Still like the Marbury trade?

[elindholm]

What's a r00ler?

What you might call a "superstar."

No, seriously, "r00ler" is jargon from the world of on-line poker, believe it or not. It dates from before my time and I don't know the origin. It's a stylized misspelling of "ruler," as in someone who rules, i.e. is really good. Except usually it's used sarcastically, but that's another story.

 

[elindholm]

Heck Lampe went right onto the IL making it clear he wasn't going to be playing immediately so there wasn't time for many people to make the erroneous projection.

This board speculated that Gugliotta was kept on the active roster instead of Lampe because of a possible trade with the Jazz.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by F-Dog

Second, the Suns still have a budding elite player in Amare, as well as a potential #2 in Joe Johnson and an established #3/#4 in Shawn Marion. Even if they stand pat, the Suns are going to have a very good team, as soon as the young players get some experience, coaching and chemistry.

We may have another in Barbosa. He is obviously very raw, but he is learning fast. In 18.2 minutes per game, he is averaging 6.9 ppg on 45% shooting (40.3% for 3), 2.1 assists, and 1.1 steals.

I decided to compare Barbosa's numbers to those of Marbury as a rookie. Marbury played a lot more minutes 34.7 to only 18.2 which reflects the amount of time that Eisley plays; but if Barbosa did play that many minutes his numbers would be roughly comparable.

Marbury 96-97

15.8 ppg 40.% (35.4% for 3)
2.7 rpg
7.8 apg
1.0 steals per game
3.13 turnovers per game

Barbosa if he played the same number of minutes

13.3 ppg 45% shooting (40.3% for 3)
2.5 rpg
4 apg
2.1 steals per game
3.1 turnovers per game

The only place where Marbury had better numbers is on assists, but that reflects the fact that the Wolves that year had more veterans including Garnett, Googs (back when he was an all-star), Sam Mitchell, Terry Porter, and Doug West to pass to. Marbury had more points per minute because he shot more, but his average was far below what Barbosa does.

Don't get me wrong, Marbury was much more polished when he enter the league than Barbosa is. But I think Barbosa has just as much potential.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by elindholm
Except usually it's used sarcastically, but that's another story.

In that case, you're definitely the r00ler of this board Eric.

 

[elindholm]

In that case, you're definitely the r00ler of this board Eric.



I liked your list of summer strategies, by the way. Didn't get around to posting that before.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
In my terminology there are superstars, very good players (stars), solid starters, role players, and projects/marginals.

Ah, that's where we're different. Among other things, my list starts from the worst players and goes to the best. I have total scrubs, players who suck, okay players, good players, badasses, and r00lers.

No wonder we never agree.

Perhaps. What if

r00lers = superstars
badasses = stars
good players = solid starters
okay players = role players
players who suck = marginals
scrubs = projects

 

[elindholm]

Perhaps. What if

r00lers = superstars
badasses = stars
good players = solid starters
okay players = role players
players who suck = marginals
scrubs = projects

It was a joke. I don't believe that the categories for players are so sharply drawn. Whoever your worst superstar (or r00ler) is, he's not as good as Duncan or Garnett. So why put them in the same category?

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
Perhaps. What if

r00lers = superstars
badasses = stars
good players = solid starters
okay players = role players
players who suck = marginals
scrubs = projects

It was a joke. I don't believe that the categories for players are so sharply drawn. Whoever your worst superstar (or r00ler) is, he's not as good as Duncan or Garnett. So why put them in the same category?

What, you made a comment that wasn't serious. I'm shocked. shocked I say.

Sometimes I break out the "super elite" group from the superstars; it depends on the context. In practical terms, big man super stars are in a class of their own which is what made the Jordan Bulls so amazing.

I don't really care if someone is demoted to "star" or if "superstars" are broken into two groups - Marbury is a step below Kobe and T-Mac.

 

[elindholm]

Marbury is a step below Kobe and T-Mac.

Hey, I agree with you there!

I'd prefer Marbury to Vince Carter, however, even if I was convinced Carter would stay healthy.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by elindholm
Marbury is a step below Kobe and T-Mac.

Hey, I agree with you there!

I'd prefer Marbury to Vince Carter, however, even if I was convinced Carter would stay healthy.

What's funny is that basketball-wise, that is probably true, but Vince is definitely more marketable than Stephon Marbury.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
Marbury is a step below Kobe and T-Mac.

Hey, I agree with you there!

I'd prefer Marbury to Vince Carter, however, even if I was convinced Carter would stay healthy.

I'll have to take your word for it. Carter looked awfully good against the Suns, but then so did Cardinal who is unlikely to be on an all star team soon.

I will admit that I have a strong bias against scorers with poor shooting percentages (I don't like Iverson either). I like Marion in spite of his shooting, but he will never make the upper level if he can't shoot better.

