Top Point Guards

[IceColdBrewski]

Any point guard list that has Parker rated higher than Arenas should automatically be considered a travesty.

[DirkAB]

You are incapable of understanding or following an argument.

I am not comparing Stephon Marbury to any of those players. I only mention them because they are all time greats and they did not average the stats that Stephon Marbury currently averages. That in no way means Marbury is better than them or at the same level as any of them. I understand that being a great player is more than just stats. It's about basketball IQ, leadership, clutch play, sacrifice, determination to win, as well as all of the tangible things in statistics.

Again, I only mention those greats to show you how impressive Marbury's numbers are. You not understanding that is laughable.

Chris Webber's numbers are as good as Tim Duncan's career numbers, but I wouldn't put Webber in Duncan's class. But, just a look at the stats, Webber is just as good as Duncan. But, clearly, Duncan is arguably the best power forward in the history of the game. And, Chris Webber might be a top 10 power forward in his era. Nonetheless, C-Webb's numbers are impressive even though you cannot mention him in the same sentence as Duncan.

That's what I'm doing with Stephon Marbury. Just comparing his stats to all time greats to show how impressive his stats are, not to say he's as good as they are.

Inconsequential or not, his stats are impressive. And, his talent is undeniable.

If you know that stats don't mean , then why even bring them up? His stats aren't really impressive to me unless I have him on my fantasy team, aside from that why would anybody give damn about his numbers? His numbers come at the cost of his teams success. His points are obviously a result of him being a huge ballhog, and his assists come from his domination of the ball. If you are a player that has the ball in their hands as much as Francis or Marbury you are going to rack up the assists, but it kills a team.

His talent is undeniable, but not as undeniable as his selfishness. Talent means nothing if you don't use it in the right way. Horrible team player.

It's laughable that I think it is ridiculous you compared Marbury to all-time greats based on stats? It's laughable that you brought those other players stats up to defend Marbury, even though you claim to know how inferior of a player he really is in comparison to them. I believe that you said earlier in this thread that you would rather have Marbury than Miller, I find that laughable.

[JamStone]

Again, you misread and misinterpret.

Not once did I say "stats don't mean ."

I stated that "being a great player is more than just stats."

How about you read correctly.

Stats are in fact important in evaluating a player. But, they are not the end-all and be-all. And, greatness goes beyond just numbers. But, stats are one step in how a player's greatness is defined. To refute that is illogical. But, similarly, to say a player is great solely on stats is a poor measure as well.

Stephon Marbury is talented. He has shown selfish traits over his career. I don't deny that. But, so has Allen Iverson. So has Kobe Bryant. So has other very good and great players. But, when the team also succeeds, people don't criticize selfishness as much.

Marbuy also helped turnaround not one, but two lottery teams into playoff teams with the Timberwolves and the Phoenix Suns. Sometimes it's the situation and team chemistry that just doesn't allow a very good players to have team success.

Again, I don't even like Stephon Marbury that much. But, I don't hate on him simply because he has been selfish sometimes and most of the teams he's been on were not successful.

People compare stats all the time. And, often times it's comparing an average player with an all time great. Comparing stats don't necessarily mean I'm comparing the level of greatness of the players. Do you still not understand that?

For example, I could be impressed with Jeff Foster's rebounding per 48 minutes stats. And, hypothetically, if I found out his rebounding rate was just about as good as Kevin Garnett and Ben Wallace, I could say that's impressive. That doesn't mean I think Jeff Foster is as good as either of those players. It might just be that I'm impressed by his reboudning stats.

Relax on telling me who I can and cannot compare players with. People post much more ridiculous thoughts on messageboards for you to go berzerk over.

[Rip-Hamilton32]

my top 10

1 Steve Nash

2 Jason Kidd

3 Mike Bibby

4 Luke Ridnour

5 Jason Williams

6 Kirk Hinrich

7 Marko Jarich

8 Dan au

9 Beno Udrih

10 Steve Blake

i'd like to know what this racist SOB is doing here..look at his sig..it proves it

[resistanze]

Yes, there's a difference, and that's the point.

Say you're a high school senior and you get a 1190 on your SAT and the college you want to get into requires a 1200 score on the SAT to get in. Now what's the difference between 1190 and 1200 really?? Well, getting into the college of your choice.

19.5 ppg is not 20.0 ppg.

And, as for adding other statistical categories ... why? You're changing the argument, but what does it matter? I just stated that 20 ppg and 8 apg career numbers was impressive. Leave it at that. You disagree. Ok, that's your opinion.

Well, thank you for explaining the diffrence between 10 points on an SAT score. Nevertheless, your analogy has little relevance to the numbers you bring up for Marbury.

I'm not changing the argument; the reason I identify other relevant stats is because your analysis is based on the superficiality of Marbury's statistics. Averaging 20 points per game while taking 100 shots, for example, is of little value. If there is a difference between 19.5 and 20 PPG as you state, then you must surely endeavor in other relevant statistics which those numbers are based on.

Essentially, pointing out he has career averages of 20/8 is fine, but pointing out that Frazier, Magic, Isaiah or West haven't serves no real purpose on your part, unless you're A) prepared to go deeper into stats or B) trying to argue Marbury's place among those legends.

