GDT game 24 - Pistons (13-13) at Mavs (6-18) 7:30 FSSW

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

He doesn't quite have the speed of some smaller 2 or 3 guards, or freak speed like Lebron to go with his size, but he is quite explosive. To me it just doesn't seem like there is any room for him to operate.

And this is where his BBIQ comes in. He has learned how to be a very effective (and IMO efficient) player despite not having freak speed. His ability to dribble into the lane and shoot that short jump shot is uncanny. He also shoots over taller defenders with confidence.

I'd be more worried if there was hesitation, but he rarely exhibits that. And if he does hesitate, then it's because he has nobody to pass to like you mentioned.

Another thing to keep in mind is playing for Rick. Perhaps Barnes wants to have more of a fire, but is trying hard to reel it in to learn Rick's system first and foremost.

And good grief, the guy is shooting 50% or better in his last 4 games. It's surreal to think that we should only look at true shooting percentages when he is actually shooting high percentages.

I'm actually more worried about the 3 not going in more than anything, but at least he usually doesn't force them.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

How much stock can you put into a players handles when there is nowhere to go because you are the prime focus of the defense that sinks down to protect the paint from power dribbles toward the lane. He is very good in the triple threat position, but when you look around and the defense is completely keyed in on the fact that majority of times this season, there are no other reliable options.

He doesn't quite have the speed of some smaller 2 or 3 guards, or freak speed like Lebron to go with his size, but he is quite explosive. To me it just doesn't seem like there is any room for him to operate.

He could do a few things better like use his explosiveness to get to the line more with Harden like, up and under moves, with his arms under defenders and more pump fakes to draw those fouls when he gets to the paint instead of always jumping over people to take 8+ footers. I don't see him launching from the free throw line to dunk, but he appears pretty athletic to me when given a little space.

He is a good athlete, that's not the problem. If he would have an elite three point shot or handles like Anthony, I wouldn't had even brought up his athleticism. But since he doesn't have those, it becomes a problem, because elite athleticism could help him overcome these limitations, see a Jimmy Butler. Butler doesn't really have handles either, and his three point shot is just as streaky, but he can mix it up much better becasue he has elite athleticism, and that is the primary reason why he gets to the line so much, and that's with the Bulls' horrific, league worst spacing.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

And good grief, the guy is shooting 50% or better in his last 4 games. It's surreal to think that we should only look at true shooting percentages when he is actually shooting high percentages.

Zone-specific FG% can be a useful stat, certainly when you compare it against league average for a player's position (even more so if you add game and minutes-played requirements to it). It can be very useful for looking at ability in a particular area, and I don't deny that.

As a descriptor of overall scoring efficiency, however, it's entirely lacking. Creating more points per possession is valuable, and TS% - especially when you compare it to league and positional averages - just gives you a much better tool. Well, unless you think FG% is more important than points per possession, but you obviously don't think that.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

He is a good athlete, that's not the problem. If he would have an elite three point shot or handles like Anthony, I wouldn't had even brought up his athleticism. But since he doesn't have those, it becomes a problem, because elite athleticism could help him overcome these limitations, see a Jimmy Butler. Butler doesn't really have handles either, and his three point shot is just as streaky, but he can mix it up much better becasue he has elite athleticism, and that is the primary reason why he gets to the line so much, and that's with the Bulls' horrific, league worst spacing.

I don't disagree with the Butler example. I actually was thinking, but he is a bit shorter and that typically comes with more acceleration and shiftiness if you will...but he's only an inch shorter.

The Anthony example only works offensively. They are just as far apart if not more so on defense. I know it takes superior offense to be considered a "superstar" but I think most people see Anthony as the least complete player of the elite offensive "superstars" in the league.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

25 games and the roster has nothing to do with it, you really are refusing to understand my argument. I'm attempting it one last time. He is 24 and a half years old. This already limits his ceiling. It is very rare for a player to improve significantly (!) at that age, and it almost exclusively happens in big men. Next step in his evaluation to rate his skills. A player in the NBA, has to possess a combination of very good to elite skills to make them potential stars.

