Trae Young is the Quintessential Washington Wizard
The Washington Wizards have not advanced past the second round of the playoffs since 1979, and they have qualified for the playoffs once since 2018, so it is not surprising that the player they have anointed as their franchise cornerstone has posted a 2-3 playoff series record in his eight year career. The Wizards sent Corey Kispert and C.J. McCollum to the Atlanta Hawks for four-time All-Star Trae Young, who last won a playoff series in 2021 and is thus the perfect player to lead the way for the Wizards to continue to avoid playoff success.
Travis Schlenk, who was Atlanta's general manager when the Hawks acquired Young in a draft day deal in 2018, is now the Wizards' senior vice president for player personnel. After the Hawks traded for Young in 2018, Schlenk declared, "We love his ability to pass the ball, to make other players better with
his court vision. Obviously he gets a lot of notoriety for his long-range
shooting, but I think his ability to pass the ball is what we really
liked about him.'' Young made it clear in recent days that he wanted to be traded to Washington, and apparently Young's minimal postseason success did not diminish Schlenk's enthusiasm about Young's skills.
In Magic Rout Hawks and Warriors Edge Grizzlies to Clinch Playoff Berths, I summarized Young's career:
I have never understood or agreed with the "Ice Trae" hype; yes, he has
hit some exciting shots and he posts gaudy statistics for points and
assists, but he is an undersized, inefficient offensive player who puts
up empty calorie numbers while not playing a lick of defense for a
mediocre team. Young has a 2-3 career playoff series record in seven
seasons, and his Hawks have not won a playoff series since 2021. The
notion that he is a great clutch player is refuted by his woeful playoff
career shooting (.402 from the field, including .297 from three point
range). He has never shot better than .441 from the field in a playoff
series, and he shot worse than .400 from the field in two of his five
playoff series.
Young's NBA regular season career averages of 25.2 ppg and 9.8 apg may
look impressive, but he has shot better than .438 from the field for a
season just once, and he has shot worse than .420 from the field in
three seasons, including a career-low .411 in 76 games in 2024-25 and
.415 in 10 games so far this season. Young ranks 12th in ABA/NBA regular season career scoring average but--much like the scoring numbers posted by Damian Lillard (13th) and James Harden (29th)--Young's individual production is disconnected from sustained team success. Young and Lillard have higher career scoring averages than five-time NBA champion Kobe Bryant and four-time NBA champion Stephen Curry, and Harden has a higher career scoring average than one-time NBA champion Giannis Antetokounmpo (who Harden foolishly mocked for supposedly lacking basketball skills), four-time NBA champion Shaquille O'Neal, one-time NBA champion Jayson Tatum, and one-time NBA champion Nikola Jokic.
Young ranks third in ABA/NBA regular season assists average behind Magic Johnson and John Stockton, but no competent talent evaluator would take Young over--to name just a few championship-winning point guards--Oscar Robertson, Isiah Thomas, and Jason Kidd.
Statistics are meaningless without context. At one time, Stephon Marbury had logged more 20 ppg/8 apg seasons than any player other than Oscar Robertson, but no one other than the deluded, so-called "Starbury" ranks Marbury among the all-time great point guards. Young is the modern Marbury, with the main differences being that Marbury was stronger while Young is more apt to shoot long three pointers. Much of what I wrote about Marbury 18 years ago also applies to Young:
Stephon Marbury is no Mozart of the hardwood. Marbury possesses certain
obvious physical talents--speed, ballhandling skills, shooting ability,
good strength for his size--but he neither instinctively makes the right
play nor has he--paraphrasing Mozart from the above story--sufficiently
familiarized himself with the work of the great composers (playmaking
guards) of the past. Mozart never had to think in conventional terms
about becoming a composer because he understood how to apply his talent
in a way that synthesized and then expanded upon the work of previous
great composers. Marbury has tried to take the same "shortcut" but
without the benefit of being a basketball visionary genius. Magic
Johnson passed the ball the way that Mozart composed music; like Mozart,
Magic did not have to think about all of the intermediary steps in his
development. A great chess player once said that his philosophy was to
do things as they must be done and then see what happens--but this
presupposes having the vision/talent/training necessary to see what must
be done; it used to be said of Fischer that he could throw a piece in
the air and it would land on the best square. For Magic, that meant
seeing that his teammate would become open before even that teammate
realized it and then delivering the ball through the hapless defense in
such a manner that the teammate could not only catch the pass but also
attempt a shot that he had a good chance of making based on his skill
set.
The construction of Marbury's game is the very opposite of
such genius; Magic passed the ball to make plays and to win games, while
Marbury passes the ball to get assists and thus to use statistics to
"prove" his value and obtain a bigger contract. One might object that
ultimately there is no difference between Magic accumulating assists and
Marbury accumulating assists but to think such a thing--let alone say
it--betrays a complete lack of understanding of the sport (and of
genius). Magic passed the ball not with the goal of getting an assist
for himself but because the pass was the right play in that given
situation. Marbury passes the ball if and only if, in his estimation,
the recipient is likely to immediately shoot and score, thus padding
Marbury's assist total. One problem with this is all of the passes
Marbury does not throw because he does not think that they will boost
his statistics. Another problem with this is all of the bad shots
Marbury then takes in lieu of making good passes. A third problem with
this is that Marbury in general is not interested in doing anything on
the court that does not make him look good on the stat sheet--matters
such as defense or any action when he does not have the ball other than
figuring out how to get the ball back in his hands so that he can resume
padding his stats.
During his NBA career, Marbury has played for
Minnesota, New Jersey, Phoenix and New York. Almost without fail, when
he leaves a team that team performs better and when he joins a team that
team performs worse. In layman's terms, he's a loser. He may be a
wonderful human being--I don't know, I've never met the man--but as a
point guard, as a basketball floor general, he is a loser: his teams
lose and, what's worse, rather than accept responsibility for those
losses he consistently offers excuses while at the same time providing
ridiculous self-evaluations of his play. When Terrell Owens proclaims, "Who can make a play? I can!"
you may be amused by his bravado or merely annoyed by it but you cannot
deny the obvious fact that a player who ranks second in receiving
touchdowns in NFL history can--and does--make plays. However, when
Stephon Marbury earnestly proclaims that he is the best point guard in
the NBA all you can do is wonder if he is delusional and/or high.
The Hawks won more games than they lost twice in Young's eight seasons, peaking with a 41-31 record in the COVID-19-shortened 2020-21 season, and they have not posted a record better than .500 since 2021-22. During Young's eight seasons, the Hawks went 221-272 (.448 winning percentage) with Young and 46-48 (.489 winning percentage) without him--and the trend of playing better without Young has become more pronounced in the past three seasons, when the Hawks went 60-80 (.429 winning percentage) with Young and 33-29 (.532 winning percentage) without him.
