RealGM

Continued from:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2432092&start=2020

GO SCOTTIE GO! GO BARNES GO! WE GOT THIS! #TEAM POSITIVEPOLLY! ALL BOARD! CHOO CHOO! ! ! !

Work on his weaknesses/flaws & get better!

Tripod wrote:What are you talking about?

Who is saying it's only the others? He is flawed too! I said he isn't a natural scorer...that's a flaw, right?

BI is a natural scorer. He has the ability to ramp up his scoring game. Barnes doesn't have that.

By that same token, go ask BI increase his scoring AND go chase Pritchard around at POA. Or go play C on defense. It's going to fail.

Our roster is flawed, BARNES INCLUDED, because each of them are good one one side of the ball, flawed on the other. When Barnes has help defensively, he is better offensively. Having RJ takes the offensive pressure off of everyone else because there is more to shoulder the load.

Barnes got his contract because he had a ROTY and All Star seasons in his first 3. EVERY team gives him that contract. That contract doesn't make his flaws go away. And still, we are talking about him having 4 bad games in a 7 game stretch as if it's the only version of him. Just ignore the 2 great months he had beforehand? IQ last 7 games has had 1 good game.

This starting lineup has guys who do things others can't..offensively and defensively. When a link is broken, it's matters. Losing RJ's paint drives matters. Losing Yak on defense matters. IQ not hitting 3's matter. IQ not having Yak for screens matters. Barnes not having Yak for those inside bullet passes that only Yak can catch matters. Etc...

Individually, just are not good enough...starters and bench. That's why this team should have no untouchables, Barnes included. Reality is we had a SG go down and not one of any of our 4 SG's stepped up to fill any of his scoring. And neither has IQ or Barnes.

Natural scorer isn't a flaw, Kawhi Leonard is more a defensive mind than natural scorer, but he covered more on both ends.

Leonard at least covered Quickley for 3 point shooting, point of attack (although Quickley didn't meet that), Ingram's isolation game. Meanwhile Barnes doesn't offer that much, mainly the help defense that isn't exactly elite (we still need a C) and point skill that isn't exactly elite (we still need a PG). Barnes isn't a supermax that Kawhi Leonard was, but he at least needs to replace one of the position and being half of Leonard, either is the PG skill and 3 point shooting, or big man skill and 3 point shooting, he pretty much lacking those.

As for the starting lineup, I have to disagree. We were not so bad without a C with Siakam-Anunoby-VanVleet, because they covered more. Both Quickley (who cannot turn the corner to replace Barrett down hill without a screen nor point of attack defender) and Barnes (who cannot space the floor as off ball nor create as on ball) really limited our starting lineup with over 45% of salary occupied.

Indeed wrote:Natural scorer isn't a flaw, Kawhi Leonard is more a defensive mind than natural scorer, but he covered more on both ends.

Depends on what you mean. Kawhi has the tools, the skills and the instincts to be an excellent scorer, which he shows any time that he's remotely healthy. That he didn't start his career as an iso scorer is one thing, but he's got excellent feel for how to go about scoring the basketball, and a bunch of advantages above and beyond that. Scottie has very little of what Kawhi does. He doesn't have the speed, doesn't have the same interior finishing, he doesn't have the same kind of shot, he isn't nearly as good on-ball and he doesn't have the same sense for how to get to his favorite pet shots over and over and over again while turning them into high-quality looks on a consistent basis. Nor does he have the same finishing ability. I don't want to rip on Scottie too much (especially after the Miami game, where he was quite good), so this is all just in context of direct comparison to Kawhi.

Leonard at least covered Quickley for 3 point shooting, point of attack (although Quickley didn't meet that), Ingram's isolation game. Meanwhile Barnes doesn't offer that much, mainly the help defense that isn't exactly elite (we still need a C) and point skill that isn't exactly elite (we still need a PG). Barnes isn't a supermax that Kawhi Leonard was, but he at least needs to replace one of the position and being half of Leonard, either is the PG skill and 3 point shooting, or big man skill and 3 point shooting, he pretty much lacking those.

I don't really follow that logic. Nothing about his salary suggests that he should be involved in a comparison with Kawhi, nor trying to replicate what Leonard does. Kawhi's primarily value for the past decade has been offensive more than defense, so they're very different players. Scottie's a better defender than Kawhi has been as a 25 ppg scorer, and obviously a much worse scoring threat than Leonard. Their names shouldn't come up together in role discussion, nor in expectations.

