Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman
^^Really?
Captain_Caveman wrote:Probably couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted him the C and the A.
GuyClinch wrote:^^^ KGs little stick up for Steph speech likely helped things. KG never struck me as a really smart guy but that seemed pretty intelligent..
Rocky5000 wrote:overpaid and unfairly expected to carry teams. When these borderline star players get the opportunity to play as a second or third option, there talent really shines through. I think we've seen similar things with the Big 3. Although they were all individually better players than Marbury, they were expected to lead teams on their own surrounded by weak/incompatible casts. Steph shouldn't have ever been called on to be 'Starbury', just a teammate.
I really don't know where that idea comes from Pete. To me Kevin Garnett seems like one of the most intelligent players in the league
GuyClinch wrote:^^^ I am sure Steph wanted help. Paul Pierce heard the same thing. It's a no win situation for a star. You try to step up and lead - but your team loses and your "selfish' and you didn't want any talent anyway right?
Steph never had the kind of players he needed for his game surrounding him - and was short in talent on most of those teams as it is. The New York hype machine would never admit that and instead scapegoated Steph. For whatever reason (and long time board readers KNOW this is true) if your on a losing team and your the only star its that STARS fault. It's never the fault of the sub-par (often young) talent your surrounded with. Remember how Gerald Green was "held back" by Pierce? I do.
In a way its a tough gig the NBA. In business you can make changes to help your own career and while free agency gives you some outlet you are much more likely to be the victim of circumstances. Had DA never arrived PP would have gone down as selfish scorer. On the flip side of things you get paid a ton.. so of course its not all bad..
As a sidenote if I am an NBA guy I want stock options not purely salary with Obama likely to crank up those top tax brackets but I digress..
GreenDreamer wrote:GuyClinch wrote:^^^ I am sure Steph wanted help. Paul Pierce heard the same thing. It's a no win situation for a star. You try to step up and lead - but your team loses and your "selfish' and you didn't want any talent anyway right?
Steph never had the kind of players he needed for his game surrounding him - and was short in talent on most of those teams as it is. The New York hype machine would never admit that and instead scapegoated Steph. For whatever reason (and long time board readers KNOW this is true) if your on a losing team and your the only star its that STARS fault. It's never the fault of the sub-par (often young) talent your surrounded with. Remember how Gerald Green was "held back" by Pierce? I do.
In a way its a tough gig the NBA. In business you can make changes to help your own career and while free agency gives you some outlet you are much more likely to be the victim of circumstances. Had DA never arrived PP would have gone down as selfish scorer. On the flip side of things you get paid a ton.. so of course its not all bad..
As a sidenote if I am an NBA guy I want stock options not purely salary with Obama likely to crank up those top tax brackets but I digress..
Steph got the rep that he deserved for being the person that he has been most of his life. First off, he is crazy. I'm a person who actually has some insight into mental illness. not a professional or anything, but I also don't get confused between somebody being "stupid" and somebody being "deranged". Steph is the latter. Believe or not, when a person is struggling with a mental illness, they usually don't know it. They can barrell along, wreaking havoc, and not actually understand why things are going bad. They aren't doing it "on purpose", they are just in a very bad place.
Just look at his track record, or browse youtube for the MANY clips demonstarting this dude's instability. He lives in the Starbury Galaxy, not on planet Earth. He needs, and is probably actively receiving now, serious professional guidance, and probably appropriate medications. His behavior has been destructive both to himself and those around him. Talented? Sure... but crazy as hell to go along with that. Saying that he was just "misunderstood" is a load of BS.
In addition to that, and most likely greatly impacted by it, his game has largely been "the way Steph wants to play". Is he intelligent? Maybe, but he hasn't played intelligently for the vast majority of his career. That is why he is already on team #5. If he actually helped his teams win, then the organizations would probably put up with his antics. He doesn't, so they don't. Having talent is NOT the same thing as being an effective player. If this guy had maximized his ability, with the skills nd physical tools that he had, then he could have been a perrenial All-Star and played for some very good teams.