The Hawks did well to unload Young's huge contract, poor shot selection, and non-existent defense, while the Wizards did nothing to change their reputation as one of the most ineptly run NBA franchises of the past 40 years.
Labels: Atlanta Hawks, C.J. McCollum, Corey Kispert, Stephon Marbury, Trae Young, Washington Wizards
posted by David Friedman @ 12:13 PM
How High Will the Rockets Fly Without Harden?
The championship aspirations of James Harden's new team, the Brooklyn Nets, are much discussed, but it is interesting to observe Harden's former team as well. The Houston Rockets did not win a title with Harden, and they are not likely to win a title any time soon without him, but historically speaking an MVP-level player is typically worth at least 15-20 wins. Examples of this abound, including NBA-ready rookies Larry Bird and David Robinson, whose teams improved 32 wins and 35 wins respectively upon their arrival. Bird and Robinson were not entirely responsible for those win increases, but in both situations they were primarily responsible for turning around their franchises.
Harden received the 2018 regular season MVP, and he has finished second in the MVP voting three times (2015, 2017, 2019). If he is worthy of being considered a perennial MVP candidate then he should also be worth at least 15-20 wins.
After defeating the Portland Trail Blazers 104-101 tonight, the new-look Rockets are 5-3 since trading away Harden, a significant improvement from their 3-6 start to the season with Harden (Harden missed one game, a Rockets win versus Sacramento). After his final game with the Rockets--during which he scored 16 points on 5-16 field goal shooting as Houston lost by 17 to the L.A. Lakers--Harden publicly expressed his view that the Rockets were just not good enough. It is obvious that Harden quit on the team, and that the Rockets were not as bad as they looked with Harden, but it is also obvious that replacing Harden with Victor Oladipo is not a huge talent drop off, regardless of what the NBA's MVP voters may think.
This is obviously a small sample size of games in an unusual season dominated by the specter of COVID-19 and the associated health and safety protocols enacted by the NBA to attempt to complete an abbreviated 72 game schedule. However, the notion that the Rockets could be a good team without Harden should not be shocking to anyone who has followed Harden's career.
Harden has been putting up video-game level individual numbers for many years, but those numbers did not translate into consistent postseason success for the Rockets. Harden's Houston teams lost in the first round three times in eight seasons while making just two trips to the Western Conference Finals, and failing to reach the NBA Finals. As discussed in my analysis of Daryl Morey's Houston legacy, that is not elite level playoff performance.
Harden reminds me of Gilbert Arenas and Stephon Marbury, two players who put up gaudy individual numbers but who had very little positive impact on winning. After Arenas suffered an injury that caused him to miss extensive playing time and the Washington Wizards were not much worse without him, I asked Is Gilbert Arenas the Most Overrated All-Star in the NBA? Arenas' fans did not like that article, but they also could not refute the reality that even with Arenas the Wizards struggled to stay above .500. The record shows that Arenas did not have much impact on winning when he played, and the Wizards did not completely fall apart when he did not play.
There are players who score 30 points in a way that compromises opposing defenses and leads to team success, and there are players who score 30 points in a way that has little impact on team success. If you take Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant off of a team then that team is going to struggle unless/until that team acquires a legit MVP-level player (the 1993-94 Chicago Bulls did not collapse without Jordan primarily because the Bulls still had Scottie Pippen, arguably the best all-around player in the league at that time other than Jordan). If you take Arenas or Harden off of a team, that team can survive by either adding an All-Star level player, or possibly even by pooling the collective efforts of several good but not great players.
Marbury did not score as prolifically as Arenas or Harden, but he averaged at least 20 ppg and at least 8 apg in six different seasons, a feat exceeded only by Oscar Robertson, who had 10 such seasons. Robertson was a master of the all-around game, a basketball genius; Marbury was the antithesis of Robertson in every meaningful way. Marbury made the playoffs just five times during his 13 season career, and his final playoff appearance was as a little-used reserve for the 2009 Boston Celtics; as a starter he never advanced past the first round. Marbury had all of the physical tools--he was strong, fast, and durable--but he did not know (or care) how to play winning basketball.
To a lesser extent, Steve Nash falls into the category of overrated player, but with some important caveats. At his peak, Nash was legitimately an MVP-level player, and he had a Hall of Fame-caliber career--but there is no way he should have been a two-time regular season MVP while his far more impactful contemporaries Shaquillle O'Neal and Kobe Bryant each won one regular season MVP. MVP voters assigned a value to Nash's performance that is not fully supported by what happened on the court. Of course, Nash was a better teammate than Arenas, Marbury, and Harden, and Nash had a much better understanding of what it takes to win--Nash just did not have the physical capability to dominate a game all over the court to the extent that players like Jordan, O'Neal, and Bryant could while leading teams to multiple titles.
During Nash's final season with the Dallas Mavericks (2003-04), Dallas went 52-30 in the regular season, and lost in the first round of the playoffs. Next season, the Mavericks replaced Nash with Jason Terry--a good player, but hardly an all-time great--and lost in the second round of the playoffs after posting a 58-24 regular season record. The Mavericks advanced to the NBA Finals in 2005-06 after going 60-22 in the regular season, and they eventually won an NBA title in 2011; Jason Terry was the sixth man for that team, but still ranked third on the squad in minutes played per game.
Meanwhile, Nash's Phoenix teams--which were stacked with All-Stars and All-Star caliber players, including Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson--advanced to the Western Conference Finals three times in eight years but never made it to the NBA Finals.
If your former team can replace you with a solid player and have better results, and if you cannot lead a stacked team to at least one NBA Finals, then you are not the best player in the NBA. Most NBA MVPs won at least one title. The exceptions are Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and Giannis Antetokounmpo.
The first three players on the list each led at least one team to the NBA Finals. Westbrook was the second best player on one Finalist, and Harden was the sixth man for that 2012 Oklahoma City squad. Rose's career trajectory was altered by injury, but he also won his MVP at least in part due to the negative narrative surrounding LeBron James after he quit in the playoffs before fleeing Cleveland for Miami.
Antetokounmpo is the only player from this group who is still in his prime, so he gets a pass for now--Michael Jordan and LeBron James each won multiple regular season MVPs before they won their first NBA titles, so it remains to be seen what path Antetokounmpo's career will take.
When the Rockets shipped out Harden, they did not get rid of a player who is worth 15-20 wins. If Oladipo and John Wall--who was initially acquired to play alongside Harden--can both stay healthy then the Rockets can continue to be what they were during the Harden era: a good team, but not quite good enough to win a title.