As for the starting lineup, I have to disagree. We were not so bad without a C with Siakam-Anunoby-VanVleet, because they covered more.

We certainly had reasonable spacing and decent rebounding there, spread out across Siakam and Anunoby (when OG was actually healthy for us). And Siakam worked really well off of Lowry/Fred, as he did off of Hali. His max value is specifically dependent upon a table-setter.

Both Quickley (who cannot turn the corner to replace Barrett down hill without a screen nor point of attack defender) and Barnes (who cannot space the floor as off ball nor create as on ball) really limited our starting lineup with over 45% of salary occupied.

I would argue that Quickley is the larger issue compared to Barnes, because at least Scottie brings more relevance as a defender (including more positional versatility), rebounder and connecting passer.

Quick's shooting is important to us, but he doesn't bring a lot else, and that's a bigger issue than Scottie not being a superstar scorer at his present salary.

Interesting seeing Scottie just post and making quick moves on mismatches. The 6 point game is an outlier but him being lethargic and standing off to the corner on offense isn’t a new thing either. Perhaps just posting him more often and keeping him involved is the key. But what will he do against bigger sized players he can’t post or even take off the bounce? He needs to improve those perimeter skills still and be active out there too.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:Natural scorer isn't a flaw, Kawhi Leonard is more a defensive mind than natural scorer, but he covered more on both ends.

Depends on what you mean. Kawhi has the tools, the skills and the instincts to be an excellent scorer, which he shows any time that he's remotely healthy. That he didn't start his career as an iso scorer is one thing, but he's got excellent feel for how to go about scoring the basketball, and a bunch of advantages above and beyond that. Scottie has very little of what Kawhi does. He doesn't have the speed, doesn't have the same interior finishing, he doesn't have the same kind of shot, he isn't nearly as good on-ball and he doesn't have the same sense for how to get to his favorite pet shots over and over and over again while turning them into high-quality looks on a consistent basis. Nor does he have the same finishing ability. I don't want to rip on Scottie too much (especially after the Miami game, where he was quite good), so this is all just in context of direct comparison to Kawhi.

This is not correct. Leonard already had the same skill set in college, where he cut with a screen to the middle and take a pull up or get all the way to the rim.

As for Barnes, as you said, he doesn't have the foot speed to get a clean look against same size of defender, which I disagree those are good looks. Those are good looks when he is against smaller players, but he is not playing with Siakam who takes the bigger player at PF, he is playing with Ingram who takes the smaller player at SF.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:Leonard at least covered Quickley for 3 point shooting, point of attack (although Quickley didn't meet that), Ingram's isolation game. Meanwhile Barnes doesn't offer that much, mainly the help defense that isn't exactly elite (we still need a C) and point skill that isn't exactly elite (we still need a PG). Barnes isn't a supermax that Kawhi Leonard was, but he at least needs to replace one of the position and being half of Leonard, either is the PG skill and 3 point shooting, or big man skill and 3 point shooting, he pretty much lacking those.

I don't really follow that logic. Nothing about his salary suggests that he should be involved in a comparison with Kawhi, nor trying to replicate what Leonard does. Kawhi's primarily value for the past decade has been offensive more than defense, so they're very different players. Scottie's a better defender than Kawhi has been as a 25 ppg scorer, and obviously a much worse scoring threat than Leonard. Their names shouldn't come up together in role discussion, nor in expectations.

Leonard was 23% of our salary with us, while 30% with the Clippers, currently Barnes is at 25%. Their name should come together as how much they occupied.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:As for the starting lineup, I have to disagree. We were not so bad without a C with Siakam-Anunoby-VanVleet, because they covered more.

We certainly had reasonable spacing and decent rebounding there, spread out across Siakam and Anunoby (when OG was actually healthy for us). And Siakam worked really well off of Lowry/Fred, as he did off of Hali. His max value is specifically dependent upon a table-setter.

We no longer had Lowry, and now we had Barrett and Ingram. Barnes needs two table-setter, is this something you still want to argue?

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote: Both Quickley (who cannot turn the corner to replace Barrett down hill without a screen nor point of attack defender) and Barnes (who cannot space the floor as off ball nor create as on ball) really limited our starting lineup with over 45% of salary occupied.

I would argue that Quickley is the larger issue compared to Barnes, because at least Scottie brings more relevance as a defender (including more positional versatility), rebounder and connecting passer.

Quick's shooting is important to us, but he doesn't bring a lot else, and that's a bigger issue than Scottie not being a superstar scorer at his present salary.

