A defense of Stephon Marbury
Over on RealGM is something that was interesting to read--a defense of Stephon Marbury (and by extension, other maligned drive-and-kick point guards such as Baron Davis). The essential claim to the argument is that for most of his career, Marbury wasn't used properly--to structure a team around his talents requires teammates on the wings who are good spot-up-shooters--not other guys who need the ball.
The article also touches on certain cultural "prejudices" in basketball, including a whole lot of received knowledge on the proper role of the point guard. There are certainly a lot of knowledgeable basketball folks out there who dislike point guards who drive-and-kick (using strong penetration skills to attack the basket looking to score, passing to open shooters when the defense collapses); preferring playmakers who pass earlier in the possession.
While I don't agree with much of the article--Marbury has many issues, on and off court, that have nothing to do with the team's style of play (and Jack Nicholson, despite any cooties he may have from attending Laker games, is NOT a one-role actor)--it is an interesting analysis nonetheless.
While the Blazers don't get mentioned at all in the article, some of the zingers launched at Larry Brown in particular (who is accused of trying to turn Marbury into Eric Snow) might be applied to Nate. Nate doesn't have Brown's ego or his eagerness to throw players under the bus; but he does share with Brown a desire for more conservative play from the point position. Marbury's cousin did poorly under Nate; though he hasn't really thrived anywhere. Sergio has had issues with Nate (although he's not a drive-and-disher). And Bayless might have issues in the future, given that he likes to use penetration to set up the pass.
The interesting thing, though, is the drive-and-kick game is in large part how Brandon plays when he's got the ball in his hands. Given that the Blazers run a brilliantly efficient offense, I suppose nobody ought to complain--and Roy has got leadership skills that Marbury and BD can only dream about.
But still, the article is a VERY interesting read.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m just shocked to see Marbury in the same sentence as defense.
acquire andre iguodala
by Cablinasian on Mar 3, 2009 2:48 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Marbury wouldn't need a defense if he could play some himself.
Want more aggressiveness? Try less Baylesslessness.
After all this I hope he does well in Boston
I’ve moved on from all of the things in the past and I just hope he carves a niche for himself.
And that he shuts up.
I think some people would rather read my dribbal and drabbel before they gave that much credit...
I think.
The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out burns out farms and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.
no you're right, it's close, but you're right
Man, we should forfeit before roy’s hammy explodes, knocking him into LMA’s ear who loses his balance and hits Greg’s knee… - HurraKane212
http://www.nba.com/news/miles_10_080919.html
Quick point of clarification...
This is a defense of Marbury the player and not Marbury the person.
There’s 1,200,000 reasons to hate Marbury. His offensive selfishness is probably in the bottom half… Any defense of such a person should start at the top and work it’s way down…
"Now, you take a bobcat or a Jayhawk. You know they'll run if you give 'em the chance. But when one don't run, why, you shoot him and shoot him quick. Raef's my dog, Pa. I've gotta do what's right..." Old Yeller (1957)
by RoyGoesTheDynamite on Mar 3, 2009 5:01 PM PST reply actions
True dat...
OTOH, there’s a lot of guys in the NBA who are probably bigger [beep]s than Marbury. Most of them engage in their obnoxious behavior outside of the limelight—but I suspect that “truck parties” and other such things are more common among NBA players—and jocks in general—then is reported.
I’M not defending Marbury, and I don’t want him or his ilk on the Blazers, certainly.
There is no charge for awesomeness. Or attractiveness.
by EngineerScotty on Mar 3, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
As I already said to Morti today, I can't wait for Bill Simmons' article trying to justify why having him on the Celtics is a good thing
From his podcast, when calling his father:
Simmons junior: Marbury looks pretty good out there, huh?
Simmons senior: He has a tattoo on the side of his head.
Regarding the Blazers: Neither Baron nor Marbury would work well next to Roy even though we have the outside shooters. They need the ball in their hands too much. There was a direct quote from KP and Tom Penn about this a while ago regarding Davis, but I don’t find it right now.
Proud Odensheeple
Is Marbury really a "drive and kick" guy?
Chris Paul is a drive and kick guy. Brandon Roy is a drive and kick guy. Although you apparently disagree, Sergio loves to drive and kick. Bayless may be that type of point guy. (By contrast, Steve Blake is definitely NOT drive and kick.)
Marbury is drive and SHOOT. The kicking he’s not so fond of. Except maybe, possibly, on occasion as a last resort.
Baron Davis may drive and kick sometimes, but to whatever extent people don’t like his game, it has more to do with contested 25 footers off the dribble. Drives are good. Kicks are good. Contested 25 footers, bad.
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
Sergio is ineffective at driving and kicking
Sergio may drive, but the defense doesn’t collapse on him because he doesn’t finish well. Driving and scoring is part of driving and kicking.

by 



