Labels: Gilbert Arenas, Houston Rockets, James Harden, John Wall, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephon Marbury, Steve Nash, Victor Oladipo
posted by David Friedman @ 11:27 PM
Kobe Bryant: "I'm a Difficult Person to Deal With"
In an All-Star Weekend interview, a reporter asked Kobe Bryant if his reputation for being a "difficult teammate" might hinder the Lakers' rebuilding efforts. Bryant replied:
No, not necessarily. I'm a difficult person to deal with. For people who don't have the same kind of competitiveness or commitment to winning, then I become an absolute pain in the neck. Because I'm
going to drag you into the gym every single day. If you need to be drug in, that's what I'm going to do.
And for players that have that level of commitment, very, very, easy. And we can wind up enhancing the entire group and elevating them to that type of level. But if we don't have that commitment, man, I'll absolutely be very, very tough to get along with. No question about it.
Bryant may be a "difficult teammate" but it is also rewarding to be his teammate; his impact on the Lakers goes far beyond what statistics can measure: many players have championship rings only because they were fortunate enough to play alongside Bryant during Bryant's prime--and many players had their best individual seasons while playing alongside Bryant, including Shaquille O'Neal, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum.
If I had been blessed with the opportunity to play in the NBA, I would not have found it difficult at all to play with an MVP-caliber player whose main goal is to win championships--but I would have found it very difficult to play with Carmelo Anthony or Gilbert Arenas or Stephon Marbury or any other All-Star caliber player who only gives consistent effort at one end of the court and who often seems to have an agenda that is focused on something other than winning (playing in a big city, getting paid, being quirky, etc.). I don't understand a guy like James Harden; he probably could have won multiple championships playing the Manu Ginobili role for the Oklahoma City Thunder but he preferred to force a trade to Houston so that he could get paid and "prove" that he is "the man." If you are "the man," then beat out Russell Westbrook for the number two role on the team--or, better yet, do whatever it takes to win a championship (a la Ginobili with the Spurs) and don't worry about who gets the credit or who gets paid. The Thunder have not missed a beat without Harden and the Rockets had to acquire the best center in the NBA just to move one step up from battling for the eighth seed.
Harry Truman was renowned for "giving hell" to his opponents but he said, "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Bryant, like Michael Jordan before him, tells his teammates the truth: if they are not playing hard or if they are making stupid plays, he lets them hear about it in no uncertain terms. That may seem "difficult" or feel like "hell" but it also creates a no excuses, no slacking allowed environment. When Bryant plays with an avulsion fracture in his finger or other injuries that would force most players out of the lineup, he sets an example that no one should be visiting the trainer's room unless that player is at death's door.
The Lakers face a challenging rebuilding task not because Bryant is "difficult" but rather because Bryant can no longer carry the Smush Parkers and Kwame Browns of the world into the playoffs; with Bryant injured or absent, all of the Lakers' weaknesses are exposed and there is no relief in sight: that was true during the 2013 playoffs even when the Lakers had a twin towers pairing of Dwight Howard and Pau Gasol and it is true during this season even though the Lakers have at least as much talent now as they did circa 2006 when Kwame Brown and Smush Parker became two of the most improbable playoff starters in NBA history.
Labels: Carmelo Anthony, James Harden, Kobe Bryant, Kwame Brown, L.A. Lakers, Manu Ginobili, Smush Parker, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 2:32 AM
Stephon Marbury: Insert Your Own Punchline
Stephon Marbury says that collecting roughly $18 million from the New York Knicks for not playing for the team in the 2008-09 season "mentally damaged" him. You cannot make this stuff up; just insert your own punchline--and I'll even give you a head start by quoting a statement Marbury made four years ago: "I'm telling you what it is: I know I'm the best point guard in the NBA. I don't need anybody else to tell me that." Are we supposed to believe that Marbury was not "mentally damaged" when he made that statement?
The best thing that New York Coach Mike D'Antoni did last year--and the thing that I said for years that the Knicks should do--was banish Marbury, even with the Knicks getting nothing in return; this was the ultimate example of "addition by subtraction." The funny thing is that even though the Marbury-less Knicks won nine more games than they did in their scandal-scuttled 2008 season, their 32 victories fell one short of the team's win total in 2006-07--and the reason for that, as I
explained near the end of the 2009 season, is that D'Antoni juiced up New York's offense but he did nothing to improve the team's leaky defense. They scored a lot more points and they got off to a 6-3 start by beating teams like Charlotte, Washington, Memphis and Oklahoma City, but they could not guard anyone and down the stretch they fell apart like an old folding chair trying to support the weight of a sumo wrestler: the Knicks went 4-13 in the last month of the season. The Knicks' problem is so obvious that even the admittedly "mentally damaged" Marbury knows what's up: "That system can't win championships. You can't win championships if you don't talk about defense. In Boston, the coaches even play defense.''
Mike D'Antoni is a very good coach. He understands that a coach has to work with the material provided to him; his Steve Nash-led Suns were never going to be a defensive juggernaut, so D'Antoni ramped up the tempo, ran teams off of the court during the regular season--and then suffered annually during the playoffs versus a well-rounded Spurs team that could play offense at any tempo and always played good defense. The Knicks probably did not have the necessary personnel last year to be a great defensive team, so D'Antoni once again floored the accelerator, scored as many points as possible and hoped for the best--but if the Knicks are ever going to rise out of the mediocrity that they have been mired in for nearly a decade then Donnie Walsh must acquire some defensive-minded players and Coach D'Antoni must prove that he is willing and able to implement some kind of effective defensive system.
Everyone understands that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the Knicks is LeBron James--but James knows that ultimately his legacy will be determined by whether or not he wins multiple championships and James also knows that you have to play team defense to win championships. Anyone who thinks that James will go to a team that does not have a defensive mindset is more "mentally damaged" than Marbury is. The Knicks have one year to prove that they are putting together the type of program that can annually contend for titles; otherwise, even if James leaves Cleveland he will certainly not go to New York, because the last thing that James wants is to be on the list of the greatest players who never won a championship.
Labels: LeBron James, New York Knicks, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 3:52 AM
Celtics Sinking in Wake of Marbury Signing
It is early in the Stephon Marbury experiment for the Celtics but, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, it is getting late early in Boston--at least in terms of trying to obtain the number one seed in the Eastern Conference. The Celtics have gone 4-4 since signing Marbury and are currently 3.5 games behind the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Cavs have won five straight games and nine of their last 10; if they maintain their .803 winning percentage the rest of the way then the Celtics would have to go undefeated in their 15 remaining games to have a chance to catch them. Barely a week ago, some commentators overreacted to Boston's home win versus Cleveland and proclaimed that the Celtics would capture the top seed in the East. I saw things differently,
declaring, "I think that the Cavs unofficially clinched the best record in the East as soon as the ink dried on Marbury's Boston contract." At this point, the Celtics not only have little realistic chance to pass the Cavs but they are in a dog fight with the Orlando Magic, who have creeped to within a half game of seizing the second seed.