It is a MYTH that this guy never had talent around him. Hell, he could have played his career with K.G. Did he WANT to? Nope. Did you ever ask yourself why? Did it ever occur that this dude didn't appreciate the talent that he had around him, and didn't know how to maximize the talents of other players? Personally I found it especially damning that Phoenix disintergrated with him on the team, while the Nets exploded after the trade for Kidd. now there was a REAL point guard. One who actually knew how to make those around him better, instead of playing any which way that he liked to. D'Antoni wanted nothing to do with him, and there's a guy who actually understands that position extremely well. Hell, people are now saying that Nash owes his MVPs to Mike. How often does that get said about any coach?
i'm sure that Marbury has suffered some unjust things... but so have plenty of other top players. He has problems with his head and with his game. That is why he is where he is now. Organization #5, and he is finally trying to control himself... at least for now. I like him as a backup, but I don't like his game at all. He reminds me too much of Iverson - a guy with a ton of talent, who doesn't really understand what goes into making a good team.
By the way, I'm not sure if it was you, or maybe somebody else called me out about not liking Iverson, yet claiming that he carried a team of nobodies on his back to the Finals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only did that team have some excellent role players in mckie (who wa outstanding that season), Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill (a former All-Star himself), but they had a prime Dikembe Mutumbo who was AWESOME in those playoffs. 13.9 points per game, 13.7 rebounds and over 3 blocks per game. He had some borderline 20/20 games in CRUCIAL contests... some of them when iverson was AWFUL.... and A.I. was truly god-awful in some of those games. You don't shoot .389 in the playoffs (hard to wrap your mind around that, really), having some of the great scoring games that he did, unless you suck out loud in many others. i'm talking 5-26 bad.... which he did. No Mutumbo, and that team goes nowhere.
By the way, I'm not sure if it was you, or maybe somebody else called me out about not liking Iverson, yet claiming that he carried a team of nobodies on his back to the Finals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only did that team have some excellent role players in mckie (who wa outstanding that season), Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill (a former All-Star himself), but they had a prime Dikembe Mutumbo who was AWESOME in those playoffs
In addition to that, and most likely greatly impacted by it, his game has largely been "the way Steph wants to play". Is he intelligent? Maybe, but he hasn't played intelligently for the vast majority of his career. That is why he is already on team #5. If he actually helped his teams win, then the organizations would probably put up with his antics. He doesn't, so they don't. Having talent is NOT the same thing as being an effective player. If this guy had maximized his ability, with the skills nd physical tools that he had, then he could have been a perrenial All-Star and played for some very good teams.
D'Antoni wanted nothing to do with him, and there's a guy who actually understands that position extremely well. Hell, people are now saying that Nash owes his MVPs to Mike. How often does that get said about any coach?
GuyClinch wrote:By the way, I'm not sure if it was you, or maybe somebody else called me out about not liking Iverson, yet claiming that he carried a team of nobodies on his back to the Finals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only did that team have some excellent role players in mckie (who wa outstanding that season), Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill (a former All-Star himself), but they had a prime Dikembe Mutumbo who was AWESOME in those playoffs
Yeah I am still calling you out. You could make that kind of case about ANY NBA team. It's not like those guys are mutiple all-stars. PP in the OB era played with that "all-star" Antione Walker and that "all-star" Kenny Anderson. How can you say he never played with any talent and carried that team to the ECF?! <g>
For a finals team that's one of the weakest rosters in the last 20 years - if not the weakest. The weakest ever was probably Hakeem's team (outside of hakeem of course).In addition to that, and most likely greatly impacted by it, his game has largely been "the way Steph wants to play". Is he intelligent? Maybe, but he hasn't played intelligently for the vast majority of his career. That is why he is already on team #5. If he actually helped his teams win, then the organizations would probably put up with his antics. He doesn't, so they don't. Having talent is NOT the same thing as being an effective player. If this guy had maximized his ability, with the skills nd physical tools that he had, then he could have been a perrenial All-Star and played for some very good teams.
This is just a stupid rant. He hasn't played "intelligently" - you claim to be so 'scientific" about things but I have yet to see you quantify that.. What's so unintelligent about being one of the best guards in the league for many years according to Kevin Garnett? <g>D'Antoni wanted nothing to do with him, and there's a guy who actually understands that position extremely well. Hell, people are now saying that Nash owes his MVPs to Mike. How often does that get said about any coach?
Oh yeah good point. I guess Doc Rivers knows nothing about being an NBA PG right? And BTW 'people are saying' really isn't the strongest argument. People are saying your an .....
