Post#13 » by trex_8063 » Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:01 pm
There was someone who brought up the "carried" argument in favour of Rick Barry a couple threads back, but I couldn't find the post.
Anyway, I'm of the opinion that Barry gets an awful lot of mileage out of "carried bunch of nobodies" [or similar] type of sentiments (which probably aren't fully warranted).
Firstly, I'd say that NOBODY wins the title with "a bunch of nobodies" [or whatever]. Great players can "carry a bunch of nobodies" to a decent record and a playoff berth or similar; but not a title.
Not even Duncan or Hakeem (who are probably the closest to any such claim) can truly say that. It's disrespectful to literally thousands of actual good NBA players to refer to them by such terms.
For '03 Duncan.....
Last legs of David Robinson was still a pretty valuable low-minute player. Though they struggled in the playoffs, young Tony Parker, Malik Rose, and Stephen Jackson were all decent NBA players in '03 (league avg or slightly better). Bruce Bowen is a nice-fitting 3&D role player who I would assess as a "decent starter-level player" overall. Speedy Claxton, who they had for the 2nd half of the season, was a decent (league avg at least) NBA player. Guys like old Steve Kerr and Steve Smith are not bad role players considering they only have to fill the role of being 8th-12th in playing time (it indicates a pinch of depth).
It's not what you'd call a "title-worthy" supporting cast, no; it's decidedly weak for a supporting cast that actually did win the title. But it's not a collection of scrubs.
Similar for '94 Hakeem....
Robert Horry, Otis Thorpe, and Kenny Smith are all at least fair/decent starter-level players in '94 (considering his defensive acumen and tendency for playoff rising, Horry probably slightly BETTER than that; and probably Thorpe too, considering his ability to play at a better than average level while shouldering ~36 mpg).
Rooke Sam Cassell and Mario Elie provided a bit more back-court punch (fair/decent players). Vernon Maxwell chucked a lot, but was a good defender.
While there are certainly no great players or "All-Stars" in that backcourt, it's pretty darn good backcourt depth that you can go to your FOURTH-BEST guard and still have someone as decent as Vernon Maxwell or Mario Elie.
And then considering there was the starting frontcourt of Hakeem/Horry/Thorpe.......that's not too shabby.
When it comes to title teams, I think people too easily fall into the fallacy of thinking that if you aren't an All-Star, you're complete trash. It's just not true.
And again, I am NOT saying this is a strong title-winning supporting cast. But this is not a bunch of "scrubs" or "nobodies", as the narrative usually runs.
For '75 Rick Barry....
Clifford Ray was a fine defensive center. In '74, with 32-year-old Nate Thurmond at C, the Warriors were at +0.7 rDRTG [8th of 17]. Then they traded Thurmond for Ray [though this wasn't the only change, to be fair], and the improved to -0.4 rDRTG [5th of 18].
Meanwhile, the '74 Bulls [with Clifford Ray] had been a -4.1 rDRTG [1st in the league]. In '75, with 33-year-old Nate Thurmond in his place, they fall slightly to -3.3 rDRTG [2nd of 18]. I realize these aren't big changes, but were talking about a swap with Nate Thurmond, who was [at worst] in his early post-prime in these years.
George Johnson was a nice defensive role player to have as back-up C. Jamaal Wilkes wasn't a bad defender, too.
In short, this was a quite strong defensive frontcourt. I won't deny that Barry "carried" [to a degree, though I really hate that word] the offense. But they won, in no small part, because of their defense; especially in the late playoff rounds.
In the rs, they were the 2nd-rated offense (and as mentioned: the 5th-rated defense). And in the WCSF, too, it was their offense that carried the day, and Barry was brilliant in the series: 27.0 ppg @ 54.9% TS (pretty good for the time period) with 7.0 apg, leading the team by comfortable margins in both points and assists, and leading everyone who scored 8+ ppg in TS, too.
In the WCF [against the Bulls], the offense mostly maintained its rs standard (at least relative to the opponent faced); that is: it was a significant drop in raw terms from their rs standard, but they're facing the 2nd-rated defense here. Relative to the Bulls defense, they performed as a +2.2 rORTG (they'd been +2.7 in the rs).
Barry averaged 28.4 ppg, though on only 46.6% TS, with 5.9 apg.
Wilkes helped out with 15.3 ppg @ 51.1% TS, and Charles Johnson delivered 13.7 ppg @ 49.2% TS, and Butch Beard averaged 10.9 ppg @ 50.6% TS. Jeff Mullins averaged 8.1 ppg @ 49.7% TS.
Overall, those four guys combined for 48 ppg @ >50% TS [more than 3.5% above Barry], as well as 8.6 apg. So he wasn't entirely without help there.
And at any rate, their DEFENSE out-shined that, performing as a -4.2 rDRTG in the series. This could be said to have been key in game 7 in particular, when the Warrior offense managed just a -6.2 rORTG [scoring just 83 pts].......but they won anyway, because their defense performed as a monstrous -13.4 rDRTG, holding the Bulls to just 79.
Barry, in that game, scored 22 pts @ 42.2% TS, with 4 assists.
Jamaal Wilkes delivered a game-high 23 pts @ 55.4% TS, with 3 assists.
Where might Rick Barry and the '75 Warriors have been without Jamaal Wilkes offensive performance and/or the total team defense's performance in game 7?
I strongly suspect Barry would scarcely have received mentions at this early stage of the list without those things.
Then in the Finals their offense underperformed (+0.1 rORTG, relative to the team faced). In other words they were a completely average offense in the Finals, though I will admit it was Rick Barry "carrying" that average offense.
But that's OK, because their defense was once again monstrous, performing as a -10.3 rDRTG; and that carried the series.
Ultimately I just don't agree with the narrative/sentiment (to say nothing of this being a sort of watered down league in '75).
I would ask our proctor, Doctor MJ---who I've came at hard at times in the past for a perceived lack of consistency---this question......because I recall him once taking the "hottish" take that Paul Seymour was actually the best player on the '55 Nats, because they won on the strength of their defense.
Now, the '75 Warriors are not as polarized (Offense vs Defense) as the '55 Nats; but at the same time, the defensive gap between Seymour and Schayes (in absolute value) is likely not as large as that between Barry and say.....Clifford Ray.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