Obviously, Boston's decline is not entirely Marbury's fault. Kevin Garnett has been out of the lineup for 11 games due to injury, Rajon Rondo missed two games because of a sprained ankle and some other rotation players are also banged up. However, people who thought that signing Marbury was a good move for Boston asserted two things: his talent would enable him to make a positive contribution and there was no downside for Boston because if Marbury caused any kind of problem the Celtics would just cut him loose. The Celtics went 17-4 in their first 21 games sans Garnett last season and this season, meaning that they have lost as many games without Garnett during the brief "Marbury era" as they did over the previous year and a half.
Marbury has been amazingly unproductive, averaging 3.4 ppg, 2.9 apg and 1.9 tpg while shooting just .317 from the field. Marbury has attempted just one free throw and only has three steals. He has been a defensive sieve who opposing teams target as soon as he enters the game and he has twice posted game-worst plus/minus numbers, indicating that the Celtics collectively perform worse when he is on the court than when he is on the bench: Marbury had a game-worst -11 plus/minus number in Boston's March 15 loss to Milwaukee and a game-worst -14 plus/minus number in Boston's March 8 loss to Orlando; those are staggering numbers for someone who played just 17 and 21 minutes respectively in those games. In Boston's March 1 loss to Detroit, Marbury had a +6 plus/minus number but that was mainly because he was an innocent bystander as the team made a second half charge that ultimately fell short; during Marbury's first stint in that game he had his pocket picked twice in the backcourt by the seldom-used Will Bynum, so when Marbury reentered the game Eddie House relieved Marbury of ballhandling responsibilities: Marbury was literally standing around watching as the Celtics rallied behind some timely shotmaking by House and Paul Pierce.
The Celtics obtained some luxury tax relief by trading Sam Cassell to the Sacramento Kings but Cassell is a proven winner who made several clutch plays in the playoffs during last year's championship run. Cassell has not appeared in a regular season game this season but he is healthy and it is hard to believe that he would be as unproductive as Marbury has been. I don't know what other options the Celtics had prior to signing Marbury but considering that Marbury's previous team banished him--paying him big dollars not to show up at games or even practices--and that every team he leaves gets better and every team he joins becomes worse I never saw an upside to bringing him into the fold. Marbury has not been the entire problem during Boston's downturn but he certainly has not been much of a solution, either.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Kevin Garnett, Sam Cassell, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 7:01 AM
"Marbury Effect" May Tip the Balance in Tight Race for Top Seed
After Cleveland's disappointing loss in Boston on Friday, some commentators took the predictable and easy route of jumping off of the Cavs' bandwagon and proclaiming that the Celtics will finish with the best record in the Eastern Conference. This is yet another example of hype and superficiality triumphing over thoughtful analysis. As things stand right now, the Cavs are two games ahead of the Celtics in the loss column; Cleveland has 20 games remaining, while the Celtics have just 18 games left.
The Cavs are 28-1 at home and will play 12 of their last games at Quicken Loans Arena. Only two of their eight upcoming road games are against teams that currently have winning records. The Cavs are 8-2 since the All-Star break, which is right in line with their overall winning percentage this season. If they maintain that pace, they will finish with a 65-17 record.
The Celtics will play nine games at home and nine on the road. They are just 5-4 overall since the All-Star break. If Cleveland wins 65 games, then the Celtics would need to go 16-2 down the stretch to tie them.
Obviously, the April 12 meeting between these teams in Cleveland looms as a hugely important game. It is worth remembering that the home team has won the previous 15 games in this series, which means that Friday's result was not some landmark event but rather a continuation of a trend; that also means that it is reasonable to say that Cleveland will likely win the April 12 game, which would force the Celtics to make up three games in the loss column in their other 17 games down the stretch.
Just by looking at the schedule, it is obvious that--objectively speaking--the Cavs should still be considered the favorite to finish with the best record in the East. The Cavs are in pretty good shape on the injury front, with the notable exception of starting power forward Ben Wallace, who is expected to miss the rest of the regular season due to his broken leg. Wallace's absence has hurt the Cavs in the paint and significantly reduced their margin for error but the Cavs have a good sized margin for error considering that they lead the league in point differential. They have gone 5-1 without Wallace and, although some of their remaining games will probably be closer than they would have been with a healthy Wallace patrolling the paint, the Cavs will most likely be able to continue to hover around that .800 winning percentage.
The Celtics, on the other hand, have been depleted by injuries. Kevin Garnett has missed eight straight games due to injury and it is not certain when he will be able to return. Rajon Rondo is battling a sprained ankle that forced him to miss Sunday's loss to Orlando. Glen "Big Baby" Davis--who has played well in Garnett's absence--sprained his right ankle versus Orlando and did not return to the game. Reserve guard Tony Allen is expected to be out until the playoffs as he recovers from thumb surgery. The strange thing with the Celtics is that, even though Garnett played a pivotal role in transforming them into a championship team, they have been successful without him in the lineup; last year, the Celtics went 9-2 in games that Garnett missed and they are 8-3 sans the "Big Ticket" this season.
I would put an asterisk on that third loss, though, because that game--the aforementioned Orlando defeat--is the first game that Stephon Marbury started for the Celtics this year. The Celtics' 17-4 record in the first 21 games that Garnett missed over the past two seasons suggests that they can perform at a high level in his absence, at least for short stretches. However, even for the reigning champions it is asking a lot to try to keep winning after inserting Marbury into the starting lineup.
Marbury has only been with Boston for five games but don't expect him to be a Bob McAdoo or Mark Aguirre who puts the Celtics over the top; as I
wrote right after Marbury joined the Celtics, Boston was an .800 team prior to his arrival but if that percentage dips to even .700 down the stretch it could cost the team a shot at the number one seed. Every team Marbury has joined has gotten worse and every team he has left has improved, so why would anyone expect that trend to reverse now? The Celtics are 3-2 since Marbury arrived (he came off of the bench in his first four games). He is averaging 2.8 ppg and 2.4 apg while shooting .333 from the field and committing 2.0 turnovers and 1.8 fouls per game. Marbury had a game-worst -14 plus/minus number in the Orlando game. During his sabbatical from the Knicks before the team bought out his contract, Marbury seems to have lost his shooting stroke and his ballhandling skills while at the same time becoming even worse defensively than he had been before (which is saying something). Plus/minus numbers can be "noisy" but the only thing that Marbury's numbers are shouting is, "Take this guy out of the game, Coach!" Doc Rivers admitted after the game that he went against his instincts by starting Marbury.
I've heard a lot of people say that the Celtics took no risk signing Marbury because if he is unproductive and/or starts trouble then they will simply cut him loose. I disagree that Boston took no risk--the risk is that the Celtics perform worse after signing him than they did before and that is exactly what has happened. The Celtics outrebounded the Magic and played them to a draw in terms of points in the paint--two areas where Garnett's absence would be most keenly felt--but with Marbury running the show they shot just .395 from the field and had only 10 assists. Marbury had zero assists in 21 minutes of action as the starting point guard!
