Shareef Staying In New Jersey <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">NY Post - Upset by the Nets' handling of medical concerns that arose in his physical ? Shareef Abdur-Rahim said that he no longer wanted to join the franchise, but the team is expected to announce on Monday that it is going through with the deal. Abdur-Rahim was courted heavily by the Nets, but was disillusioned by the team's last-second decision to seek additional medical opinions about scar tissue in his right knee. When his feelings were published in yesterday's Post, Nets star Jason Kidd, coach Lawrence Frank and Thorn called Abdur-Rahim to rebuild the relationship, sources told The Post. "Shareef is a good guy, and No. 1, he's a professional," said Thorn. "I understand there's some anxiety and trepidation when the possibility of not ending up with the team you chose arises. We feel we have all the information we need to make a decision within the next day or two." The Nets have reason to be cautious since they are investing six years and $38 million in the deal. They sent copies of his MRI to three leading orthopedic surgeons and now must decide if they want to complete a sign-and-trade deal with the Trail Blazers.</div> Source
I enjoy reading this thread because it's funny to see someone making arguements that Kidd isn't a top 5 PG and that Milt Palacio is a good PG. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Henacy:</div><div class="quote_post">Makeoutcity, Jalen Rose is a cat I got love for but you and I both know he is not consistent. And he is a me first player, who has a tendancy to put himself beforw team goals...that is why his stay in alot of spot like Indy etc always end badly. He isnt better than RJ. Brue Bowen defensively of course he is better...but in what other aspect is he better...I'll give you spot up shooter as well. But Bowen isnt even a true shooter, he can realistically only shoot from one spot on the court. Ron Artest when focused is the only person you mentioned that is a better all-around player than RJ.</div> Kind of going off topic here, but Jalen isn't really a "me first" player anymore. Since he's came to Toronto, he's the guy that's mad the most when the team loses. He'll be happy if he scores 10 and the wins, rather than dropping 24 and have the team lose. You never see him all fun and smiles after games that the Raptors lose. And he is pretty consistent defensively and offensively; defense- he always sucks, offense- he puts the ball in the basket when given touches. Just had to get that out there.
nextlevelgame, perhaps you can explain to me how Arenas, Hinrich and Bibby are better point guards than Marbury. I accept the fact that Marbury is not on Kidd's level, and although I don't necessarily agree with some of the other choices such as Baron Davis, I let it slide. Arenas: He's not that much of a point guard and certainly not as good as Marbury. For every 5 assists he dishes out, he turns the ball over 3 times. His shot selection is not too great, either. Hinrich: May you explain this pick? Bibby: Close, but doesn't cut the cake. Marbury is simply a better point guard than him.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">nextlevelgame, perhaps you can explain to me how Arenas, Hinrich and Bibby are better point guards than Marbury. I accept the fact that Marbury is not on Kidd's level, and although I don't necessarily agree with some of the other choices such as Baron Davis, I let it slide. Arenas: He's not that much of a point guard and certainly not as good as Marbury. For every 5 assists he dishes out, he turns the ball over 3 times. His shot selection is not too great, either. Hinrich: May you explain this pick? Bibby: Close, but doesn't cut the cake. Marbury is simply a better point guard than him.</div> Isn't marbury not even a point guard anymore?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MiamiBalla12:</div><div class="quote_post">Isn't marbury not even a point guard anymore?</div> Well next season he wont be but he was last season PG.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MiamiBalla12:</div><div class="quote_post">Isn't marbury not even a point guard anymore?</div> Considering this is from last season when he played point guard, I think it does matter.
Are we dscussing whos the best point guards. Or who were the best point guards from LAST SEASON? If its best point guards in general I would have to rank Baron Davis in front of Marbury.
Mr. J, I am sorry for such a tardy reply but I just got back from my vacation. I'd take Arenas over Marbury purely on his talent level alone. He doesn't put up the numbers Marbury does, but he plays more efficiently than Marbury. I factor Arenas' high turn overs because it takes a long time for a team to work out the kinks of the Princeton offense. A lot players not rolling to where they are supposed to be, Arenas not understanding his options, etc.. Not even that, Arenas is a better winner as of late and Marbury has done nothing to help his team and barely achieve mediocrity. I choose Hinrich over Marbury because his game is easier malleable than Marbury. It seems as if you're coaching Stephon you have to revolve your offense around screen rolls and penetration and dishes.. With Hinrich, you can do that and much more. Also factor in that Hinrich is already a better defender and can play two positions. Sure, Stephon can play some 2, but Hinrich started at two for the majority of last season... But the fact that Hinrich is such a more complete player as well as a smarter player, I have to choose him over Stephon. Bibby, I'd easily take over Stephon any day of the week. The other two I can see arguements being made, but Bibby is a top five point gaurd in my opinion. He's a better winner, smarter player, and is just as good at playmaking if not better. Sure Stephon might be the better scorer but it has never got him anywhere in his career. Bibby, on the other hand makes something with his team. I understand the refute would be that the Kings had Webber, Peja, Vlade, Miller, and Christie, but in my opinion, if you stuck Bibby with Amare, Marion, Johnson for the majority he wouldn't have bombed or been traded like Marbury was. I just have no confidence with Stephon. I've been waiting patiently for him to bloom as a winner since he entered the league... and nothing. I rooted for him even when he was driven out of Jersey and now I just see him as a disappointment. Maybe it's jaded my vision on how good Marbury is, but you cannot explain to me how a player of his calibar can be great with a 33-49 season. And it is not like he had talent around him, he had plenty of it... He just does not elevate his teammates like other players do. Larry Hughes and Antawn Jamison were career losers but all of the sudden looked like All stars when Gilbert finally took control. Eddy Curry finally looked like a reliable offensive force with Hinrich and Bibby carried the Kings after the Webber trade even when it looked like he had nothing left in him and Peja did absolutely nothing last season. These guys are winners and Marbury is more content with his stats and claiming he's the best point gaurd in the league before worrying about his team. I gaurantee you Marbury will not end his career a Knick he'll be traded again and again each team thinking that he's an elite point gaurd based on stats alone..only learning that he's a chronic loser who can't play a very good team game.