[/quote]

Quickley is a larger issue, yes, but how certain to you that Barnes is not part of the issue?

Barnes isn't a part of the issue. He raises the floor with any line up which is an amazing skill in itself.

He is a double team threat and teams try to double him in the post. He doesn't need to be a spacer with his size and finishing ability. He's also fairly capable from 3 but he should be trying to get to the free throw line.

IQ is a problem. We need 2 skills out of the possible 3. We need shooting, defense, and explosiveness. IQ gives us one of those sometimes. That's the problem. At least with Shead the defense is always there and he gets paint touches. We lack shooting because of Poeltl and Barnes. That's just Poeltl now, and he might be replaced by Mamu.

I'd say the PG duties have changed. We don't need as much shooting, we need defense and explosive drives that breakdown defenses.

Thaddy wrote:Barnes isn't a part of the issue. He raises the floor with any line up which is an amazing skill in itself.

He is a double team threat and teams try to double him in the post. He doesn't need to be a spacer with his size and finishing ability. He's also fairly capable from 3 but he should be trying to get to the free throw line.

IQ is a problem. We need 2 skills out of the possible 3. We need shooting, defense, and explosiveness. IQ gives us one of those sometimes. That's the problem. At least with Shead the defense is always there and he gets paint touches. We lack shooting because of Poeltl and Barnes. That's just Poeltl now, and he might be replaced by Mamu.

I'd say the PG duties have changed. We don't need as much shooting, we need defense and explosive drives that breakdown defenses.

A guy like Pritchard from the Celtics would elevate this team into contender status, a high IQ pesky defender that can create and shoot with consistency. These guys are rare and they're usually drafted talent that develop into a system much like Fred VanVleet.

Indeed wrote:This is not correct. Leonard already had the same skill set in college, where he cut with a screen to the middle and take a pull up or get all the way to the rim.

He had tools. He wasn't used the same way for his first few years in San Antonio, and they brought him along gradually. He was a 13-16 ppg scorer in college, so it's hard to really sell him as a scorer of this level back then. But yes, for sure, he knew how to move without the ball, had a basic handle and had some of his jumper going already. And you could already see the patience.

As for Barnes, as you said, he doesn't have the foot speed to get a clean look against same size of defender, which I disagree those are good looks.

Hmm? I don't understand what you are disagreeing with. I didn't say anything about Scottie and good looks. I was talking about Kawhi's ability to go after his favorite pet shots and consistently get high-quality looks out of them. Not Scottie.

Also, I buggered up the quote, but with respect to percentage of cap...

Kawhi was paid as much as Marc Gasol on our title team. He was still on his second contract. He was HUGE value for us. Barnes is getting paid a lower proportion of our cap than was Demar DeRozan prior to the trade, to put that in perspective.

We no longer had Lowry, and now we had Barrett and Ingram. Barnes needs two table-setter, is this something you still want to argue?

I was never arguing with you about this element of things We agree on this part quite handily.

Quickley is a larger issue, yes, but how certain to you that Barnes is not part of the issue?

Extremely.

Would it be better if he were magically Giannis? Sure.

But he gives us enough that we can work around him. The problem is that we have systemic issues, absences and outright holes all over our roster.

Scottie's a 19/8/5 player who provides high-value defense. He isn't the issue. He can only be framed as the issue if you believe one player has to do absolutely everything, all the time, forever, which isn't reasonable. No player has done that ever, in league history.

We know Scottie isn't a focal scorer. So banging the gong about him not being a focal scorer over and over isn't helpful. He does so much other stuff, though, that it shouldn't matter. It should be on the team to develop the roster beyond him.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:This is not correct. Leonard already had the same skill set in college, where he cut with a screen to the middle and take a pull up or get all the way to the rim.

He had tools. He wasn't used the same way for his first few years in San Antonio, and they brought him along gradually. He was a 13-16 ppg scorer in college, so it's hard to really sell him as a scorer of this level back then. But yes, for sure, he knew how to move without the ball, had a basic handle and had some of his jumper going already. And you could already see the patience.

As for Barnes, as you said, he doesn't have the foot speed to get a clean look against same size of defender, which I disagree those are good looks.

Hmm? I don't understand what you are disagreeing with. I didn't say anything about Scottie and good looks. I was talking about Kawhi's ability to go after his favorite pet shots and consistently get high-quality looks out of them. Not Scottie.

Also, I buggered up the quote, but with respect to percentage of cap...

Kawhi was paid as much as Marc Gasol on our title team. He was still on his second contract. He was HUGE value for us. Barnes is getting paid a lower proportion of our cap than was Demar DeRozan prior to the trade, to put that in perspective.

