Sticking up for Starbury
by Dax-Devlon Ross
the HNIC Report
When exactly did it become cool to hate on Stephon Marbury? When he demanded a lucrative contract from Minnesota and triggered the end of the potential “Dynasty” he and KG could’ve established? When he destroyed Keith Van Horn’s confidence? When Jason Kidd took the Nets to the Finals a season after his departure? When Steve Nash turned the Suns around just one season after he led them to a start? When he claimed he was the best point-guard in the NBA? When he led the U.S. team to its first bronze medal in the Dream Team era? When he bullied Larry Brown out of town?
While it’s hard to pin-point precisely when the well-springs of Starbury love dried up, if you answered yes to any one of the above questions chances are you’ve been victimized by biased media spin that first frames the issue then offers the only tenable perspective. Stephon’s departure from Minnesota has always been cast as him being selfish; him wanting to be the Man; him being a fool for not wanting to play with Kevin Garnet. But let’s look at the facts, shall we. At the ages of 19 and 20, Marbury was averaging roughly 17 points and 8.5 assists per game. The T’Wolves were solid, but they were never going to be serious contenders with Tom Gugliota as their leading or even second leading scorer. The Lakers were just beginning their reign, the Kings were finding their rhythm, the Trailblazers were building one of the deepest teams the league has ever seen, San Antonio had the best power forward/center combination in the game and a gritty, crafty backcourt, and the Jazz were still, as always, hanging around. As much potential as Garnett and Marbury had, the two of them alone would’ve been no match for the fire power those other teams could throw at them on any given night. What people were seeing – what they wanted to see – was Malone and Stockton all over again— the next generation if you will. What people didn’t fully appreciate was that Utah is a unique NBA franchise that can hardly be duplicated anywhere else in large part because of the state’s ultra-conservative culture. Utah fans are more supportive and patient than any sports fans in the country and because of that the organization reflects a certain loyalty, wholesomeness and consistency that is unmatched anywhere in the NBA. So, on that front, Marbury wasn’t working with any guarantee of success.
As far as the money is concerned, people seem to forget that it was Kevin Garnet’s contract that created the climate for the 1998 NBA Lockout. When Garnet signed his unprecedented $126 million dollar deal league owners had conniptions. Rather than allow salaries to ruin their franchises, and, ultimately the league, they chose to close up shop. Marbury probably had more at stake than any other player in the league. Statistically speaking, the 20 year-old Marbury and the 21 year-old Garnett were about even. Garnet averaged 18.5 and 9.6 rebounds while Marbury averaged 17.7 and 8.6 assists. Given their alleged importance to the franchise’s future, Marbury had every right to expect he was next in line to be laced and every right to demand the team pay him market value or trade him to someone who could. He would’ve been a fool to listen management’s pleas for patience, an idiot to believe its homilies on building a contender, especially when you consider the franchise’s playoff record in the post-Marbury era: not pretty.
The Wolves were nevertheless successful in painting themselves as the victims of 1) a pre-lockout market that allowed Garnet to bully them into an insane deal that wiped out their bank accounts and 2) a selfish point guard who would rather get paid then win championships alongside an ideal big man. Their cause was buttressed by the team’s 50-32 record a season after Marbury’s departure; however, the record (which was only five wins better than Stephon’s second season when they went 45-37 with mediocre talent and as yet unripe KG) reflected the addition of Terrell Brandon, Wally Szczerbiak, Malik Sealy, Joe Smith, Bobby Jackson and Rasho Nesterovic. Even with 50 wins, though, the team exited in the first round of the 2000 playoffs.
Meanwhile, Marbury continued to excel even as his new team, the Nets, foundered through a miserable 16-34 lockout shortened season. In 31 games with a Nets squad that included players we now regard, if at all, as second raters – Keith Van Horn, Kerry Kittles, Kendall Gill and Jayson Williams – Marbury averaged 23 points and almost 9 assists. The 1999-2000 Nets didn’t fare much better, finishing 31-51. The second best player on that team was Keith Van Horn, a man no one will ever accuse of not being a bust. Despite posting strong numbers, Van Horn was not a power forward and was already beginning to show signs of sugary blood. Marbury was flanked on the wings by an aging, unspectacular small forward with a delusions of grandeur in Kendall Gill and a rickety shooting guard – twenty missed games – who couldn’t shoot very well in Kerry Kittles. Both averaged a quiet 13 points per game and a combined 6 rebounds and 6 assists per game. Inside, the Nets had a squadron of slow-footed heels: Jim McIlvaine, Jamie Feick, Evan Eschmeyer and Gheorghe Mueresan. Eschmeyer and Mueresan missed a total of 103 games while McIlvaine and Feick averaged a combined 8 points and 12 rebounds.