We are talking about players who possess - either separately or in combination - various elite skills, or have elite physical tools. If both is true, you are talking about a potential superstar. If we agree that a star has to be special on offense, you are looking at offensive skills like - speed, explosiveness, overall athleticism, length, jumpshot, court vision, basketball IQ, handles, mindset -. Some of these are hard to evaluate, while other skills are apparent.

Shooting and handles are two of these skills. We have tons of data that suggests - other than the eye test - that Barnes lacks several elite skills. That doesn't mean he is totally useless at those, like shooting the three ball, or drawing fouls, just that he cannot do them at an elite level. His lack of apparent handles, and limited playmaking ability are the most obvious limitations in his game.

There are players who had similar limitations skill-wise, like Paul George, or Kawhi. Problem is, they are both much better jumpshooters and athletes than Barnes is. Same with Butler. To me, a realistic ceiling for Barnes is a Rudy Gay type player, but that is not a star, not close to it. And that opinion is based entirely on his skills, or more like his obvious limitations, rather than his sample size with us. That is absolutely meaningless in that context.

Suggesting that you can't evaluate his skills because he only played 25 games with us, is nonsense. He already showed what many of us thought all along, that he does not have elite handles, that he cannot make the three point shot consistently if not wide open, and that he cannot really playmake at an elite level. The chances of a perimeter player becoming a star without these three skills, is miniscule. And if your definition of a star is a 20 PPG, 56%TS scorer, then that is ridiculous. That's not a star.

Hey look... you used ppg and TS's to make a determination about what a star is or isn't... again... but if I comment on it... I'll be using it out of context so I better leave it alone.....

Honestly I'm worn out... you started all of this by talking about his ppg and TS%, then I bring it up in a way that does not support what you were saying and you say I'm out to get you with DH via strawman. Then you want to dismiss all of your original argument by saying I'm out of context and say that he doesn't have handles or athleticism and that's what you really ment to say. And you ask my thoughts on his skills... I give them to you and say, in a nutshell, that he's not a finished product. And you say that sample size does not matter, the supporting team does not matter he is what is we knew him to be, a guy with bad handles, can't shoot and can't playmake... case closed. Then... you bring up TS and ppg again... to close out why he isn't a star.... again.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

Hey look... you used ppg and TS's to make a determination about what a star is or isn't... again... but if I comment on it... I'll be using it out of context so I better leave it alone.....

Honestly I'm worn out... you started all of this by talking about his ppg and TS%, then I bring it up in a way that does not support what you were saying and you say I'm out to get you with DH via strawman. Then you want to dismiss all of your original argument by saying I'm out of context and say that he doesn't have handles or athleticism and that's what you really ment to say. And you ask my thoughts on his skills... I give them to you and say, in a nutshell, that he's not a finished product. And you say that sample size does not matter, the supporting team does not matter he is what is we knew him to be, a guy with bad handles, can't shoot and can't playmake... case closed. Then... you bring up TS and ppg again... to close out why he isn't a star.... again.

No, that's not at all what happened, but you are right, we should probably drop this subject. You are basically suggesting that scoring volume and efficiency doesn't have anything to do with someone being a star, lol. Good talk.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

I don't disagree with the Butler example. I actually was thinking, but he is a bit shorter and that typically comes with more acceleration and shiftiness if you will...but he's only an inch shorter.

The Anthony example only works offensively. They are just as far apart if not more so on defense. I know it takes superior offense to be considered a "superstar" but I think most people see Anthony as the least complete player of the elite offensive "superstars" in the league.

Yeah, I only used Anthony as an offensive example. Barnes is obviously a better defender. My point is, you have to possess certain skills, but if you don't have those, you better be an elite athlete. Also, needless to say - I hope - that I wouldn't have mentioned any of these, and my argument would be completely different if Barnes would be 20 or 21.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

You are basically suggesting that scoring volume and efficiency doesn't have anything to do with someone being a star, lol. Good talk.