I provided the cap percentage, which is 23% of the cap on his cookie extension contract. Meanwhile, Barnes is 25% of the cap on his cookie extension contract. Leonard offered more and is reserved at a lower cap, so I think you got it the other way around. Leonard was 20% with the Spurs.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:We no longer had Lowry, and now we had Barrett and Ingram. Barnes needs two table-setter, is this something you still want to argue?

I was never arguing with you about this element of things We agree on this part quite handily.

Quickley is a larger issue, yes, but how certain to you that Barnes is not part of the issue?

Extremely.

Would it be better if he were magically Giannis? Sure.

But he gives us enough that we can work around him. The problem is that we have systemic issues, absences and outright holes all over our roster.

Scottie's a 19/8/5 player who provides high-value defense. He isn't the issue. He can only be framed as the issue if you believe one player has to do absolutely everything, all the time, forever, which isn't reasonable. No player has done that ever, in league history.

We know Scottie isn't a focal scorer. So banging the gong about him not being a focal scorer over and over isn't helpful. He does so much other stuff, though, that it shouldn't matter. It should be on the team to develop the roster beyond him.

He is definitely not providing enough, and at least he needs a 3 point shooting that opposing team defense would respect or providing rim protection in reducing rim attempts. He is not only not a focal scorer, he is also not at the level of Bam Adebayo or Giannis as a C without consistent 3 point shooting or athleticism, nor a lockdown in Anunoby. His passing is nice, but not at the level we can replace a playmaker to compensate his other average aspect (eg. rebounding, 3 point shooting, ball handling, screen setting, rim protection, perimeter defense, etc.).

Indeed wrote:I provided the cap percentage, which is 23% of the cap on his cookie extension contract. Meanwhile, Barnes is 25% of the cap on his cookie extension contract. Leonard offered more and is reserved at a lower cap, so I think you got it the other way around. Leonard was 20% with the Spurs.

Right, but Leonard was underpaid relative to his production, so he remains a poor example. Leonard was a superstar-level player and we were benefiting from him being on a Scottie-esque contract while he provided production and value well beyond what he was actually paid. He remains a poor point of comparison. It's like when Jordan was making 16.7% of Chicago's cap during the 95-96 season.

Sometimes, you get a bargain deal. You can't use that bargain deal to assassinate the worth of a player who is producing to his level of pay.

He is definitely not providing enough,

Based on what? Team success? On a team with injury issues and roster holes, from a player who is demonstrably neither a superstar nor paid like one?

That doesn't make sense.

You have outsized, unreasonable expectations of him.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:I provided the cap percentage, which is 23% of the cap on his cookie extension contract. Meanwhile, Barnes is 25% of the cap on his cookie extension contract. Leonard offered more and is reserved at a lower cap, so I think you got it the other way around. Leonard was 20% with the Spurs.

Right, but Leonard was underpaid relative to his production, so he remains a poor example. Leonard was a superstar-level player and we were benefiting from him being on a Scottie-esque contract while he provided production and value well beyond what he was actually paid. He remains a poor point of comparison. It's like when Jordan was making 16.7% of Chicago's cap during the 95-96 season.

Sometimes, you get a bargain deal. You can't use that bargain deal to assassinate the worth of a player who is producing to his level of pay.

Yet, some how we got a bargain for Siakam or Powell, and we prefer to trade them, great.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:He is definitely not providing enough,

Based on what? Team success? On a team with injury issues and roster holes, from a player who is demonstrably neither a superstar nor paid like one?

That doesn't make sense.

You have outsized, unreasonable expectations of him.

Lol, you cut off what I explained to your question.
He is the roster hole, please don't give excuse. Not a G without ball handling, not a C without shot blocking, not a Forward without 3 point shooting. As said, get respected on his 3 point shooting (said it over the last 2 years), without that, he is not even close to a near-max player.

Indeed wrote:Yet, some how we got a bargain for Siakam or Powell, and we prefer to trade them, great.

Irrelevant to my post, but a fair enough remark.

Lol, you cut off what I explained to your question.
He is the roster hole, please don't give excuse. Not a G without ball handling, not a C without shot blocking, not a Forward without 3 point shooting. As said, get respected on his 3 point shooting (said it over the last 2 years), without that, he is not even close to a near-max player.

I mean, no. He isn't. He's a solid piece, paid reasonably, who provides a lot to us. This comes back to you having outsized, unreasonable expectations for him.