The Nets 2000-01 season was a disaster even before it officially began. Kittles missed the entire season with a knee injury. Van Horn missed the first 32 games of the season with a fractured tibia. Kenyon Martin, the team’s one dimensional first round draft choice, broke his leg with two months left in the season. In total, the Nets lost 345 games due to injury. First year coach Byron Scott was never able to develop any chemistry or consistency on the team and yet Marbury managed to make his first All-Star game, averaging 24 points and 7.5 assists. In gratitude for his yeoman efforts on a dismal team Marbury was traded to Phoenix.
But what of the charge that he destroyed Van Horn’s confidence, publically rebuking him, then, at times, seeming to freeze him out of the offense? Well, we adored that quality in Michael Jordan. We read it as ‘tough love’ when he challenged Scottie to step up after Pippen’s infamous “migraine” in game 7 of the 1990 Eastern Conference Finals against the Pistons, and even suggested he was “soft.” Marbury, meanwhile, was labeled a bad teammate for picking on poor Van Horn, the # 2 draft pick behind Tim Duncan and the heir apparent to Bird before Dirk stole his thunder.
A year after Marbury’s departure from New Jersey, the Nets made it all the way to the Finals before being shellacked by the Lakers. Many would argue that the real NBA Finals had between L.A. and Sacramento and that the Nets team wouldn’t have made it out of the second round if they were in the West. Those criticisms notwithstanding, the Marbury-Kidd trade was billed as the far and away deciding factor behind the Nets turnaround. As a result Marbury’s reputation as a selfish, moody, curmudgeon began to congeal into a unmoveable mass of hate. The fact is, though, comparing Marbury’s time in New Jersey to Kidd’s is patently unfair. Not only was the East a woefully weaker conference in the Post Jordan era (remember the 76ers team that made it a year earlier), Kidd had more than a little help from his teammates. For the first time in four years the Nets were relatively injury free. Kittles played all 82 games after missing the previous season. Martin only missed a total of nine games. Van Horn missed only one game. Center Tod Maccolough averaged a respectable 9 points and 6 boards. And their top four players off the bench -Jason Collins, Aaron Williams, Richard Jefferson (the surprise rookie of the season) and Lucious Harris – missed a total of 13 games.
Meanwhile, Marbury inherited a team that had gone 51-31 the previous year. Again, expectations were high and Marbury held up his end of the bargain averaging his standard 20 and 8. In fact, he became the first Suns player since Kevin Johnson in 1996-1997 to average 20 points per game, and he raised his shooting percentage for the sixth straight season. But, again, he had very little to work with. In addition to enduring a mid-season coaching change – Scott Skiles was fired and Frank Johnson was promoted – Cliff Robinson, Rodney Rogers and Tony Delk (45% of the ‘00-01 offense) were sent packing. Penny Hardaway, who started the season leading the team in scoring seven out ten games and looked healthy for the first time in years, was benched in favor of rookie Joe Johnson. Of the veterans who remained, none made any legitimate impact. Gugliotta, who missed half the season, averaged 4.4 ppg; Dan Majerle averaged 4.6 ppg; Bo Outlaw averaged 4.4 ppg. Marbury’s big men were second year non-factors Jake Tsakalidis and Jake Voskuhl. The only consistent presence on the court other than Marbury was Shawn Marion, who averaged 19 and 9. In total, the Suns suited up twenty different players during the season and finished a subpar 36-46.
The Phoenix Suns’ 2002-03 Season Wrap-up had this to say about Marbury:
While “Starbury” posted solid numbers in his first season in Phoenix (20.4 points, 8.1 assists), the resurgent Nets were considered the clear-cut early victors in the deal, particularly after New Jersey advanced to the 2002 NBA Finals. One year later, though, few share that same assessment.
Through his play and his actions on and off the court (emphasis added), Marbury began to exhibit leadership skills on a team that was desperately searching for someone to step up after a lackluster 2001-02 campaign.
