allen iverson is a good player, but Stephon Marbury has reached a new level..
scott
that I used to see in a man called MJ.. This man is a scorer, assist
man, and a great defender. Many people have looked over Marbury
because of his team's record, but I think this year the Nets will go
somewhere. I also think Marbury will win the scoring title at around
30 ppg.. What do you guys think?
Scott
please visit my page at http://www.azstarnet.com/~m3buff for exciting opportunities
scott
Michael Marlow
--
mike
----------
In article <1pwaOJk7Ny7Ow9...@4ax.com>, scott
Bob F-
thank you for your continued cooperation.
Scobes
pre-season. Final #'s
21ppg 9apg
scott wrote in message <1pwaOJk7Ny7Ow9...@4ax.com>...
them...@my-deja.com
coach. Also, it's rough on team chemestry to have the PG win the
scoring title.
In article <1pwaOJk7Ny7Ow9...@4ax.com>,
scott <m3b...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
> Ever since the end of last season, I saw something in Stephon Marbury
> that I used to see in a man called MJ.. This man is a scorer, assist
> man, and a great defender. Many people have looked over Marbury
> because of his team's record, but I think this year the Nets will go
> somewhere. I also think Marbury will win the scoring title at around
> 30 ppg.. What do you guys think?
> Scott
>
> please visit my page at http://www.azstarnet.com/~m3buff for exciting
opportunities
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brandon Stahl
than the Nets???? Come on, you've got to be kidding.
Brandon
Michael Marlow wrote:
>
> i hope so, the celts will definitely finish ahead of them
> --
> mike
>
> ----------
Michael Marlow
sit on the pine. even if he did avg 30 ppg and 10 apg, the nets as a team
wouldnt have much more than 10 assists a game, and as you know a team that
doesnt pass the ball that much isnt headed for good things. he'd have the
ball ALL the time. I don't think they'd be very successful.
do i think he'll average 30 pts a game? No.
--
mike
----------
Brandon Stahl
Michael Marlow wrote:
>
> if marbury is averaging 30 points yes.
> In article <381BC45C...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Do you REALLY think we're going to end the season with a better record
> > than the Nets????
I guess I just can't believe you're serious. Last season, the Nets were
picked to finish first in the East by many. They had a terrible season,
not least of which was playing w/o Cassell and moving Kittles to a PG
position. They're a healthy team now (Kittles says he's fine, at least,
though I don't know about JW). Marbury moves the ball around as well or
better than most PG's in the league. He's a terrific complement to Van
Horn, who, according to you, might as well sit on the pint b/c he won't
get the ball. Well, with Marbury scoring 30 ppg, here are just a few of
the things Van Horn has accomplished:
21 ppg, 9 reb/g, 2 assists, 52% from the floor, and 84% from the line.
You might want to *check your information* instead of making it up as
you go. Van Horn has had perhaps the finest preseason for all power
forwards. While that doesn't mean he'll be *the* guy come regular
season, it does mean he plays very well with Marbury. You're like a bad
journalist too lazy to look something up. B/c Marbury scores a bunch
you just assume Van Horn is suffering. As for Kittles, I don't think
he's played yet and does not want to risk preseason injury. His
terrible year last year was directly attributable to moving him to PG, a
position which he is ill-equipped to play. (Warning to Pitino: playing
players out their "natural" position can lead to disaster).
Barring injuries, there is NO WAY the Celtics finish ahead or even close
to the Nets.
Brandon
Michael Marlow
care what they did in 7-8 preseason games, I dont think over an 82 game
season it will be beneficial for his team to have him scoring thirty points
a game. A guy who controls the ball for 40 plays a game around half the
plays is a ballhog. Ballhogs don't work in basketball unless you're michael
jordan or someone of that caliber. Marbury is good but i feel safe saying
he's not as good as MJ. ive backed off from the first thing ive said. here
ill say it outright for you: they will still likely finish ahead of the
celtics if marbury averages thirty. the comment about van horn was a
careless one, im sorry i dont carefully work out and revise my posts and
monitor everything i write. what matters is the team will suffer. Im just
guessing ok.
and since you like preseason stats so much here's his FG% approximately
(rounded up) 42%. THat's pretty shitty. I know someone else who's had a
percentage like that too. i know another guy moved out west recently also.