Career wise, I would say that Kidd is the best pointguard currently in the league. I don't think that anyone can really question that. I guess you could bring in Chauncy Billups, but he didn't really carry his team like Kidd has. As of now, I'm not sure how good Kidd will be. Kidd seemed a little slow during playoffs, but I think he has recovered decently considering the injury, if his rehabbing goes well during the summer and he becomes 80+ % of the player he was ... then he is still be a top 2 pg in the league, probably #2. Otherwise then you can debate other guys like Billups, Bibby, Hinrich, Davis, Arenas, and that is about it. On a side note: I'm wondering if Milt will start in the 05-06 season, he does after all have a higher career FG% than New Jersey's last year's starter.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Peja did absolutely nothing last season.</div>He averaged 20ppg.Had to correct...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting nextlevelgame:</div><div class="quote_post">Mr. J, I am sorry for such a tardy reply but I just got back from my vacation.</div> I?m in no rush, don?t worry about it. Hopefully you had a good time. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd take Arenas over Marbury purely on his talent level alone. He doesn't put up the numbers Marbury does, but he plays more efficiently than Marbury. I factor Arenas' high turn overs because it takes a long time for a team to work out the kinks of the Princeton offense. A lot players not rolling to where they are supposed to be, Arenas not understanding his options, etc.. Not even that, Arenas is a better winner as of late and Marbury has done nothing to help his team and barely achieve mediocrity.</div> Arenas is definitely a talented player and at this stage, he has the potential on his side while Marbury is aging. Arenas to me, is more of a shooting guard than he is a point guard and isn?t as efficient as Marbury either. I think a more legitimate argument for Arenas would be who the better player is, but in terms of point guards, Marbury has the advantage right here. Winning doesn?t have too much to do with this in my opinion. Arenas as of late has winning on his side, but over his career, he hasn?t done much. Also, you have to take into consideration the state of the Chicago Bulls. The Bulls had Eddy Curry and Luol Deng injured as well. This could have changed the series outlook greatly. And speaking of the playoffs, remember in Game 4 when they were playing the Heat? After Arenas fouled out, there was much more ball movement and the Wizards actually made a pretty good comeback before Eddie Jones put the game away with a clutch three-pointer. Arenas also plays on a team that ranks third worst in the NBA in assists per game. Sir Charles and the TNT studios couldn?t have said this enough throughout the whole first round. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I choose Hinrich over Marbury because his game is easier malleable than Marbury. It seems as if you're coaching Stephon you have to revolve your offense around screen rolls and penetration and dishes.. With Hinrich, you can do that and much more. Also factor in that Hinrich is already a better defender and can play two positions. Sure, Stephon can play some 2, but Hinrich started at two for the majority of last season... But the fact that Hinrich is such a more complete player as well as a smarter player, I have to choose him over Stephon.</div> Marbury is still a better point guard than Hinrich even though Hinrich might have a more diverse game as you said. What you can say about Hinrich is perhaps he has the tools and the potential to become a better player than Marbury, but it is a bit early to dub Hinrich an elite point guard? I mean Marbury is an elite point guard, right? Therefore if Hinrich is better, he must be an elite point guard as well. Let?s look at the stats: Hinrich: 36.4 MPG / 15.7 PPG / 3.9 RPG / 6.4 APG / FG: 39.7% / 3P: 35.5% Marbury: 40 MPG / 21.7 PPG / 3.0 RPG / 8.1 APG / FG: 46.2% / 3P: 35.4% Now, despite Hinrich playing only a mere 3.6 less minutes than Marbury per game, Marbury gives you close to two more assists per game, and more points. In addition, Hinrich isn?t too efficient offensively himself. He shoots less than 40% and attempts the same amount of shots per game as Marbury. The difference is, Marbury shoots 6.5% higher and only 0.1% from 3-point range than Hinrich. So essentially, Marbury is giving you more points on a higher percentage (a statistic that usually reflects your shot selection), and he?s giving you more assists per game. Clearly, Marbury has the advantage in this category. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Bibby, I'd easily take over Stephon any day of the week. The other two I can see arguements being made, but Bibby is a top five point gaurd in my opinion. He's a better winner, smarter player, and is just as good at playmaking if not better. Sure Stephon might be the better scorer but it has never got him anywhere in his career. Bibby, on the other hand makes something with his team. I understand the refute would be that the Kings had Webber, Peja, Vlade, Miller, and Christie, but in my opinion, if you stuck Bibby with Amare, Marion, Johnson for the majority he wouldn't have bombed or been traded like Marbury was.</div> I think the Kings roster says it all: Bibby had the privilege of working with four all-stars and an NBA championship contender in the Sacramento Kings. Unfortunately, Marbury cannot say that. The Suns had a good team, but when Marbury was playing with them Amare was only a rookie and Johnson wasn?t nearly as improved as he was the following season. In addition, interestingly enough, Marbury turned Marion into an all-star and that?s something not even Jason Kidd did. Although they lost in the first round that season, playing the San Antonio Spurs ? the future NBA champions of that season was tough enough. The Suns took it to Game 6 although they were only an 8th seed. The reason why Marbury was traded is because the Suns were looking to rebuild that season. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I just have no confidence with Stephon. I've been waiting patiently for him to bloom as a winner since he entered the league... and nothing. I rooted for him even when he was driven out of Jersey and now I just see him as a disappointment. Maybe it's jaded my vision on how good Marbury is, but you cannot explain to me how a player of his calibar can be great with a 33-49 season. And it is not like he had talent around him, he had plenty of it... He just does not elevate his teammates like other players do. Larry Hughes and Antawn Jamison were career losers but all of the sudden looked like All stars when Gilbert finally took control. Eddy Curry finally looked like a reliable offensive force with Hinrich and Bibby carried the Kings after the Webber trade even when it looked like he had nothing left in him and Peja did absolutely nothing last season. These guys are winners and Marbury is more content with his stats and claiming he's the best point gaurd in the league before worrying about his team. I gaurantee you Marbury will not end his career a Knick he'll be traded again and again each team thinking that he's an elite point gaurd based on stats alone..only learning that he's a chronic loser who can't play a very good team game.</div> Although Marbury might not have a lot of success throughout his career, I think that?s a poor indicator in determining how good a player is. Remember, Michael Jordan didn?t have much success early in his career; Kevin Garnett finally made it out the first round at age 28; David Robinson never went far before Tim Duncan; Elton Brand still never made it to the playoffs and he?s been a rather consistent 20/10 player throughout his entire career. The Knicks last season had off-court problems, injuries, and couldn?t close out games. No need to give up on Marbury now especially since he?ll be working with Larry Brown. Hughes and Jamison were always very talented players and put up good numbers, but never went anywhere. In Washington they succeeded, but not because of Arenas. Most of the time they were taking turns isolating instead of sharing the ball as I said earlier. Marbury next season, has the potential to become a winner and become an all-star as Magic Johnson guaranteed because of his new environment.