Clearly, Marbury is not solely responsible for the Orlando loss or for Boston's record in his five games with the team but he has not been an effective player so far for the Celtics and there is no indication that he will be an effective player any time soon. The Celtics should be getting their rotation set in preparation for a deep playoff run, but instead they are in effect running a delayed training camp for a player who has never proven that he can contribute meaningfully to a team that makes a deep playoff run.
The talking heads can go nuts over Friday's game but I think that the Cavs unofficially clinched the best record in the East as soon as the ink dried on Marbury's Boston contract.
Labels: Ben Wallace, Boston Celtics, Cleveland Cavaliers, Kevin Garnett, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 6:48 AM
Rejuvenated Pistons Beat Celtics
Detroit's 105-95 victory at Boston was rich in subplots. The Celtics were without the services of Kevin Garnett for the fourth game in a row and the seventh time this season; this is the first time that they lost sans "The Big Ticket" in 2008-09 and they were 9-2 without him last season: the fact that they have gone 15-3 without Garnett during the past two seasons indicates just how talented the Celtics really are and how committed they are to playing solid defense even without their best defensive player.
The Pistons were also playing without a former league MVP: Allen Iverson missed his second consecutive game and the once floundering Pistons have now won two in a row on the road against two of the three best teams in the East (they beat Orlando on Friday). This season has been heaven on Earth for anyone who dislikes Iverson and/or wants to "prove" that Iverson is overrated. The Pistons have been in disarray all season long, so the simple minded look at the trade that sent Iverson to Detroit for Chauncey Billups and Antonio McDyess and conclude that Detroit's problems are all because of Iverson. Part of the problem is that these people do not even describe the trade correctly, let alone understand its impact; note that Iverson was swapped not straight up for Billups but also for McDyess. The Nuggets released McDyess but by league rule the Pistons had to wait a month to re-sign him and they went 9-8 while McDyess--their leading rebounder last season and again this season--was out of action.
In 2007-08, the Pistons went 59-23 using nine different starting lineups--but their main starting lineup (which included McDyess) went 46-17; this season, the Pistons have already used 12 different starting lineups, with no single grouping playing together for more than 13 games. The Pistons also fired Coach Flip Saunders in the offseason and replaced him with Michael Curry, who had never been a head coach in the NBA.
Any objective person with a reasonable amount of intelligence can look at the information in the preceding two paragraphs and understand that there are a variety of reasons that the Pistons are not as good as they were last year--but that has not stopped less objective/intelligent people from declaring that Iverson is the main villain in the Detroit drama.
Early in the game, ABC's Hubie Brown, perhaps the best NBA color commentator, offered this trenchant analysis of the Pistons' season, completely refuting the people who foolishly try to blame Iverson alone for all of the Pistons' woes:
Everything in basketball comes down to chemistry. This team--whether you say it's the lack of Chauncey Billups to take the big shots at the end of games and make the big free throws and three point plays--whatever the problem is, it is a team problem. It's not just Allen Iverson and it's not just Rip Hamilton. Let's look at the lack of production by the frontcourt people. They tried the young players here and it didn't work out. Now they have McDyess back in the lineup. But let's look at Rasheed Wallace; his numbers are down. Whatever the problem is, the offensive creativity by the coaching staff is not there. You can't be one of the best (point) differential teams in this league and win 59 games and then all of a sudden this year you're 29th in scoring and you have a minus (point) differential. There is more to this than just one player.Also, during the Lakers-Suns telecast, Jeff Van Gundy completely rejected the notion that Iverson is solely to blame for Detroit's poor record and he sounded a cautionary note about the supposed culture change in Denver:
There have been a lot of changes there (in Detroit). There have been coaching changes and changes in rotations. Who is to blame for putting Rip Hamilton on the bench if he's better as a starter? That's not Allen Iverson's decision. That's a coaching decision.
Let's wait to coronate the Nuggets until they do something in the playoffs. They've had good seasons in the past and they've lost in the first round. To me, this idea of bashing Allen Iverson is way out of bounds, as if he is singularly the reason that the Pistons have struggled.Shifting our focus to players who actually played in the game, Richard Hamilton was the best player on the court. As Van Gundy mentioned, Coach Curry had recently turned Hamiliton into a sixth man and the Pistons only went 4-12 with Hamilton coming off of the bench. Curry is apparently determined to keep starting Rodney Stuckey no matter how badly Stuckey plays--he was solid against Boston but played poorly in the 16 game slide--but with Iverson out of action Hamilton returned to the starting lineup and produced 25 points, a game-high nine assists and six rebounds. All five Detroit starters scored in double figures. Paul Pierce led Boston with 26 points on 11-20 shooting but Ray Allen (10 points on 2-10 shooting) and Rajon Rondo (eight points on 2-7 shooting) were MIA.
Stephon Marbury made his second appearance in a Boston uniform, finishing with 0 points on 0-3 shooting, three assists, two turnovers and four personal fouls in 12 minutes. He had a plus/minus number of +6 after posting a -7 plus/minus number in 13 minutes in Boston's 104-99 win over Indiana on Friday night. Let's take a closer look at Marbury's performance versus Detroit:
Marbury first entered the game at the start of the second quarter, with Boston leading 22-20. On his first possession, Hamilton shot a jumper right in Marbury's eye. The Celtics inbounded the ball to Marbury, but Will Bynum picked his pocket and cruised in for a layup. On the next possession, Marbury got an assist by feeding a cutting Pierce for a layup.
Marbury got his first foul trying to chase Hamilton around a screen. Then, less than two minutes after Bynum stripped Marbury one on one in the backcourt, Bynum stole the ball from him again. This time, Marbury fouled him and Bynum split a pair of free throws.
Marbury fed Powe for a layup/three point play to tie the score at 29. Later, Marbury took a low percentage, fadeaway jumper with plenty of time on the shot clock but Powe bailed him out by rebounding the miss and converting the putback.
Marbury struggled on defense no matter who he was assigned to guard, leading to open shots for a variety of Pistons and a high foul total for such limited minutes. The Pistons repeatedly isolated seldom used reserve Walter Herrmann on Marbury, leading to two easy baskets plus a foul by Mikki Moore when Moore came over to double team Herrmann. Herrmann made both of the resulting free throws, so when Marbury went back to the bench the Celtics trailed 39-37. He had made a couple decent passes but they were both plays that other guards on the roster could also have converted; meanwhile, Marbury missed both of his field goal attempts, committed two backcourt turnovers that led to three easy points and he was a defensive sieve. All of that added up to a -4 plus/minus number for Marbury in the first half. The Pistons expanded their lead to 55-47 by halftime.
The Celtics used suffocating defense to open the third quarter with a 12-0 run but the Pistons battled back to take a 77-70 lead by the time Marbury checked back in with just :25.7 remaining in the third quarter. The final possession of the quarter was an isolation play for Pierce, who was not able to score.