--
mike
----------
Brandon Stahl
Michael Marlow wrote:
>
> I'm speculating like most people do in these basketball newsgroups. I don't
> care what they did in 7-8 preseason games, I dont think over an 82 game
> season it will be beneficial for his team to have him scoring thirty points
> a game. A guy who controls the ball for 40 plays a game around half the
> plays is a ballhog. Ballhogs don't work in basketball unless you're michael
> jordan or someone of that caliber. Marbury is good but i feel safe saying
> he's not as good as MJ. ive backed off from the first thing ive said. here
> ill say it outright for you: they will still likely finish ahead of the
> celtics if marbury averages thirty. the comment about van horn was a
> careless one, im sorry i dont carefully work out and revise my posts and
> monitor everything i write. what matters is the team will suffer. Im just
> guessing ok.
It's not about guessing. When two guys go out on the court together and
both yield great results simultaneously, it's safe to say that they are
quite capable of playing together successfully. I honestly don't know
what made you think otherwise. Had you seen a game? Read a column?
Anything?
> and since you like preseason stats so much here's his FG% approximately
> (rounded up) 42%. THat's pretty shitty. I know someone else who's had a
> percentage like that too. i know another guy moved out west recently also.
42% isn't that bad for a point guard. Not great, but probably around
average.
Last season:
Mark Jackson: 42%
Van Exel: 40%
Mookie: 38%
Payton: 43%
Knight: 43%
T Hardaway: 40%
Brandon: 43%
Strickland: 42%
Stoudamire: 40%
Of course there much better shooters, such as that aberration John
Stockton at 49% and Avery Johnson at 47%.
It seems safe to say, however, that for his position, Marbury's 42%
preseason shooting is not, in your words, "pretty shitty", but rather,
about average. As for your not so subtle comparison to Walker with the
same fg percentage... all that I can say is that you need to understand
that power forwards and shooting guards are not comparable in that way.
We don't go around saying Derek Fisher is better than Walker b/c he gets
more assists, do we? No, we use different criteria. If you want to
compare Walker, compare him to other PF's.
Preseason:
Walker: 43%
Rasheed Wallace: 50%
Mason: 67%
Gatling: 52%
Malone: 47%
Willis: 45%
Oakley: 42%
PJ Brown: 46%
Webber: 40%
Kemp: 33%
Camby: 48%
L Johnson: 46%
Croshere: 46%
Harrington: 53%
Garnett: 54%
etc. etc. etc.
Now, clearly, Mason won't have a 67% season and Kemp won't have a 33%
season, but it's easy to see that shooting percentages are generally
much higher for PF's. To be a top PF in this league, you just can't
shoot 42% for a season. That cripples your team, as you are relied upon
to make a larger percentage of your shots than guards and even small
forwards.
Brandon
Michael Marlow
it's amazing how you profess to "know" so many things.
i agree the walker comparison was a bad one. You were right. but i think
there is a flaw with saying marbury's shooting is not shitty. do you have a
website where preseason stats are accumulated (i cant find one, ive been
totalling up individual box scores)? Those numbers of FG% for pgs were 1999
preseason right? Well, i'm not going to tally up individual box scores but
im guessing (sorry but i dont have time or desire to crunch numbers) Marbury
takes more shots than any of those point guards, and i bet AJ and Stockton
take less. If marbury is taking more he's just detracting from the team's
FG%, his shooting has a larger effect on team percentage. If he spreads out
some of his shots to higher percentage shooters like Van Horn and whichever
other 50% shooters they have the team percentage would go up. So i still say
it's pretty shitty.
--
mike
----------
night...@hotmail.com
this preseason except for 48 Turn Overs (double the worst on the
Celtics). Van Horn is the real deal. Should be fun to see.
