Shawn Marion, NBA Elite?
"Marion."
That's all you hear on an ESPN highlights reel as you see him nail another dagger from downtown to add to the Suns' lead. And that about sums up the general consensus on this player's talent - "Well, it's Marion ... he brings a 20/10/2/2/2 a night. That's what he does. That's what he do." The Matrix might as well be re-nicknamed as The Taken-for-Granted. That's what we do.
Marion is among the most underrated players in the NBA. Yes, yes, the 2-time All-Star is now on a 7-year, $79 million dollar contract. Still underrated. Only an All-Star twice?! And the max contract is pretty meaningless in an era where Joe Johnson and Michael Redd pick up max contracts.
I think Marion seems to even fall through the cracks of many models for the same reasons Rasheed Wallace and Kirilenko do. Players who do a bit of everything, but don't do everything of everything (i.e. Bird, MJ, Magic, Pip), have trouble being statistically analyzed in the usual sense such as through "similarity scores". We generally get huge errors in trying to gauge similarities between these players and others. This is very clear when you look at who these guys match up to best - their best scores are in the 800s (out of a perfect match of 1000), meaning they didnt match up with anyone in the 900s - whereas for most any player you always have people matched up in the 900s.
These guys are so rare and so unique that they are really hard to understand. For my part, I think a cohesive understanding of their skill comes from looking at the big picture instead of just relying on a Rtg or PER or similarity score model. We should take a look at their per-40 min productions, their Offensive Rating, Defensive Rating, Net Rating, PER, points per shot attempt, rebound rating, effective FG%, TrueShooting%, and Win% (where win% refers to how many wins v. losses they are responsible for). Why? Because they do so damn well in every category, it is worth noticing that they work it with the best of them in nearly any category.
Legitimizing Marion as an All-Star
Marion is pretty stunning for a number of reasons:
On a 40-minute basis, he is 20/10/2/2/1.5 hitting around 46%. More impressively, around a fourth of his shots attempted are 3's and he hits them at 35%. And in previous years has hit at over 39%.
This all seems nice, but I'm sure that the intuitive response is - so what? While these resemble Duncan-esque numbers (with a few less blocks but a better 3-pt shot) it is nothing to cheer over - Antoine Walker also puts these up, if not better. Take a look at Walker: 20.5/9/4.3/1.4/0.6 with 42%, 32% from downtown. And his own best has been 36%.
The point is, these "stunning numbers" are great only to the degree that you can differentiate Antoine Walker from Gordon Giricek. But it's difficult to distinguish between Duncan and Walker. Or Marion and Walker for that matter.
Why Marion (2-time All-Star) is no Walker (3-time All-Star)
I am sorry to knock Walker like this. Wait, no ... I am not. But here it goes. Let's start with Hollinger's PER. By this index Marion recieves a 20.5 (with 15 being league average). This puts him on par with Allen Iverson, but under Dwyane Wade or LeBron James, and well under league leaders KG and Duncan (around 28). Walker is a mere 16.7. Since this is approximately a normal distribution, the number of people with a 16.7 far exceeds the number of people with a 21. So, in a nutshell, Marion >> Walker.
More specifically, however, let us look at what Marion does better. There is a rating called RbR (rebound rate) which is an index of rebounding efficiency. The much larger Walker posts a 12.8 while Marion posts a 14.5. Thus, Marion not only gets more loose balls per 40 minutes, but he also gets them more efficiently - meaning that those he doesn't go for are either ones he can't or ones he opts not to so that a teammate can grab it.
Next, if we take a look at the Net Rtg (Offensive Rtg - Defensive Rtg), i.e. how well they man the offense v. how inefficient they make the defense, we see that Walker posts a -6 (yes, that is negative 6). Marion? He posts a happy +11 over his career. His lowest ever has been a +5, and his highest wasn't even with Nash! It was his sophomore year with a +15 (he also had this with Nash). It must be noted even more that this discrepancy happens because of two reasons: First, Marion is very efficient offensively (even more than Duncan at times). Second, he is very strong defensively (despite the Suns' woes, he actually plays very very legitimate defense). Meanwhile, Walker is very inefficient offensively and just an average defender. So you see how this goes. Why does efficiency in NetRtg matter? For one thing, this means that you score when you have to, and make the offense more well oiled meaning that it tends to score more with your presence (as opposed to less). Moreover, if your offense is scoring at a faster rate than your opponents, i.e. if ORtg > DRtg, then you win the game by definition. Thus, Walker tends to be instrumental in the losing tendencies of his team, while Marion is essential to the wins of his own team.