I would just LOVE if you could go quote me where I "basically" suggested that. Because I never said anything remotely close to that. I gave reasons for why I thought Barnes was only going to get better. And reasons for why I thought the numbers were down. And finally I brought up Derozan for the fact it took him several years to develop and that 25 games in is too early to be passing judgment based on that. That's it, I never said anything that would remotely suggest that "scoring volume and efficiency doesn't have anything to do with someone being a star".

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

No, that's not at all what happened, but you are right, we should probably drop this subject. You are basically suggesting that scoring volume and efficiency doesn't have anything to do with someone being a star, lol. Good talk.

I've read both of your posts in this thread, and this is the ultimate strawman response if there ever was one. Don't make claims that others do it if you're going to do it yourself.

I'm still waiting for an in game example of what Barnes does or doesn't so well that proves he can't be a star. Anyone can spew out advanced stats to back their agenda from a website, but I like to hear on court stuff.

I'll start...

Barnes has Finley's simple yet effective way of moving the ball around on ISO before deciding whether to dribble or shoot. He usually starts in the lower left corner with the ball and creates an imaginary square from lower left, to upper left, to upper right and sometimes back to lower right depending on what move he is thinking of doing. I'm always thinking that the defender will strip the ball away since Harrison's moves in that regard are usually predictable. But they never do, and he does that imaginary square motion almost every time to great effect...just like Finley did.

Honestly, that's where Harrison is a near genius. You can tell that he has copied Finley and Dirk and has had combo moves of both players. Maybe he'll never be a Lebron type star, but he sure as heck has a superstar brain from what I've seen.

And he sure as hell is the star on THIS team. Until we see a healthy Dirk, then he is by far and away the best player on the Mavs.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

I would just LOVE if you could go quote me where I "basically" suggested that. Because I never said anything remotely close to that. I gave reasons for why I thought Barnes was only going to get better. And reasons for why I thought the numbers were down. And finally I brought up Derozan for the fact it took him several years to develop and that 25 games in is too early to be passing judgment based on that. That's it, I never said anything that would remotely suggest that "scoring volume and efficiency doesn't have anything to do with someone being a star".

"Then... you bring up TS and ppg again... to close out why he isn't a star.... again."

How am I suppose to read this? This was part of my argument why he is currently not a star, and you find a problem with it, clearly implying that PPG and TS% is not a good argument against a player's star status. It's a very important part of it, but again, that's not why I think Barnes doesn't have what it takes to become a star. I base that opinion on his skills, or more like lack thereof.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

I'll start...

Barnes has Finley's simple yet effective way of moving the ball around on ISO before deciding whether to dribble or shoot. He usually starts in the lower left corner with the ball and creates an imaginary square from lower left, to upper left, to upper right and sometimes back to lower right depending on what move he is thinking of doing. I'm always thinking that the defender will strip the ball away since Harrison's moves in that regard are usually predictable. But they never do, and he does that imaginary square motion almost every time to great effect...just like Finley did.

Honestly, that's where Harrison is a near genius. You can tell that he has copied Finley and Dirk and has had combo moves of both players. Maybe he'll never be a Lebron type star, but he sure as heck has a superstar brain from what I've seen.

And he sure as hell is the star on THIS team. Until we see a healthy Dirk, then he is by far and away the best player on the Mavs.

Okay, when I watch him play, to me it is quite apparent that he doesn't have the speed or the athleticism to consistently beat his defender off the dribble, which is the main reason why in the vast majority of time, he rises for a jumper. Those are still not terrible shots, I mind you, but not nearly as valuable as shots close to the basket, which give you a much higher percentage, as well as the chance to get fouled.

