Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Nets trades: Why (again)?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Hekel
    Wo, let s do some clarification here. I never said the difference between Marbury and Kidd is not much. Marbury is not in the same category of Kidd. Kidd is
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 2, 2001
      Wo, let's do some clarification here. I never said the
      difference between Marbury and Kidd is not much.
      Marbury is not in the same category of Kidd. Kidd is
      easily twice the player that Marbury could ever hope
      to be. He is a gunner, not a real point guard, and a
      cancer in the locker room. This deal was a steal for
      the Nets. Jim Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.

      --- harlanzo@... wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > I'm confused about your concerns with these deals.
      > New
      > > Jersey has made themselves 100 percent improved.
      > Kidd
      > > over Marbury, if that's the deal, is a no-brainer.
      > > Kidd is a better player, all-around, and is not a
      > > cancer in the locker room. He will make the Nets
      > much
      > > better. The three lower first-round picks may seem
      > > like a steal by the end of the year. Give it a
      > chance.
      > > Eddie Griffin, I'm told is soft and doesn't like
      > to
      > > work. He's been compared to Coleman, loads of
      > talent,
      > > but little desire. Jim Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.
      >
      > Let me start over with a little more specific
      > complaints. You are
      > correct that the difference between Kidd and Marbury
      > (no matter which
      > player you think is bettter) is not much. Griffin
      > is also something
      > of a personality risk.
      >
      > The 2000-01 Nets had a myriad of problems. The
      > could not score and
      > hand no inside post presence, especially on defense.
      > Given these
      > needs, the team had to make some changes. However,
      > the changes are
      > not the ones I would have made. Let's first take
      > the Griffin trade.
      > I have no problem trading Griffin. However, the
      > trade did not
      > maximize, at all, the value of the pick. The Nets
      > picked up
      > Jefferson (probably a pretty good player) and
      > Collins and B.
      > Armstrong. The Nets, by their own admission, had
      > Collins pegged as a
      > second round pick and Armstrong is projected as a
      > backup guard.
      > These are things that could be picked for basically
      > nothing. Thus
      > the trade turned into the seventh pick for the 13th
      > (i think) and a
      > couple of picks that could've been gotten for future
      > secound rounders
      > or a player like Jamie Feick. In fact, most teams
      > with multiple
      > first round picks are willing to give up the late
      > ones for very
      > little because the percentage chance of the player
      > being an impact
      > player is low and the salary cap implications can
      > make the fringe
      > player more effort than is worth for the team to
      > keep. Thus, I would
      > submit that Griffin, if you want to trade him,
      > could've fetched more
      > value (ie an established inside banger and/or a
      > shooter).
      >
      > As for the Kidd/Marbury debate, I prefer Marbury.
      > Let's state both
      > of their strengths and weaknesses. First Marbury.
      > Marbury is a bit
      > surly with teammates, he tends to be a shoot-first
      > point guard, and
      > he voiced some unhappiness about being on a losing
      > team. Marbury is
      > a bit ornery but not in the Derrick Coleman or Gary
      > Payton way where
      > he can tear a team apart. Rather, he seemed a bit
      > annoyed that guys
      > like Mcilvaine sucked and that Van Horn was passive.
      > This is not a
      > good thing but it is a little bit overblown. The
      > shoot-first
      > criticism is also overblown. Yeah marbury is a bit
      > of a hog. But I
      > would remind you that (1) most great players are,
      > and (2) who the
      > heck can you pass to when you have Eschmeyer and
      > Lucious Harris on
      > the wing. On Marbury's plus side is his exlposive
      > scoring and he has
      > made some players better (look at Dean
      > GArrett/cherokee parks stats
      > with marbury and without him). Also, Marbury is
      > only 24 years old.
      > Conventional wisdom tells us that players improve
      > until 27 0r 28 and
      > then decline. This could tell us that the best,
      > with Marbury, is yet
      > to come. This is the type of player the Nets need.
      > One with high
      > upside who can be identified with the nets and could
      > be in a position
      > to help the next good nets team.
      >
      > Kidd is a great player. He is the best passer since
      > Magic and
      > possibly the second or third best passer since 1984
      > (I give this year
      > because it was when my basketball cognizance first
      > began). He
      > definitely makes his teammates better and he seems
      > like an ok guy
      > from his teammates perspective (even though he has
      > had some problems
      > off the court). Kidd probably might be more helpful
      > to a good team
      > right now than Marbury would. However, the Nets
      > will not be a good
      > team right now. They still can't board, score or
      > defend in the post,
      > or shoot. Kidd will not make Lucious Harris or
      > Eschmeyer appreciably
      > better than they are right now. Also Kidd is 28
      > years old. This is
      > not ancient but the Nets are a work in progress and
      > they need to have
      > a marquee player to lead the team 2 or 3 years from
      > now. Yeah Kidd
      > will still be great then but he probably won't be
      > better than he is
      > right now and Marbury probably will.
      >
      > I think the Nets best move would have been to trade
      > Van Horn for a
      > complementary player (I would've liked Shareef but
      > would have
      > accepted the package like the Jazz were offering)
      > and seen if Rodney
      > White wsa my power forward of the future. The
      > upside of a future
      > with a young Marbury and White and some players to
      > replace Van Hron
      > (who I like) with some good role players a la
      > Oakley/Bryon
      > Russell/etc. would've benefitted the Nets more in
      > the long run.
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
    • harlanzo@yahoo.com
      ... I never said that you thought the difference between Kidd and Marbury is very little. I meant that any form of objective analysis would yield the two
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 3, 2001
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...> wrote:
        > Wo, let's do some clarification here. I never said the
        > difference between Marbury and Kidd is not much.
        > Marbury is not in the same category of Kidd. Kidd is
        > easily twice the player that Marbury could ever hope
        > to be. He is a gunner, not a real point guard, and a
        > cancer in the locker room. This deal was a steal for
        > the Nets. Jim Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.