Marbury’s metamorphosis actually began before the ‘02-03 season kicked off. Bothered by bone spurs in the preseason, the Suns’ go-to player in the clutch decided to delay ankle surgery until after the season was completed. The surgery would have sidelined him for nearly two months and likely would have doomed the Suns’ chances of having a winning season.
Further proof of Marbury’s new-found leadership was evident when he spoke on behalf of the team to coach Johnson, suggesting that the Suns should rely less on the team’s new “motion” offense in favor of a more structured offense. Phoenix averaged 84.4 points per game over its first 15 games (8-7 record), but totaled 96.8 points over the next 16 games (11-5) as the Suns climbed up the standings, as high as fourth in the Western Conference at one point.
Marbury would have his second All-Star season average 22 and 8, make Third-Team All-NBA and leading the Suns back to the playoffs where they lost in six games to the eventual NBA champion San Antonio Spurs. Marbury finally had a big man in rookie Amare Stoudemire, a swing man in Shawn Marion, and a young scorer in Joe Johnson, and looked to be ready for a run. Of the player fans have come to associate with all that is wrong with basketball the Suns CEO Jerry Colangelo had this to say at the end of the ‘02-03 campaign, “If you look at the talent, there’s a great story in what Marbury accomplished this year in terms of not just his statistics, but in terms of his perception. What we’ve witnessed is the maturing of Stephon Marbury in my opinion. That’s a great credit to him.”
The very next season, after the Suns started slowly and Stoudemire suffered a severe ankle injury, Marbuy was traded again, this time to New York. The Suns finished 29-53 but had cleared enough salary space by unloading Marbury and Hardaway to go after a big name player. There was serious talk of Kobe coming to Phoenix, particularly after the rocky season in L.A. which saw him feuding with Karl Malone, Phil Jackson and Shaq, not to mention flying back and forth to Colorado to face rape charges. The deal never materialized, but the Suns picked up a new point guard – Steve Nash – who, like Jason Kidd, led the team Marbury left to a stellar season. Ultimately, Nash won the MVP of the league honors, but it could’ve just as well gone to Stoudemire who thoroughly dominated Tim Duncan in the Western Conference Finals.
Again, to use the Marbury exit/ Nash entrance to measure the failure of Marbury to produce is to engage in a disingenuous endeavor. Nash benefitted immeasurably from first year coach Mike D’Antoni’s wide-open style of play; from a pair of rapidly maturing superstars on his wings; from a budding superstar in Joe Johnson at his side; from a healthy Quentin Richardson, a three-point specialist in Walter McCarty and a grizzled, crafty hired-gun in Jim Jackson. Nash was amazing, still is amazing, but to judge Marbury as a failure for not leading the Suns deep into the playoffs is totally without merit considering the wholesale upgrades that were made to the team a year after he was traded.
Twenty-two players saw actions in a New York Knicks uniform in 2003-04. By the end of the 2004-05 season only three players that were on the team to open the ‘03-04 season were still on the team. During the abysmal ‘05-06 season Larry Brown used an NBA record 42 different starting lineups. In three years as a Knick Marbury has played for five coaches and alongside too many players to count. For the first year and a half he played exceptional basketball, carrying a battered, mediocre squad to the playoffs in ‘04. Following the Olympic debacle, for which he is no more responsible than his coach, Larry Brown, or any of the other players on the team, including Allen Iverson, he went on to average 22 and 8.5 in ‘04-05. His 668 assists were only second to the man who replaced him in Phoenix. The team was horrid. Allan Houston, whose bloated contract severely curtailed the Knicks capacity to attract marquee players rather than has beens and unprovens, missed 62 games. Jamal Crawford didn’t understand what it meant to pass the ball. Kurt Thomas was solid but undersized and unspectacular. Tim Thomas, who later complained the Marbury was a crappy teammate, couldn’t be counted on to deliver for more than two games at a time. Nazr Mohammed has never been worth the price of admission. The rest of the team was more than forgettable; they were lamentable.
