Starbury was statistically one of the very worst players in the NBA last year, including in the playoffs. If he thinks that his level of play earned him more than $1.3 million, then more power to him. Good luck finding some other team to pay him to shoot like crap.
Here's a stat for you.
Out of all of the players in the league, Marbury was the only player to have been coming off an an injury, then being exiled by a team, thus not playing for a year, to come back and sign right before the deadline.
My stat > Your stats.
You didn't offer any stats, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
To illustrate what Roy is saying. Marbury played 18 minutes a game, had an eFG% of 34.2% which is awful, and a assist to turnover ratio of 1.2/1.6 or .75. That is absolutely awful.
No reason to give him more than a minimum deal.
The stat is 1. 1 the number. 1. He was the only 1. I am aware of what Roy is saying. I am saying it is completely irrelevant given the circumstances.
Perhaps you should take a look here. I understand your argument, but it is not a statistical one so you shouldn't misuse the word.
But assuming you're right that we should throw out his entire Celtic career. What makes you think he'll ever be able to get back to being an effective NBA player?
Of course it is a statistic. Take the number 1, get the number of players signed to contracts last year. Compare those two numbers as a ratio.
All I have to say to that bit of gibberish.
Now I'm not stat head. But clearly the issue here is that one of you wants to look at Marbury's production last season as if there were not any extraneous variables that could have affected his production. You want to ignore the fact that he was leaving a horrible situation in NY. Hadn't played for a year because he was exiled from the team. AND was coming into a system that he was unfamiliar with at mid season, on a team with championship aspirations, but one that was also struggling (not necesarily in the Win Loss column, but certainly in the "building a consistent rotation going into the playoffs where everyone knows their rolls and are comfortable in them" column) because of various injuries to key players. Any of these variables could affect the validity of any statistical analysis, and any proper scientists/research would duly note these issues in their report, UNLESS their goal was to hold Marbury to the "normal standard" and to ignore these outlying variables so as to arrive at a predetermined statistical conclusion about his production.
While on the other hand, one of you wants to use these extraneous variables to invalidate any statistical analysis of Marbury as a player, and to give him a clean slate. Again, the issue with this is, he did play basketball in the NBA last season, he was in shape, he wasn't the only player to switch teams mid season, he wasn't the only player adapting to new schemes, sets an plays, he wasn't the only player who may have gone through a long stretch of being inactive and not playing, and so while Marbury's situation is clearly unique, he isn't the only player who had such "extraneous variables" during the season. Once you start to invalidate statistical analysis of one player for one reason or another where does it end? It's a slippery slope to go down to say that Marbury should get a clean slate because of his "situation".
The one comment I found hilarious was "But assuming you're right that we should throw out his entire Celtic career" ...
as if this were the bulk of data related to Marbury as a player. His "ENTIRE" Celtics career is 37 games out of a total of 878 he's played in the NBA. A whopping 4% of his total games played. So while I don't think we should throw out these games, I certainly don't think that they should be the bulk of the evidence that we use to make a statistical decision on Marbury.
Remember there's Lies, there's [dang] Lies, and there's Statistics.
I mean can't we just make a decision based on the fact that the man is crazy??? He was saying all the right things last week about wanting to play for a winner, it's not a bout the money, he knows boston can't afford much, he just wants to be back in the fold.
Then he gets an initial offer, albeit the vet-min for one year, and he's ready to bolt. Atleast he hasn't come out and said that he feels disrespected, but if he signs with another team I'm sure those types of stories and quotes will start to leak out.
He had me won over last week/earlier this week by saying all the right things ... now I just don't know. I'd like to have him back. I think he could be a very solid backup PG for us this year. But I don't want to spend more then what we've offered, so really at this point the ball is in Marbury's hands, which is where I thought he liked it.