I live in NYC and have watched Steph play many times. Clearly he was the best player on his team for mutiple years. While a good talent - he wasn't Lebron James and couldn't handle that kind of pressure.
He should be a nice plus for us in the playoffs. Let go of your hate. Its not THAT much different then the situation PP was in. Should we start calling him "crazy" for his bandage incident? People probably would be if he was just released and latched onto the Spurs for a championship run..
Pete
vct33 wrote:DorfonCeltics wrote:I think a good percentage of defense in the NBA is a desire to play hard.
Absolutely. I've always said that any good athlete can play D if they commit to it. I was never considered a strong defender because I used all my energy on offense. However, one time I was asked to play a Box & 1 on a very good point guard and I just decided that day that I was gonna shut him down. I held him to 4 points because I made the decision to commit to D that day.
First off, it was an extremely weak conference in that year. The same basic team got bounced out in the first round by our beloved Celtics the very next season. In fact, they might have actually been a little better that year than in their Finals season. That being said, the idea that Iverson carried them is BS. He took a ridiculous number of shots, hitting at a terrible percentage, and played his usual defense.
GreenDreamer wrote:GuyClinch wrote:By the way, I'm not sure if it was you, or maybe somebody else called me out about not liking Iverson, yet claiming that he carried a team of nobodies on his back to the Finals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only did that team have some excellent role players in mckie (who wa outstanding that season), Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill (a former All-Star himself), but they had a prime Dikembe Mutumbo who was AWESOME in those playoffs
Yeah I am still calling you out. You could make that kind of case about ANY NBA team. It's not like those guys are mutiple all-stars. PP in the OB era played with that "all-star" Antione Walker and that "all-star" Kenny Anderson. How can you say he never played with any talent and carried that team to the ECF?! <g>
For a finals team that's one of the weakest rosters in the last 20 years - if not the weakest. The weakest ever was probably Hakeem's team (outside of hakeem of course).In addition to that, and most likely greatly impacted by it, his game has largely been "the way Steph wants to play". Is he intelligent? Maybe, but he hasn't played intelligently for the vast majority of his career. That is why he is already on team #5. If he actually helped his teams win, then the organizations would probably put up with his antics. He doesn't, so they don't. Having talent is NOT the same thing as being an effective player. If this guy had maximized his ability, with the skills nd physical tools that he had, then he could have been a perrenial All-Star and played for some very good teams.
This is just a stupid rant. He hasn't played "intelligently" - you claim to be so 'scientific" about things but I have yet to see you quantify that.. What's so unintelligent about being one of the best guards in the league for many years according to Kevin Garnett? <g>D'Antoni wanted nothing to do with him, and there's a guy who actually understands that position extremely well. Hell, people are now saying that Nash owes his MVPs to Mike. How often does that get said about any coach?
Oh yeah good point. I guess Doc Rivers knows nothing about being an NBA PG right? And BTW 'people are saying' really isn't the strongest argument. People are saying your an .....
I live in NYC and have watched Steph play many times. Clearly he was the best player on his team for mutiple years. While a good talent - he wasn't Lebron James and couldn't handle that kind of pressure.
He should be a nice plus for us in the playoffs. Let go of your hate. Its not THAT much different then the situation PP was in. Should we start calling him "crazy" for his bandage incident? People probably would be if he was just released and latched onto the Spurs for a championship run..
Pete
First off, it was an extremely weak conference in that year. The same basic team got bounced out in the first round by our beloved Celtics the very next season. In fact, they might have actually been a little better that year than in their Finals season. That being said, the idea that Iverson carried them is BS. He took a ridiculous number of shots, hitting at a terrible percentage, and played his usual defense. They were a defensively oriented team, who had the reigning DPOY, a guy who won that award four times, as their hub. Very much like K.G. did for us last season. Iverson had his moments, but it was Mutumbo who anchored that team and played at a consistently high level throughout the playoffs. Their role players were also very good defenders. Kind of funny, a team wins with its D., and as the league's dominant defensive big man... but it is the little chucker who is "carrying them". Pleasant fiction.
I didn't say anything about Pierce and the 01-02 Celts. Not a thing. Nice strawman, or maybe you are just prone to confusion. The Conference was pretty weask that season as well.