Marbury stayed in the game to start the fourth quarter but the Celtics made a significant adjustment; Eddie House handled the ball instead of Marbury, who simply spotted up in the corner. While that -4 plus/minus number is a pretty accurate indicator of Marbury's second quarter "contributions," his +6 plus/minus number in the fourth quarter is very deceptive. Marbury was involved in many plays in the second quarter and most of them were negative: as noted above, he lost the ball twice, took a bad shot and was ineffective defensively. On the other hand, he was largely an on court bystander when the Celtics rallied early in the fourth quarter. House not only took care of the ballhandling responsibilities but he drained two big three pointers as the Celtics used an 11-2 run to take an 81-79 lead. The Celtics were up 87-84 when Marbury went back to the bench for good with 6:03 remaining; in the fourth quarter he shot 0-1, had one assist and committed two fouls. Pierce and House did most of the heavy lifting, while Marbury was not involved in the offensive action and continued to struggle to keep up defensively.
I understand that Marbury may be rusty after having so much time off--but there is a good reason why he has been inactive all season: he has proven on many occasions to be such a bad teammate that the Knicks decided that they were better off paying him not to play even though he is a more talented athlete than any of their point guards. That says a lot. The Marbury-House backcourt pairing is odd; both are shoot first players but House is a much better shooter, someone who should be paired with a player who is willing and able to distribute the ball. If the Celtics are simply going to have House or Pierce handle the ball when Marbury is in the game--as they did in the fourth quarter--then what is the point of having Marbury out there at all when he is clearly a defensive liability? The Celtics are shorthanded for the moment because Garnett and reserve guard Tony Allen are sidelined but whose minutes is Marbury going to take when the Celtics are once again at full strength? Marbury's offensive contributions will probably increase as he gets acclimated to his new team but he is highly unlikely to improve much defensively. Since he is in a contract year, Marbury may very well exercise enough good judgment to not be a negative presence in the locker room--but that does not mean that he will actually make a positive on court contribution.
Labels: Allen Iverson, Boston Celtics, Detroit Pistons, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Richard Hamilton, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 1:51 AM
Will Stephon Marbury be a 21st Century Bob McAdoo or Mark Aguirre?
Stephon Marbury made his Boston debut on Friday night, scoring eight points on 4-6 field goal shooting while passing for two assists (and committing three turnovers) in 13 minutes as the Celtics beat Indiana, 104-99. Marbury has always been able to put up good individual numbers but throughout his career when he comes to a team that team gets worse and when he leaves a team that team gets better--so it should not be a surprise that in a five point win Marbury accumulated a -7 plus/minus number in his limited action. As I have noted many times, plus/minus numbers are noisy, so maybe it was not Marbury's fault that the Celtics lost ground while he was on the court but it will be interesting to monitor this over a larger sample size of games. Also, while a lot has been said about Marbury's talent, the 31 year old last played in the All-Star Game in 2003. Other All-Stars that season included Jamal Mashburn, Antoine Walker, Steve Francis and Gary Payton; obviously, they are not All-Star players now and it is far from certain that Marbury is anywhere close to being the player that he was in 2003.
There are some examples of star players with questionable reputations accepting lesser roles to play on championship teams.
Bob McAdoo and
Mark Aguirre helped the Lakers and Pistons respectively win championships in the 1980s but it is a big stretch to compare Marbury to either of those players. As a Buffalo Brave, McAdoo won the 1975 MVP and placed second in MVP voting in 1974 and 1976; he led the league in scoring three straight years, led the league in field goal percentage once and annually ranked among the league leaders in rebounding and blocked shots. He also put up big time numbers in the playoffs, including 37.4 ppg and 13.4 rpg in the 1975 postseason. Aguirre was one of the best scoring forwards in the NBA in the mid-1980s, ranking in the top ten in scoring five times; he led the Dallas Mavericks to the 1988 Western Conference Finals.
In short, McAdoo and Aguirre were truly franchise players, while Marbury has only been a franchise player in his own overactive imagination. McAdoo and Aguirre made important contributions to championship teams because they were elite level players whose skill sets fit in perfectly with what their new teams needed. Marbury is a shoot first point guard with an exaggerated belief in his own abilities and an aversion to playing the tough defense that has been Boston's trademark since acquiring Kevin Garnett. Also, the knocks against McAdoo and Aguirre turned out to be largely unfounded, while Marbury has a long and well documented record of poor on court performance (at least in terms of fitting into a team concept) combined with hefty doses of negative off court drama.
The other part of this situation that cannot be ignored or understated is just how difficult it is for a starting player to not only adjust to coming off of the bench but to be effective in that role (as the Detroit Pistons have recently discovered after benching Rip Hamilton in favor of Rodney Stuckey). Even if a player has the right attitude, this is still not an easy transition to make.
When I asked McAdoo how he made the adjustment to coming off of the bench and having a reduced role, he immediately replied, "Who said I adjusted? I didn’t adjust. I mean, I never complained or anything, but I never adjusted. It was very hard for me mentally to do that for four years--really, for five years, because even when I went to Philly, they wanted to do the same thing and bring me off of the bench. It was something that I had to accept because it is a team game; it’s not like tennis or golf. I didn’t complain, I just dealt with it. That’s the only thing I can say--I dealt with it. I didn’t adjust to it." McAdoo played for two L.A. Lakers championship teams (1982, 1985).
Aguirre expressed similar thoughts to me about his role with the Detroit Pistons, who won championships in 1989 and 1990: “That was the hardest thing that I ever did. It was extremely difficult to produce 14 points in like 24 minutes. So I got through it and nobody will know how difficult that was."
The 2000-01 Portland Trailblazers provide an excellent cautionary tale about just how delicate team chemistry can be. After pushing the eventual champion Lakers to seven games in the 2000 Western Conference Finals, the Blazers looked like they were going to post the best record in the NBA in 2001. In the second half of the season, they signed Detlef Schrempf to add depth to their frontcourt. Schrempf was a versatile, talented player but adding one more body to the mix had a trickle down effect on the minutes/shot attempts for other players. The Blazers went 8-12 down the stretch and lost in the first round of the playoffs.
The Boston Celtics are a proven championship team--in contrast to that Portland squad--so the analogy is not a perfect fit but there is no denying that it can be risky to add a new player into your rotation late in the season. The Celtics won close to 80% of their games this season prior to signing Marbury. If their winning percentage dips to 70% in the final weeks of the season then the Cleveland Cavaliers could end up with the top record in the Eastern Conference--and that type of winning percentage decline would not be the least bit surprising considering Marbury's track record.
