RealGM

The projected starting lineup for us against Chicago (by the OP) is our most efficient lineup.

They have only played a grand total of 28 minutes together, but they play great because they are all playing natural positions... when Barnes isn't asked to play PF, he's actually a pretty servicable player... but man, where will we find a PF?!?!

Barnes D improves at SF... his rebounds, his scoring, every kind of efficiency.... I guess why they call it his "natural position".... idiot Nelson...

Just to add on to that...
http://www.82games.com/0708/07GSW9B.HTM
When Barnes plays SF:

- We are much more efficient scorers. With Barnes at PF, only one other unit has an eFGA of over .500. With Barnes at SF .527 (Buke @ SG) and .644 (Ellis @ SG).

- We get closer (re: better) shots. Only the Davis/Buke/Jax/Barnes/Biedrins rotation takes a higher % of close range shots than the 2 units with Barnes @ SF.

- We don't allow closer shots. Our top 2 dClose %s - 21% (the Monta @ SG unit) and 26% (the Buke @ SG unit). 1 in every 5 shots is non perimeter when Monta/Barnes are the 2/3, 1 in every 4 shots is non perimeter when Buke/Barnes are 2/3. The rest of the time? 1/3, in some cases, 1/2

- We rebound better. Duh. But the #s back it up. Our best rebounding unit has Barnes and Ellis (119%), in 3rd is Buke and Barnes (101%)

- We create more turnovers than we give. #1 - +11%, the Ellis/Barnes tandem. #3, +9%, the Buke/Barnes tandem.

Yet Barnes plays at PF 75% of the time. 5% of the time at C

Small ball sucks.

I just looked out the window and at the exact moment I was reading this, the clouds parted and a ray of sunshine hit the street.

Here's all of the the 5 man units. Not just the ones with Barnes.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708GSW2.HTM

But yes, he definitely belongs at SF.

Co-sign.

It's important to consider how this data came about. Nellie may be playing Barnes at SF against easier lineups than when he plays him at PF.

But in general I agree that Matt is naturally suited to SF. Our problem is that we don't have a PF other than Al. So either we have to play a rookie, or play someone out of position (or play Cro at PF, - but Nellie seems unwilling to do that).

I think the only reason Barnes and Azubuki and these guys start is because Nelson is TRYING to get something coming off the bench.....Harrington seems to be the only guy that scores well immediately when he comes into the game.....

I personally thing he needs to start....and the Bench should include Marco for more scoring....

Putting smaller guys at center and pf does REALLY start to bug me though....very tired of Nelson getting off at mistmatches only to find we've been out rebounded by 20!

Nice read Reggae. A little earlier I have convinced that the main reason Barnes struggles this season is largely due to the fact he's played more PF minutes than SF.

It has really not much to do with him starting or coming off the bench. His skills are just better suited for the 3 then 4 (duh!)

I don't need to see any raw numbers to conclude that Barnes isn't effective playing power forward. His body takes a beating attempting to guard bigger/stronger players, and it takes him out of his game offensively--it makes no sense!

Don Nelson doesn't care, and never has about conventional positions. He just puts the 5 players out there without really factoring that into account.

There are three types of players... bigs, smalls, and point guards.

Right now unfortunately our only starting-caliber big is Beidrins. Whoever else gets time at the 4 - Harrington, Wright, Barnes - is inherently miscast. Not too much Nellie can do about that.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Warriors traded away one or more of their "small forwards" before the deadline, though.

for all we know those 28 mins could have come all in one game against some sucky ass team.

jrhester wrote:There are three types of players... bigs, smalls, and point guards.

I would say Nellie's take is there are centers, forwards and point guards. ALL of the forwards are interchangeable for him.

floppymoose wrote:But in general I agree that Matt is naturally suited to SF. Our problem is that we don't have a PF other than Al. So either we have to play a rookie, or play someone out of position (or play Cro at PF, - but Nellie seems unwilling to do that).

Really?

/backhanded agenda of the initial post

Facts may be facts, but my inner sense of respect would prevent me from calling a person with some 50 years of professional basketball experience more than myself an 'idiot'. Just food for thought...

I've won as many NBA Championships as Nellie..

He's a complete idiot.... suckered in by everyone in the NBA. Hell, so is D'Antoni and any other buffoon thinking a team that depends on the running game will win a ring... at least PHX has a shot because of Amare inside. The running tends to stop in the playoffs - teams fall back on defense quicker and only crash boards with 1 or 2 players - and they still usually get the OREB. Most teams aren't going to treat the NBA playoffs like the regular season, or vice versa... Mavs were the exception but Avery figured us out last time.

Past all the gimmicks, we can sometimes eek one out if Baron + Jax are on their games... its like betting the farm on green 00...

Yet Nellie swears by his tactics... 0 NBA Championships, 0 great PF/Cs developed...

My inner sense of respect lost out to my desire to win long, long ago...

why do you watch then?

gsw510 wrote:why do you watch then?

Same reason I watched the 22 years previous. Its at least entertaining now...

510,

Please refrain from the Nellie is an idiot comments.

It severely damages your credibility.

I like your posts for the most part, but the Nellie is an idiot angle is stupid at best.

It's been popular to say a running team can't win the Championship, but the League goes through ebbs and flows, people try to mimic the recent Champions, and rule changes increase and decrease the average scoring in the League.

It's been a long time, but weren't some of the Laker Showtime teams that won the Finals very high-scoring teams? I see for instance that they had playoff games with 124, 129, and 119 points vs. Philly, 128 (twice) and 118 points vs San Antonio, etc.

I'm sure there have also been other Champions over the long history of the League who have won it all, putting up a lot of points in the process.

Saying a running team can't win it all seems like tunnel vision, or selective memory - where only the sometimes horrid, grind it out games of the Pistons and Spurs come to mind.

In fact it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way now, with rule changes that favor the offense, teams like the Suns and Mavs challenging for the title, and more teams like the Warriors and Grizzlies employing a fast-paced style.

A little disingenuous to call Nellie a complete idiot, and compare your own basketball knowledge to his because neither of you has COACHED a Championship team (he has actually won what, five NBA Championships as a player? I think that's probably five more than you). Red Auerbach wanted Nellie to coach the Celtics, is he an idiot too? And I suppose Karl Malone and Reggie Miller are big losers.

I hope another running team wins a Championship soon, because for me that's just much more beautiful, athletic, fun to watch basketball than walk it up, half-court, 82-78 ugliness. Phoenix has a chance. And it would be really nice if Nellie could do it (especially with the Warriors ) to cap off a career that has seen pretty much every other accolade possible.

I've won as many NBA Championships as Nellie..

Which is expected when you've won 1000 games less than him... Progress is a slow process, in all aspects of life. I would only consider fans who expect a championship contender to suddenly pop up after 15 years of consecutive suckiness an idiot.