How far off was Stephon Marbury to Allen Iverson?

[Im Still Ballin]

Like Dame to Curry? Or John Wall to Westbrook and Rose?

Here's Marbury putting up 50 points and 13 assists on the 2001 Lakers:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYm0Djpt94s&ab_channel=LarryLegend

[Kblaze8855]

He hit what I think was a second consecutive three towards the end of that game(before Kobe hit a game winner I believe) that had one of the all time great crowd reactions. They had a really good announcer at the time too who really made it sound major.

[Baller234]

Iverson was more technically sound and had more moves in his bag. Marbury had him beat in terms of freakish athleticism and was quicker off the dribble.

In terms of tangibles, the gap was not huge at all.

[Im Still Ballin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jglFGBZXwbw&ab_channel=KentBlazemore

[Xiao Yao You]

wouldn't have wanted either. Marbury should have been one of the greats. He was just empty stats. Iverson was a warrior just not a high iq player

[L.Kizzle]

Like Dame to Curry? Or John Wall to Westbrook and Rose?

Here's Marbury putting up 50 points and 13 assists on the 2001 Lakers:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYm0Djpt94s&ab_channel=LarryLegend

He's Kemba Walker to those other guys. He had it all besides luck. Avg over 20 ppg for 6 straight seasons and about 8 assist along with that. He only led a team to the playoffs once (as the best player.)

[brownmamba00]

He's Kemba Walker to those other guys. He had it all besides luck. Avg over 20 ppg for 6 straight seasons and about 8 assist along with that. He only led a team to the playoffs once (as the best player.)

Marbury was better than John Wall for sure

[Real Men Wear Green]

The difference in reputation has a lot to do with personality choices and reputation. Iverson certainly was not ideal in his approach to the game, "practice," coaching, etc. But Marbury did stupid things to his own career that is basically the opposite of the collusion we get from modern stars. If he stayed in Minnesota him and Garnett could have been a Stockton and Malone level duo. But he just had to be New York (well, Jersey at first) and he couldn't stand being seen as KG's sidekick. So he refused to sign with Minnesota, got himself moved, and never got to play with a superstar again until ironically enough he was back with KG in Boston. Unfortunately he was at this point a ghost of himself, not even Rondo's back up at the age of 31 when he should have still been in his prime, of memory serves me right injuries and carrying the crap Knick franchise he wanted to play for so badly had taken their toll. If he had just been happy to be garnets teammate when he was younger and was luckier with injuries he could have been regarded as one of the greatest ever at that position.

But the story does have a happy ending. He seems to be having the NBA career and legacy he wanted to have with the Knicks in China.

[Im Still Ballin]

He's Kemba Walker to those other guys. He had it all besides luck. Avg over 20 ppg for 6 straight seasons and about 8 assist along with that. He only led a team to the playoffs once (as the best player.)


Marbury was better than John Wall for sure


The difference in reputation has a lot to do with personality choices and reputation. Iverson certainly was not ideal in his approach to the game, "practice," coaching, etc. But Marbury did stupid things to his own career that is basically the opposite of the collusion we get from modern stars. If he stayed in Minnesota him and Garnett could have been a Stockton and Malone level duo. But he just had to be New York (well, Jersey at first) and he couldn't stand being seen as KG's sidekick. So he refused to sign with Minnesota, got himself moved, and never got to play with a superstar again until ironically enough he was back with KG in Boston. Unfortunately he was at this point a ghost of himself, not even Rondo's back up at the age of 31 when he should have still been in his prime, of memory serves me right injuries and carrying the crap Knick franchise he wanted to play for so badly had taken their toll. If he had just been happy to be garnets teammate when he was younger and was luckier with injuries he could have been regarded as one of the greatest ever at that position.

But the story does have a happy ending. He seems to be having the NBA career and legacy he wanted to have with the Knicks in China.

He appeared to be a tremendously explosive slasher and a natural playmaker. I looked back at an old thread (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?504581-Just-how-good-was-Stephon-Marbury-in-his-prime) and kblaze compared him to (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?504581-Just-how-good-was-Stephon-Marbury-in-his-prime&p=14604224&viewfull=1#post14604224) "Mitchell with a worse shot but better playmaking instincts. Mitchell if modern ball didn’t have him in love with the 3….but more of a natural playmaker."


From 1998-1999 to 2004-2005, he averaged 21.7/3.2/8.3/1.3/0.1 on 53.2% TS and 47.3% eFG.

Had two all-star appearances over those seven years.

Over this period, his TS% was slightly above league average. We must consider that those years were some of the most defensive and physical in NBA history.

[Im Still Ballin]

You'd think he'd be a 25+ ppg, 10+ apg, 58%+ TS guy in today's league. At least in his best handful of seasons.

[Im Still Ballin]

Simply adjusting for league-average 2pt% boosts his efficiency significantly.

Stephon Marbury 2pt% from '99-'05: 47.21% (+0.87% r2PT)
League average 2pt% from '99-'05: 46.34%

League average 2pt% over last seven seasons: 52.4%
Stephon Marbury adjusted prime 2pt%: 53.27%

Adjusted scoring numbers: 23.16 ppg on 56.7% TS. Add 8-10 assists per game and you've got yourself a nice 7-year prime. And those numbers don't account for the likely increase in volume of shots taken, shots at the rim, and free throws drawn.