA?


----------



## Pan Mengtu

> You contradicted yourself there, didn't you? With this argument, you then admit that Marbury is "not a good player" because he can't do "anything when being played in a zone." I think your hate for one player and love for another is more than obvious.


No, I didn't. In that thread I was talking about Jefferson, in this one I'm talking about Marbury. Do the names Jefferson and Marbury look similar to you? Or is it that you think they are similar players when in fact they are very different? I'm not sure, but either way you just completely failed.


----------



## MagicNugz

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain why International games are being used as reasons for a player being overrated or better/worse than another player in the NBA?


Because they are playing basketball, I thought that was the sport they played in the NBA... :laugh:


----------



## hobojoe

> Originally posted by <b>MagicNugz</b>!
> 
> 
> Because they are playing basketball, I thought that was the sport they played in the NBA... :laugh:


Great post!  

Unfortunately, to anyone who's actually watched an NBA game and watched an international game, it's blatantly obvious that success in one doesn't translate into success in the other. One has nothing to do with the other, and it's pretty obvious to anyone who knows what they're talking about.


----------



## Tersk

Hey hobo, add me to your fanclub


----------



## jmk

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> No, I didn't. In that thread I was talking about Jefferson, in this one I'm talking about Marbury. Do the names Jefferson and Marbury look similar to you? Or is it that you think they are similar players when in fact they are very different? I'm not sure, but either way you just completely failed.


I'm sorry. I did not realize you cannot go from A to C by yourself. Let me try to relay it to you. You said this:

A. RJ is rendered useless against a zone defense, therefore he sucks.
________

B. Marbury is rendered useless against a zone defense.

C. Marbury sucks.

Now, I definitely don't think that Marbury sucks, but according to your logic, he does. Since everyone seems to be looking at the Olympics to judge our NBA player, why not looky here. RJ proved today that he is *not* rendered useless against a zone defense. As a matter of fact, he was the only one hitting shots to break the zone defense.

Double standards are useless, so stop using them.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

> I'm sorry. I did not realize you cannot go from A to C by yourself. Let me try to relay it to you. You said this:
> 
> A. RJ is rendered useless against a zone defense, therefore he sucks.
> ________
> 
> B. Marbury is rendered useless against a zone defense.
> 
> C. Marbury sucks.


The problem is that B is false. Marbury is not useless in a zone. The zone takes away his slashing ability, but he's still an excellent playmaker and shooter.



> Now, I definitely don't think that Marbury sucks, but according to your logic, he does. Since everyone seems to be looking at the Olympics to judge our NBA player, why not looky here. RJ proved today that he is not rendered useless against a zone defense. As a matter of fact, he was the only one hitting shots to break the zone defense.


I'm not judging players based on the olympics. RJ is a bad jump shooter, period. Making some shots today doesn't all of the sudden make him a good jump shooter, he's still a bad jump shooter who rarely makes any in the NBA. In games where he scored 25 or more points, less than 7 of those points came from jump shots. He's a slasher.

Marbury, on the other hand, can slash and shoot (and pass).

Marbury's current struggles either have to do with him being in a slump, or him not jelling with LB's system, I'm not sure, but it's not because he's a mindless slasher like RJ is.


----------



## Kuskid

The only reason this topic was created is because he played like garbage today. Don't judge someone as a player based 32 minutes of international basketball.


----------



## Kuskid

And if you watch a lot of Nets games, RJ's developed a respectable jump shot.


----------



## jmk

> Originally posted by <b>Kuskid</b>!
> And if you watch a lot of Nets games, RJ's developed a respectable jump shot.


Thank you. It's really hard to talk to a guy who refuses to look at the facts. Last season, RJ's jump shot improved greatly, and he continues to develop it. It's hard for me to try to discuss a player with someone who obviously hates said player. How can I top "RJ is a bad jump shooter. Period." Pan, you have no argument. The fatc is, RichArd Jefferson is not a bad jump shooter. As a matter of fact, he has turned into a good shooter. He's not a "mindless slasher," he's actually one of the more intelligent ballplayers in the league. I'm not sure why you hold such an obvious grudge against RJ, but you do, and it is sickening. If you can't perceive reality on a certain topic, don't post on the topic.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

The facts: Richard Jefferson scores less than 25% of his points off of jump shots. The vast majority of his points come from dunks, layups, lane shots, free throws.

He's not a good jumpshooter. He's o.k. at hitting the three when spotted up. He's not a good jump shooter. You're a liar. "developing" is not the same as "developed". Perhaps his jump shot has improved, but it's not good. It's bad.


----------



## Jonathan Watters

A few coments: 

Yzlin made the comment that Marbury struggles creating because he can only play a two-man game. This is the exact reason that Marbury can averaged 8 apg, and still be considered a shoot-first PG. He has no concept of how perimeter ball movement can create shots and offense for a team. He must have the ball in his hands, and ONLY passes it when he's directly created offense for one of his teammates. Hences the high assist numbers. 

The olympics has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The team plays terrible when he's out there, because all he does is dominate the ball and try to create on his own. (whether that be by the pass, or the shot). Successful team-first PG's understand that ball movement is what creates good offense, not driving and dishing. You can't stop good ball movement, as Steve Nash and Mike Bibby will certainly attest, but blind bursts to the basket become predictable and are easily defended. 

As for Francis/Marbury, they are, in many ways, the same player. Francis has the same problem of overdribbling, but I also think he has more potential to break out of this mold. I don't really have any evidence to back this up, just a feeling I get from watching them play. I also feel that Francis is much more effective at getting to the basket, though he also takes a few more ill-advised jumpers. 

As for Sam Cassell being overrated, that is simply ridiculous. He's the best midrange jumpshooter in the game, and had no problem running Minny's ball movement-oriented offense. Marbury should take notes, as Cassell is the perfect example of how a shoot-first PG can still get his teammates involved and run an offense effectively. (I would label Bibby a very successful team-oriented, shoot-first PG as well) Cassell certainly has benefited from his teammate situation this past season, but it should be obvious to anybody who has followed the guy's career that he made nothing more than a few minor adjustments to his game last season. He's always been the player he was last season, but was never in the right situation. I just don't see that as being the case with Marbury. He had opportunities in Minny, NJ, and Phoenix to be successful, but has always been traded and come away bitter. 

That being said, NY is a new opportunity for Stephon. I don't see Starbury and Crawford being able to play together, but I also don't think you could expect Marbury to lead that NY team out of the first round last season. The entire team was pretty much traded 2/3 of the way through the year, and that's just not enough time to develop chemistry. Hopefully Marbury will be able to prove himself a winner this season...


----------



## Priest

marbury has gotten to many chances to show he's the great pg that everyone on this board thinks he is....3 teams and he has been inconsistent with all of them and his play in the olympics is below average kidd>marbury


----------



## Shanghai Kid

Another thing with Marbury is that he hasn't really ever showed any will to win. Francis, I know from his Maryland days that he truly wants to win games. Marbury, I'm not sure if winning games is more important than 20/8 to hiim.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Another thing with Marbury is that he hasn't really ever showed any will to win. Francis, I know from his Maryland days that he truly wants to win games. Marbury, I'm not sure if winning games is more important than 20/8 to hiim.


Based on what, exactly? What are your methods for investigating Marbury's mental processes and what he does and doesn't desire and with what intensity he desires each thing?


----------