Every star in the league has that ability, in my opinion. His second problem is three point shooting. He is an inconsistent shooter who often misses wide open shots, and can't make three point shots without someone create them for him. His third major flaw is creating for others. He is not a good passer unless we are talking about the simplest of passes, he doesn't have the vision, and since he cannot penetrate effectively, he does not generate any kickout action either.

These are major flaws in my opinion, and I cannot think of a perimeter star in the league, who does not have a consistent three ball, elite handles, or the passing ability. Not all of them has all three, but Barnes has neither, not at the level a star would have. All the stats reinforce these aspects btw.

He is really good at one thing, and that is actually surprising to me, making isolation twos at a really high rate, mostly in the form of mid range jumpshots. It's mostly the volume and the efficiency what's surprising, but without the handles, penetraton, easy baskets around the rim, foul drawing, assisting others and consistent three ball, it is an almost impossible task for him to become a star, mostly because he is also only an above average athlete.

And no, suggesting that this team has a star is ridiculous. We barely winning games, and one of the reasons for this is that we have no stars. 20 points on 53%TS is not a star. There are like 25-30 players in the NBA who do better than that scoring-wise.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

"Then... you bring up TS and ppg again... to close out why he isn't a star.... again."

How am I suppose to read this? This was part of my argument why he is currently not a star, and you find a problem with it, clearly implying that PPG and TS% is not a good argument against a player's star status. It's a very important part of it, but again, that's not why I think Barnes doesn't have what it takes to become a star. I base that opinion on his skills, or more like lack thereof.

I'd say quote the whole thing but it's not necessary I cleared it all up in the very first sentence of that post

Hey look... you used ppg and TS's to make a determination about what a star is or isn't... again... but if I comment on it... I'll be using it out of context so I better leave it alone.....

Every time I point to TS% and ppg of Derozan in his 3 years of learning how to be a go to guy you say it's out of context and ignore it entirely. You then switch over to skills, where I replied to that. You then disregarded that and went back to TS%. I was quite clearly making fun of the fact that TS% seems to be useful when it suits you and out of context when it doesn't.

You start the discussion by replying to DH and citing TS and ppg as reasons barnes is not close. You did not mention anything about athleticism and handles. I already quoted you once earlier stating this as well. I then mention that he has no help and it's a new role for him. Clearly saying I think it will improve when the roster does and with time. I further explain this by saying it took Derozan 3 years to show improvement and in fact Barnes and he had similar numbers, Barnes having better numbers in fact. You then switched gears and said barnes doens't have the skillset or tools required to be able to make a jump like Derozan made. And here is where the problem lies, you state this as if it's fact, that Barnes will not improve because he lacks tools. And what I've been saying is I disagree. You are throwing everything about Derozan's 3 year's that he took to improve out as- "out of context" and saying Barnes is who he is simply because you believe he lacks the skillset to improve like Derozan did. That's your opinion it's not a fact. If I believe he has the tools to improve like derozan it is not taken out of context simply because you think he lacks the skillset to improve.

So idk if it's because he's 24 and not 22, or if it's because you think he lacks the tools. It doesn't matter the reason. The simple fact is it took Derozan 3 years to learn how to be a go to guy. Another 2 years to be efficient. And now he's a totally different player. All I said was Barnes, after 25 games as a go-to player is not a finished product. AND that his efficiency should go up with better players around him. This is not taken out of context, it is not me trying to convince you I am right. It is me disagreeing with you. I have no idea why this is so difficult for you to grasp over the last... 8 hours or so. It is not difficult.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

I'd say quote the whole thing but it's not necessary I cleared it all up in the very first sentence of that post


Every time I point to TS% and ppg of Derozan in his 3 years of learning how to be a go to guy you say it's out of context and ignore it entirely. You then switch over to skills, where I replied to that. You then disregarded that and went back to TS%. I was quite clearly making fun of the fact that TS% seems to be useful when it suits you and out of context when it doesn't.

