Rick Barry vs Vince Carter

[durantbird]

Who's the better overall player? Also, who would you choose to lead your team in today's NBA?

[penbeast0]

Both primarily scorers. Barry only had two years where he was above average efficiency, his abbreviated (35 game) 69 season where he got injured and the team went on to win the title without him and his 70 season (still only 52 games, less than 2000 minutes, and alienated the whole fan base and forced a trade with his comments about Virginia). Other than that, despite scoring a lot of points, his high TS Add was 46.3 in his second year in Golden State and he walked away from that team too. Vince was not much better with only 1 year of 100+ TS Add despite his incredible dunks and 3 point range.

Barry had better size and court vision; he probably could play better defense when he wasn't sulking but I'd give Vince the defensive edge.

Neither good team leaders, Barry because he was a jerk, Vince because he didn't seem to eat/drink/sleep basketball like the obsessed championship types did.

Vince played in much tougher leagues than the 70s NBA and early ABA. Barry made one of the NBA's great runs through the postseason; one of the rare teams to win before the Bad Boys without a HOF center (and Laimbeer might be in the HOF if he weren't so hated personally). Vince isn't up to that mark.

I have to pick Barry first because of his great carry job in 1975 (though his team was not as bad around him as he says in interviews), otherwise I'd go with Vince.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think if Barry started shooting 3's in middle school and became a better than league avg 3 pt shooter in the nba(say 37-40% on volume) I'd take him.

[penbeast0]

Well, shoot, if I can have a small forward from the 60s who learned to shoot 37-40% on his 3PA for today's NBA without sacrificing the skill set he had, give me Havlicek. Or Cunningham, Elgin Baylor (who could avoid the knee injuries and military service), or maybe even Chet Walker or Jack Twyman or Joe Caldwell, all of whom I'd take over Barry though Barry had a better career than at least the last three.

[Cavsfansince84]

Well, shoot, if I can have a small forward from the 60s who learned to shoot 37-40% on his 3PA for today's NBA without sacrificing the skill set he had, give me Havlicek. Or Cunningham, Elgin Baylor (who could avoid the knee injuries and military service), or maybe even Chet Walker or Jack Twyman or Joe Caldwell, all of whom I'd take over Barry though Barry had a better career than at least the last three.

Well.. two things. One, it's specifically a Barry/Carter thread and two, I think Barry is thought of as being a better shooter than those other guys. I don't think it's that unreasonable to think he would be a volume 3 guy today on around league average %. Barry without the injuries would prob be a top 4-7 player in today's league imo(obviously if he's born in around 2000 and not being just moved from 1966 to 2023 via a time machine).

[70sFan]

Barry, not close.

[One_and_Done]

Carter would have dunked all over Barry in the weak era he was from.

[70sFan]

Carter would have dunked all over Barry in the weak era he was from.

That's cool and all, still wouldn't make him a better player though.

[One_and_Done]

He'd have been better too.

[70sFan]

He'd have been better too.

Like Joe Caldwell?

[Owly]

Well, shoot, if I can have a small forward from the 60s who learned to shoot 37-40% on his 3PA for today's NBA without sacrificing the skill set he had, give me Havlicek. Or Cunningham, Elgin Baylor (who could avoid the knee injuries and military service), or maybe even Chet Walker or Jack Twyman or Joe Caldwell, all of whom I'd take over Barry though Barry had a better career than at least the last three.

Well.. two things. One, it's specifically a Barry/Carter thread and two, I think Barry is thought of as being a better shooter than those other guys. I don't think it's that unreasonable to think he would be a volume 3 guy today on around league average %. Barry without the injuries would prob be a top 4-7 player in today's league imo(obviously if he's born in around 2000 and not being just moved from 1966 to 2023 via a time machine).

So two things
One ... no team, never mind the league shot 40% from 3 last year, nor in '22, 1 did in '21, none in '20, 19, 18 or 17; one in '16, none in '15, '14 ...

But let's go more precisely to the full league and that full range: looking at the span above league average has been between 37% and 40% (from the season summary: teams Reference page) if I'm looking correctly ... zero times (I think once if rounding to 2dp, i.e. better than .365). Typically under 36%. Putting Barry (with volume), say, in the middle of that range then would put him not so much "around league average" as at least good and if volume is implying difficulty ... better.

Barry does have a better shooting "rep".
But it's hard to gauge precisely. He doesn't have a jump shot form on his free free throw and we don't have a lot of video.
ABA NBA combined 3pt% he's .296795953 off 593 attempts (RS). Percentages were obviously worse at the time but he isn't some great outlier and others were able to stand out in the ABA . We don't know how much heaves were counted and if he took many I suppose.
He was white and a star and a scorer which I would suggest could have inflated the "shooter" reputation.
I don't think it's a given that he's a better shooter than Havlicek (especially JH after the first 3 or so years).

[Djoker]

I love Vince as much as anyone but this is Barry. His passing was very strong and what he did leading a team surpasses anything Carter did. Barry was also a very capable long range shooter even if the NBA didn't have a 3pt line so he'd adapt to the modern NBA quite well.