NightLight9
In article <381C8D3B...@bu.edu>,
Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Marlow wrote:
> >
> > if marbury is averaging 30 points yes.
> > In article <381BC45C...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl
<bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you REALLY think we're going to end the season with a better
record
> > > than the Nets????
>
> I guess I just can't believe you're serious. Last season, the Nets
were
> picked to finish first in the East by many. They had a terrible
season,
> not least of which was playing w/o Cassell and moving Kittles to a PG
> position. They're a healthy team now (Kittles says he's fine, at
least,
> though I don't know about JW). Marbury moves the ball around as well
or
> better than most PG's in the league. He's a terrific complement to
Van
> Horn, who, according to you, might as well sit on the pint b/c he
won't
> get the ball. Well, with Marbury scoring 30 ppg, here are just a few
of
> the things Van Horn has accomplished:
>
> 21 ppg, 9 reb/g, 2 assists, 52% from the floor, and 84% from the line.
>
> You might want to *check your information* instead of making it up as
> you go. Van Horn has had perhaps the finest preseason for all power
> forwards. While that doesn't mean he'll be *the* guy come regular
> season, it does mean he plays very well with Marbury. You're like a
bad
> journalist too lazy to look something up. B/c Marbury scores a bunch
> you just assume Van Horn is suffering. As for Kittles, I don't think
> he's played yet and does not want to risk preseason injury. His
> terrible year last year was directly attributable to moving him to
PG, a
> position which he is ill-equipped to play. (Warning to Pitino:
playing
> players out their "natural" position can lead to disaster).
>
> Barring injuries, there is NO WAY the Celtics finish ahead or even
close
> to the Nets.
>
> Brandon
>
them...@my-deja.com
The Magus
In article <381D1578...@bu.edu>,
Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Marlow wrote:
> >
them...@my-deja.com
stats.
The Magus
In article <7vism5$7lr$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>,
> In article <381D1578...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu>
wrote:
>
> > It's not about guessing.
>
BigSex...@webtv.net
12:19pm Ref15-Bob Wrote:
Re: allen iverson is a good player, but Stephon Marbury has reached...
<<<we dont care..this is a CELTICS Newsgroup.
thank you for your continued cooperation.>>>
How's the search for that Boston strangler going?
Hey, where's that Boston tea party going to be this year.....
SHEESH some of you Celtic fans are ornery.
Must be that Babe Ruth curse....
Brandon Stahl
Michael Marlow wrote:
>
> yes it is, for me, and alot of other people. you used to be the skeptic,
> it's amazing how you profess to "know" so many things.
> i agree the walker comparison was a bad one. You were right. but i think
> there is a flaw with saying marbury's shooting is not shitty.
Well, if you're talking subjectively you can, of course, deem any
shooter good or bad. The only point I was trying to illustrate is that
based on his peers at his position, he falls either in the middle or
upper third. Now, you can certainly argue that that is not a good thing
and those percentages should be higher, but that's a whole new can of
worms.
> do you have a
> website where preseason stats are accumulated (i cant find one, ive been
> totalling up individual box scores)? Those numbers of FG% for pgs were 1999
> preseason right? Well, i'm not going to tally up individual box scores but
> im guessing (sorry but i dont have time or desire to crunch numbers) Marbury
> takes more shots than any of those point guards, and i bet AJ and Stockton
> take less. If marbury is taking more he's just detracting from the team's
> FG%, his shooting has a larger effect on team percentage. If he spreads out
> some of his shots to higher percentage shooters like Van Horn and whichever
> other 50% shooters they have the team percentage would go up. So i still say
> it's pretty shitty.
Say what you like, but the FG percentage is relatively normal for what
we can expect from a point guard. To be anal about it, "normal" is
often defined as being within 2 standard deviations of the mean. By
that requirement, Marbury is certainly a normal shooter for his
position. Again, beyond that, you get into a debate about lower
shooting percentages over a league-wide status, which is a very valid
argument.
Brandon
them...@my-deja.com
you?
;-)
In article <381E5CF0...@bu.edu>,