Labels: Bob McAdoo, Boston Celtics, Mark Aguirre, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 2:56 PM
D'Antoni on Marbury: "My Vision of the Team is on a Different Track"
During John Thompson's TNT interview with Mike D'Antoni, the Knicks Coach uttered the understatement of the year when explaining why shoot first (and second and third, with the fourth option being dribbling until he can shoot) point guard Stephon Marbury has been exiled: "My vision of the team is on a different track...Steph is the type of player who you give the team--or a big part of the team--or nothing."
Remember how on "Star Trek" there was a "universal translator" that could translate any language? If we put D'Antoni's comments into the "basketball universal translator" then we discover that he simply chose a tactful way of saying, "Look, I'm trying to put together a team that plays hard, plays together and whose number one goal is winning games. I have absolutely no use for an uncoachable player who has delusions of grandeur and is entirely consumed by self centered objectives when he is on the court. We might not be able to trade Marbury but I sure as hell don't have to let him and his bad attitude anywhere near the team."
Labels: Mike D'Antoni, New York Knicks, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 7:38 AM
Marbury is No Mozart
"A young musician who longed to create beautiful music once asked Mozart how to become a great composer. 'It is first necessary to play an instrument well,' said Mozart. 'Of course, one must also learn the basic rules of composing and be familiar with the work of all the great composers of the past.' 'But you were only six when you began to write music!' interjected the young musician. Mozart replied: 'That's true, but I never thought to ask anyone as you're doing now.'" Story told by Grandmaster Pal Benko and reprinted in Compose Like Mozart.
A true genius can make the most difficult and intricate task seem ridiculously simple. Think of a healthy Tiger Woods. Think of Michael Jordan. Think of Prince producing, composing and writing albums while also playing multiple instruments and providing multiple vocals. Think of Bobby Fischer sweeping aside other Grandmasters as if they were children who had just learned how the pieces move. Think of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who committed to memory thousands upon thousands of words when he composed his books while in Soviet prison camps; most people can barely remember a grocery shopping list but he wrote and then memorized a stark and eloquent account of the brutality of the "Gulag Archipelago."
On the other hand, those who are not geniuses can make the easiest and most straightforward task seem impossibly difficult. Rather than single out "non-geniuses" by name, think of a football team that cannot get the proper 11 players on the field at the same time and then cannot get those 11 players to act in unison before and/or after the snap. Think of a basketball player who forgets the play between the time he leaves the huddle and the time that the ball is inbounded. Think of a golfer who cannot make a simple putt or who could win a tournament by making straightforward shots but instead inexplicably takes unnecessary risks and whose path around the course transforms from a victory lap to a bizarre safari. Think of a writer who cannot get simple facts straight, let alone use proper grammar or communicate in an engaging, lively manner.
Stephon Marbury is no Mozart of the hardwood. Marbury possesses certain obvious physical talents--speed, ballhandling skills, shooting ability, good strength for his size--but he neither instinctively makes the right play nor has he--paraphrasing Mozart from the above story--sufficiently familiarized himself with the work of the great composers (playmaking guards) of the past. Mozart never had to think in conventional terms about becoming a composer because he understood how to apply his talent in a way that synthesized and then expanded upon the work of previous great composers. Marbury has tried to take the same "shortcut" but without the benefit of being a basketball visionary genius. Magic Johnson passed the ball the way that Mozart composed music; like Mozart, Magic did not have to think about all of the intermediary steps in his development. A great chess player once said that his philosophy was to do things as they must be done and then see what happens--but this presupposes having the vision/talent/training necessary to see what must be done; it used to be said of Fischer that he could throw a piece in the air and it would land on the best square. For Magic, that meant seeing that his teammate would become open before even that teammate realized it and then delivering the ball through the hapless defense in such a manner that the teammate could not only catch the pass but also attempt a shot that he had a good chance of making based on his skill set.
The construction of Marbury's game is the very opposite of such genius; Magic passed the ball to make plays and to win games, while Marbury passes the ball to get assists and thus to use statistics to "prove" his value and obtain a bigger contract. One might object that ultimately there is no difference between Magic accumulating assists and Marbury accumulating assists but to think such a thing--let alone say it--betrays a complete lack of understanding of the sport (and of genius). Magic passed the ball not with the goal of getting an assist for himself but because the pass was the right play in that given situation. Marbury passes the ball if and only if, in his estimation, the recipient is likely to immediately shoot and score, thus padding Marbury's assist total. One problem with this is all of the passes Marbury does not throw because he does not think that they will boost his statistics. Another problem with this is all of the bad shots Marbury then takes in lieu of making good passes. A third problem with this is that Marbury in general is not interested in doing anything on the court that does not make him look good on the stat sheet--matters such as defense or any action when he does not have the ball other than figuring out how to get the ball back in his hands so that he can resume padding his stats.
During his NBA career, Marbury has played for Minnesota, New Jersey, Phoenix and New York. Almost without fail, when he leaves a team that team performs better and when he joins a team that team performs worse. In layman's terms, he's a loser. He may be a wonderful human being--I don't know, I've never met the man--but as a point guard, as a basketball floor general, he is a loser: his teams lose and, what's worse, rather than accept responsibility for those losses he consistently offers excuses while at the same time providing ridiculous self-evaluations of his play. When Terrell Owens proclaims,
"Who can make a play? I can!" you may be amused by his bravado or merely annoyed by it but you cannot deny the obvious fact that a player who ranks second in receiving touchdowns in NFL history can--and does--make plays. However, when Stephon Marbury earnestly proclaims that he is the best point guard in the NBA all you can do is wonder if he is delusional and/or high.
This may sound overly simplistic, but in any walk of life you cannot win with losers; you can only win with winners (that is why I have quite confidently and repeatedly stated that no team with Gilbert Arenas as its starting point guard will ever advance past the second round the playoffs). I don't know what the Knicks plan to do with Marbury--and economic considerations may be impacting that decision at least as much as the front office's long term vision of how the team should play the game on the court--but they will not be a successful team until they remove him from the roster, either by trading him or by just waiving him outright.
Labels: Magic Johnson, Mozart, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 2:54 AM
The Score, the Key Stat, the Bottom Line: The Heat is Off, Durant Sizzles and the Knicks Play Better Without "Starbury"
In Miami, 4-11 is not the number you call for information but the record of the city's pro basketball team. At this rate, the Heat will be dialing 911 before long. While Shaquille O'Neal sails off into the sunset of his career, young Kevin Durant authored the best performance of his rookie season, scoring 35 points as the Sonics beat the Pacers 95-93 to claim their first home win of the season. Everyone is calling for Isiah Thomas' head but, as I've said all along, if Thomas would give "Starbury" the ax then he could prevent the blade from coming down on his own neck. Let's take a closer look at three of Friday night's games:
The Score:
Boston 95, Miami 85The Key Stat: Dwyane Wade scored 10 points, shooting 2-11 from the field and 6-11 on his free throws. He had five rebounds, one assist and six turnovers.