Which brings me to ... win%. I will be brief since I laboured over NetRtg and because this is an annoying index to explain. But the short of it is that Marion's win% is around 80% (before you applaud, understand that true greats such as Duncan post at 90%). But here is where you can cringe. Walker's win% is (no joke) 29% - and he has actually posted in the teens 3 times! In fact his max was a 46% win%. Contrast that to Marion's highest of 88%.
I could also complain about how Walker has a very low PSA while Marion's is rather high (psa = points per shot attempt), but I won't do that. I just want to put the nail in the coffin by looking at 3-pters. Since, of course, Walker is very well known as a 3-baller. Let's take a look at last year when they each made 1.5 3's per 40-min. Walker, of course, was launching up way more 3s than Marion. In fact, since the Suns began using Marion as a 3-pt threat (2002), over the last 4 years Walker has never shot better from downtown than Marion. Yep.
So that is why the 2-time All-Star far exceeds the 3-timer in player quality.
Why Marion deserves a place among the elites
Let me make a list of the consensus elites:
Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, LeBron, Wade, KG, Amare, AI, T-Mac, Kobe, Big Ben, JKidd (well for old time's sake)
People who are considered elite who are not in my book:
Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Jermaine O'Neal, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, Vince Carter (let's wait and see for another year), Richard Jefferson, Antawn Jamison, Larry Hughes, Rashard Lewis (I like the kid, but let's not kid ourselves - he is no elite)
People who are not considered elite who are in my book:
Rasheed Wallace, Manu, Yao, Kirilenko, Chauncey, Marion
I am sure I missed people. But anyway here is the point. Marion belongs in that first group. Why? For one thing, his PER is more in sync with and rivals group I. That said, he definitely is a straggler there. He probably comes in dead last or near dead last in that group. But again, I don't like ratings for their own sake - models are metaphors. So what do I actually mean? Well generally speaking, elite players usually tend to do most of these: play really solid defense, are very efficient scorers, break down offenses, do a number of things including boarding, passing, screening, all while preventing the opposing team from doing the same. And reasonable measures of these are eFG%, TS%, ORtg & DRtg (hence NetRtg), RbR, etc.
For example, Marion's NetRtg far exceeds either Kobe's or McGrady's despite similar physical build. While he doesn't score as often nor does he pass as much, he scores far more efficiently than either of the other two. Moreover, he runs (though he doesn't bring the ball up the court) the offense far more smoothly than they do and it is a more efficient machine. Moreover, he guns from downtown far better than either of these guys (with TMac > Kobe in this category). In addition, his rebound rate rivals a power forward's, despite his size. And, lastly, he is a far better defender than either Kobe or McGrady (despite some stupid hype of their being excellent defenders). Now add to this the fact that Marion is undersized a lot of times when he guards players and he still blocks more. His own contributions to wins also far exceeds both Kobe's and T-Mac's. All that said, he clearly isn't as good of a guard-forward crafted in the vein of MJ. He can't break down defenses like AI, Kobe, or McGrady. And may not be a franchise player in the sense that they might be. (Though I doubt either of them are either.)
I am not saying that Marion is a "better" player than Kobe or T-Mac, whatever "better" means. But here is my point: Marion should definitely, definitely be in the same conversation as other elites of the NBA today. In the long run? Sure, I doubt it. But then again I doubt that Kobe and T-Mac will even deserve to be in the long run discussion.
That's all you hear on an ESPN highlights reel as you see him nail another dagger from downtown to add to the Suns' lead. And that about sums up the general consensus on this player's talent - "Well, it's Marion ... he brings a 20/10/2/2/2 a night. That's what he does. That's what he do." The Matrix might as well be re-nicknamed as The Taken-for-Granted. That's what we do.