Watching Stephon Marbury struggle through his single season with Larry Brown was like driving the entire length of the New Jersey Turnpike for six straight months: tedious and unrelentingly frustrating. Brown tried to shove Marbury into the role of passing point guard on a team that lacked a consistent scorer other than Marbury. He preferred relying on rookie Channing Frye as a primary scoring option over Marbury, which in so many ways defied what had made him a successful coach at Kansas and Philadelphia in particular. In those settings he’d relied on a single dominant player and a cadre of bruisers, scrapers and enforcers to impose his will. With the Knicks and Marbury he tried to implement a Detroit styled offense without the personnel. Frye was not going to be Rasheed Wallace. Crawford is not Richard Hamilton. And Marbury is not Chauncey Billups— he’s more explosive, quicker and a better streak shooter. But Marbury, to his credit, tried. He sulked at times, yes, but so did Brown. He complained at times, certainly, but so did his coach. What one didn’t see in Brown that was evident in Marbury was a willingness to try something new. Not a new starting lineup; a new basketball philosophy.
Brown was once quoted as saying Allen Iverson is a special player but that Marbury was merely unique. Iverson will no doubt go down as one of the greatest players the game has ever seen, but that is in large measure because of where he was drafted to play. Philadelphia passionately embraced Allen Iverson and indulged him through the years. No place ever stuck with Marbury long enough for him to become the player he is capable of being, which one has to believe is beneath the chip on his shoulder. He may be unproven as far as playoff wins are concerned, but no one can honestly blame that on him once the facts have been laid out. Just imagine if after taking your team to the playoffs at the age of 20 you get traded. Then imagine three years later after making the All-Star team and carrying a lowly Nets squad racked with injuries all year long, you get traded again. Then imagine making Third-Team All-NBA, leading your team to game six against the eventual World Champions and being touted by the franchise’s CEO as a leader, you get traded again. Forget that Marbury was sent back home. Forget that he was given the keys to the team by Isaiah. Forget all of the optimism that everyone displayed three years ago when he donned a Knick uniform. Think about how it must feel to have never, ever been on a team that had a real chance of winning when all you knew growing up was winning. Think about playing injured, taking physical and emotional abuse, and producing numbers only one other player in NBA history has produced (20/8: Oscar Roberston), and still being shipped off like an expendable role player time after time. Think about being booed by your hometown crowd because you’re trying to please everyone but yourself. Just think.
Stephon Marbury has always seen himself as a franchise-type player and has proven it with the numbers, and yet the basketball world continues to judge him on terms that simply don’t apply to other players. Granted he’s made a number of comments that have brought the criticism to his doorstep (saying he was the best point guard in the league was a mild one), but he’s never not backed it up on the court. Never. Even this season he’s averaged 21 points and 5.5 assists since the All-Star break. Despite experiencing career lows statistically, he’s still managed to reel of five 30+ point games and two 40 point games this season. Even more impressive and under-reported has been his development of his defensive game. Unlike many, many star players Marbury embraces the callenges of guarding the opposing team’s best perimeter player despite being, as in the case of Lebron James, six inches shorter and forty pounds lighter.
The hate the swirls around Stephon Marbury’s head comes down to this: he’s a nigga. Marbury walks, talks and acts like the quintessential nigga. Iverson may symbolize hip-hop marketing, but Marbury is street-hop. From the company he keeps, to the menacing scowl on his face, to the brutish Tysonesque strut, the bald-head, to the black sneakers, to the unrestrained, artless way he expresses himself. He has no problem speaking his mind in his language and that makes people very uncomfortable. He really does believe he’s the best point guard and he defies anyone to prove him otherwise, and that also makes people uncomfortable. Critics sugar-coat their distaste for him in terms like ‘typical New York City baller’ or ‘selfish.’ They blame him for not being media-friendly when they’re clamoring for an interview. They print pictures of him with a towel over his head and call him a failure. They catch feelings when he yells at his teammates or doesn’t talk to them. But really what people are articulating are their problems, not his, which isn’t to say he doesn’t have his own. In a fair world him being a jerk should be irrelevant when you consider how many jerks there are Hall of Fame players. Charles Barkely charged stands, got into a brawls at bars, and denounced his role model status and yet he is universally loved. Isaiah Thomas, Marbury’s coach, was a snarky S.O.B. who orchestrated a mid-season trade that sent Adrian Dantley to Dallas for his buddy Mark Aguire so they could get a ring together. Which they did, twice. Shaquille O’Neal, for all of his skillful media manipulation, is a chief engineer in the desecration of Kobe Bryant’s image. Even Iverson has managed to finagle his way into the good graces of most basketball fans despite his many antics, which, when compared to Marbury’s make the latter seem like Tim Duncan. So, I ask again, when exactly did it become cool to hate on Stephon Marbury?