Scientifically? When I post stats, you don't want to see them. Don't like that stuff too much. Here's the guy's player page.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ust01.html
A long string of losing teams putting up "big numbers", but were they "efficient numbers"? Career offensive rating? 109. Career defensive rating? 110. Hmmmm. that isn't good. That means that his defensive presence was actually a bigger drag than his offense was a plus. To put that into context, Pierce only had ONE season in which his defensive rating was worse than hos offensive rating, and he was playing through multiple injuries throughout that year. His career ratings are 109 offensive and 102 defensive. Was Paul playing for great teams all along, or was he just a much, much better player? How about KG, playing with the mighty Timberwolves? 111 and 99. Ray Allen? 114 and 109. Let's look at other point guards. Kidd? 106 and 102. Nash? 118 and 110. Andre Miller? 110 and 107. Chris Paul? 120 and 104!!! Deron Williams? 112 and 110. Rajon Rondo.... 107 and 100.
It is pretty important to put more on the table than you take off of it to be good, don't you think? Mubury has talent? That's nice. really, wonderful. Has he ever shown the ability to effectively utilize that talent? Nope. His teams have been losers in large part because he has played a losing brand of basketball. Stupid, selfish basketball. A "scoring guard" who shot wayyy too much. Far beyond what his efficiency numbers would show to be prudent, and who dribbled the ball into the ground looking for assists instead of running a proper offense. A stat stuffing zero who played no defense, and who didn't really care. Now he's supposed to get respect? Give me a break. If he behaves himself, which is not a guarantee, he can only hope to partially redeeem himself.
You watched him? Is that supposed to impress me? Your keen eye for the game observed this disaster and approved of him? These are marks against you, not for you. I'll give Marbury his first full season in NYK. He actually put forth some effort there. The rest? Inefficient garbage. A guy who people watched and remembered individual plays of, instead of his thoroughly rotten overall game. A near total waste of talent. He could have been great. He wasn't. Not even good.
Paul may have made an ass out of himself from time to time, but he gave a damn out there. I still remember him coming back into the Phoenix game when Amare drove him face first into the floor, even though the game was already well out of reach. Paul tried his best out there, and developed his game. He actually cared about winning and the welfare of his team. Do not ever compare Stephon to Paul.
GuyClinch wrote:First off, it was an extremely weak conference in that year. The same basic team got bounced out in the first round by our beloved Celtics the very next season. In fact, they might have actually been a little better that year than in their Finals season. That being said, the idea that Iverson carried them is BS. He took a ridiculous number of shots, hitting at a terrible percentage, and played his usual defense.
No not really. What you don't seem to understand is that basketball is a team sport. Efficency for the individual player is not everything in a team concept. That team was designed around Allen Iversons game. Yes Allen Iverson is not an "efficent" player - that is true. However INDIVIDUAL efficency is not the goal of your team.
It's TEAM efficency that matters. That team was efficent enough to get the finals. It featured ALOT OF VERY VERY BAD offensive players. Your beloved Mutumbo was one of them. So was Tyrone Hill. So what Larry Brown did is let AI take all the shots he wanted. He HAD to that.
Every team has players that MIGHT BE EFFICENT but they cannot create many shots. Basically all the shots they take are gimmees. Whereas a player like AI might not be perfectly efficent but using his speed and athleticism - he can get ALOT of decent shots (as well as get to the line a ton).
Thus overall team efficency can be respectable. Essentially your stars take all the difficult shots in a game and your roleplayers take all the easy shots they can get. The Sixers were an extreme example of this as most teams have two or three guys that are shot creators. Whereas Philly had one.
Without an incredibly gifted shot creator like Allen Iverson that scheme would have never worked. Teams would just overplay the one creator. But AI was able to score a great many points - and still get his guys some of the easier shots (usually dunks) that they could actually make.
Its pretty easy to see this. For example Perkins shoots almost 60% from the field. He is extremely EFFICENT. If it was all about efficency Perkins would be a SUPERSTAR. However in truth that efficency would fall to almost tragic numbers if he tried to take 40 shots from the field like an AI would.
This is what makes a star a star in the league. Its not being a super efficent player. Roleplayers are almost always vastly more efficent then stars. Its being able to take a large volume of shots and remain at an effective efficency thats important.
Back in AI's heyday (2000-2001) he managed a true shot percentage (something the factors in free throws - a statistic you conviently ignore) of 52%. That's pretty good when you lead the league in scoring.
