penbeast0 wrote:Barry 75, epic carry job
WarriorGM wrote:trex_8063 wrote:But so we're clear, I'm not arguing for ANY of these player-seasons as of this stage of the project. I also hate the narrative of "carry job" as it pertains to '75 Barry, fwiw.
Why does "carry job" not fit the bill? The term never fits or there was a characteristic of that run that is inaccurate in comparison to Hakeem's 1994 run for example?
Slight semantic derail, though don't know where else to put this convo. Quoting pen since he's used the narrative I dislike.
I guess partially it boils down to what one means, semantically, when they say "carry job". It seems a lot of people will say so-and-so "carried" this team if the roster contains no other player who was an All-Star that season (or sometimes even if there WAS another All-Star, if that All-Star teammate is not a high ppg scorer [e.g. Iverson and the ‘01 Sixers]).
To my way of thinking, the only casts that need "carrying" are those that are truly incapable of even
the smallest measure of success on their own........casts that are legitimately "bad/terrible/incompetent", etc.
imo, no one [NO ONE] achieves any particularly noteworthy team success or accomplishment [like a finals berth] by themselves, saddled with such a cast as that (i.e. by means of a "carry job"). To suggest otherwise is insulting to the teammates who did, in fact, make some very meaningful contributions to the team success.
I don’t think Dirk “carried” the ‘11 Mavs to a title (strictly speaking no other All-Stars, but Chandler, Terry, Marion, aging Jason Kidd is not bad at all [arguably above average, in fact] in terms of your 2nd-5th best players, and the fit around Dirk was frankly excellent; and it was supported by a fairly good/deep bench and an excellent coach).
I don’t think Iverson “carried” the ‘01 Sixers to the finals. He sure as s*** didn’t “carry” them to a top-5 defense. And though aided by the “Iverson assist” of drawing defensive help as he’d get a shot up on the tin, they had some very capable offensive rebounders (Deke, Hill, Lynch) that helped propel them to the 2nd-best OREB% in the league.
The closest thing to an actual “carry job” on a team that enjoyed actual substantial team success might be something like Hakeem with the ‘94 Rockets. But even there it doesn’t quite fit the definition for me. Otis Thorpe was pretty consistently a borderline All-Star (or close to it, roughly top 26-35 player in the league) throughout his prime, and ‘94 is no exception. Robert Horry was an excellent role player. Vernon Maxwell was a chucker, though at least was a good defender and decent playmaker (also energy guy) to counter-balance that. And though their frontcourt bench was bleh, the combo of Mario Elie, Scott Brooks, and rookie Sam Cassell gave them a very nice backcourt bench rotation. I think if you replace Hakeem with someone like Rik Smits, this team probably still wins 42-44 games and makes the playoffs. Replace him with a league-average center, then they certainly miss the playoffs, but they wouldn’t be a bottom-scraping team.
A true “carry job” is something like Michael Jordan with the ‘87 Bulls, where they were 40-42 [though with a +1.26 SRS], and make a quick 1st-round exit in playoffs. But following Jordan the top guys in minutes played were: 2nd-year Charles Oakley, John Paxson, Dave Corzine, Gene Banks, Brad Sellers, Earl Cureton, Elston Turner. Only 1-2 of these guys are [arguably] even above average NBA players (and only
barely so, if at all); and several were scrubs who washed out of the league very shortly after this season. This is a squad for whom, if we replaced Jordan with a league-average wing, they very likely achieve the dead-last record in the league. What tiny modicum of success they had [making the playoffs] is because Jordan “carried” them to it.
Or maybe Jordan with the ‘88 Bulls. The cast in descending order of minutes was: Charles Oakley, Dave Corzine, Brad Sellers, John Paxson, rookie Horace Grant, rookie Scottie Pippen, Rory Sparrow, Sam Vincent. It’s a better cast than in ‘87 (he has maybe 2-3 more teammates who are
at least average NBA players [instead of scrubs]). Jordan himself is a little improved too. And they manage 50 wins and make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs.
And that small degree of success [or something close to it] is all that is possible on the shoulders of ONE man.
The greater kinds of success require help. And ‘75 Rick Barry had some help. Let’s start with the regular season…..
The ‘75 Warriors were tied for #1 in the league offensively, though with non-spectacular [historically] +2.7 rORTG. No question Barry is the biggest cog in this [by far], but did he do it alone [i.e. “carry it”]? Well, for starters I might note that the one and only offensive FF that the Warriors were actually elite at (#1 in the league, in fact) was OREB%. The center rotation of Clifford Ray and especially George Johnson were near-monsters on the offensive glass: Johnson had a OREB% of 14.6…...to put that in perspective, Moses Malone’s career OREB% was 16.3%. Forwards Derrek Dickey and Jamaal Wilkes also did a good job on the offensive glass. And I don’t think we can go far to credit Barry with “Iverson assists” in this regard [or at least certainly not to the degree we can with Iverson], because Barry principally took his shots in the mid-range.
