My Recent Encounter of Matt Barnes.....

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by alby

So you enjoyed the ill-advised pull up three's throughout the year? and the fancy passes on every fast break that never worked out? are you referring to the fans who think and1 basketball is quality stuff or are you talking about the fans who appreciate a good basketball play?

He must not have taken too many ill-advised 3s because he sure had a pretty decent 3-pt. percentage at the end of the year didn't he?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alby

I was just wondering if you guys are basing your analysis of Barnes on his one playoff series against the Mavericks, or for the whole playoffs, or the regular season, or for his entire career? I was just wondering...

The whole playoffs. Not that interested in his career before that.

[ty]

Originally Posted by Male26Dan

OK... Here is my personal list that he could guard from the first two pages - all of which are starters or part time starters:

1) Dirk (with help defense, he gives him problems - without it, he gets owned, but who doesn't)
2) Jamison (no explanation necessary)
3) Diaw (no explanation necessary)
4) Webber (he is a shell of his former self and is primarily a jump shooter)
5) Wallace (another shooter that has some inside game but with help defense he would be fine)
6) West (little post up game)
7) Gooden (soft player)
8) Abdur-Rahim (see above)
9) Thomas (strictly a jump shooter)
10) Marshall (no explanation necessary)
11) Haslem (little post up game)

Several of these guys he could guard man to man and others like Dirk, Wallace, and MAYBE Webber would require some help defense if they started taking advantage of him in the post. Oh, 6 of those were on the first page.

I'm glad that your "personal list" satisfies you.

You are basing your list strictly off of guarding offensive game. Another part of guarding is...wait for it......Rebounding.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by ty

I'm glad that your "personal list" satisfies you.

You are basing your list strictly off of guarding offensive game. Another part of guarding is...wait for it......Rebounding.

He could do a fine job rebounding. He is 6-7 and long. He doesn't get a ton of rebounds because he is mostly playing SF and sometimes guarding 1s and 2s. He also only plays 23 minutes per game. You asked for a list of guys he could guard and I provided you 11 from the top two pages. Stop making excuses.

Say what you will, but he could help us more than you or Alby care to admit. You obviously just don't like the guy and think he is a crappy spare and that if fine.

[nashtymavsfan13]

Originally Posted by alby

So you enjoyed the ill-advised pull up three's throughout the year? and the fancy passes on every fast break that never worked out? are you referring to the fans who think and1 basketball is quality stuff or are you talking about the fans who appreciate a good basketball play?

As previously mentioned, he has a solid 3pt percentage and was able to score when asked. He can do it all, and I don't know how you don't think he would help this team. I'm referring to a large majority of the many Warriors fans I know (I also live in the Bay Area) who view him as one of their favorite Warriors because he is a warrior, he fights, he does what is asked of him, he sells out and plays hard all the time.

I don't think he should be our first priority, nor do I think we should offer him the full MLE. I don't think he would be a PERFECT fit here, nor do I think he would immediatley fix all our problems. I think Chum isoverrating him a little bit, and people on this board do overrate him from time to time but the fact of the matter is is that he is a good basketball player who can do it all well and would be a good help to this team.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by nashtymavsfan13

I think Chum isoverrating him a little bit, and people on this board do overrate him from time to time but the fact of the matter is is that he is a good basketball player who can do it all well and would be a good help to this team.

Okay, then forget the rest and just give me the good basketball player who can do it all well and would be a good help to our team.

Please. Give us Matt Barnes and watch the trophies roll in!

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alby

I was just wondering if you guys are basing your analysis of Barnes on his one playoff series against the Mavericks, or for the whole playoffs, or the regular season, or for his entire career? I was just wondering...

you keep on going back to his whole career (why has he bounced around the league as a scrub so much?)... the fact of the matter is he had ZERO shot when he came to the nba. Zero. zilch. nada. But he has GROWN tremendously since. His shot is now downright respectable. THAT is the difference between the rookie Barnes that was a fan favorite on the Kings because he was a local boy that was scrappy, played hard and left all on the court (but had no refined "skills" to speak of), and the Barnes of today. Yes the kings traded him as a decimal point adjustment afterthought in the Webber trade, and yes, philly never played him and let him slink out of town. He is still scrappy, but now he is NOT a liablity on offense, and suddenly his scrappiness and tough D can be utilized without playing 4 on 5 on the other end. Imagine how perspectives on Damp would change if he sufddenly became a reliable threat (or at least someone you could not afford to ignore) on the O end... same with Barnes, he is fundamentally changed since his early days in the league.

he is not a star, but he is now a SOLID component.