Carter is only shooting 41.2% this season after shooting 44.9% for his career. His career 3 point shooting is 38.6%. Marbury has a career shooting percentage of 43.3% and career 3 point shooting of 31.9% - yet he still jacks up a lot threes. Carter gets more rebounds and Marbury more assists. It's probably a wash and depends on the rest of the team.

 

[elindholm]

Carter looked awfully good against the Suns

So did Marbury.

I will admit that I have a strong bias against scorers with poor shooting percentages

So do I, but 43-44% isn't "poor" for a guard who is his team's first option. (I agree that Marbury shoots too many threes, but a strong coach should be able to reign that in.) Since you are fond of numbers, let's look at some shooting percentages for big-name guards or swingmen:

Cassell .495
Stojakovic .481
D. Mason .476
A. Miller .469
Payton .466
Maggette .458
Kittles .456
Bibby .453
J. Richardson .450
R. Davis .448
Marbury .444
Nash .444
Houston .443
M. Miller .443
Finley .443
Hamilton .442
Redd .441
Allen .432
Terry .429
Bryant .423
McGrady .423
Artest .423
Sprewell .419
Carter .413
Jones .408
Ginobili .408
James .405
Pierce .405
Francis .403
Q. Richardson .402
Hughes .400
Kidd .396
Iverson .395
Crawford .391
B. Davis .386
Billups .383
J. Rose .382

So in fact, Marbury is quite high on the list. Furthermore, most of the players above him benefit from a star teammate who can attract more of the defense's attention (Cassell/Garnett, Mason/Redd, Payton/O'Neal, Maggette/Brand). So they are more likely to get easy looks.

Granted, there are some players who are clearly elite shooters (Stojakovic), and Marbury is not one of them. But to refer to him as a "poor" shooter, with "poor" implying "below average," is really not accurate.

And just think, if he didn't shoot so many ill-advised threes, his overall percentage would be even higher.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
Carter looked awfully good against the Suns

So did Marbury.

I will admit that I have a strong bias against scorers with poor shooting percentages

So do I, but 43-44% isn't "poor" for a guard who is his team's first option. (I agree that Marbury shoots too many threes, but a strong coach should be able to reign that in.) Since you are fond of numbers, let's look at some shooting percentages for big-name guards or swingmen:

Cassell .495
Stojakovic .481
D. Mason .476
A. Miller .469
Payton .466
Maggette .458
Kittles .456
Bibby .453
J. Richardson .450
R. Davis .448
Marbury .444
Nash .444
Houston .443
M. Miller .443
Finley .443
Hamilton .442
Redd .441
Allen .432
Terry .429
Bryant .423
McGrady .423
Artest .423
Sprewell .419
Carter .413
Jones .408
Ginobili .408
James .405
Pierce .405
Francis .403
Q. Richardson .402
Hughes .400
Kidd .396
Iverson .395
Crawford .391
B. Davis .386
Billups .383
J. Rose .382

So in fact, Marbury is quite high on the list. Furthermore, most of the players above him benefit from a star teammate who can attract more of the defense's attention (Cassell/Garnett, Mason/Redd, Payton/O'Neal, Maggette/Brand). So they are more likely to get easy looks.

Granted, there are some players who are clearly elite shooters (Stojakovic), and Marbury is not one of them. But to refer to him as a "poor" shooter, with "poor" implying "below average," is really not accurate.

And just think, if he didn't shoot so many ill-advised threes, his overall percentage would be even higher.

Shooting percentages are a bit deceiving. Marbury's stength is his ability to drive to the basket and he hits a very good percentage of those shots. But if you look at his outside shots, his percentage is very low as reflected by his career three point shooting. It is like deciding that White is great shooter because he only shoots layups.

Marbury is a lot like Marion in that he takes too many jumps shot even though he hits well below 40% of them. Marbury is very streaky on his outside shot, but he won't quit shooting them even when he is cold. Teams love to back off on him and dare him to shoot the 3 - and he bites far too often.

 

[elindholm]

Shooting percentages are a bit deceiving. Marbury's stength is his ability to drive to the basket and he hits a very good percentage of those shots. But if you look at his outside shots, his percentage is very low as reflected by his career three point shooting.

Come on. Every player does better shooting layups than outside jumpers. Marbury is a poor three-point shooter, but that isn't what you said. You said, "I have a strong bias against scorers with poor shooting percentages." The most important shooting percentage is the overall FG% -- after all, that determines whether the shot results in points or a miss. Now you're going to hold it against Marbury that he gets to shoot more layups than other point guards?

We don't have the data to establish how Marbury's accuracy from 18 feet compares to the field, but my impression is that he holds his own.

 

[cly2tw]

Marbury over Carter?
I'm glad to hear that, but does nobody never read my posts anymore?

George,

quite often you get me confused with your arguments. Now I know why: You use stats so often, but as often in an inconsistent way!