Additionally, Butch Beard averaged 18.6 pts/100 possessions (league avg was 19.5) @
+8.3% rTS, while also dishing assists and nearly the same rate as Barry (and playing nearly 31 mpg). In limited minutes off the bench, Phil Smith averaged 24.1 pts/100 @ +3.1% rTS.
Is this a great offensive supporting cast? Obviously not, but there’s enough here to suggest that Barry didn’t
totally have to “carry it”
And let’s not forget defense. This team was also a -0.4 rDRTG in the rs, which could mostly be tied to the efforts of Ray, G.Johnson, and Jamaal Wilkes, imo.
But let’s next look at the playoff run. It’s true that a lot of the supporting cast didn’t perform well offensively; so one could perhaps suggest Barry “carried” the offense in the playoffs. But how did that offense perform in the playoffs? Were they still performing like a top-2 offense in the playoffs? Well, let’s look.
We unfortunately don’t have series ORtg/DRtg info. But I’ll lay out what we do have….
*The Warriors in the rs were tied for 1st in ORTG and played at the 3rd-fastest pace, consequently averaged a league-leading 108.5 ppg in the rs.
In the first round they faced a completely average (+/- 0 rDRTG) Sonics team who played at a +1.0 rPace (though -2.1 relative to the Warriors’ usual pace); the Sonics had allowed 104.1 ppg during the rs. The Warriors managed 108.3 ppg in the series against them (+4.2 compared to what the Sonics usually allowed, though -0.2 compared to the Warriors’ rs standard). Difficult to say without the actual numbers if they managed to exceed expectation in terms of ORtg, or if they just did a decent job of dictating the pace.
**In the 2nd round they faced the Chicago Bulls, a -3.3 rDRTG (2nd in league) while also playing a sluggish [slowest in league] -4.8 rPace (-7.9 relative to the Warriors), and consequently allowed a league-lowest 95.0 ppg in the rs. So, the league at large averaged 95.0 ppg against this Bulls team. If anything, the Warriors (being both tied for #1 in ORtg and one of the faster-paced teams in the league) should be able to out-do the league avg against this squad. But in fact, they manage just 93.7 ppg against the Bulls. How do you win a series averaging so little? More on that below….
***In the finals they faced the Bullets, the #1-rated -6.4 rDRTG, though somewhat fast-paced team who allowed 97.5 ppg in the rs. The Warriors managed 99.5 ppg against them, just +2.0 over what a presumably league-average team managed (and -9.0 relative to their rs standard). How do you not only win the series but
sweep while averaging <100 ppg? More on that below….
Overall, I’d assess that the Warriors offense more or less met [but did not exceed] expectation in the first round (most likely),
grossly under-performed expectation in the 2nd round against Chicago, and then performed
at least marginally below expectation in the finals.
Overall it does not look like a special offense in the playoffs.
So how did they win the title? In part because their
defense appears to have exceeded expectation in every single round of the playoffs:
*1st round: Sonics had averaged 103.1 ppg in the rs; they were held to 99.8 ppg (-3.3) in the series against GS.
**2nd round: the Bulls had averaged 98.1 ppg in the rs; they were held to just 90.4 ppg (-7.7) against the Warriors. That’s how they won the series despite the offense crapping the bed.
***Finals: the Bullets had averaged 104.7 ppg in the rs; they were held to just 95.5 (
-9.2) against the Warriors.
^^^And these are all despite the Warriors typically playing a faster pace than each of these opponents, btw.
And again, who is anchoring that defense? This is more guys like Clifford Ray, George Johnson, and maybe Jamaal Wilkes much more so than Barry.
My conclusion is that Barry had some help in ‘75. And I’d also note that some may argue it’s somewhat diluted league in ‘75, too, fwiw. Still a great player; and while I’m not lending him my vote, I don’t particularly have a problem with other people voting for him. But yeah, I object to the “carry job” narrative, and what that implies about his teammates.
"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
Second, the Bullets winning three more games than the Knicks does not reflect the fact the Bullets only had a +4.04 SRS, as compared to the +5.48 SRS of the Knicks. Reed also led the league in win shares and WS/48 (Unseld was 8 and 9), and considering the fact Russell was 
.
