Harrison Barnes WILL MAKE 6 TEAMS PAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tornicade]

I hate to say it but so far this series draymond green to my eyes has looked as good as Barnes. Now Barnes is younger and a better athlete so his potential is greater but if anything Mark Jackson has shown he's a much better coach then I expected: dude gets the most of his player.

Barnes career looks more like a stretch 4 at this point. He still can't handle the ball well and on defense he can get taken off the dribble fairly easily. Being at the 4 hides this and as a 4 he's free to post up if a smaller guy is on him.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Barnes has had 8 out of 10 playoff games with a Game Score over 5.0. Green has had 3. outside of two exceptional shooting games Green is being rather overrated.

GmSc

Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, (40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.).

[Lottery God]

By the 4th quarter and overtime, Barnes made the adjustment that LeBron never made through an entire series sweep in the 07 Finals.

Maybe it was Mark Jackson forcing him to do something that Mike Brown couldnt force LeBron to do...

Dunno. But I felt throughout yesterdays game, that I was watching Pop do the same thing to GSW that he did to us in those Finals. All the Dubs needed was one guy who could be a threat with his back to the basket to open up lanes again for what Jack ended up doing and what Barnes took advantage of on that driving dunk-and 1, and the step back over Ginobili in OT.

Stat geeks will look at the 9-26 and talk about irrelevant efficiency stats.

Guys who know the game will say that the way Jackson ran the offense through Barnes in the 4th and OT was more important to softening the Spurs D, so even when he didnt finish those few times at the end over smaller guys, him staying aggressive was just like a heavyweight landing body blows and softening the Spurs up for the perimeter to get going again (curry's 3 from corner and Thompsons two scores from right side wouldnt have happened without the Spurs adjusting to Barnes)

Great coaching yesterday by Jackson, and as a Tar Heel fan, I hope Barnes got the message that he played with late and stays aggressive down in SA.

Let me put it this way. Had Barnes made four more shots, not only would he have more than made up for the 7 points that he "opened up" for Curry and Thompson, but those shots would still be available for Curry and Thompson to still make. Barnes making four more shots, thus putting him in the category of "statistically efficient," something you say is "irrelevant," adds one more point than having him not make those four shots and having Curry make that 3 and Thompson make those other two shots.

Additionally, the Warriors are actually up an additional point on three less shots if Barnes makes those extra four shots, thus satisfying the requirements of potentially being "statistically efficient," something us "stat darlings" focus on. If Curry and Thompson make none of those three shots you mentioned that are still available had Barnes made those four shots, the Warriors are still up by one point, and that's still a better situation. However, if they still nail those 7 extra points, the Warriors are now have 8 more points than your scenario, potentially more if any of those extra 4 shots that Barnes made were 3s.

On top of all of this, had Barnes made four more shots, he'd make even more open shots for other players. There's no way around it. The more shots you make, the more a team will make an effort to ensure that does not continue. That could potentially open up even more possibilities for the Warriors to score.

There's really no way around it. Barnes being more efficient would have been much more beneficial than your point of view that apparently only "those who know the game" can see. Sure, there is still benefit to shooting the ball even if you miss, but you can't argue that a miss is more valuable than a make. Sure, there are instances where a guy may miss a two-pointer, which opens up a three, or maybe another instance where missing a free throw opens up the opportunity for more points, but those instances are far and few between and generally cannot be planned in as a regular part of a game.

[Pioneer10]

Barnes has had 8 out of 10 playoff games with a Game Score over 5.0. Green has had 3. outside of two exceptional shooting games Green is being rather overrated.

GmSc

Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, (40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.).

Green's minutes have fluctuated a lot and that metric doesn't take into account minutes played.

[STAT]

Let me put it this way. Had Barnes made four more shots, not only would he have more than made up for the 7 points that he "opened up" for Curry and Thompson, but those shots would still be available for Curry and Thompson to still make. Barnes making four more shots, thus putting him in the category of "statistically efficient," something you say is "irrelevant," adds one more point than having him not make those four shots and having Curry make that 3 and Thompson make those other two shots.

Additionally, the Warriors are actually up an additional point on three less shots if Barnes makes those extra four shots, thus satisfying the requirements of potentially being "statistically efficient," something us "stat darlings" focus on. If Curry and Thompson make none of those three shots you mentioned that are still available had Barnes made those four shots, the Warriors are still up by one point, and that's still a better situation. However, if they still nail those 7 extra points, the Warriors are now have 8 more points than your scenario, potentially more if any of those extra 4 shots that Barnes made were 3s.

On top of all of this, had Barnes made four more shots, he'd make even more open shots for other players. There's no way around it. The more shots you make, the more a team will make an effort to ensure that does not continue. That could potentially open up even more possibilities for the Warriors to score.

There's really no way around it. Barnes being more efficient would have been much more beneficial than your point of view that apparently only "those who know the game" can see. Sure, there is still benefit to shooting the ball even if you miss, but you can't argue that a miss is more valuable than a make. Sure, there are instances where a guy may miss a two-pointer, which opens up a three, or maybe another instance where missing a free throw opens up the opportunity for more points, but those instances are far and few between and generally cannot be planned in as a regular part of a game.

I doubt Rchfld would disagree that Barnes would have had a better game had he shot 13-26 rather than 9-26, he is simply pointing out that Barnes (a 20 year old rookie) was instrumental, if not indispensible, for the Warriors in a much needed round 2 playoff victory.

[STAT]

CourtVision shot chart of Harrison Barnes from Kirk Goldsberry via Grantland (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...other-warriors):



He also added the following,

"As a scorer, Barnes is best when he’s attacking the basket or chucking from behind the arc, and at his worst when he’s shooting midrange jumpers. During the regular season, Barnes made less than 30 percent of his midrange shots but demonstrated that he’s a capable attacker and a decent 3-point threat."

And further,

"The obvious thing to consider about Barnes is that he’s only 20, and his game is sure to improve across the board. But even now it’s really impressive to see him performing well this deep into the playoffs, a time when most rookies are either buried on the bench or already preparing for next season. Barnes has tremendous upside, especially as a solid defender and as a small-ball attacking forward who can create mismatches against most NBA teams."

[mhi]

If you wanna build through the draft, you gotta make good picks.

[chrisrich91]

If you wanna build through the draft, you gotta make good picks.

Agreed. Thank God we have Dion.

[mhi]

Agreed. Thank God we have Dion.

Don't forgot Chocolate SNOW and The best Canadian NBA player since prime Steve Nash.

[Cassity14]

I am convinced that Pop wanted Barnes to have these bigger games. His numbers in this series didn't mean a lot to me. He still struggled with his efficiency as well. This series made too many people forget about what he did during the regular season, and that was disappoint.