Marion is among the most underrated players in the NBA. Yes, yes, the 2-time All-Star is now on a 7-year, $79 million dollar contract. Still underrated. Only an All-Star twice?! And the max contract is pretty meaningless in an era where Joe Johnson and Michael Redd pick up max contracts.
I think Marion seems to even fall through the cracks of many models for the same reasons Rasheed Wallace and Kirilenko do. Players who do a bit of everything, but don't do everything of everything (i.e. Bird, MJ, Magic, Pip), have trouble being statistically analyzed in the usual sense such as through "similarity scores". We generally get huge errors in trying to gauge similarities between these players and others. This is very clear when you look at who these guys match up to best - their best scores are in the 800s (out of a perfect match of 1000), meaning they didnt match up with anyone in the 900s - whereas for most any player you always have people matched up in the 900s.
These guys are so rare and so unique that they are really hard to understand. For my part, I think a cohesive understanding of their skill comes from looking at the big picture instead of just relying on a Rtg or PER or similarity score model. We should take a look at their per-40 min productions, their Offensive Rating, Defensive Rating, Net Rating, PER, points per shot attempt, rebound rating, effective FG%, TrueShooting%, and Win% (where win% refers to how many wins v. losses they are responsible for). Why? Because they do so damn well in every category, it is worth noticing that they work it with the best of them in nearly any category.
Legitimizing Marion as an All-Star
Marion is pretty stunning for a number of reasons:
On a 40-minute basis, he is 20/10/2/2/1.5 hitting around 46%. More impressively, around a fourth of his shots attempted are 3's and he hits them at 35%. And in previous years has hit at over 39%.
This all seems nice, but I'm sure that the intuitive response is - so what? While these resemble Duncan-esque numbers (with a few less blocks but a better 3-pt shot) it is nothing to cheer over - Antoine Walker also puts these up, if not better. Take a look at Walker: 20.5/9/4.3/1.4/0.6 with 42%, 32% from downtown. And his own best has been 36%.
The point is, these "stunning numbers" are great only to the degree that you can differentiate Antoine Walker from Gordon Giricek. But it's difficult to distinguish between Duncan and Walker. Or Marion and Walker for that matter.
Why Marion (2-time All-Star) is no Walker (3-time All-Star)
I am sorry to knock Walker like this. Wait, no ... I am not. But here it goes. Let's start with Hollinger's PER. By this index Marion recieves a 20.5 (with 15 being league average). This puts him on par with Allen Iverson, but under Dwyane Wade or LeBron James, and well under league leaders KG and Duncan (around 28). Walker is a mere 16.7. Since this is approximately a normal distribution, the number of people with a 16.7 far exceeds the number of people with a 21. So, in a nutshell, Marion >> Walker.
More specifically, however, let us look at what Marion does better. There is a rating called RbR (rebound rate) which is an index of rebounding efficiency. The much larger Walker posts a 12.8 while Marion posts a 14.5. Thus, Marion not only gets more loose balls per 40 minutes, but he also gets them more efficiently - meaning that those he doesn't go for are either ones he can't or ones he opts not to so that a teammate can grab it.
Next, if we take a look at the Net Rtg (Offensive Rtg - Defensive Rtg), i.e. how well they man the offense v. how inefficient they make the defense, we see that Walker posts a -6 (yes, that is negative 6). Marion? He posts a happy +11 over his career. His lowest ever has been a +5, and his highest wasn't even with Nash! It was his sophomore year with a +15 (he also had this with Nash). It must be noted even more that this discrepancy happens because of two reasons: First, Marion is very efficient offensively (even more than Duncan at times). Second, he is very strong defensively (despite the Suns' woes, he actually plays very very legitimate defense). Meanwhile, Walker is very inefficient offensively and just an average defender. So you see how this goes. Why does efficiency in NetRtg matter? For one thing, this means that you score when you have to, and make the offense more well oiled meaning that it tends to score more with your presence (as opposed to less). Moreover, if your offense is scoring at a faster rate than your opponents, i.e. if ORtg > DRtg, then you win the game by definition. Thus, Walker tends to be instrumental in the losing tendencies of his team, while Marion is essential to the wins of his own team.