        I never said that you thought the difference between Kidd and Marbury
        is very little. I meant that any form of objective analysis would
        yield the two players being very equal (in fact some favor MArbury).
        Given the fact that the two players are so close in value right now
        and the Nets will not likely win much in the near future it is better
        for the Nets to take the player with the higher upside. Kidd is
        already 28 and he most likely reached his peak while Marbury is only
        24 and his growth curve as a player would probably go up. (Indeed,
        look how much Kidd has improve since he was 24. In 1997-98, when he
        was 24, Kidd scored 11.6 ppg with 9.1 apg on 42% shooting.) Thus, if
        the Nets actually accrue depth over the next couple of years they are
        in a better position to captalize on it with Marbury who will almost
        certainly be better than Kidd 2 or 3 years from now.

        I understand the preference for a pure point guard like Kidd is. In
        fact he is the second or third best passer I have ever seen (I go
        back to 84). However, disdain for scoring point guards is not always
        fair as we can see that other score-first point guards (ie KJ,
        PAyton, Tim Hardaway) have led very good teams in the past. So,
        while your Kidd preference is certainly reasonbale, I think the Nets
        are better with MArbury.
      • Jim Hekel
        You re entitled to your opinion, but I think most NBA insiders are scratching their head on this one. If the Suns were so intent on trading the best point
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 4, 2001
          You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most NBA
          insiders are scratching their head on this one. If the
          Suns were so intent on trading the best point guard in
          the game, you would think they could get more than
          Marbury. This deal only makes sense if Phoenix also
          gets Van Horn or Kenyon Martin, or better yet, both.
          Marbury is a good example of a guy who's box score
          looks great, but it doesn't give a full picture of his
          value, or lack of the same. That's my opinion. Jim
          Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.

          --- harlanzo@... wrote:
          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > Wo, let's do some clarification here. I never said
          > the
          > > difference between Marbury and Kidd is not much.
          > > Marbury is not in the same category of Kidd. Kidd
          > is
          > > easily twice the player that Marbury could ever
          > hope
          > > to be. He is a gunner, not a real point guard, and
          > a
          > > cancer in the locker room. This deal was a steal
          > for
          > > the Nets. Jim Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.
          >
          > I never said that you thought the difference between
          > Kidd and Marbury
          > is very little. I meant that any form of objective
          > analysis would
          > yield the two players being very equal (in fact some
          > favor MArbury).
          > Given the fact that the two players are so close in
          > value right now
          > and the Nets will not likely win much in the near
          > future it is better
          > for the Nets to take the player with the higher
          > upside. Kidd is
          > already 28 and he most likely reached his peak while
          > Marbury is only
          > 24 and his growth curve as a player would probably
          > go up. (Indeed,
          > look how much Kidd has improve since he was 24. In
          > 1997-98, when he
          > was 24, Kidd scored 11.6 ppg with 9.1 apg on 42%
          > shooting.) Thus, if
          > the Nets actually accrue depth over the next couple
          > of years they are
          > in a better position to captalize on it with Marbury
          > who will almost
          > certainly be better than Kidd 2 or 3 years from now.
          >
          > I understand the preference for a pure point guard
          > like Kidd is. In
          > fact he is the second or third best passer I have
          > ever seen (I go
          > back to 84). However, disdain for scoring point
          > guards is not always
          > fair as we can see that other score-first point
          > guards (ie KJ,
          > PAyton, Tim Hardaway) have led very good teams in
          > the past. So,
          > while your Kidd preference is certainly reasonbale,
          > I think the Nets
          > are better with MArbury.
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
          http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
        • Al Hoffman
          ... Don t forget Isiah Thomas. He was also a scoring point early in his career. As Detroit s arc progressed and others emerged (Dantley, Dumars, etc...), his
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 4, 2001
            harlanzo@... wrote:
            >
            > I understand the preference for a pure point guard like Kidd is. In
            > fact he is the second or third best passer I have ever seen (I go
            > back to 84). However, disdain for scoring point guards is not always
            > fair as we can see that other score-first point guards (ie KJ,
            > PAyton, Tim Hardaway) have led very good teams in the past.

