Posted by Bonn1997:

It's not Nazy...its NazR. Its no biggie, but I mean, we had this guy on our team for a year, lets spell his name right.

Nazy was his nickname. Did you watch any games last year? He's always called "Nazy"

Wow man. You do realize that Nazr is pronounced Nah-zee right? If you don't believe me check the pronounciation guide from this Spurs media guide...

http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/notes.pdf#search='pronunciation%20of%20Nazr'

[Edited by - VDesai on 07/14/2005 22:59:43]

Posted by VDesai:

Posted by Bonn1997:

It's not Nazy...its NazR. Its no biggie, but I mean, we had this guy on our team for a year, lets spell his name right.

Nazy was his nickname. Did you watch any games last year? He's always called "Nazy"

Wow man. You do realize that Nazr is pronounced Nah-zee right? If you don't believe me check the pronounciation guide from this Spurs media guide...

http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/notes.pdf#search='pronunciation%20of%20Nazr'

[Edited by - VDesai on 07/14/2005 22:59:43]

yeah, but the nickname is written "Nazy"

Posted by VDesai:

There is no nickname. His name Nazr is pronounced Nah-zee. There is no nickname, that is his real name.

I always spelled it Nazzy and i was aware of the correct spelling I just thought it looked better spelling it phonetically. Glad to see we have a speeling Bee champ on the boards though.

Posted by VDesai:

There is no nickname. His name Nazr is pronounced Nah-zee. There is no nickname, that is his real name.

lol...sorry dude...just found it funny that you're actually explaining this to Knick fans.

Posted by Rich:

Including raising his value so that he is traded for two first round picks? I hope so.

Well Nazzy averaged:
Spurs
6 and 6 shooting 38.7% which is super horrible from someone who shoots within 10 feet of the basket at all times.

NY Knicks
11 and 8 shooting 50.9%
those are significant differences in all the major categories. And even though he played less minutes (10mpg less) his accuracy was way way down, and I think you can attribute that to him not having point blank shots.

He really had a career year the first half of the season. Many of his highs for the season were career highs as well and they all came while he was in a Knick uniform. This first half of his season was the best in his career.

My point is, JJ will play better with Marbs than he has previously.

Nazzy really wasn't that good and looked really good at times with us. I give alot of the credit for that to Marbs. JJ has a better body and much better hands, he should be able to score at least 7-8 points per game next season and maybe more.

I thought we had this settled.

His real name is Nosehair.

Good one. Nazr or Nazy or whatever we want to call him is a very different player from JJames. JJames is a skilled shot blocker and a mediocre rebounder. Mohammed is a very good rebounder who doesn't block many shots. JJames also has a problem staying on the court because of foul trouble.

Adding up the plusses and minuses, if I had my choice I'd take Mohammed, but it's pretty close. Herb and Mark have had good success working with big men and that may close the gap for JJames.

Posted by VDesai:

2 things:

1) It's not Nazy...its NazR. Its no biggie, but I mean, we had this guy on our team for a year, lets spell his name right.

2) Marbury really didn't turn this guy into that much better of a player. If you look at Nazr's stats, the only other chances he got to play real minutes (I'm talking like over 29) was with the Hawks, and his numbers were about the same. Here are his stats

2000: 28 games, 25.6 mins, 12.3 pts, 9 rebs
2001: 82 games, 26.4 mins, 9.7 pts, 7.9 rebs

Now with Marbury and the Knicks...

2003: 27 games, 24.9 mins, 9.2 pts, 7.7 rebs
2004: 54 games, 28.6 mins 10.9 pts, 8.1 rebs

So really, Nazr was virtually the same player. He performed virtually the same give the same amount of minutes. So I'm not sure if the "Marbury made him better" argument holds that much water. At best Steph helped his FG% (which improved on the Knicks), but that was also a product of Nazr playing on a better team and getting better looks without having to force anything (he was playing on last place Atlanta teams).


Similarly what's going to make James better is his ability to stay out there and play more minutes. He's got some major issues with fouls that will limit that, but when he is out there he's reasonably produtive.


[Edited by - VDesai on 07/14/2005 13:59:35]

[Edited by - VDesai on 07/14/2005 14:01:56]

Very good post. The Marbury factor seems highly overrated. What people fail to realize is that guys tend to get more points and rebounds when they play more minutes. It should be a simple concept, but it's not. Then we say, "oh the coach is doing such a great job in improving this guy" or "props to the point guard for turning him around", etc... What it really is, is when folks get more of an opportunity to play, they tend to put up higher numbers (at the same ratio), because mathmatically speaking, they *SHOULD*!!!

Posted by Solace:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Turn a bench scrub into a 12 PPG scorer on 55% shooting because of his playmaking skills. (Only James will get tripple the blocked shots.) If not, why? What's the difference between Nazy pre-Marbury and James?

Funny how the "key to the deal" and later proclaimed "best player in the trade" is now referred to as a "bench scrub" after he leaves and goes onto a championship with the Spurs. He improved when he was on the Spurs too. Yet, somehow Marbunny gets all the credit. Funny thing when you wear rose colored glasses, I guess.

But to answer your question, as opposed to James career numbers of 5 and 3 in 16 mpg, I think James will vastly improve to 5.5 and 3.5 in 18 mpg on the Knicks. That Marbury factor will work wonders, as you see, based on my prediction.

He was a bench scrub before becoming a Knick but no longer is. There's no other way to describe a player burried on the bench of a garbage team (Atlanta).

Posted by Solace:

Posted by VDesai:

2 things:

1) It's not Nazy...its NazR. Its no biggie, but I mean, we had this guy on our team for a year, lets spell his name right.

2) Marbury really didn't turn this guy into that much better of a player. If you look at Nazr's stats, the only other chances he got to play real minutes (I'm talking like over 29) was with the Hawks, and his numbers were about the same. Here are his stats

2000: 28 games, 25.6 mins, 12.3 pts, 9 rebs
2001: 82 games, 26.4 mins, 9.7 pts, 7.9 rebs

Now with Marbury and the Knicks...

2003: 27 games, 24.9 mins, 9.2 pts, 7.7 rebs
2004: 54 games, 28.6 mins 10.9 pts, 8.1 rebs

So really, Nazr was virtually the same player. He performed virtually the same give the same amount of minutes. So I'm not sure if the "Marbury made him better" argument holds that much water. At best Steph helped his FG% (which improved on the Knicks), but that was also a product of Nazr playing on a better team and getting better looks without having to force anything (he was playing on last place Atlanta teams).


Similarly what's going to make James better is his ability to stay out there and play more minutes. He's got some major issues with fouls that will limit that, but when he is out there he's reasonably produtive.


[Edited by - VDesai on 07/14/2005 13:59:35]

[Edited by - VDesai on 07/14/2005 14:01:56]

Very good post. The Marbury factor seems highly overrated. What people fail to realize is that guys tend to get more points and rebounds when they play more minutes. It should be a simple concept, but it's not. Then we say, "oh the coach is doing such a great job in improving this guy" or "props to the point guard for turning him around", etc... What it really is, is when folks get more of an opportunity to play, they tend to put up higher numbers (at the same ratio), because mathmatically speaking, they *SHOULD*!!!

Okay well then how do you guys account for his fg% going from 50.9% with us to 38.7% with San Antonio? Aren't SA world champions, shouldn't his fg% have gone up by that logic?

Not only that but to quote my earlier post which no one seems to have read :

He really had a career year the first half of the season. Many of his highs for the season were career highs as well and they all came while he was in a Knick uniform. This first half of his season was the best in his career.

How do you guys account for that?