The Bottom Line: The return of Dwyane Wade has hardly solved all of the Miami Heat's problems. For one thing, Wade is not yet playing at the level that he was before he got hurt last season. Another issue is Pat Riley's "subtraction by addition" offseason acquisitions of Ricky Davis and Smush Parker; Davis has no interest in playing any defense and did not contribute much offensively versus the Celtics (six points on 1-6 field goal shooting), while Parker has been playing terribly (.315 field goal percentage) and, to top it off, is dealing with some legal problems as well. Riley's latest move is to bench Davis and point guard Jason Williams in favor of Penny Hardaway and Chris Quinn. ESPN's Stephen A. Smith reported that Shaquille O'Neal had cross words with Riley at a recent practice--O'Neal had little interest in being in shape when he was young and that has not changed with age--but, of course, Smith downplayed the significance of this because any suggestion that O'Neal is not dedicated or challenges his coaches simply does not fit into any storyline that the mainstream media wants to tell. As for the winners, Ray Allen (3-17) and Paul Pierce (7-18) had poor shooting nights from the field but they shot a combined 18-20 from the free throw line as Boston made 16 more free throws than Miami.
The Score:
Seattle 95, Indiana 93The Key Stat: Kevin Durant scored 35 points on 12-20 field goal shooting and posted a game-high +13 plus/minus rating. He had seven turnovers and only two assists but he scored six points in the final minute of the game--all on free throws--to preserve the win.
The Bottom Line: In his previous game,
Durant showed some signs of being willing and able to take over down the stretch. It will be interesting to see how teams defend him from now on in such situations. In order to be consistently successful, Durant will have to improve his field goal percentage and demonstrate a more well rounded game than he has so far; this performance is a good start.
The Score:
New York 91, Milwaukee 88The Key Stat: New York trailed 65-52 with 5:45 remaining in the third quarter when Stephon Marbury left the game due to a shoulder injury; Fred Jones took his place and delivered 10 points and two assists in 17:45 of playing time as the Knicks outscored the Bucks 39-23 to claim the win.
The Bottom Line: Is it too extreme to blame one player for the Knicks' troubles? Perhaps, but I'm not saying that Marbury is the only problem; what I am saying is that I can't picture him being part of the solution. The pattern during his career is crystal clear: teams get worse when he arrives and they get better when he leaves. Some would say that Marbury is the most talented player on the team but that may be part of the problem; maybe nobody on the team is willing to stand up to him and/or maybe Marbury does not respect any of his teammates enough to listen. Whatever the case, the point guard handles the ball on nearly every offensive possession and is the front line of the defense and Marbury is simply not someone you can trust with either responsibility.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Dwyane Wade, Fred Jones, Kevin Durant, Miami Heat, New York Knicks, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 5:55 AM
Boston Massacre: Celtics Humiliate Listless Knicks
What happens when a group of players who are willing to work together and sacrifice goes against a group of players who are not willing to do those things? "It has been a total embarrassment for the Knicks," Marv Albert intoned with his distinctive vocal delivery during the third quarter of Thursday's Boston-New York game. The Celtics led 65-31 at that point en route to a 104-59 victory. That is the second lowest scoring output by a Knicks team in the shot clock era--and it would have been the worst if not for a buzzer beating three pointer by Nate Robinson at the end of the game. TNT ran a startling graphic that showed that Boston outscored New York 42-7 to open each of the first three quarters of the game (14-3; 16-2; 12-2); as Keith Olbermann would say, the Knicks' starting five could have simply gotten a roll of stamps and mailed in their performance.
Knicks Coach Isiah Thomas told TNT's Craig Sager that the first half was the most selfish half of basketball he had ever seen, which could quite correctly be interpreted as a swipe at starting point guard Stephon Marbury, who finished with four points, one assist and three turnovers in 21 minutes; amazingly, things actually got worse for the Knicks in the third quarter and shortly after Albert's comment Thomas benched his entire starting lineup in favor of his "energy" group: Renaldo Balkman, Jared Jeffries, Nate Robinson, Fred Jones and David Lee. That quintet usually makes up in hustle what it lacks in talent, though it is of course an exercise in futility for that unit to try to match up to the Celtics--who have both talent and energy; on this night, though, even the "energy" group suffered a power outage and the Celtics pushed their advantage to 74-35. Boston led 82-41 at the end of the third quarter and as late as the 4:50 mark of the fourth quarter the Celtics had twice as many points as the Knicks (97-47).
Individual statistics don't really mean much for either team in such a lopsided contest. For the record, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce led Boston with 21 points each, Kevin Garnett had eight points, 11 rebounds and four assists in less than 23 minutes and Eddie House scored 15 points, all of them coming on three point shots. Robinson ended up with 11 points after his late heave, the only Knick to reach double figures. Zach Randolph (four points) shot 1-10 from the field and Eddy Curry (four points) shot 2-11 from the field; it is difficult to imagine two All-Star caliber post players performing any worse than they did.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Kevin Garnett, Nate Robinson, New York Knicks, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 7:36 AM
The Stephon Marbury Saga
Unlike many people, I have a high opinion of Isiah Thomas' ability as an NBA talent evaluator--with the exception of his acquisitions of Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis. Last summer,
Thomas finally sent Francis packing. Now Thomas may be on the verge of following a suggestion that I made
in my 2007-08 Eastern Conference Preview: "if Thomas finds a way to get rid of Marbury then the Knicks could grab the last playoff spot."
In an ongoing story that literally gets stranger by the minute, Marbury
has gone AWOL from the Knicks. That's right, New York's starting point guard is not traveling with the team and no one from the team seems to know exactly where he is. The latest Marbury drama apparently began after Thomas threatened to bench Marbury due to Marbury's deficiencies as a leader and as a defensive player (to which I say, "What's new?"). Not surprisingly, Marbury reacted very poorly. All of the gory details have not yet been confirmed but what is leaking out in drips and drabs is not pretty. Recently, Marbury has not just been an erratic player but he has acted and spoken erratically away from the court as well. People act like this is funny but has it occurred to anyone that maybe there is really something wrong with him? Perhaps his problems go deeper than just being an overdribbling, non-defending point guard; I don't know the answer to that, so I will not try to practice psychiatry without a license.
What I do know is that Marbury has put up
some of the emptiest career statistics in NBA history. The numbers say that Marbury has averaged 19.9 ppg and 7.9 apg, a dual feat that few point guards in history can match--and that just graphically proves the limitations inherent in relying too heavily on statistics to evaluate players; Marbury's me-first approach to offense combined with his disinterest in playing defense make it easy to understand why every team he leaves gets better and every team that acquires him becomes worse. Put simply and bluntly, Marbury is the "anti-Jason Kidd."
Labels: New York Knicks, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis
posted by David Friedman @ 8:33 AM