[Cavsfansince84]

So two things
One ... no team, never mind the league shot 40% from 3 last year, nor in '22, 1 did in '21, none in '20, 19, 18 or 17; one in '16, none in '15, '14 ...

But let's go more precisely to the full league and that full range: looking at the span above league average has been between 37% and 40% (from the season summary: teams Reference page) if I'm looking correctly ... zero times (I think once if rounding to 2dp, i.e. better than .365). Typically under 36%. Putting Barry (with volume), say, in the middle of that range then would put him not so much "around league average" as at least good and if volume is implying difficulty ... better.

Barry does have a better shooting "rep".
But it's hard to gauge precisely. He doesn't have a jump shot form on his free free throw and we don't have a lot of video.
ABA NBA combined 3pt% he's .296795953 off 593 attempts (RS). Percentages were obviously worse at the time but he isn't some great outlier and others were able to stand out in the ABA . We don't know how much heaves were counted and if he took many I suppose.
He was white and a star and a scorer which I would suggest could have inflated the "shooter" reputation.
I don't think it's a given that he's a better shooter than Havlicek (especially JH after the first 3 or so years).

I'm well aware that no team shoots 40% from 3 and that league average has usually been around 36-37% for the last 20 or so years. I just gave 37-40% as a range he might shoot in for the purposes of my own post. His 3 pt shooting numbers from the 70's don't mean much in this if I am presupposing that he starts practicing them in his early development today. Hondo wasn't a bad shooter either but Barry came in and was a monstrously efficient player at first before the injuries and while shooting at a pretty massive volume throughout his career. So given I also mentioned him avoiding injuries that's the line of reasoning I am using here given that he learns to use better shot selection. I mean the whole thing is hypothetical in that we don't know exactly how he adapts to today's game.

[penbeast0]

I think Rick Barry's TS Add shows he was not "monstrously efficient" like a Jerry West/Oscar Robertson/Wilt type. He didn't even break 100 TS Add except in the ABA despite high volumes so at best you can call him slightly above average efficiency in his 1st two NBA years and and then slightly below average when he returned to the NBA. Monstrously efficient is monstrously inaccurate.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think Rick Barry's TS Add shows he was not "monstrously efficient" like a Jerry West/Oscar Robertson/Wilt type. He didn't even break 100 TS Add except in the ABA despite high volumes so at best you can call him slightly above average efficiency in his 1st two NBA years and and then slightly below average when he returned to the NBA. Monstrously efficient is monstrously inaccurate.

?? Maybe not monstrous but his ts add his first two years in the nba were 124 & 195, then his first year in the aba it was 219 in only 35 games after a year off then 187 in 52 games(which is monstrous albeit in the early aba). So no its not that inaccurate imo.

[Owly]

So two things
One ... no team, never mind the league shot 40% from 3 last year, nor in '22, 1 did in '21, none in '20, 19, 18 or 17; one in '16, none in '15, '14 ...

But let's go more precisely to the full league and that full range: looking at the span above league average has been between 37% and 40% (from the season summary: teams Reference page) if I'm looking correctly ... zero times (I think once if rounding to 2dp, i.e. better than .365). Typically under 36%. Putting Barry (with volume), say, in the middle of that range then would put him not so much "around league average" as at least good and if volume is implying difficulty ... better.

Barry does have a better shooting "rep".
But it's hard to gauge precisely. He doesn't have a jump shot form on his free free throw and we don't have a lot of video.
ABA NBA combined 3pt% he's .296795953 off 593 attempts (RS). Percentages were obviously worse at the time but he isn't some great outlier and others were able to stand out in the ABA . We don't know how much heaves were counted and if he took many I suppose.
He was white and a star and a scorer which I would suggest could have inflated the "shooter" reputation.
I don't think it's a given that he's a better shooter than Havlicek (especially JH after the first 3 or so years).

I'm well aware that no team shoots 40% from 3 and that league average has usually been around 36-37% for the last 20 or so years. I just gave 37-40% as a range he might shoot in for the purposes of my own post. His 3 pt shooting numbers from the 70's don't mean much in this if I am presupposing that he starts practicing them in his early development today. Hondo wasn't a bad shooter either but Barry came in and was a monstrously efficient player at first before the injuries and while shooting at a pretty massive volume throughout his career. So given I also mentioned him avoiding injuries that's the line of reasoning I am using here given that he learns to use better shot selection. I mean the whole thing is hypothetical in that we don't know exactly how he adapts to today's game.

Well the last post quoted (but cut here) says
"I don't think it's that unreasonable to think he would be a volume 3 guy today on around league average %"
but the previous contention had been at between 37 and 40% a range which seems to not include any seasonal league average ... i.e. a range that is literally not "around" but "above" league average.

"league average has usually been around 36-37% for the last 20 or so years"
The league average has been with that range (inclusive [so inc .360 ... using reference numbers to three dp so if assuming conventional rounding perhaps .3595] 6 times as before typically lower. The unweighted average (i.e. average of the season averages - taken from the 3dp Reference results is 0.3574. That's also not insignificantly lower than the center of Barry's offered potential range.