[alby]

Matt Barnes is a solid component for a max of 2 million dollars a year, not the full MLE. Once again, this is what the debate ultimately falls down to. Do you believe he is worth more than 6 million dollars a year?

We signed Erick Dampier after his career year (ironically, when he was in GS as well) and we are paying for it now, literally and figuratively. Over paying someone just to acquire him is bad from both a business aspect and basketball aspect IMHO.

My philosophy this summer is that, unless you have four all stars like the Pistons do, you need two legitimate superstars to win in this league. This is why I would rate the Suns ahead of us, even though most people on this board won't agree with me here. Talent-wise, we are really not as good as our 67-win season suggests. In the west, I see Houston, Denver, Phoenix, and San Antonio all with two superstars when Dallas only has one. Sure, we may win more games in the regular season than any of these teams, but when it comes to the superstar biases in the playoffs, we need more than just Dirk Nowitzki. This is the reasoning behind me wanting KG so badly even if it means giving up our beloved Josh Howard. KG teaming up with Dirk will give us the best chance to win an NBA title in the next two years as opposed to Dirk/role players. I know Josh Howard is an up and coming player who just made his first all star appearance this past season, but he is no KG. To me, when it comes down to analyzing a trade--you look at which team got the better player and that would be Garnett in any trade scenario out there.

Another benefit of getting KG is that his contract is up in two years, you can reload through free agency the summer he is off the books. To me, it really is a win win--Dirk isn't going to be around forever, in a few years he will play second fiddle to a young star like Michael Finley did. Take advantage of one of the greatest talents basketball has ever seen while he is still in his prime. He can't be Bird if he doesn't have Bird-like teammates. Also, if we don't acquire a superstar like KG, could you imagine him with the Suns? Or teaming up with Kobe? How about with Baron (a superstar when healthy)? The Mavericks need to make a move and if KG is up for the taking, go out and get him.

As far as Matt Barnes is concerned. A JET/Barnes/Dirk/KG lineup is pretty good--since he would be worth acquiring after the loss to Josh Howard. However, overpaying him now when we already have Howard/Stack/George playing siimilar roles as Barnes is a bad move.

[Dtownsfinest]

I'm wiery on what the "real" Matt Barnes is. I'm not sure if the one we saw in the post season is the real one or not but i'd definately like to find out. But I have to ask though isn't Matt Barnes a lot similiar to what Marquis Daniels was? Not to mention Daniels postseason performance was a lot more dominant compared to Barnes. To me they seem like similiar players. Barnes has a better outside jumper but honestly they seem like the same player. If Marquis couldn't play AJ's "system" why should I believe Matt Barnes can?

[Dtownsfinest]

I'm wiery on what the "real" Matt Barnes is. I'm not sure if the one we saw in the post season is the real one or not but i'd definately like to find out. But I have to ask though isn't Matt Barnes a lot similiar to what Marquis Daniels was? Not to mention Daniels postseason performance was a lot more dominant compared to Barnes. To me they seem like similiar players. Barnes has a better outside jumper but honestly they seem like the same player. If Marquis couldn't play AJ's "system" why should I believe Matt Barnes can?

[MascisMan]

Originally Posted by alby

My philosophy this summer is that, unless you have four all stars like the Pistons do, you need two legitimate superstars to win in this league.

So I guess you are branding Tony Parker a superstar now? Are you basing this on his Finals series? Season stats? Career stats?

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by MascisMan

So I guess you are branding Tony Parker a superstar now? Are you basing this on his Finals series? Season stats? Career stats?

or on the wedding?

[alby]

Tony Parker is arguably the best PG in the NBA =\

[ty]

Originally Posted by MascisMan

So I guess you are branding Tony Parker a superstar now? Are you basing this on his Finals series? Season stats? Career stats?