Nice post, Dax. It is always interesting to watch how circumstance, in Steph’s case trades, is shaped by the media to render an image they want the public to feel is the reality of the athlete. And in Marbury’s case, they’ve been completely unfair.
Looking at the treatment O. J. Mayo receives, I now wonder whether the Marbury “haters” in the media were actually formed by the time Steph graduated from high school?
“Watching Stephon Marbury struggle through his single season with Larry Brown was like driving the entire length of the New Jersey Turnpike for six straight months”
Whoa! That’s serious.
What was it 96 when Stephon and KG battled Barkley’s Suns? I though that signified a passing of the torch. Minnesota should have broke bank and paved the future.
Totally agree with your assessment of Marbury.
It’s a shame that the teams he left became more successful out of Marbury discomfort.
He’s crazily misunderstood for every reason you so eloquently stated.
I have to disagree. There’s two problems with quoting Marbury stats to back up your arguments. The first is that you’re only marshalling a small percentage of the stats we have available. Points and assists tell us nothing, for all of the reasons that John Hollinger’s pointed out — we don’t know anything about field goal percentage, points per shot, playing time (anyone can get big numbers if they get enough minutes), rebounds, turnovers, how many points opposing point guards are getting, etc etc. This is why Marury doesn’t come out very favorably when analysts use more complex measures, such as Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating. Marbury’s ability to put up numbers makes us feel like he’s a superstar because that’s what makes SportsCenter and makes the crowd Oooh and Aaah, but the longer he stays in one place the more fans realize that’s pretty much all he’s doing. (In this respect, he’s very similar to Eddy Curry.) As to his defense, the fact that he sometimes takes on an opposing team’s best player doesn’t actually say whether he’s effective at doing it.
But more importantly, any stat doesn’t tell the whole story. I don’t think that Marbury is the embodiment of “street-hop,” if only because I want to give young American ballers more credit — but I may be wrong. Marbury simply cares more about stats and scoring than about making the right play to help his team win. The fact that he sulks, blames teammates, and throws a towel over his head when his team is underperforming — I’d like to think that this bothers most fans and commentators because this is the hallmark of a bad teammate, one who doesn’t inspire confidence and do whatever it takes to win. Steve Nash doesn’t do this, but Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan don’t either. There’s a huge racial aspect to white writers criticizing young Black men for being “too black,” but sometimes the criticism is substantive, and I think that’s the case here. I wanted to embrace Marbury when he came to the Knicks, but I just couldn’t. The guy was clearly a born loser who doesn’t understand winning basketball, a cancer in the locker room and on the court. The biggest evidence for this argument is what his former teammates say — it’s not just Tim Thomas (less than credible) who’s criticized Marbury, it’s any number of former teammates. I wanted to like Marbury, but my increasing dislike for him (I’m a lifelong Knicks fan) has more to do with him than me.
I have to disagree. There’s two problems with quoting Marbury stats to back up your arguments. The first is that you’re only marshalling a small percentage of the stats we have available. Points and assists tell us nothing, for all of the reasons that John Hollinger’s pointed out — we don’t know anything about field goal percentage, points per shot, playing time (anyone can get big numbers if they get enough minutes), rebounds, turnovers, how many points opposing point guards are getting, etc etc. This is why Marury doesn’t come out very favorably when analysts use more complex measures, such as Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating. Marbury’s ability to put up numbers makes us feel like he’s a superstar because that’s what makes SportsCenter and makes the crowd Oooh and Aaah, but the longer he stays in one place the more fans realize that’s pretty much all he’s doing. (In this respect, he’s very similar to Eddy Curry.) As to his defense, the fact that he sometimes takes on an opposing team’s best player doesn’t actually say whether he’s effective at doing it.
But more importantly, any stat doesn’t tell the whole story. I don’t think that Marbury is the embodiment of “street-hop,” if only because I want to give young American ballers more credit — but I may be wrong. Marbury simply cares more about stats and scoring than about making the right play to help his team win. The fact that he sulks, blames teammates, and throws a towel over his head when his team is underperforming — I’d like to think that this bothers most fans and commentators because this is the hallmark of a bad teammate, one who doesn’t inspire confidence and do whatever it takes to win. Steve Nash doesn’t do this, but Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan don’t either. There’s a huge racial aspect to white writers criticizing young Black men for being “too black,” but sometimes the criticism is substantive, and I think that’s the case here. I wanted to embrace Marbury when he came to the Knicks, but I just couldn’t. The guy was clearly a born loser who doesn’t understand winning basketball, a cancer in the locker room and on the court. The biggest evidence for this argument is what his former teammates say — it’s not just Tim Thomas (less than credible) who’s criticized Marbury, it’s any number of former teammates. I wanted to like Marbury, but my increasing dislike for him (I’m a lifelong Knicks fan) has more to do with him than me.