When we were healthy, Scottie was fine. He's STILL playing very well for us. He just isn't the sort of SCORER that we need to drive the team... but he also shouldn't have to be. He isn't paid to be, and he isn't the only guy on the team.

tsherkin wrote:

Indeed wrote:Yet, some how we got a bargain for Siakam or Powell, and we prefer to trade them, great.

Irrelevant to my post, but a fair enough remark.

Lol, you cut off what I explained to your question.
He is the roster hole, please don't give excuse. Not a G without ball handling, not a C without shot blocking, not a Forward without 3 point shooting. As said, get respected on his 3 point shooting (said it over the last 2 years), without that, he is not even close to a near-max player.

I mean, no. He isn't. He's a solid piece, paid reasonably, who provides a lot to us. This comes back to you having outsized, unreasonable expectations for him.

When we were healthy, Scottie was fine. He's STILL playing very well for us. He just isn't the sort of SCORER that we need to drive the team... but he also shouldn't have to be. He isn't paid to be, and he isn't the only guy on the team.

That is what I asked what is Barnes expectation from the start. No one even want to answer, golden boy has no expectation.
How do you know we are not fine without him, that is my main question. Because we are healthy we are fine, but how do we know we are healthy without him is not fine?

hype_2004 wrote:

Thaddy wrote:Barnes isn't a part of the issue. He raises the floor with any line up which is an amazing skill in itself.

He is a double team threat and teams try to double him in the post. He doesn't need to be a spacer with his size and finishing ability. He's also fairly capable from 3 but he should be trying to get to the free throw line.

IQ is a problem. We need 2 skills out of the possible 3. We need shooting, defense, and explosiveness. IQ gives us one of those sometimes. That's the problem. At least with Shead the defense is always there and he gets paint touches. We lack shooting because of Poeltl and Barnes. That's just Poeltl now, and he might be replaced by Mamu.

I'd say the PG duties have changed. We don't need as much shooting, we need defense and explosive drives that breakdown defenses.

A guy like Pritchard from the Celtics would elevate this team into contender status, a high IQ pesky defender that can create and shoot with consistency. These guys are rare and they're usually drafted talent that develop into a system much like Fred VanVleet.

Swapping Prich and IQ literally changes nothing. Very similar players who rely on high volume 3 point shooting for their offence.

Indeed wrote:That is what I asked what is Barnes expectation from the start. No one even want to answer, golden boy has no expectation.

It's a reasonable question. I think his current level of play is about my level of expectation, personally. He's around league average (in fact just above) efficiency, he's giving us almost 20 ppg, working well within the scope of our offense. He provides D, rebounding and connecting passing/transition playmaking. He does a lot for us. He just isn't a superstar and he isn't a go-to scorer.

How do you know we are not fine without him, that is my main question. Because we are healthy we are fine, but how do we know we are healthy without him is not fine?

That's a weird question. We're far worse on D without him and right now, he's still one of our best offensive weapons. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "without him."

But we lose a LOT if he's suddenly absent. That much should be abundantly clear.

He's down to 36% from 3 on the season. I wonder if he can hold the line or if he continues to fall as the season progresses like in years past.

Reeko wrote:He's down to 36% from 3 on the season. I wonder if he can hold the line or if he continues to fall as the season progresses like in years past.

We'll see what happens. His passing support is holding strong, but his usage of the corners is dropping and he hasn't been hitting well from there for a while now.

Might be worthwhile to wait until RJ comes back to see if there's a connection there, as I suspect there is. His finishing in close has been tailing off as well, but he still looks good from 10 feet out to the 3pt line.

If he can maintain 36%, we'll be okay. And he's holding at just above league-average efficiency right now, which is about the minimum we really need from him in that regard.

Last 2 weeks kinda confirmed what I already knew about Scottie.

If the 3 isn’t falling, he isn’t worth a rookie max. It’s kinda that plain and simple sadly. Hopefully he can get back to like 37% from the 3 but if he’s reverting back to how he usually shoots over the last 4 years, this franchise has no hope with him at the helm of it.

HumbleRen wrote:Last 2 weeks kinda confirmed what I already knew about Scottie.

If the 3 isn’t falling, he isn’t worth a rookie max. It’s kinda that plain and simple sadly. Hopefully he can get back to like 37% from the 3 but if he’s reverting back to how he usually shoots over the last 4 years, this franchise has no hope with him at the helm of it.

This is just who he is. RJ goes down and we struggle badly scoring the ball and what does Scottie do? He scores even less.