it's funny to see the attitude on this board shift from the "Get rid of Marbury! he's a selfish me-first player who doesn't make his teammates better!" to "No, I wouldn't trade Marbury for Iverson." after Stephon has a good game...i've been noticing this phenomenon happening on a regular basis on this forum (not you Bonn, i know you've been consistent all along in your disagreement w/me on this issue)

[Edited by - TMS on 03/22/2005 15:55:10]

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by tkf:

And to say Iverson is WAAAAAAY better than marbs is ridiculous, we are talking about two fantastic players, It is like saying Garnett is Waaaaay better than duncan, that is a joke. We are not talking Iverson and earl watson here... lets get real..

Good point.

no, more like saying Duncan is way better than Antawn Jamison...KG & Duncan are comparable in skill...Iverson is simply better than Marbury...sorry guys, but it's true.

[Edited by - TMS on 03/22/2005 15:57:00]

Posted by TMS:

it's funny to see the attitude on this board shift from the "Get rid of Marbury! he's a selfish me-first player who doesn't make his teammates better!" [Edited by - TMS on 03/22/2005 15:55:10]

Who says that other than the MS, Simrud, Islesfan crew?

just 2 different leagues of player imho...tomverve will bring up stats that are all well & dandy, but Allen Iverson will be a 1st ballot HOFer when he retires...can the same be said about Stephon Marbury? i'm not so sure.

No one denies that Iverson used to be better than Marbury. He'd be a first ballot HOFer because of his play from about four years ago. Over the past two or three years, I haven't seen anything that puts Iverson ahead of Marbury, though.

Actually, even in Iverson's MVP season, his PER was only 23.9. Now, 23.9 is great, but it's not MVP level. By comparison, Dwyane Wade is putting up a 24.2 PER so far this season, and McGrady is at 22.5.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Iverson is a notch above Marbury's level. But he's not as good as he looks on the surface. Behind those 30ppg seasons and all those 50 point games, it's easy to miss how often he turns it over and how many shots he misses. The plain fact is that turning the ball over is the worst thing you can do on an offensive possession, and missing a shot is the second worst. Iverson does both of those things A LOT. You can't overlook the negatives that come with the positives.

Iverson brings boatloads of positives, just about as much as any other top tier player; the difference is that he also brings much more negatives than most of those top tier players. His MVP season is indicative of the general way people tend to view the better players, Iverson in particular; focus on the superlatives and brush over the downers. Really, Shaq should have won the 2001 MVP going away with his monsterous 30.2 PER, but he won it the previous season and wasn't as sexy of a choice as the diminuitive and electric Iverson.

Wow, this has turned into a good debate. Here are my 2 cents: AI has it over Steph. The PER is interesting, as are the claims that AI is past his prime, but I'll tell you what catches my eye - this man is putting up 30 points, 8 assists, 4 boards and 2.5 steals per game. With a sleeve on his arm, with a broken thumb, with a belligerent coach, with a crappy team around him, he delivers it every night.

Not to beat a dead horse, but on the flip side, Iverson also leads the league (easily) in TO/game (4.5) and missed FGA/game (14). So while he does lots of good things for his team, he also does lots of bad things. Think about it... 4.5 TOs is 4.5 less shots at the basket per game. That ends up costing the Sixers about 4.5ppg on average. 4.5 TO/game is especially attrocious for a PG, where the Sixers are playing Iverson this season. And Iverson misses as many shots per game as guys like Cuttino Mobley, Joe Johnson, and Tony Parker attempt per game! That's a lot of damage being done there. Great player? Yes. As great as his gaudy stats indicate? Not really.

[Edited by - tomverve on 03/22/2005 22:28:53]

FIRST OF ALL I HAVE always been a marbury supporter, during the good and bad.. I think the point being missed is that we shouldn't or wouldn't trade marbs for AI simply because it is almost a lateral move, both players do similar things and both need good talent around them to win. I don't think this is about who is better, Iverson would not lead this knicks team any further than marbs is right now, and for those who say that ai can just carry a team, then tell me what is happenning this year? and for those who say that Ai makes players better and marbs doesn't then tell me why, Stackhouse, Hughes, nazr,ratliff, all have gotten better since leaving the sixers, it can easily be said that guys seem to flourish when they leave the dominant umbrella of ai....

just a thought...

Posted by tkf:

FIRST OF ALL I HAVE always been a marbury supporter, during the good and bad.. I think the point being missed is that we shouldn't or wouldn't trade marbs for AI simply because it is almost a lateral move, both players do similar things and both need good talent around them to win. I don't think this is about who is better, Iverson would not lead this knicks team any further than marbs is right now, and for those who say that ai can just carry a team, then tell me what is happenning this year? and for those who say that Ai makes players better and marbs doesn't then tell me why, Stackhouse, Hughes, nazr,ratliff, all have gotten better since leaving the sixers, it can easily be said that guys seem to flourish when they leave the dominant umbrella of ai....

just a thought...

tkf, I think you've overstretched to make your point. Nazr hardly got off the bench his first 2 years in the league, which were spent in philly. Ratliff had by far his best years in philly. Stack and hughes were both immature and hadnt developed their games yet when thye were in Philly. Why don't you mention how players like Eric Snow, George Lynch, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, Dikembe Mutombo, etc. absolutely flourished playing with him? Think Kyle Korver and Andre Iguodala are being held back?

Posted by TMS:


Iverson is better than Marbury...these things are simple truths of life...not hard to fathom really.

[Edited by - TMS on 03/23/2005 09:29:20]

God has spoken

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 03/23/2005 10:46:17]

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Marv:

Posted by tkf:

FIRST OF ALL I HAVE always been a marbury supporter, during the good and bad.. I think the point being missed is that we shouldn't or wouldn't trade marbs for AI simply because it is almost a lateral move, both players do similar things and both need good talent around them to win. I don't think this is about who is better, Iverson would not lead this knicks team any further than marbs is right now, and for those who say that ai can just carry a team, then tell me what is happenning this year? and for those who say that Ai makes players better and marbs doesn't then tell me why, Stackhouse, Hughes, nazr,ratliff, all have gotten better since leaving the sixers, it can easily be said that guys seem to flourish when they leave the dominant umbrella of ai....

just a thought...

tkf, I think you've overstretched to make your point. Nazr hardly got off the bench his first 2 years in the league, which were spent in philly. Ratliff had by far his best years in philly. Stack and hughes were both immature and hadnt developed their games yet when thye were in Philly. Why don't you mention how players like Eric Snow, George Lynch, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, Dikembe Mutombo, etc. absolutely flourished playing with him? Think Kyle Korver and Andre Iguodala are being held back?

maybe I overstretched a bit, but not much, Mckie was still a productive player when he was in portland I think, Mutombo was a much better player in atlanta and Denver than he was in philly, Lynch was a non factor IMO, and Tyrone hill had better years in cleveland, and was always productive elsewhere, snow was about the only player that played well with iverson, but the other guys were already playing well or played better when they left, Iverson as someone stated did not make those guys better players, that is my point....

Igudala and Korver, it is still to early to tell.... As far as ratliff, he was a better player in Atlanta, especially since they had plays run for him in the post, something that never happened in philly....

I don't think you overstretched; I think you made great points. I can't think of any player that Iverson has made noticably better. In contrast, we saw it just this season that Marbury turned a career bench player (Nazy) into a 12/9 player that a team was actually willing to give up 2 1st rd picks for. (Now that Nazy's playing with Parker, we're seeing how much Marbury actually elevated his game.)