” ‘Well, we adored that quality in Michael Jordan. We read it as ‘tough love’ when he challenged Scottie to step up after Pippen’s infamous “migraine” in game 7 of the 1990 Eastern Conference Finals against the Pistons, and even suggested he was “soft.” ‘ ”
I ‘ve seen Michael Jordan. You Mr. Starbury, are no Michael Jordan. And for that matter Keith Van Horn is no Scottie Pippen. Some guys can take that type of criticism and some can’t. Leaders should know the difference. Remember Magic hugging Vlade in the 91′ finals? Magic brought Vlade along with kid gloves and he was became an important part of that team and a solid NBA player. Who knows what KVH could have been if Marbury had taken the same route.
Sorry Dax, no way I can agree with you on this. I guess maybe being in New York it makes negative press towards Stephon seem larger than it does to the rest of the basketball watching world but I don’t think there is so much “Stephon hate” as there is apathy. To the general public, Allen Iverson comes off as waaay more street, waaay more dangerous…covered in tatoos (by the way, conservative folks are scared of anyone, black or white, thats covered in tats), rows, swagger, platinum chain, throwback jerseys, rap lyrics…c’mon man. In fact, everyone in Philly knows how A.I. rolls, and the media gave him hell for years for it, and we still love him. Know why??? Because he is a warrior on the court….repeat a WARRIOR. I’ve watched Stephon play many, many times. I think he comes off as charming and intelligent in interviews. I often see him wearing great business suits (rarely do I see A.I. in such attire). But plain and simple, Stephon has not been a warrior on the court. He has had great moments throughout, but not very consistently. In fact, the one time I really remember him going all out was when he and A.I. led the East back from way down in the All Star game in 2001? I think.
I’m glad you are sticking up for Stephon. I like him. But to say that there is a racist slant on why he receives negative media attention sometimes….I just don’t know.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as Marbury’s field goal percentage is concerned, I think I pointed out that he raised it every season for at least the first six seasons. As far assists to turnover ratios are concerned, I have to check for specifics but in my research I came across favorably percentages there as well. Also, if we’re talking about the numbers behind the numbers — meaning looking at more sophisticated stat analysis– then all of those “Agent Zero” fans out there and “A.I.” fans (and I’m one of them) and any other fan of a shoot-first point guard better beware.
As far as A.I. being more street than Marbury, I think people might’ve missed my point. For all of A.I’s antics, girls still look at him and see a “cutie.” Commentators are in awe of him because of his diminutive stature. He’s threatening because of what he represents not because of what he looks like. People look at Marbury on the court and they see a bully. They see a guy who looks like he will punch you in the face. That, to me, is what makes him street-hop: the physical representation alone
I appreciate the feedback from everyone. It’s a valuable conversation to have on many levels. Sticking up for Marbury isn’t popular but I stand by it, particularly after watching the Knicks all season long and seeing a guy play hard on offense and defense, a guy lodged in a backcourt full of shoot-first guards trying to be orchestrator, and a guy who still isn’t afraid to take the big shot— see Wednesday night if you need verification on that one.
At what point do the actual win/loss records of Steph’s team’s reflect on his ability? I’m a die-hard Knicks fan, Brooklyn born and raised. I’ve followed this guy since he was at Lincoln. I watched the PSAL finals on MSG. There is no doubt that athletically and skill wise Steph is as good as anyone to ever play the point. But something has always been missing. Steph hasn’t done anything of real merit on a basketball court since Lincoln H.S. Has he played GREAT this season? Yes, emphatically yes. But it’s closer to the end than the beginning for him and at some point he’s gonna have to say, “Yo, my bad”.