This enables his incredibly untalented (on the offensive side of the ball) teamates to succeed with that team. The AI team is a very interesting one because in my view it seperates the statistical pretenders from the people who understand a little bit about NBA ball.
The fact that you think AI is so terrible and Ainge thought he was pretty good is just a sign that Ainge understands alot more about basketball then you do.
Where AI is failing now though is in doing what Pierce was able to do. its going from a guy who HAD to take alot of shots (and thus become somewhat inefficent) to a guy that has more options and should be more selective in his shot selection. Ainge likely felt he could have convinced AInge of this..
But your quite foolish if you think for that team AI was not carrying it. Of course he was.. If they had to rely on Tyrone Hill and Mutumbo to score 20+ points a game they would have been in serious trouble and that team would have been a disaster.
This really isn't that insightful. When I play pickup ball I am always an "efficent" scorer. I take layups. I take gimmee open shots. But I defer to more talent buddies when those shots are not available. It's exactly the same in the pros.
Where you think guys like Marbury and AI are 'stupid' or 'selfish" (not to say they can't be) I see guys that felt they were the best scoring option for their team when the opposing teams defense had not broken down..
GreenDreamer wrote:I'm interested to see what Marbury does when we actually play the good point guards and the best teams. How will he look out there if Rondo has to sit out a few games to get right, which is something I'd actually like to see. With other teams game planning for him. Having to defend that pick and roll 50 -60 times as Rondo often does. At any rate, having a two point guards is certainly better than one. At least we are able to play a more consistent brand of offensive basketball.
Kobe>Jordan>God wrote:I'm starting to suspect that Rivers isn't even a real doctor.
No not really. What you don't seem to understand is that basketball is a team sport. Efficency for the individual player is not everything in a team concept. That team was designed around Allen Iversons game. Yes Allen Iverson is not an "efficent" player - that is true. However INDIVIDUAL efficency is not the goal of your team.
It's TEAM efficency that matters. That team was efficent enough to get the finals. It featured ALOT OF VERY VERY BAD offensive players. Your beloved Mutumbo was one of them. So was Tyrone Hill. So what Larry Brown did is let AI take all the shots he wanted. He HAD to that.
Every team has players that MIGHT BE EFFICENT but they cannot create many shots. Basically all the shots they take are gimmees. Whereas a player like AI might not be perfectly efficent but using his speed and athleticism - he can get ALOT of decent shots (as well as get to the line a ton).
Thus overall team efficency can be respectable. Essentially your stars take all the difficult shots in a game and your roleplayers take all the easy shots they can get. The Sixers were an extreme example of this as most teams have two or three guys that are shot creators. Whereas Philly had one.
Without an incredibly gifted shot creator like Allen Iverson that scheme would have never worked. Teams would just overplay the one creator. But AI was able to score a great many points - and still get his guys some of the easier shots (usually dunks) that they could actually make.
Its pretty easy to see this. For example Perkins shoots almost 60% from the field. He is extremely EFFICENT. If it was all about efficency Perkins would be a SUPERSTAR. However in truth that efficency would fall to almost tragic numbers if he tried to take 40 shots from the field like an AI would.
This is what makes a star a star in the league. Its not being a super efficent player. Roleplayers are almost always vastly more efficent then stars. Its being able to take a large volume of shots and remain at an effective efficency thats important.
Back in AI's heyday (2000-2001) he managed a true shot percentage (something the factors in free throws - a statistic you conviently ignore) of 52%. That's pretty good when you lead the league in scoring.
This enables his incredibly untalented (on the offensive side of the ball) teamates to succeed with that team. The AI team is a very interesting one because in my view it seperates the statistical pretenders from the people who understand a little bit about NBA ball.
Where AI is failing now though is in doing what Pierce was able to do. its going from a guy who HAD to take alot of shots (and thus become somewhat inefficent) to a guy that has more options and should be more selective in his shot selection. Ainge likely felt he could have convinced AInge of this..
But your quite foolish if you think for that team AI was not carrying it. Of course he was.. If they had to rely on Tyrone Hill and Mutumbo to score 20+ points a game they would have been in serious trouble and that team would have been a disaster.
This really isn't that insightful. When I play pickup ball I am always an "efficent" scorer. I take layups. I take gimmee open shots. But I defer to more talent buddies when those shots are not available. It's exactly the same in the pros.