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Arenas is definitely a talented player and at this stage, he has the potential on his side while Marbury is aging. Arenas to me, is more of a shooting guard than he is a point guard and isn?t as efficient as Marbury either. I think a more legitimate argument for Arenas would be who the better player is, but in terms of point guards, Marbury has the advantage right here. Winning doesn?t have too much to do with this in my opinion. Arenas as of late has winning on his side, but over his career, he hasn?t done much. Also, you have to take into consideration the state of the Chicago Bulls. The Bulls had Eddy Curry and Luol Deng injured as well. This could have changed the series outlook greatly. And speaking of the playoffs, remember in Game 4 when they were playing the Heat? After Arenas fouled out, there was much more ball movement and the Wizards actually made a pretty good comeback before Eddie Jones put the game away with a clutch three-pointer. Arenas also plays on a team that ranks third worst in the NBA in assists per game. Sir Charles and the TNT studios couldn?t have said this enough throughout the whole first round. </div> Again, I have to say the turnovers is because of how convoluted the Princeton offense is. If you look at Marbury's Nets years, which is when we first established the system (and Eddie Jordan was with us those years), he was averaging 3-4 TOs a game too. It's difficult for players like Marbury and Arenas who have been consistent offensive threats their entire careers. Give Arenas atleast one more season before he gets it to the 2-2.5 range. You bring up Game 4 and I bring up the entire season. No way the Wizards smell playoffs without Gilbert. SO they played well with Gilbert out, doesn't mean they don't need him. Shaq sat out that series and the Heat still won, does that mean they play better without him? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Marbury is still a better point guard than Hinrich even though Hinrich might have a more diverse game as you said. What you can say about Hinrich is perhaps he has the tools and the potential to become a better player than Marbury, but it is a bit early to dub Hinrich an elite point guard? I mean Marbury is an elite point guard, right? Therefore if Hinrich is better, he must be an elite point guard as well. Let?s look at the stats: Hinrich: 36.4 MPG / 15.7 PPG / 3.9 RPG / 6.4 APG / FG: 39.7% / 3P: 35.5% Marbury: 40 MPG / 21.7 PPG / 3.0 RPG / 8.1 APG / FG: 46.2% / 3P: 35.4% Now, despite Hinrich playing only a mere 3.6 less minutes than Marbury per game, Marbury gives you close to two more assists per game, and more points. In addition, Hinrich isn?t too efficient offensively himself. He shoots less than 40% and attempts the same amount of shots per game as Marbury. The difference is, Marbury shoots 6.5% higher and only 0.1% from 3-point range than Hinrich. So essentially, Marbury is giving you more points on a higher percentage (a statistic that usually reflects your shot selection), and he?s giving you more assists per game. Clearly, Marbury has the advantage in this category.</div> For starters, I don't believe Hinrich is an elite point gaurd. I don't believe Marbury is either. Elite to me, means to rank among the greatest point gaurds such as Magic, Oscar, Isiah, Stockton, and so forth. To me, the only player playing that can is Kidd and Nash if he has another great season could be there too. Secondly, Marbury enthusiasts are so easy to bring up his stats as the sole basis that he's better than other point gaurds in the league. Sure, statistically, he might be the best point gaurd in the league but stats only tell half the story. When the players are similar, such as Hinrich and Marbury, I use the way they play to distinguish and I must say that Hinrich is the better fitted point gaurd and player. It's situational, I'd take Hinrich 8 out of 10 times. The only two times I take Marbury is if I need scoring/stat fillers, and ticket sales. Otherwise, Hinrich beats him at every other position and I would never regret taking Hinrich over Marbury. I think Hinrich is overrated these days, but it's undeniable, atleast to me, that he's the better point gaurd and player to build around. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think the Kings roster says it all: Bibby had the privilege of working with four all-stars and an NBA championship contender in the Sacramento Kings. Unfortunately, Marbury cannot say that. The Suns had a good team, but when Marbury was playing with them Amare was only a rookie and Johnson wasn?t nearly as improved as he was the following season. In addition, interestingly enough, Marbury turned Marion into an all-star and that?s something not even Jason Kidd did. Although they lost in the first round that season, playing the San Antonio Spurs ? the future NBA champions of that season was tough enough. The Suns took it to Game 6 although they were only an 8th seed. The reason why Marbury was traded is because the Suns were looking to rebuild that season.</div> JKidd tutored Shawn Marion and Marbury pretty much had a very polished Marion already. Coming into the league, Shawn could jump and play defense, but like RJ, Martin, and now Krstic, he mentored them into good players; feeding their strengths and making the game easy. Shawn was already good when Marbury got there and it showed, but I wouldn't say Marbury made Marion an all star. Secondly, Amare averaged like 25/9 after Marbury was traded. Joe Johnson blew up too..he was actually consistent too. I say it had a big part of Marbury not hogging the ball. They traded Marbury cause he actually stunted the growth of these players. If they were looking to rebuild, I doubt they'd trade Marbury cause he was too old, he was still 27. I say the trade was because Marbury's game is easy to figure out by defenses. It's not a coincidental trend that teams do really well the first season he gets there (the Knicks even had a playoff season), and then completely tank the following. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Although Marbury might not have a lot of success throughout his career, I think that?s a poor indicator in determining how good a player is. Remember, Michael Jordan didn?t have much success early in his career; Kevin Garnett finally made it out the first round at age 28; David Robinson never went far before Tim Duncan</div> Do me a favor, do not compare Marbury to MJ, KG, or David Robinson. These players have individual accolades that Marbury could only dream of. Most Valuable Player. Defensive Player of the Year. First Team NBA. All Defensive First Teams. Sure they lost, but they won more than they lost something that cannot be said for Marbury. They had consistent playoff-bound seasons, Stephon has never had. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Elton Brand still never made it to the playoffs and he?s been a rather consistent 20/10 player throughout his entire career.</div> So does SAR. Steve Francis and Jason Terry had streaks going. I don't consider any of them "elite" players like you do with Marbury, and that goes with Elton Brand as well. They're good players but they're also chronic losers. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">he Knicks last season had off-court problems, injuries, and couldn?t close out games.</div> That's not an excuse. Every team has their set of problems. The Nets were battling a bunch of off-court problems with Zo, Kidd and management, etc last season. They had injuries to Kidd and RJ was out for most of the season, but they still made the playoffs. Indiana probably had it worst last season. They had a severely injured O'Neal, Tinsley and a suspended Ron Artest. Reggie was on his last legs but they yet made it to the playoffs too. So many Marbury enthusiasts look to off court, injur problems as why Marbury couldn't succeed, but yet every team deals with it and many of them make the playoffs. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No need to give up on Marbury now especially since he?ll be working with Larry Brown. Hughes and Jamison were always very talented players and put up good numbers, but never went anywhere.</div> You expressed two different thoughts in these sentences. However I'll work with them. Sure Larry will try to make Marbury a better player. Maybe he'll succeed, only the future can tell, but this will be his last attempt...and I have to say I don't have much faith. If Marbury still tanks for the next two seasons, what does that mean? However, I predict that he'll be traded before the end of those two seasons. In dealing with Hughes and Jamison I have to say look at how Arenas lifted their games and made something out of them. It's no secret that they benefited greatly by Arenas' play and instruction on the court. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In Washington they succeeded, but not because of Arenas. Most of the time they were taking turns isolating instead of sharing the ball as I said earlier.</div> I call it playing off Arenas. And Antawn isn't the perfect player to iso. He doesn't have iso moves, he's a dirty work guy in a way. He gets a lot of his points from second chance shots and open shots. You don't really run plays for the guy. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">arbury next season, has the potential to become a winner and become an all-star as Magic Johnson guaranteed because of his new environment.</div> I love Magic for all the greatness he has done, but he has proven to be one of the worst commentators out there. He's not very good at prediction, analyzing, or giving his opinion in general. Some Magic Johnson quotes for you: "Kobe played great in the second half, particularly the 3rd and 4th quarters." "The Lakers are having trouble getting buckets which is why they are losing." Magic Johnson, on how well he and James Worthy work together: "It's almost like we have ESPN"