When you claim Marbury's mid jumper doesn't fall as well as Marion's, you clearly elect to ignore the fact that even the midrange jumpers by Steph were contested closely, while most jumpers Marion did were with no defenders within 10 feet. Actually, now in NY with better shooters around him, Steph got more less contested jumpers off teammates assists, check his stats there out! Most of your posts make a lot of sense, as long as you don't quote stats to get yourself deceived.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by cly2tw

When you claim Marbury's mid jumper doesn't fall as well as Marion's, you clearly elect to ignore the fact that even the midrange jumpers by Steph were contested closely, while most jumpers Marion did were with no defenders within 10 feet. Actually, now in NY with better shooters around him, Steph got more less contested jumpers off teammates assists, check his stats there out! Most of your posts make a lot of sense, as long as you don't quote stats to get yourself deceived.

I hope I did not imply that I think Marion's long jumper is really better than Marbury's. I keep insisting that D'Antoni should forbit him from shooting long jumpers entirely, although Marion's corner three's are a bit more consistent.

When he was with the Suns, Marbury did not shoot a lot of mid range jumpers, but he certainly threw up a lot of uncontested three's. When he was on, it was incredible, but usually it was worse than throwing the ball out of bounds.

I am not surprised that Marbury is doing better in New York. I predicted it on the day of the trade. His style is perfect for a team with a lot of "catch and shoot" shooters. Teams can't pack the paint. If he is getting uncontested mid range shots, then it is something he never got in Phoenix.

None the less, I think Marbury is pretty one dimensional and he never impressed me with his defense. He is a very good player and is quite good at crunch time. But his decision making on when to shoot and his inability to run the break make it very hard for me see him in the super elite level.

 

[cly2tw]

I know I advise against using stats.. But regarding Marbury's defense, I recall someone on the board did show stats of last season proving that Marbs had superior offensive AND defensive against all the top PGs from Kidd, Payton, to Francis, Nash, but Baron Davis. And he absolutely owned Parker. If not for his shoulder injury in game 3 (or 4?), we might have a good chance of beating the Spurs since Parker turned his game on right from game 4 on. One-dimentional or not, the most important thing is whether the player could create space (4 dimentions) for his team to get high percentage shots. Steph is among the 10 best at that in NBA. It's definitely not the same one-dimentionality like Marion.

BTW, one problem that the Suns wouldn't have gone very far in the playoffs was their scrambling defense and their playing their best players Steph and Marion way to much in the regular season. It had to take a toll on their body! I think when Houston come back soon, so that they could rest Steph even more. They have a very good chance of advancing far in the playoffs, if they gets the #7 seat and meets the Nets in the first round.

Oh, I guess you also checked Steph's 3pt-shot %. Maybe you would be convinced now that how the offensive plays flow also affects the % of those 'uncontested' 3pt attempts.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by cly2tw
I know I advise against using stats.. But regarding Marbury's defense, I recall someone on the board did show stats of last season proving that Marbs had superior offensive AND defensive against all the top PGs from Kidd, Payton, to Francis, Nash, but Baron Davis. And he absolutely owned Parker. If not for his shoulder injury in game 3 (or 4?), we might have a good chance of beating the Spurs since Parker turned his game on right from game 4 on.

I did not watch as many games last season as I have this season. This year it seemed like Marbury's guy got into the paint an awful lot early this season. BTW, I agree completely that Marbury owned Parker, but in addition to Stephon's injury the Spurs changed their defense.

Early this season I got very disgusted by the way that Marbury would kill 10-12 seconds dribbling around trying to get around the double teams, rather than recognizing the defensive scheme and PASSING THE BALL. With the Suns at least, Marbury got almost all his assists after penitration. If you kept him from penitrating, you stopped him and all he would do is throw up three.

One-dimentional or not, the most important thing is whether the player could create space (4 dimentions) for his team to get high percentage shots. Steph is among the 10 best at that in NBA. It's definitely not the same one-dimentionality like Marion.

I have never claimed Marion is an elite player and have been on record as saying he is overpaid. As for creating "high pecentage shots", Stephon creates jumps shots for his teammates. On the Suns that is not a high percentage shot, yet he never adjusted his style.

BTW, one problem that the Suns wouldn't have gone very far in the playoffs was their scrambling defense and their playing their best players Steph and Marion way to much in the regular season. It had to take a toll on their body! I think when Houston come back soon, so that they could rest Steph even more. They have a very good chance of advancing far in the playoffs, if they gets the #7 seat and meets the Nets in the first round.

I couldn't agree more about the scramble defense and the minutes. I think one reason JJ's numbers have down lately is that he is playing too many minutes.

As for the Knicks, I have only seen the game that they played the Suns when Van Horn couldn't miss.

Oh, I guess you also checked Steph's 3pt-shot %. Maybe you would be convinced now that how the offensive plays flow also affects the % of those 'uncontested' 3pt attempts.

I've always said that if Marbury's long range shooting is "on" he is impossible to stop. If he is off, he will shoot his team out of the game because he will keep shooting. His career three point shooting suggests he is "off" a lot more than he is on, even though he will go through periods when his outside shot is going in.