[DirkAB]

People compare stats all the time. And, often times it's comparing an average player with an all time great. Comparing stats don't necessarily mean I'm comparing the level of greatness of the players. Do you still not understand that?

Please explain the point of comparing stats of all-time greats with one of the biggest underachievers in the game today???? Seriously, what can be gained by doing so? Other than the appearance of making ridiculous comparisons, how does this do anything but show that stats really mean very little in the grand scheme of the game of basketball?

I give Marbury very little credit for the turn around for the Suns or Wolves. IMO those teams had some minor success despite their terrible PG, not because of him.

I guess I'm very amazed that anybody would rather have a guy like Marbury run their team over a guy like Miller. I truly think that Miller is a fine team player with great playmaking ability. Even if he was born with less god-given ability he is still a better player on any given team because of the intangibles he brings. Marbury's biggest contribution he has made to every team he has been on is getting traded, every single team has improved immediately after him getting traded, it's unbelievable.

[SCdac]

my top 10

1 Steve Nash

2 Jason Kidd

3 Mike Bibby

4 Luke Ridnour

5 Jason Williams

6 Kirk Hinrich

7 Marko Jarich

8 Dan au

9 Beno Udrih

10 Steve Blake

It's funny because both of those guys so high on your list are half African American.

[TDMVPDPOY]

my top 10

1 Steve Nash

2 Jason Kidd

3 Mike Bibby

4 Luke Ridnour

5 Jason Williams

6 Kirk Hinrich

7 Marko Jarich

8 Dan au

9 Beno Udrih

10 Steve Blake

nash
billups
arenas
kidd
hinrich
bibby
beno
cp3

[Edgar Ray Killen.]

i'd like to know what this racist SOB is doing here..look at his sig..it proves it

i like your sig

[dirk4mvp]

Nash is easily number 1.

[Rip-Hamilton32]

i like your sig

really? because its you..

[ShoogarBear]

Again, if Nash is so good, why did Dallas get so much better after he left (without getting anything back for him)?

[Mavs_man_41]

Again, if Nash is so good, why did Dallas get so much better after he left (without getting anything back for him)?

If nash isnt so good, then why did the suns immediately get better when he arrived? How were they still in the Western Conference Finals without Amare?

[ShoogarBear]

Phoenix went through a lot of changes when Nash got there; he wasn't the only one.

They got to the WCF because of seeding buffonery; they barely squeaked by two mediocre teams.

And asking two new questions doesn't answer my question; guess you have no response for that.

[mavsfan1000]

Phoenix went through a lot of changes when Nash got there; he wasn't the only one.

They got to the WCF because of seeding buffonery; they barely squeaked by two mediocre teams.

And asking two new questions doesn't answer my question; guess you have no response for that.

The same could be said of the mavs. They got Harris, Terry, and Dampier. Also Josh Howard had a breakout year and Dirk took his game to another level. Dallas is definitely better with Nash but with the new additions this team didn't need Nash to be an elite team.

[Obstructed_View]

Magic did not put up a career 20 and 8. Neither did Walt Frazier or Jerry West or Isiah Thomas or Bob Cousy or Tiny Archibald.

As far as I know, only Oscar Robertson put up 20 and 8. Right now after a 10 year career, Stephon Marbury is averaging 20 ppg and 8 apg.

Never has it been so monumentally inconsequential ... yeah, but there was only one other time, as far as I know.

Hey, listen. I don't even like Stephon Marbury. I don't like him as a player very much at all. But, you got to give it up to him when it comes down to his talent.

Sorry, but this post just reinforces my point. Marbury has talent. He puts up numbers for himself and manages to do it and not make his team any better than it would be without him. There are probably other players in the league that could put up 20 and 8 if that were their only goal.

[Obstructed_View]

I just stated that 20 ppg and 8 apg career numbers was impressive.

It's impressive for what it's worth. It shows what million dollar talent and a fifty cent head can produce.

[ShoogarBear]

The same could be said of the mavs. They got Harris, Terry, and Dampier. Also Josh Howard had a breakout year and Dirk took his game to another level. Dallas is definitely better with Nash but with the new additions this team didn't need Nash to be an elite team.

Again, you're missing the point. Would you take Nash back?

[mavsfan1000]

Again, you're missing the point. Would you take Nash back?

Of course. I'd switch Nash for Terry anytime and have Harris come off the bench to keep Nash's minutes down.

[stretch]

IMO, Nash is the best PG in the NBA, but there are other PG's that are better basketball players (mainly because of nash's extremely poor defense). but no one does the job of a PG better than Steve Nash, IMO.

[Ozzman]

Personally I like Tony Parker the best. He is really one of the best in the game right now. Call me stupid, but that's what I think.

[ShoogarBear]

Of course. I'd switch Nash for Terry anytime and have Harris come off the bench to keep Nash's minutes down.

And the Mavs would immediately revert back to a crappy defensive team.

[Edgar Ray Killen.]

why hesitate to trade the black guy for the white?

[Mavs_man_41]

why hesitate to trade the black guy for the white?

Nobody wants to see that racist . You aren't funny. Make another name and take it to the troll forum if you want to be funny.

[ShoogarBear]

Nobody wants to see that racist . You aren't funny. Make another name and take it to the troll forum if you want to be funny.

I'm like 99% sure that's one of mouse's trolls. You may not know him cause he's been away. Just ignore him; he's harmless.