            Don't forget Isiah Thomas. He was also a scoring point early in his career.
            As Detroit's arc progressed and others emerged (Dantley, Dumars, etc...),
            his scoring curtailed. In fact, there is an anecdote in, IIRC, "The
            Franchise" by Cameron Stauth about Thomas being royally teed off after a
            playoff win over Chicago. Thomas had scored 40 points or so in a close win
            & Thomas said something like "if I have to score like this then we'll never
            win a championship." But Isiah is, to me, the prototype of a scoring PG
            who changed his game to win a title. Can Marbury do the same if his team
            gets closer to that level?

            Al
          • Dean Oliver
            ... Not being an NBA Insider, but knowing a few people, I can say that the league is pretty split on the trade. Statistically, fans are definitely split, as
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 4, 2001
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...> wrote:
              > You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most NBA
              > insiders are scratching their head on this one. If the
              > Suns were so intent on trading the best point guard in
              > the game, you would think they could get more than
              > Marbury. This deal only makes sense if Phoenix also
              > gets Van Horn or Kenyon Martin, or better yet, both.
              > Marbury is a good example of a guy who's box score
              > looks great, but it doesn't give a full picture of his
              > value, or lack of the same. That's my opinion. Jim
              > Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.

              Not being an NBA Insider, but knowing a few people, I can say that
              the league is pretty split on the trade. Statistically, fans are
              definitely split, as I've seen polls on websites with a lot 51-49%
              votes. That implies that the Suns could not have gotten more for
              Kidd.

              Some numbers from 2001:

              . Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points Game-by-Game
              Player Poss. . Pct. . Prod. Win% Win Loss
              Marbury 760 1507 0.505 108.7 1639 0.552 37 30
              Kidd 711 1484 0.479 102.1 1516 0.623 48 29

              . Def Stops Def. Net Net Net
              Player Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
              Marbury 399 0.156 0.404 107.2 0.557 7.5 6.0
              Kidd 654 0.213 0.541 95.5 0.753 11.0 3.6

              Net Pts/48M
              v1 v2
              Marbury 0.4 10.9
              Kidd 1.6 5.7

              Marbury is the better offensive player right now (not in or before
              '99). Kidd is the better defensive player. Marbury is a more
              volatile player, less predictable (hence the discrepancy between my
              two versions of Net Points per 48 minutes).

              Kidd has always had a better defensive rating than Marbury. Kidd is
              part of the reason the Suns were a very good defensive team this
              year. Other reasons were Coach Skiles and Shawn Marion. Since both
              of those guys are still there (so far), the Suns should again be
              pretty good defensively. That will make Marbury's offense much more
              valuable. I think the concern is that the Suns' offense was pretty
              weak even with Kidd -- will it get worse with Marbury trying to take
              people one-on-one?

              New Jersey does have some potential weapons for Kidd to go to, but no
              one who could really be a star. The new draftees/tradees may work
              out ok. Kidd has been known to breathe life into forwards who run
              the floor -- McDyess and Marion are good examples -- so maybe he'll
              do it with Jason Collins. Maybe he'll do it with Van Horn, but I
              have my doubts about that guy. If NJ can form a defense around Kidd,
              Van Horn, Collins, and SOMEONE (NJ is a frustrating franchise), they
              can get up to 30-35 wins next year. As much as I like Byron Scott,
              I'm not convinced that he can form that good D.

              I look at the trade as pretty close to a wash. My initial reaction
              was that the Nets won out slightly. If I have to give an edge now,
              though, I'd give it to Phoenix.

              Dean Oliver
              Journal of Basketball Studies
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.