Great article. The best I have read supporting Marbury. You have some good evidence to back up that Marbury has been treated unfairly. I think Steph is stubborn and young and didn’t know any better when he did some of the things he has been blasted for in the past. But I honestly think, watching every Knick game this year, that something clicked when Isiah benched him for sulking and not playing the right way. Remember that Houston game, when we were coming back and the garden and the bench was going crazy..except Marbury just sat there with that towel on his head. At that point, I wanted nothing to do with him, that was the final straw. But honestly looking back, after that game, slowly but surely he started becoming a better player in the system and a better leader for the Knicks. Today, he is back to being my favorite player on the Knicks. Because like you said in your comment, watching him day in and day out, he honestly is trying his best to help the team succeed. And playing his butt off, and playing the best defense of his life and waiting until big shots are needed and then delivering. Whoever posted here and said he is worried about numbers, hasn’t watched many games this season. Thats the last thing on his mind. Not to mention, he has played the whole season with tendinitis and alot of it with the turf toe problem. And finally, people and media keep alluding to the the stupid towel thing when he sits on the bench. Yeah I guess it could look like he is sulking but again, if anyone watched all the games, they would see he ALWAYS does this when he goes to the bench, when we are winning, when he is having a good game, whatever. The dude just likes a towel on his head when he rests. How about we give some hate to Steve Francis if we are gonna hate. I have watched him single handly drag this team down the last 3 weeks. With his play and his whining about minutes. Maybe Francis will get IT some day, but he hasn’t yet. Great article man.
“Sticking up for Marbury isn’t popular but I stand by it, particularly after watching the Knicks all season long and seeing a guy play hard on offense and defense”
i totally agree with you. yesterday i watched new york vs new orleans oklahoma. nate robinson turned the ball over which then gave the hornets a 3pt lead. in te next possession, steph still passed it to nate, who hit a 3 to send the game to OT. isn’t that a leader at work? still trusting nate even if he was guilty for the costly turnover?
in overtime, chris paul just dominated nate for 2 staright possessions. in next possession, steph immediately ran and picked up chris paul on D at the half court line. paul passed the ball (probably in intimidation?). isnt that a leader at work?
after the game (new york lost), steph was seen consoling nate with is arm around nate’s shoulder, as if saying “you did well, dawg, we’ll be better next time around.” Nate was responsible for the costly turnover and the defensive lapse in overtime.
say what you want about steph, but i totally agree with this post.
how come iverson isnt grilled for freezing out stackhouse, kukoc, and hughes? for refusing to come off the bench? for firing randy ayers and chris ford? for pointing a gun at his wife?
how come iverson is billed as a warrior, while steph plays through injuries? (steph averages 73 games per year, iverson averages 67)
how come steph gets grilled for his defense but steve nash cant even guard mardy collins?
your guess is as good as mine.
I have been following Marbury’s Career since his rookie season in the league. I have watched all but maybe 75 of his games throughout his career and have said to myself everything that has been written in this article. The best point guard comment was blown way out of proportion. Do people not agree that for someone to be successful they have to think they are the best? I like to call that self-motivation. How well do you think he would play if he thought the other guy was better than him every night and gave up? The thing about him looking mad all of the time is understandable. He has had bad luck his entire career and been criticized for it, so yea he probably is a little frustrated. The point is that he has been a warrior his entire career. I have seen him play hurt many times when his team had no chance of making the playoffs, just because he hates to lose. If you watch every game he plays you will see that he never gives up no matter what. I have seen his team down by 20 in the forth and the coach try to take him out because they have a game the next night and he will tell him to leave him in because its not over. He always plays hard night in and night out. If you have watched the Knicks this season you will have noticed that he tries to run the offense through Eddy Curry even when Curry is struggling, but then when it comes down to crunch time he will take over and score when needed to. How many Great scorers have you seen that insist on guarding the best player from the other team even when he is undersized by about 5 inches? People say that he is only concerned about his numbers, if so how do you explain him telling Channing Fry to shoot a technical free-throw on a night when Fry was 1 for 8 from the floor. He was trying to get Fry an easy bucket to get him going and it worked. I think if the people who hate on him watched all 82 games for a season they would change their mind.
All those injuries on those teams…
All those trades…
Maybe he just brings bad luck?
Seriously though, I’m a huge fan, and I think he’s going to tilt the scales of public opinion by the end of next season, you know, Zeke keeping the same squad intact (sans Francis), everyone on the same page, etc.
Loved the article, thanks.
[...] counterpoints to the above lines of reasoning. A thorough, season-by-season laundry list of objections one could raise to the traditional Marbury-As-Loser argument has recently been compiled by [...]