Which brings me to ... win%. I will be brief since I laboured over NetRtg and because this is an annoying index to explain. But the short of it is that Marion's win% is around 80% (before you applaud, understand that true greats such as Duncan post at 90%). But here is where you can cringe. Walker's win% is (no joke) 29% - and he has actually posted in the teens 3 times! In fact his max was a 46% win%. Contrast that to Marion's highest of 88%.
I could also complain about how Walker has a very low PSA while Marion's is rather high (psa = points per shot attempt), but I won't do that. I just want to put the nail in the coffin by looking at 3-pters. Since, of course, Walker is very well known as a 3-baller. Let's take a look at last year when they each made 1.5 3's per 40-min. Walker, of course, was launching up way more 3s than Marion. In fact, since the Suns began using Marion as a 3-pt threat (2002), over the last 4 years Walker has never shot better from downtown than Marion. Yep.
So that is why the 2-time All-Star far exceeds the 3-timer in player quality.
Why Marion deserves a place among the elites
Let me make a list of the consensus elites:
Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, LeBron, Wade, KG, Amare, AI, T-Mac, Kobe, Big Ben, JKidd (well for old time's sake)
People who are considered elite who are not in my book:
Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Jermaine O'Neal, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, Vince Carter (let's wait and see for another year), Richard Jefferson, Antawn Jamison, Larry Hughes, Rashard Lewis (I like the kid, but let's not kid ourselves - he is no elite)
People who are not considered elite who are in my book:
Rasheed Wallace, Manu, Yao, Kirilenko, Chauncey, Marion
I am sure I missed people. But anyway here is the point. Marion belongs in that first group. Why? For one thing, his PER is more in sync with and rivals group I. That said, he definitely is a straggler there. He probably comes in dead last or near dead last in that group. But again, I don't like ratings for their own sake - models are metaphors. So what do I actually mean? Well generally speaking, elite players usually tend to do most of these: play really solid defense, are very efficient scorers, break down offenses, do a number of things including boarding, passing, screening, all while preventing the opposing team from doing the same. And reasonable measures of these are eFG%, TS%, ORtg & DRtg (hence NetRtg), RbR, etc.
For example, Marion's NetRtg far exceeds either Kobe's or McGrady's despite similar physical build. While he doesn't score as often nor does he pass as much, he scores far more efficiently than either of the other two. Moreover, he runs (though he doesn't bring the ball up the court) the offense far more smoothly than they do and it is a more efficient machine. Moreover, he guns from downtown far better than either of these guys (with TMac > Kobe in this category). In addition, his rebound rate rivals a power forward's, despite his size. And, lastly, he is a far better defender than either Kobe or McGrady (despite some stupid hype of their being excellent defenders). Now add to this the fact that Marion is undersized a lot of times when he guards players and he still blocks more. His own contributions to wins also far exceeds both Kobe's and T-Mac's. All that said, he clearly isn't as good of a guard-forward crafted in the vein of MJ. He can't break down defenses like AI, Kobe, or McGrady. And may not be a franchise player in the sense that they might be. (Though I doubt either of them are either.)
I am not saying that Marion is a "better" player than Kobe or T-Mac, whatever "better" means. But here is my point: Marion should definitely, definitely be in the same conversation as other elites of the NBA today. In the long run? Sure, I doubt it. But then again I doubt that Kobe and T-Mac will even deserve to be in the long run discussion.
posted by arun at 5:30 PM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
marion is as legit as they come
Do you think that Marion only looks good because of Steve Naash?
nope. of course, while marion of course has been enhanced cuz of nash, his numbers as i have cited them have been pretty constant and stellar over the last 4 years or so. this, btw, is in direct contrast to the numbers of others on his team - theirs spiked to a degree that can be completely statistically attributed to nash
Post a Comment
<< Home