Barry was efficient in the NBA early on, on high volume (not sure on monstrously so) ... but that's driven by getting to the line and being efficient there. From the field his just marginally above average. Which isn't bad at volume, given it's allied to the free throws (and could be more valuable if he were the playmaker for others he would later be). In the ABA that he dominated there were few players there who wouldn't have preferred to be in the NBA (but they couldn't make it there). Besides banned players, early on it seems functionally a second tier league.

We don't know of course on the time machine side which is why a) I don't really play it and certainly don't like too and b) I would tend to allow for a wide range of interpretations. That said:
Actual three point data "doesn't mean much"? Repeating that I granted sample limitations and possible caveats ... what is there that does mean much that we can assess him and others off then? Especially him since his FT form isn't an in game shot. No one is saying he definitely stays at the same percentage and time machine stuff allows for a wide range ... still are we not starting from what Rick Barry was or else who is this player ... and there were some guys throwing 35% and better, does their percentage not matter much, does it not matter that he was not that good versus his peers in that regard?

[Cavsfansince84]

Well the last post quoted (but cut here) says
"I don't think it's that unreasonable to think he would be a volume 3 guy today on around league average %"
but the previous contention had been at between 37 and 40% a range which seems to not include any seasonal league average ... i.e. a range that is literally not "around" but "above" league average.

"league average has usually been around 36-37% for the last 20 or so years"
The league average has been with that range (inclusive [so inc .360 ... using reference numbers to three dp so if assuming conventional rounding perhaps .3595] 6 times as before typically lower. The unweighted average (i.e. average of the season averages - taken from the 3dp Reference results is 0.3574. That's also not insignificantly lower than the center of Barry's offered potential range.

Barry was efficient in the NBA early on, on high volume (not sure on monstrously so) ... but that's driven by getting to the line and being efficient there. From the field his just marginally above average. Which isn't bad at volume, given it's allied to the free throws (and could be more valuable if he were the playmaker for others he would later be). In the ABA that he dominated there were few players there who wouldn't have preferred to be in the NBA (but they couldn't make it there). Besides banned players, early on it seems functionally a second tier league.

We don't know of course on the time machine side which is why a) I don't really play it and certainly don't like too and b) I would tend to allow for a wide range of interpretations. That said:
Actual three point data "doesn't mean much"? Repeating that I granted sample limitations and possible caveats ... what is there that does mean much that we can assess him and others off then? Especially him since his FT form isn't an in game shot. No one is saying he definitely stays at the same percentage and time machine stuff allows for a wide range ... still are we not starting from what Rick Barry was or else who is this player ... and there were some guys throwing 35% and better, does their percentage not matter much, does it not matter that he was not that good versus his peers in that regard?

I get that some are taking the 37-40% to mean league avg but what I'm inferring is league avg or possibly even better. The reason I don't put much of any stock in aba 3 pt %'s is because imo it was a novelty shot for the most part. It's way different to have players grow up shooting them and then coached to take them regularly at all levels of the game. I mean tbh, I feel there's a lot of nitpicking going on about one thing I said in a short post without just acknowledging the reality of what I was getting at. So take it or leave it, agree/disagree, it's just another way of saying that if Barry could shoot 3's reasonably well I'd take him over Vince in the modern league(as in both are 22 this year).

[penbeast0]

I think Rick Barry's TS Add shows he was not "monstrously efficient" like a Jerry West/Oscar Robertson/Wilt type. He didn't even break 100 TS Add except in the ABA despite high volumes so at best you can call him slightly above average efficiency in his 1st two NBA years and and then slightly below average when he returned to the NBA. Monstrously efficient is monstrously inaccurate.

?? Maybe not monstrous but his ts add his first two years in the nba were 124 & 195, then his first year in the aba it was 219 in only 35 games after a year off then 187 in 52 games(which is monstrous albeit in the early aba). So no its not that inaccurate imo.

Ah, I was wrong, you are correct. I was looking at the FG Add column and thinking it was TS Add. Barry was indeed an efficient scorer early on.

[Warspite]

Anyone with the discipline/skill Barry had at FTs is going to be able to translate that into a 3pt shot. After all the 3pt shot is just a longer FTA. The only limiting factor is time. If Barry wants to be a great 3pt shooter he can because he has the skill and work ethic.


IMHO it's that to many players take the time to be 3pt shooters at the expense of so many other skills that they are 1 trick ponies that get labeled 3&D guys because they are simply not good enough to play multiple roles or adapt and that is what is wrong with today's NBA. These teams can't play different styles or run sets because they lack the fundamental skills to do so. My guess is that there are 100 NBA players that aren't very good basketball players (by historic NBA standards) that simply couldn't make an NBA roster pre 1990 because they are specialist of the current 3pt fad which is dictated by rules changes.

[Owly]

Anyone with the discipline/skill Barry had at FTs is going to be able to translate that into a 3pt shot. After all the 3pt shot is just a longer FTA.

Not with Rick Barry's free throw form it isn't.