Barnes' Breakout Season... A Good Thing?

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

Is Matt Barnes helping or hurting Golden State?

Helping. He's a good, productive player.
6
55%
Helping. Anything to keep Dunleavy on the bench.
4
36%
Hurting. The record speaks for itself.
1
9%
Who cares? I don't think Barnes effects the Warriors that much.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 11

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:59 pm
BARNES BREAKOUT SEASON... A GOOD THING?
By #32 - December 6, 2006

Matt Barnes has only played above the 20-minute-mark in 5 games this season. His stat-line in those contests is as follows:

14.6 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 3.8 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1.0 BPG
58.3% from the field, 53.3% on three’s, and 75.0% from the line
In 32.6 MPG


After reading those impressive all-around numbers from Barnes, one would be inclined to believe the former Memphis Grizzly has been a catalyst for the early success of Golden State. After all, how can a 15/6/4 player be a bad thing?

Well, surprisingly, the Warriors have gone 2-3 when Barnes gets extended time over 20 minutes.

One might argue that the reason for that is because Barnes is a bench player who usually gets extended minutes when the game is out of reach. That idea is crushed, however, when you take a look at those 5 games with a closer eye.

The 5 games in which Barnes has been seen north of the 20-minute-mark, were predominantly close contests. For one thing, 2 of those showings were Golden State victories (against San Antonio and Utah). 2 more of those games were decided by 5 points or less (in New Orleans and at Milwaukee).

The only game in which Golden State lost by a large amount (11 points) and Barnes received a surplus of minutes was his 31-minute game in Denver, where (despite a strong, 21-point showing himself) he allowed Carmelo Anthony an easy 30-points (on 62% shooting).

For a clearer view on the subject, lets look at Barnes’ games when he plays over 15-minutes (there have been 9 of those so far - nearly double his 20-minute showings).

In those games, Golden State has gone 3-6.

Truly, Warrior fans agree that Barnes has been an, overall, good thing for Golden State. But one can’t help noticing that the Warriors have failed twice as often as they’ve won when Barnes is in the game for over 15-minutes. Could Warrior fans simply be giddy because he's a small forward not named Mike Dunelavy?

Is Matt Barnes really a workable piece to Golden State’s puzzle... or is he causing more problems than he solves?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Redwood City, CA
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:03 pm
He is certainly helpful... it's just (most of the time) the only time he gets real minutes is when a major player is out (Baron, Pietrus, whoever). That's why the record isn't over .500. He's definitely helping, and I'd keep him but Biedrins/Ellis/Diogu/Pietrus are first priority.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Land of the Lacob.
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:47 pm
Helpful. I think he's just as productive as Pietrus. During that stretch with Baron and Pietrus out, Barnes really stepped up and showed us what he could do. But now that his minutes are back down, he hasn't really been himself lately. To me, Matt should be before Pietrus in the rotation. And not only that, he keeps Dunleavy on the bench!
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:55 pm
I think that the +/- stat (that was basically a primitive version thereof) is next to useless unless there's a shitload of context (IE winval) and adjustments. Heck, by your stat dunleavy should be playing more minutes (I did a similar thing the other day and found out the team theoretically does better when dung plays 30+ minutes).

I think what's more important is that Barnes is in our two most successful lineups thus far and a much higher percentage of the lineups he's been in have been successful than MP or Dungboy.
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:42 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:07 am
there are also lies damned lies and statistics. Go to a Ws game and watch Dung and barnes off the ball, and it is clear that the offense flows better with barnes out there, and defense is not even a close call. I would not have Barnes in my starting five when all are healthy...that would be BD, Monta, JRich, Ike and Biedrins, but I would definitely have him off the bench prior to Dung
To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

President Barack Hussein Obama - America chose Hope over Fear
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:34 am
Count me in with what Pest and Colt said. Of course he has helped. Without him, we probably would have lost a couple more games (that couple we won when he played over 20 min) while he didn't really change the outcome of the three we lost.

#32 wrote:After reading those impressive all-around numbers from Barnes, one would be inclined to believe the former Memphis Grizzly has been a catalyst for the early success of Golden State.


Also, he never played for Memphis...
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:07 am
If the guy has been productive, he has helped!!!! Plain and simple!

Barnes and Robertson at times have made the team look incredibly deep
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:12 am
migya wrote:If the guy has been productive, he has helped!!!!


Now you're talking like J-Rich.

Let me try:

BARNES HAS HELPED!!!!

I can't see much difference, but whatever... :mrgreen:

btw, Roberson has helped... for seven minutes or so. He hasn't done much so far in the season... although he hasn't played much, to be honest.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:22 am
TMC wrote:btw, Roberson has helped... for seven minutes or so. He hasn't done much so far in the season... although he hasn't played much, to be honest.



Robertson wasn't expected to do much at all but he has had a couple of real good games that have really helped the team win those games
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:28 pm
This was a huge devil's advocate article.

I, myself, think Barnes deserves to be in the starting lineup at SF... but I as hoping to stir up some conversation by making it seem like he hurt the team more than he helped. Didn't work. Everyone's agreeing with each other.

Ah well. They can't all be winners. :|
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

Role Player
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: san francisco
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:31 pm
they both offer good and bad stuff, both are good coming off the bench. Barnes is a better defender and brings more hustle, mike is a better ball handler and passer and knows the offensive sets better. I'd say they are both streaky shooters, but Barnes shots look funnier. It just depends on what the warriors need when they bring a guy off the bench.
11 years of no playoffs and counting...
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:53 pm
Hey, just to put a new twist on this thread... would anybody say that Matt Barnes has, so far, been the kind of player we've always wanted Mike Dunleavy to be...?

I mean, he usually steps his scoring up when those around him are struggling... he runs the floor well, rebounds, defends, and consistently hits from the outside.

Isn't that what we'd always hoped Mike Dunleavy would someday become...? :oops:
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:55 pm
I don't think anybody was under any illusions that Dung would ever play defense
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:36 pm
Yes, but the rest of the description pretty much matched the dream-situation of what we wanted Mike Dunleavy to be.

I mean, in a full-time role (meaning 20 or more minutes), Barnes is averaging 15 points, 6 boards, and 4 assists (with great percentages all around). Isn't that the stat-line we all hoped Dunleavy would achieve someday?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:43 pm
Anything effective is what everyone hoped dun would be!

Barnes is playing well and that has been a stroke of fortune for the team since there was a chance he would be cut before the season. Barnes provides what is needed and he should be the first or second guy off the bench right now
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
Next

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest