GlenRiceARoni wrote:Can someone explain this? I see this comment quite a bit but I disagree. To me, he is clearly a SF that has the ability to play 1/3 of his minutes at PF. He would end up being one of the worse rebounding PFs if he played there full-time. The guy is a SF and is showing that more and more. He will only get better too over the next 2-3 years as he enters his prime (remember, he is only 24 years old rn).
Basically, Barnes is a true SF, but if you play him at his natural position he has no value added to your roster. He's just another guy. Which would be one thing at $5-10m but it's an unmitigated disaster at ~$23m.
You unlock Barnes positive value as a basketball player by going "small" and playing him as PF. Barnes can hit wide open 3's (particularly from the short corners) at a pretty respectable clip. The hope is that he doesn't compromise your defense and rebounding so much that it offsets your increased offensive production.
His ability to shoot from the 4 opens up the floor so that other players (namely your lead guard) can operate more efficiently and your team has a puncher's chance on offense.
Right now, as currently constructed Dallas simply can't field a competitive offensive unit and they are forced to laboriously run the offense through Barnes which isn't going to work in the NBA.
A lot of these problems are due to Dallas not getting any dribble penetration from the deron/matthews pairing. Its no secret that they need a lead guard in the worst way. But much has to do with playing Barnes at his natural SF position which he's simply never thrived at. He's very similar to Marvin Williams in that he can be a nice complementary piece that helps other players thrive in their position but he's never going to produce big numbers for a decent team because he's not a go-to guy. Very, very few players are in the modern NBA where you really have to be extremely efficient to compete against the 3-point barrages.
Isn't this the Nellie school of thinking? Let's create a mismatch on offense but sacrificing other aspects, winning aspects at that (defense, rebounding, interior play), to have that offensive mismatch?
I ask the question almost rhetorical because I knew the answer people would say. I see the point on offense, but to your statement of...."The hope is that he doesn't compromise your defense and rebounding so much that it offsets your increased offensive production"....that is primarily why I don't like Barnes at PF. I think it does. His rebounding is very average for a PF. Besides Golden State, we would get killed on the boards with any good team (Kevin Love, LaMarcus Aldridge, Blake Griffin). Basically, the top teams have someone that would destroy Barnes at PF. Ultimately, Dallas is going to succeed with Barnes at SF and having a true stretch PF, like most other teams have.
And maybe my main point of keeping Barnes at SF is that he actually does well at this position. We get an easy switch almost every time down with a SF/PG pick n roll, because most SF can handle a PG (better than a PF), so teams are willing to switch. It then gives Barnes the ability to rise up against smaller players or back them down. He also has proven he is a capable ball handler against equally as quick players to attack the basket.
There are 11 SFs that average more than 17-PPG, with Barnes at #9, so to say that he is a "Marvin William" esque player or "just another player [if played at SF]" is such a hyperbole to what Barnes is doing as a first year go-to player.
Right now, Dallas has no dribble penetration and little post offense, so I understand the need to want to maximize what Barnes can add to the team, but as you add talent, we won't need to create those mismatches as much. Sure, Barnes should get 1/3 of his minutes at PF and be the primary back PF, but I don't see him being the starting PF if we are going to win a championship.