Tony Parker, aka NBA Finals MVP, aka practically unguardable aka the player everybody compares Devin Harris' potential to.

[nashtymavsfan13]

Tony Parker is a top 3 PG along with Nash and Billups. Kidd and Deron Williams could be in the conversation as well, but he is more or less, a superstar.

[MascisMan]

Originally Posted by ty

Tony Parker, aka NBA Finals MVP, aka practically unguardable aka the player everybody compares Devin Harris' potential to.

So you are basing it on the Finals series then? I will not argue that he played like a superstar during that ONE series. But look at his overall playoff and season averages. Although very good, I would hardly classify him as a "superstar". In fact one could argue that his regular season last year was better than this year. Yet he wasn't a "superstar" last year.

And he is HARDLY the best PG in the NBA. Your going to put him over Nash/Kidd/Billups/D. Williams? What about Chris Paul?

Maybe my definition of "superstar" is different than you guys. IN my mind a "superstar" PG should average atleast 6 assists/game because that is the primary duty of the position.

Could Parker carry that team if Duncan was hurt all year? If you look at last seasons averages between Terry and Parker...they aren't much different. I understand there are intangibles that don't show up in the box score, but a "superstar" does seperate themselves numbers wise from the other "good" or "great" players at the same position.

[Male30Dan]

I honestly don't know if Parker should be labeled a superstar or not. I would like to see what he could do on the Suns though. He plays in a system that prevents himself from coming off as a superstar and I think if you put him in another system that played a bit more free he would have more shine to his already very good game.

[Dtownsfinest]

And he is HARDLY the best PG in the NBA. Your going to put him over Nash/Kidd/Billups/D. Williams? What about Chris Paul?

Maybe my definition of "superstar" is different than you guys. IN my mind a "superstar" PG should average atleast 6 assists/game because that is the primary duty of the position.

A superstar isn't determined by statistics. I don't think so anyway. I'm watching Parker in the postseason and he's virtually unstoppable. Now he has a jumper. Steve Nash is the better point guard but after that its debateble. You could put Parker in the conversation, Jason Kidd and Chauncey. And its funny that you put Deron Williams over Tony Parker. Why? Because of his greatness in the playoffs? Yet, you dismiss what Parker did which was just become NBA Finals MVP.

Could Parker carry that team if Duncan was hurt all year? If you look at last seasons averages between Terry and Parker...they aren't much different. I understand there are intangibles that don't show up in the box score, but a "superstar" does seperate themselves numbers wise from the other "good" or "great" players at the same position.

Parker doesn't average many assists because of the offense he runs. A lot of the offense goes through Duncan. The ball goes to him on every possession. When he's out the game then Ginobilli takes the role.

[MascisMan]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

A superstar isn't determined by statistics. I don't think so anyway. I'm watching Parker in the postseason and he's virtually unstoppable. Now he has a jumper. Steve Nash is the better point guard but after that its debateble. You could put Parker in the conversation, Jason Kidd and Chauncey. And its funny that you put Deron Williams over Tony Parker. Why? Because of his greatness in the playoffs? Yet, you dismiss what Parker did which was just become NBA Finals MVP.


Parker doesn't average many assists because of the offense he runs. A lot of the offense goes through Duncan. The ball goes to him on every possession. When he's out the game then Ginobilli takes the role.

I understand there are other intangibles not reflected by statistics. At the same time, "Superstars" have also seperated themselves from the "good" players statistics-wise. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Nash and Kidd are far better point guards than Parker in my opinion. I don't even think that is worth arguing.

I rank Deron Williams higher because of his entire season this year. He has established himself as a top PG in the NBA in only his second season. How long has it taken Parker? I think Williams and Paul are better guards than Parker because they are younger and are already performing at an arguably higher level. This leads me to believe that their upside potential over their career will surpass what Parker's established benchmark.

Yes Parker can shoot a jump shot now (along with a lot of point guards). The fact that it took him 6 NBA seasons to learn is a little disconcerting.

The point about Parker not averaging more assists because of the system is kind of a cop-out to me. Billups, D. Williams, Kidd, Paul and even Felton all averaged over 7 assists a game in half-court offensive systems. Heck even Earl Watson, Mo Williams, Kirk Hinrich, Jamaal Tinsley, and Andre Iguodala averaged more assists. Im not saying the sole purpose of a PG is to pass but some argue that it is the defining attribute of a good point guard. How many times fdo we here about teams wanting a "pass-first" point guard? Can't we also say that assists are a decent indicator of a point guard creating plays and open shots for others? If so, shouldn't that be a prime pre-requisite for a point guard?

Listen, Parker has great talent and is a great point guard. Superstar? No. All-Star? Sure.

Others here (Alby) have also mentioned that you can't base one players value on a single series (talking about Barnes). Then why are we putting Parker on a pedestal for one series? If the Spurs would have lost and Parker had not received the Finals MVP award would we still be labelling him superstar? Better yet lets say they gave it to Duncan? Then would we?

[DevinFuture]

Tony Parker: Born: May 17, 1982
Deron Williams: Born: June 26, 1984
Chris Paul: Born: May 6, 1985

Tony's not all that old. Although I don't really consider any of these three a superstar yet, All 3 of them still have room to get better.
Yes, Tony has played 6 seasons, but there's a pretty good point guard that plays for Phoenix that hit his peak well after that.

[alby]

Tony Parker is a superstar whether we like it or not

He's been unguardable from a penetration standpoint for three years now. And in the last two, he has developed a consistent jumpshot to compliment his ability to break down his defender.

It would be quite easy for him to average more than your imaginary cutoff at 6 assists IMO, assists comes from getting passed your defender and drawing a help defender which gives you passing lanes/angles. With Tony Parker, he can get to the rim anytime he wants to so all he really needs to do is just dish it out to an open shooter. However, the thing with the Spurs is that they are so unselfish, the ball usually swings one or two more times around the perimeter after Parker's initial drive and kick. That, to me, is still considered an assist even though it doesn't officially count as one, because he gets his team an open shot through his individual penetration.

Deron Williams and Chris Paul are unbelievable players, who I believe will the best PGs in the NBA when they are at their peaks--but they are not on Tony Parker's level just yet.

I think the list is Nash, Parker, Kidd.
Nash--he shot 53 percent this year! we are all still waiting for him to decline as a player but he seems to defy common logic. just incredible.
Parker--he is still improving and has two rings already, practically unguardable and can finish even after contact
Kidd--averaged a triple double in the playoffs but he is noticeably slower on both ends of the court and is definitely on the downside of his career.

[MascisMan]

Originally Posted by alby

Tony Parker is a superstar whether we like it or not

He's been unguardable from a penetration standpoint for three years now. And in the last two, he has developed a consistent jumpshot to compliment his ability to break down his defender.

It would be quite easy for him to average more than your imaginary cutoff at 6 assists IMO, assists comes from getting passed your defender and drawing a help defender which gives you passing lanes/angles. With Tony Parker, he can get to the rim anytime he wants to so all he really needs to do is just dish it out to an open shooter. However, the thing with the Spurs is that they are so unselfish, the ball usually swings one or two more times around the perimeter after Parker's initial drive and kick. That, to me, is still considered an assist even though it doesn't officially count as one, because he gets his team an open shot through his individual penetration.

Deron Williams and Chris Paul are unbelievable players, who I believe will the best PGs in the NBA when they are at their peaks--but they are not on Tony Parker's level just yet.

I think the list is Nash, Parker, Kidd.
Nash--he shot 53 percent this year! we are all still waiting for him to decline as a player but he seems to defy common logic. just incredible.
Parker--he is still improving and has two rings already, practically unguardable and can finish even after contact
Kidd--averaged a triple double in the playoffs but he is noticeably slower on both ends of the court and is definitely on the downside of his career.

Labelling someone "superstar" is definitely an opinion so I don't believe that Parker is a superstar whether we like it or not.

How is Deron Williams and Chris Paul not on Parker's level yet? I see it the other way around. What can Parker do that they can't? If your stating that they will be the best NBA point guards when they hit their peaks then you understand my point about upside. This is why they are better than Parker and if I were starting a franchise I would choose one of these two over Parker.

For me the list is Nash, Kidd, Billups. Next tier and close to being a "superstar" is Williams, Paul, Parker. I don't think "rings" are a description of a "Superstar". What about guys like Barkley that have none or guys like Horry that have 7? Rings are a testament to team performance and not individual performance (with maybe a couple exceptions).

I don't think Parker is unguardable. Is he very difficult to guard? Yes. But saying he is unguardable is like saying he is unstoppable which is obviously a fallacy. Again, lets not fall in love with his Finals performance.

[MascisMan]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

Tony Parker: Born: May 17, 1982
Deron Williams: Born: June 26, 1984
Chris Paul: Born: May 6, 1985

Tony's not all that old. Although I don't really consider any of these three a superstar yet, All 3 of them still have room to get better.
Yes, Tony has played 6 seasons, but there's a pretty good point guard that plays for Phoenix that hit his peak well after that.

My point on the age wasn't that Parker is old. It was that he has played 6 seasons to reach where he is now where as it has basically taken Williams and Paul 2 seasons to reach a similar (if not better) ability. Most (not all) point guards reach their plateau usually around seasons 4-5.

[alby]

How is Chauncey a superstar point guard when Parker isn't? You can't be just basing it on his NBA Finals MVP performance are you? Because if you are basing it on this year's performance, he is ranked under Nash, Parker, Kidd, and Williams.

[alby]

You may not consider Tony Parker a superstar, but he is a top 20 player in the NBA.

Two top-20 players = superstar-like

[MascisMan]

Originally Posted by alby

How is Chauncey a superstar point guard when Parker isn't? You can't be just basing it on his NBA Finals MVP performance are you? Because if you are basing it on this year's performance, he is ranked under Nash, Parker, Kidd, and Williams.

Chauncey passes my personal 'assists' rule for point guards. Last year he averaged 7.2 and the year before that 8.6. To accentuate this even more, he averages 7-8 assists per game on the team with the 21st rank offense in the league last year. This tells me that he is involved in baskets more when he is not shooting and that he is getting other players involved in the offense. He scores as good as the best point guards in the league (except Arenas of course) and has solid 3-point range. He is unshakeable at the free throw line and is often relied upon to take the shot at the end of the game. He has multiple all-stars on his team but he is the go-to guy. He led an overwhelmingly underdog team with possibly no future hall-of-famers on it to a championship.

Parker has arguably the best PF to ever play the game. He should be able to sneeze and get atleast 4 assists a game regardless of how many times they swing the ball around the perimeter. Heck he should be driving and dumping it off to Duncan in the paint successfully atleast 5-6 times a game.

I think Parker's passing ability is average at best and passing is the defining role of a point guard in my opinion. This is why I value Chris Paul so high. He does it with less. If everyone stays healthy on the Hornets next year (including Paul) lets see where his numbers go.

Again these are just my opinions on what each position is supposed to contribute. I would KILL to have Parker in Dallas because he is great and we are always shrugging our shoulders every year when we talk about the 1. We are hoping that Harris evolves into a Parker-type point guard, not a superstar (which may be unreasonable for Harris).

[MascisMan]

Originally Posted by alby

You may not consider Tony Parker a superstar, but he is a top 20 player in the NBA.

Two top-20 players = superstar-like

Really? He isn't in my top 20. In fact here is who I deem my top 25 (in no particular order obviously):

Steve Nash
Amare Stoudamire
Gilbert Arenas
Kobe Bryant
Pau Gasol
Carlos Boozer
Dirk Knowitzki
Chris Bosh
Ray Allen
Rashard Lewis
Tim Duncan
Jason Kidd
Vince Carter
Tracy McGrady
Yao Ming
LeBron James
Kevin Garnett
Chauncey Billups
Paul Pierce
Elton Brand
Chris Paul
Allen Iverson
Carmelo Anthony
Dwight Howard
Dwyane Wade

And here are some honorable mentions:

Jermaine O'Neal
Josh Howard
Baron Davis (kind of on the fence with this guy)
Zach Randolph
Michael Redd
Shaq (also on the fence)
Shawn Marion
Deron Williams

So was Parker in your Top 20 before the Finals? Who else is in your Top 20?