I never did any switching, I don't know what you are talking about. I never said that just because somebody has a low TS%, it means that they can never be a star or a go to guy, yet you imply this. I used Barnes' TS% to talk about his current level of play, how he is clearly not a star right now. Stars are much more efficient, and they also do it on a higher volume. I also said that DeRozan had a high ceiling because of his elite athleticism and handles, none of which Barnes' possess.

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

You start the discussion by replying to DH and citing TS and ppg as reasons barnes is not close. You did not mention anything about athleticism and handles. I already quoted you once earlier stating this as well. I then mention that he has no help and it's a new role for him. Clearly saying I think it will improve when the roster does and with time. I further explain this by saying it took Derozan 3 years to show improvement and in fact Barnes and he had similar numbers, Barnes having better numbers in fact. You then switched gears and said barnes doens't have the skillset or tools required to be able to make a jump like Derozan made.

I did not switch gears, what are you talking about? Barnes' TS% and PPG shows us that he is currently not a star, and his lack of skills are the reasons why he will likely never be a star, not his TS%. That was never my argument.

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

And here is where the problem lies, you state this as if it's fact, that Barnes will not improve because he lacks tools. And what I've been saying is I disagree. You are throwing everything about Derozan's 3 year's that he took to improve out as- "out of context" and saying Barnes is who he is simply because you believe he lacks the skillset to improve like Derozan did. That's your opinion it's not a fact. If I believe he has the tools to improve like derozan it is not taken out of context simply because you think he lacks the skillset to improve.

I did not throw anything out of DeRozan's first three years, I stated two things. He was different because he had elite athleticism and handles, and he was pretty good at drawing fouls, from basically his second year. Barnes does not have elite athleticism, he does not have good handles, and as a reason, he can't draw nearly enough fouls. It's not a fact that he will not improve (considerably), but based on what we know about NBA players, and especially perimeter guys, it is very likely that he will not be able to improve these skills considerably. That doesn't mean he can't have big games for us, or be valuable, but again, it very likely means that he will never be a star.

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

So idk if it's because he's 24 and not 22, or if it's because you think he lacks the tools. It doesn't matter the reason. The simple fact is it took Derozan 3 years to learn how to be a go to guy. Another 2 years to be efficient. And now he's a totally different player. All I said was Barnes, after 25 games as a go-to player is not a finished product. AND that his efficiency should go up with better players around him. This is not taken out of context, it is not me trying to convince you I am right. It is me disagreeing with you. I have no idea why this is so difficult for you to grasp over the last... 8 hours or so. It is not difficult.

For the 100th time, DeRozan had elite tools from day one, Barnes has none, at 24 and a half years old. I also never said that his efficiency could not go up. Where did you get that? Of course I understand you are not agreeing with me.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Just end it. Nothing good is coming from this.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

Just end it. Nothing good is coming from this.

I already told you this, but clearly your only goal is to be right, and not to have a discussion. Even if what you said is true, and I said what you stated that I said, I clearly clarified what I meant after that, yet you continued this "but you said this and that" nonsense instead of ever adressing my points. So yeah, no need to continue this that way.

[sike]

Another L.

Good!

#Top3PickOrBust

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

He is a good athlete, that's not the problem. If he would have an elite three point shot or handles like Anthony, I wouldn't had even brought up his athleticism. But since he doesn't have those, it becomes a problem, because elite athleticism could help him overcome these limitations, see a Jimmy Butler. Butler doesn't really have handles either, and his three point shot is just as streaky, but he can mix it up much better becasue he has elite athleticism, and that is the primary reason why he gets to the line so much, and that's with the Bulls' horrific, league worst spacing.

Barnes vs. Butler I see in NFL terms. Like when they say a running back can sink his hips or a DE can bend the edge. Butler has "bend". Lower center of gravity. Barnes is stiffer. He doesn't sink well. This could be mitigated some with better handles. Hopefully that's something Barnes can continue to improve. I'm slightly pleasantly surprised by Barnes thus far. I tend to agree with Budapest though. There are inherent limitations to Barnes becoming a star or elite or whatever.