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting nextlevelgame:</div><div class="quote_post">Again, I have to say the turnovers is because of how convoluted the Princeton offense is. If you look at Marbury's Nets years, which is when we first established the system (and Eddie Jordan was with us those years), he was averaging 3-4 TOs a game too. It's difficult for players like Marbury and Arenas who have been consistent offensive threats their entire careers. Give Arenas atleast one more season before he gets it to the 2-2.5 range. You bring up Game 4 and I bring up the entire season. No way the Wizards smell playoffs without Gilbert. SO they played well with Gilbert out, doesn't mean they don't need him. Shaq sat out that series and the Heat still won, does that mean they play better without him?</div> Whether or not the offense is hard for Gilbert or not, when it?s all said and done, he only averages 5 assists and 3 turnovers a game in his 41 minutes of play. When Marbury was with the Nets, in his first 31 games, he averaged 8.7 assists per game to go along with 3.57 turnovers. His second season, he averaged 8.4 turnovers to go along with 3.65 turnovers. In his final season, he averaged 7.6 assists to go along with 2.94 turnovers. Each year, Marbury had a better assist to turnover ratio despite playing in the same offense Arenas was playing in. It shows that Marbury excelled more as a point guard during Eddie Jordan than Arenas did in every single season. Shaq was injured and the Heat still swept them. That just means the Heat are a pretty good team to do that without Shaq. Arenas was playing that game, and as soon as he fouled out, due to ball movement, the Wizards were able to make a very good comeback and almost won. Also, in the playoffs, Arenas struggled terribly. He did average 6 assists, but turned the ball over 4 times. In his 24 points, he shot 38% from the field and 23% from downtown. All of that can equate to a lot of forcing which is something a point guard should never do. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">For starters, I don't believe Hinrich is an elite point gaurd. I don't believe Marbury is either. Elite to me, means to rank among the greatest point gaurds such as Magic, Oscar, Isiah, Stockton, and so forth. To me, the only player playing that can is Kidd and Nash if he has another great season could be there too.</div> By elite, I mean a top modern day point guard. Not those Hall of Famers you mentioned. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Secondly, Marbury enthusiasts are so easy to bring up his stats as the sole basis that he's better than other point gaurds in the league. Sure, statistically, he might be the best point gaurd in the league but stats only tell half the story. When the players are similar, such as Hinrich and Marbury, I use the way they play to distinguish and I must say that Hinrich is the better fitted point gaurd and player. It's situational, I'd take Hinrich 8 out of 10 times. The only two times I take Marbury is if I need scoring/stat fillers, and ticket sales. Otherwise, Hinrich beats him at every other position and I would never regret taking Hinrich over Marbury.</div> I don?t see how Marbury?s stats only tell half the story. Marbury has been a consistent 20/8 player throughout his entire career and along with Oscar Robertson, is the only player in NBA history to have averages of 20/8. You can?t say the same thing about Hinrich. All you can say is he has the potential to become a better point guard, but currently, he is not on Marbury?s level. He doesn?t have the greatest shot selection which shows a lot of forcing, and doesn?t rack up as many assists. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think Hinrich is overrated these days, but it's undeniable, atleast to me, that he's the better point gaurd and player to build around.</div> Since you say Hinrich is better than Marbury, may you tell me what parts of his game make him better? If the statistics only tell half the story, what other half is so overwhelming to make Hinrich better? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">JKidd tutored Shawn Marion and Marbury pretty much had a very polished Marion already. Coming into the league, Shawn could jump and play defense, but like RJ, Martin, and now Krstic, he mentored them into good players; feeding their strengths and making the game easy. Shawn was already good when Marbury got there and it showed, but I wouldn't say Marbury made Marion an all star.</div> Okay, fair enough. Perhaps he was more polished, but Marbury did contribute to him being an all-star. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Secondly, Amare averaged like 25/9 after Marbury was traded. Joe Johnson blew up too..he was actually consistent too. I say it had a big part of Marbury not hogging the ball. They traded Marbury cause he actually stunted the growth of these players. If they were looking to rebuild, I doubt they'd trade Marbury cause he was too old, he was still 27. I say the trade was because Marbury's game is easy to figure out by defenses. It's not a coincidental trend that teams do really well the first season he gets there (the Knicks even had a playoff season), and then completely tank the following.</div> When Nash came in, Amare averaged 26/9, but as soon as Marbury was traded, he averaged 20/9. The reason why Stoudemire?s points rose so much was because he was the second option and previously, he was the third option and a rookie. Johnson blew up because he improved his shooting and played 40 minutes a game due to everyone being injured on the Suns roster that season. Marbury was making a ton of money and Phoenix wanted to use it to get some big names in next years free agent market like Kobe. They eventually ended up with Nash and Q though who combined, would be all better than Marbury. If Marbury?s game is too easy too figure out by defenses, why would he average 20/8 throughout his entire career. That right there isn?t a coincidence. The reason why the Knicks made the playoffs that year is because the East was horrible beyond belief. They were only 39-43 and made the playoffs. The Celtics even made it with a 36-46 record. Marbury?s help that year was supposed to be a healthy Allan Houston and Keith Van Horn who did his thing for a month or two when Marbury was there, and eventually Tim Thomas who was having the best ear of his career. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Do me a favor, do not compare Marbury to MJ, KG, or David Robinson. These players have individual accolades that Marbury could only dream of. Most Valuable Player. Defensive Player of the Year. First Team NBA. All Defensive First Teams.</div> Wouldn?t that make it even worse? Players like these didn?t have much individual success throughout their careers, so obviously that doesn?t necessarily define a player now does it? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Sure they lost, but they won more than they lost something that cannot be said for Marbury. They had consistent playoff-bound seasons, Stephon has never had.