Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Nets trades: Why (again)?
- 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...>__________________________________________________
> > Wo, let's do some clarification here. I never said
> > difference between Marbury and Kidd is not much.
> > Marbury is not in the same category of Kidd. Kidd
> > easily twice the player that Marbury could ever
> > to be. He is a gunner, not a real point guard, and
> > cancer in the locker room. This deal was a steal
> > 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
- harlanzo@... wrote:
>Don't forget Isiah Thomas. He was also a scoring point early in his career.
> 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.
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?
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...> wrote:
> You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most NBANot being an NBA Insider, but knowing a few people, I can say that
> 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.
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
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
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
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.
Journal of Basketball Studies