</div> But it wasn?t until later in their careers when they started having more success. Stephon is at that point now. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">So does SAR. Steve Francis and Jason Terry had streaks going. I don't consider any of them "elite" players like you do with Marbury, and that goes with Elton Brand as well. They're good players but they're also chronic losers.</div> Abdur-Rahim was an elite power forward back in his prime, I wouldn?t call Terry elite, maybe not even Francis since he?s never done much a point guard, unlike Marbury. Brand is elite, too. They probably won?t go down in the Hall of Fame or anything, but in the modern day NBA, they are the cream of the crop at their positions. Being a chronic loser isn?t always accurate when determining players for the examples as I said above (Robinson, MJ, KG etc.). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">That's not an excuse. Every team has their set of problems. The Nets were battling a bunch of off-court problems with Zo, Kidd and management, etc last season. They had injuries to Kidd and RJ was out for most of the season, but they still made the playoffs. Indiana probably had it worst last season. They had a severely injured O'Neal, Tinsley and a suspended Ron Artest. Reggie was on his last legs but they yet made it to the playoffs too. So many Marbury enthusiasts look to off court, injur problems as why Marbury couldn't succeed, but yet every team deals with it and many of them make the playoffs.</div> You just gave me too examples and than you say every team deals with it? Vince Carter had the best year of his entire career playing with the Nets. It can be argued he single handily got the Nets to the postseason. The Knicks unfortunately didn?t have anyone like that on their teams. When their players returned from suspensions, they were a great team. A player can?t succeed by himself and he had no one around to help him. If Marbury was playing on the Pacers or the Nets, I?m sure he would have gotten further. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You expressed two different thoughts in these sentences. However I'll work with them. Sure Larry will try to make Marbury a better player. Maybe he'll succeed, only the future can tell, but this will be his last attempt...and I have to say I don't have much faith. If Marbury still tanks for the next two seasons, what does that mean? However, I predict that he'll be traded before the end of those two seasons.</div> Well only the future can tell like you said, but Brown is a master at getting the best out of players and hopefully he can get the best out of Marbury next season. I have faith in Marbury, but only the future can tell? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In dealing with Hughes and Jamison I have to say look at how Arenas lifted their games and made something out of them. It's no secret that they benefited greatly by Arenas' play and instruction on the court.</div> They did benefit from him, but the Wizards had 3 all-star caliber players around so it?s no surprise why they did well. Even so, this still doesn?t make him a better point guard than Marbury. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I call it playing off Arenas. And Antawn isn't the perfect player to iso. He doesn't have iso moves, he's a dirty work guy in a way. He gets a lot of his points from second chance shots and open shots. You don't really run plays for the guy.</div> My point was there wasn?t a lot of ball movement down in Washington which is no surprise why they rank as the third worst team in assists per game. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I love Magic for all the greatness he has done, but he has proven to be one of the worst commentators out there. He's not very good at prediction, analyzing, or giving his opinion in general. Some Magic Johnson quotes for you: "Kobe played great in the second half, particularly the 3rd and 4th quarters." "The Lakers are having trouble getting buckets which is why they are losing." Magic Johnson, on how well he and James Worthy work together: "It's almost like we have ESPN"</div> I?ll take it for a grain of salt then, but I do agree with him that Marbury will have a good season even if he?s not an all-star.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Whether or not the offense is hard for Gilbert or not, when it?s all said and done, he only averages 5 assists and 3 turnovers a game in his 41 minutes of play. When Marbury was with the Nets, in his first 31 games, he averaged 8.7 assists per game to go along with 3.57 turnovers. His second season, he averaged 8.4 turnovers to go along with 3.65 turnovers. In his final season, he averaged 7.6 assists to go along with 2.94 turnovers. Each year, Marbury had a better assist to turnover ratio despite playing in the same offense Arenas was playing in. It shows that Marbury excelled more as a point guard during Eddie Jordan than Arenas did in every single season. Shaq was injured and the Heat still swept them. That just means the Heat are a pretty good team to do that without Shaq. Arenas was playing that game, and as soon as he fouled out, due to ball movement, the Wizards were able to make a very good comeback and almost won. Also, in the playoffs, Arenas struggled terribly. He did average 6 assists, but turned the ball over 4 times. In his 24 points, he shot 38% from the field and 23% from downtown. All of that can equate to a lot of forcing which is something a point guard should never do. </div> This particular arguement I think is moot... not much more can be said that already has been. Either way, if you are going to make me reserve my judgements after a year with Brown, I'll reciprocate with Arenas. I don't think he'll average more thjan 3 TOs next season. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">By elite, I mean a top modern day point guard. Not those Hall of Famers you mentioned.</div> That's your definition of elite. I would just say top point gaurds. Hinrich and Marbury are both top point gaurds, but in the grand scheme, I think Hinrich is better. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don?t see how Marbury?s stats only tell half the story. Marbury has been a consistent 20/8 player throughout his entire career and along with Oscar Robertson, is the only player in NBA history to have averages of 20/8.</div> Half is stats, the other half is wins. Oscar won, Marbury still hasn't. I think that's the story. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Since you say Hinrich is better than Marbury, may you tell me what parts of his game make him better? If the statistics only tell half the story, what other half is so overwhelming to make Hinrich better?</div> I thought I already discussed this. Hinrich's game is easier malleable to a team concept. He's more versatile, and a better defender. He's just as good of a passer if not better. The only thing I see Marbury doing better is scoring and flashy plays. Hinrich may not exactly be the consumate point gaurd because he shoots a bit too much, but he definitely is better at Marbury at decision making. If we're arguing whether who's the better basketball player, I might say Marbury, but if we're discussing who's the better point gaurd, it's Hinrich, without a doubt in my mind. I akin this arguement to a JKidd vs. Iverson point gaurd debate. Iverson is the better player, for sure, but the better point gaurd is JKidd without a doubt. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">When Nash came in, Amare averaged 26/9, but as soon as Marbury was traded, he averaged 20/9. The reason why Stoudemire?s points rose so much was because he was the second option and previously, he was the third option and a rookie.</div> I don't see how this helps your arguement. Stoudemire played better when Marbury is gone...Marbury is the point gaurd, he should've played worse when your pg leaves. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Johnson blew up because he improved his shooting and played 40 minutes a game due to everyone being injured on the Suns roster that season.</div> I think that's a poor assessment. Johnson miraculously got better which coincidentally was the same time Marbury left. That's weak, if you ask me. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Marbury was making a ton of money and Phoenix wanted to use it to get some big names in next years free agent market like Kobe.</div> I think their bottom of the WC record with Marbury had something to do with their choice to rebuild around a player point gaurd, in this case, Nash. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">They eventually ended up with Nash and Q though who combined, would be all better than Marbury.</div> They could have gotten Q without trading Marbury. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If Marbury?s game is too easy too figure out by defenses, why would he average 20/8 throughout his entire career.</div> The same reason he doesn't make the playoffs every year. They let him do his thing, but at the end of the game his team loses. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The reason why the Knicks made the playoffs that year is because the East was horrible beyond belief. They were only 39-43 and made the playoffs. The Celtics even made it with a 36-46 record. Marbury?s help that year was supposed to be a healthy Allan Houston and Keith Van Horn who did his thing for a month or two when Marbury was there, and eventually Tim Thomas who was having the best ear of his career.</div> Your point? The East has been horrible since Jordan left. It still is. Pretty much after Miami, Detroit, and Indiana it's anyone's game. That is 5 teams who can still make the playoffs and given how bad the Atlantic was last season the Knicks had a more than probable chance of making it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Wouldn?t that make it even worse? </div> No. I don't think MVPs, DPOYs, All first NBA teams and defensive teams makes any player worse. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Players like these didn?t have much individual success throughout their careers,</div> Jordan, David Robinson, and KG didn't have much individual success? Are you following the same NBA I am? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But it wasn?t until later in their careers when they started having more success. Stephon is at that point now.</div> I'm saying, atleast MJ, KG, and Drobb made it to the playoffs CONSISTENTLY. Not every two years or whatever Marbury's streak is. They've made it to the CF, Drobb and MJ went to the finals. Marbury is older than KG was when KG made the WCF. MJ already had championships. There's a very very very very big gap between Marbury and these guys. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Abdur-Rahim was an elite power forward back in his prime, I wouldn?t call Terry elite, maybe not even Francis since he?s never done much a point guard, unlike Marbury. Brand is elite, too. They probably won?t go down in the Hall of Fame or anything, but in the modern day NBA, they are the cream of the crop at their positions. Being a chronic loser isn?t always accurate when determining players for the examples as I said above (Robinson, MJ, KG etc.).</div> MJ, Robinson, and KG were never chronic losers. Maybe a case for KG could be made, but definitely not MJ or DRobb. There's a reason why they were HOFers before their first championship. Brand, Reef, Francis, and Terry and Marbury are chronic losers. They are a fantasy basketball players. They get stats but they don't translate any wins in real life. MJ, Drobb, KG all won more than they lost. They've had consistnetly over .500 seasons. There's no way in hell you can even compare Marbury, Brand, Reef or anybody to these players. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You just gave me too examples and than you say every team deals with it? </div> Do you want me to go further? Are you trying to tell me that not every team has to deal with injuries and off-court troubles? Miami had injuries to Shaq and Wade. Haslem's finger was a problem. Alonzo has a medical bill the size of a football field. They dealt with it. Detroit dealt with suspensions. Rasheed's foot was bothering him. Ben Wallace, along with suspensions was battling his own injuries that took him out of games. Rip was wearing his mask. Chicago lost two key starters towards the end of the season, before they were garunteed a playoff spot. Washington had fall outs with Kwame Brown. Jarvis Hayes injured himsself. Philly just got Webber, which arguably made them a worse team and he was dealing with his own injuries. They traded the bulk of their frontline for him too. THey were still learning how to mesh and play with Webber. Webber had off-court troubles with OBrien but they still made the playoffs. This is jus the Eastern teams. I can go on with the Western. EVERY team has problems and the Knicks are not special to that. Everyone is hurting and bruising at the end of the season so it is never an excuse to say that injuries were the reason a team doesn't win. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Vince Carter had the best year of his entire career playing with the Nets. It can be argued he single handily got the Nets to the postseason.</div> And that's what top players do. I guess Marbury isn't that. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Knicks unfortunately didn?t have anyone like that on their teams.</div> Isn't that Marbury's job? I mean, if VC could do it, why couldn't another "elite" player like Marbury do it? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">A player can?t succeed by himself and he had no one around to help him.</div> You just said Vince Carter and I quote, "single-handily" did it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> If Marbury was playing on the Pacers or the Nets, I?m sure he would have gotten further.</div> Oh, so he could ride the success of the team and not contribute? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">They did benefit from him, but the Wizards had 3 all-star caliber players around so it?s no surprise why they did well. Even so, this still doesn?t make him a better point guard than Marbury.</div> I don't think anyone would have called Jamison or Hughes an all-star caliber player before last season. Arenas did that for them. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I?ll take it for a grain of salt then, but I do agree with him that Marbury will have a good season even if he?s not an all-star.</div> Seems like you're settling with Marbury's mediocrity.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting nextlevelgame:</div><div class="quote_post">This particular arguement I think is moot... not much more can be said that already has been. Either way, if you are going to make me reserve my judgements after a year with Brown, I'll reciprocate with Arenas. I don't think he'll average more thjan 3 TOs next season.</div> Arenas has always been rather turnover prone throughout his entire career and even averaged 4 last year so I don?t know why It would change all of a sudden. The reason why I want you to reserve your judgments is because Marbury?s career is not over yet. My point is Arenas is not on Marbury?s level because of his turnovers and assists and his decision making. You say it?s because of the Princeton offense and I say what he struggles from is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is he wasn?t as good a point guard as Marbury who put up 8 assists to go along with his 2.8 assists per game. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">That's your definition of elite. I would just say top point gaurds. Hinrich and Marbury are both top point gaurds, but in the grand scheme, I think Hinrich is better.</div> Hinrich is not on the level of Marbury. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Half is stats, the other half is wins. Oscar won, Marbury still hasn't. I think that's the story.</div> If half is stats: which Marbury dominates in, and half are wins: which Hinrich recently dominated in, that means they would be even, but you say Hinrich is better. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I thought I already discussed this. Hinrich's game is easier malleable to a team concept. He's more versatile, and a better defender. He's just as good of a passer if not better. The only thing I see Marbury doing better is scoring and flashy plays. Hinrich may not exactly be the consumate point gaurd because he shoots a bit too much, but he definitely is better at Marbury at decision making. If we're arguing whether who's the better basketball player, I might say Marbury, but if we're discussing who's the better point gaurd, it's Hinrich, without a doubt in my mind. I akin this arguement to a JKidd vs. Iverson point gaurd debate. Iverson is the better player, for sure, but the better point gaurd is JKidd without a doubt.</div> He?s not more versatile. Marbury can play shooting guard, too. Although he started at the two last year, it doesn?t mean he?s more versatile. It just means he has a year of shooting guard under his belt. Better defense is something Hinrich has, but surely that doesn?t make him a better point guard. If he shoots too much, and obviously doesn?t do it efficiently he?s below 40%, that means he?s not a great decision maker as he doesn?t know is own limits. Marbury scores because the Knicks count on him to put points on the board. Who else can do it efficiently? Marbury is a very effective scorer and can balance it out with his passing unlike Hinrich so his decision making is better. How can you say because he?s more versatile and because he?s a better defender, he?s better than Marbury. There?s more to a point guard than that. In terms of decision making, Marbury has the advantage. In assists, Marbury has the advantage. In overall efficiency, Marbury has the advantage. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't see how this helps your arguement. Stoudemire played better when Marbury is gone...Marbury is the point gaurd, he should've played worse when your pg leaves.</div> No, Stoudemire was a young and talented player and those type of players usually get better. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think that's a poor assessment. Johnson miraculously got better which coincidentally was the same time Marbury left. That's weak, if you ask me.</div> I already gave the reasons. A) Johnson improved some aspects of his game on his own such as shooting. With his main competition, Penny Hardaway, traded to New York, he got more freedom. C) He played 13 more minutes than he did the previous season. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think their bottom of the WC record with Marbury had something to do with their choice to rebuild around a player point gaurd, in this case, Nash.</div> So why did they re-sign him until 2009 after the 02-03 season? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">They could have gotten Q without trading Marbury.</div> I don?t think they could have. They just threw 60 million at Nash I don?t know if they could throw more at Q without giving up Marbury. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The same reason he doesn't make the playoffs every year. They let him do his thing, but at the end of the game his team loses.</div> I?m sure if Marbury never dealt with constant injuries, I?m sure his teams would do better. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Your point? The East has been horrible since Jordan left. It still is. Pretty much after Miami, Detroit, and Indiana it's anyone's game. That is 5 teams who can still make the playoffs and given how bad the Atlantic was last season the Knicks had a more than probable chance of making it.</div> My point was you were wrong when you said this: ?It's not a coincidental trend that teams do really well the first season he gets there (the Knicks even had a playoff season), and then completely tank the following.? The East was much worse than they were last year. There was a 6 game difference between the 8th seeds last year. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No. I don't think MVPs, DPOYs, All first NBA teams and defensive teams makes any player worse.</div> I didn?t say that. These are MVP?s, etc. and the fact that they haven?t gotten out of the first round until they were around Marbury?s age would make it even worse. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Jordan, David Robinson, and KG didn't have much individual success? Are you following the same NBA I am?</div> Until Duncan and Spree/Cassell, none of them got far in their careers. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm saying, atleast MJ, KG, and Drobb made it to the playoffs CONSISTENTLY. Not every two years or whatever Marbury's streak is. They've made it to the CF, Drobb and MJ went to the finals. Marbury is older than KG was when KG made the WCF. MJ already had championships. There's a very very very very big gap between Marbury and these guys.</div> But they started doing much better towards the end of their careers, right? So, why give up on Marbury then? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">MJ, Robinson, and KG were never chronic losers. Maybe a case for KG could be made, but definitely not MJ or DRobb. There's a reason why they were HOFers before their first championship. Brand, Reef, Francis, and Terry and Marbury are chronic losers. They are a fantasy basketball players. They get stats but they don't translate any wins in real life. MJ, Drobb, KG all won more than they lost. They've had consistnetly over .500 seasons. There's no way in hell you can even compare Marbury, Brand, Reef or anybody to these players.</div> I?m comparing their success which is something I can do. I already know Marbury and co. aren?t on their level. It?s not news to me; I?m saying being a loser doesn?t mean you are any less of a player. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Do you want me to go further? Are you trying to tell me that not every team has to deal with injuries and off-court troubles?</div> No, not at all. What I?m saying is Marbury always has some bad luck throughout his career with injuries and things of that nature. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Miami had injuries to Shaq and Wade. Haslem's finger was a problem. Alonzo has a medical bill the size of a football field. They dealt with it.</div> I?m not talking about the postseason. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Detroit dealt with suspensions. Rasheed's foot was bothering him. Ben Wallace, along with suspensions was battling his own injuries that took him out of games. Rip was wearing his mask.</div> I?m not even talking about playing through injuries because of that were the case, I would have said New York?s injuries as well. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Chicago lost two key starters towards the end of the season, before they were garunteed a playoff spot.</div> Not too major at all. This was very late in the season. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Washington had fall outs with Kwame Brown. Jarvis Hayes injured himsself.</div> Not as good nor important as Houston and Hardaway are to New York. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Philly just got Webber, which arguably made them a worse team and he was dealing with his own injuries. They traded the bulk of their frontline for him too. THey were still learning how to mesh and play with Webber. Webber had off-court troubles with OBrien but they still made the playoffs.</div> Knicks did the same thing too with the Nazr trade. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This is jus the Eastern teams. I can go on with the Western. EVERY team has problems and the Knicks are not special to that. Everyone is hurting and bruising at the end of the season so it is never an excuse to say that injuries were the reason a team doesn't win.</div> Some teams have more problems than others. Agreed? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And that's what top players do. I guess Marbury isn't that.</div> But he hasn?t been to the playoffs consistently nor has he been far. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Isn't that Marbury's job? I mean, if VC could do it, why couldn't another "elite" player like Marbury do it?</div> Not as much help as Marbury does. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You just said Vince Carter and I quote, "single-handily" did it.</div> I just realized I made a mistake. Kidd was a big factor as well. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Oh, so he could ride the success of the team and not contribute?</div> I never said that. Where do you get that? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think anyone would have called Jamison or Hughes an all-star caliber player before last season. Arenas did that for them.</div> Hughes you can make a case for, but Jamison? He had a 25/9/2 season before and had 2 consecutive 50-point games. He?s had plenty of all-star caliber seasons. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Seems like you're settling with Marbury's mediocrity.</div> No, I?m not.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Arenas has always been rather turnover prone throughout his entire career and even averaged 4 last year so I don?t know why It would change all of a sudden. The reason why I want you to reserve your judgments is because Marbury?s career is not over yet. My point is Arenas is not on Marbury?s level because of his turnovers and assists and his decision making. You say it?s because of the Princeton offense and I say what he struggles from is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is he wasn?t as good a point guard as Marbury who put up 8 assists to go along with his 2.8 assists per game.</div> What? Maybe it's too late at night but it sounds like a difference of opinion that won't be resolved. My opinion is Arenas is the better PG and I'm not changing it and you likewise. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Hinrich is not on the level of Marbury.</div> Disagree, but I'm tired of going through it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> If half is stats: which Marbury dominates in, and half are wins: which Hinrich recently dominated in, that means they would be even, but you say Hinrich is better.</div> I was using half of the story as an idiom, not as a math term. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">He?s not more versatile. Marbury can play shooting guard, too. Although he started at the two last year, it doesn?t mean he?s more versatile. It just means he has a year of shooting guard under his belt.</div> You could say that about anything. You could say LeBron James played small forward last season, but Michael Redd could too. It just means LeBron has a year of small forward under his belt, but Micheal Redd is better. It doesn't mean anything. Hinrich started at the two for an entire season. There's no way Marbury could do that. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Better defense is something Hinrich has, but surely that doesn?t make him a better point guard</div> Didn't say that was the only reason. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If he shoots too much, and obviously doesn?t do it efficiently he?s below 40%, that means he?s not a great decision maker as he doesn?t know is own limits.</div> Hinrich takes a lot of bail out shots for the team...and I do mean ALOT. In one quarter against Sacramento he had to take 4 30 footers because the shot clock was winding down. The team instantly defers to him when the shot clock is at 5 and he has nothing else to do but put it up. However, he is streaky which does not help but more likely than not he'll make the right decision in terms of shooting and passing, unlike Stephon. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Marbury scores because the Knicks count on him to put points on the board.</div> Never said they didn't. Every team counts on their players, especially their max players, to put points on the board. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Who else can do it efficiently?</div> Unfortunately, Marbury's "efficency" doesn't translate to wins. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Marbury is a very effective scorer and can balance it out with his passing unlike Hinrich so his decision making is better.</div> Just like that? I don't believe so at all. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How can you say because he?s more versatile and because he?s a better defender, he?s better than Marbury</div> Cause it's true. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">There?s more to a point guard than that. In terms of decision making, Marbury has the advantage. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Disagree. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In assists, Marbury has the advantage. In overall efficiency, Marbury has the advantage.</div> Yet, Marbury still consistently loses. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No, Stoudemire was a young and talented player and those type of players usually get better. </div> Stoudemire is still a young and talented player and he got better with Steve Nash. Amare doesn't look half as good without Steve..yet looks good without Marbury. I wonder why. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I already gave the reasons. A) Johnson improved some aspects of his game on his own such as shooting. With his main competition, Penny Hardaway, traded to New York, he got more freedom. C) He played 13 more minutes than he did the previous season.</div> A) He was good immediately after Marbury left Who considers Penny Hardaway "competition"? C) his stats went wayyy up even with the minutes arguement. </div>So why did they re-sign him until 2009 after the 02-03 season?</div> They extended him before he lead the team to the bottom of the WC. Big difference. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I?m sure if Marbury never dealt with constant injuries, I?m sure his teams would do better. </div> Tell me which team never deals with constant injuries? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">My point was you were wrong when you said this: ?It's not a coincidental trend that teams do really well the first season he gets there (the Knicks even had a playoff season), and then completely tank the following.? The East was much worse than they were last year. There was a 6 game difference between the 8th seeds last year.</div> I don't see how this credits Marbury as much as discredits him. He needs a weak EC to make the playoffs? Some competitor he is. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Until Duncan and Spree/Cassell, none of them got far in their careers.</div> David Robinson made the WCF... way more than Marbury can say. KG was in the playoffs every year....way more than Marbury can say. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But they started doing much better towards the end of their careers, right? So, why give up on Marbury then?</div> Cause those guys made it to the playoffs every year. Those guys made the finals. Marbury can't even make .500. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I?m comparing their success which is something I can do. I already know Marbury and co. aren?t on their level. It?s not news to me; I?m saying being a loser doesn?t mean you are any less of a player.</div> I'm saying it is. You can average a triple double but at the end of the day, your team doesn't win then what does it mean? Nothing. Wins are more important than any stat you can achieve. Kevin Garnett's stats are way better than Duncan, but Duncan is the one who wins the championship. Now KG is my favorite player in the league right now but it is because Duncan consistently wins in the playoffs which is why he is better. Marbury cannot consistently win. When you face a team where Marbury is the star player, you are not scared or nervous.. but if you face a team where a Jason Kidd, Steve Nash is the star player, you bring your A game. That's the difference. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No, not at all. What I?m saying is Marbury always has some bad luck throughout his career with injuries and things of that nature.</div> At what point does bad luck turn into a trend? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I?m not talking about the postseason.</div> I'm not either. [/QUOTE]Not too major at all. This was very late in the season.<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> They weren't garunteed a playoff spot. And anytime you lose two starters, it's big..especially when it's your best perimeter defender and main low post scoring option.
