Who,
There are "maybe" 23 true small forwards with higher regular season efficiency ratings from last year!!
http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?league=00&season=22011&conf=OVERALL&position=2&splitType=9&splitScope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=
Barnes is NOT a below average defender either!
Smitty77
The problem is that every argument you made is based purely on this efficiency stat. I like using that that as well, but loosely - you still need to look outside the square and actually look at a players abilities, not just one statistic.
For example last season Al Jefferson ranked 9th in the NBA in efficiency rating at 23.0. That puts him above:
- Lemarcus Aldridge (22.6)
- Josh Smith (22.1)
- Dwyane Wade(22.0)
- Kobe Bryant (21.4)
- Marc Gasol (20.2)
- Russel Westbrook (20.5)
- Derrick Rose (20.4)
- Demarcus Cousins (20.3)
- Dirk Nowitski (20.2)
- Carmello Anthony (19.5)
- Tim Duncan (19.4)
- Deron Williams (19.4)
- Chris Bosh (19.2)
- Kyrie Irving (17.7)
- Roy Hibbert (17.6)
- Amare Stoudemire (17.4)
- Al Hortford (17.4)
Now Jefferson is a good player, but if you were starting a fresh team with the aim of winning a title
right now would you really choose Jefferson over ALL of those guys to build around?
Better stat's don't always mean a better player.
What if you look at the Off Rating, Def Rating and Net Rating?
Player | Off Rat | Def Rat | Net Rat
-----------------------------------------
M Barnes | 105.2 | 102.3 | 2.8
-----------------------------------------
M Pietrus | 97.9 | 95.4 | 2.5
E Moore | 90.0 | 84.0 | 6.0
A Bradley | 98.5 | 92.9 | 5.6
Now suddenly Barnes look like what he should - a rough equivalent to M Pietrus.
Interestingly these stats also suggest that E'twaun Moore had twice as much positive impact on the team as Barnes and Pietrus did. More interetingly, Moore's rating was also higher then Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Brandon Bass, Avery Bradley and Rajon Rondo (all < 6).
Moral of the story is that these stats don't always tell the full story. If they did E'Twaun Moore would have been our second most important player behind Kevin Garnett (9.6). I liked Moore, but I assure you, Moore isn't
that good!
Likewise Carlos Boozer's Def Rating indicates that he is a very good defensive player. Anyone who has seen Boozer play knows that's far from the truth - it's a "statistical anomaly".
Stats are useful sure and I enjoy analysing them as much as the next guy, but as another person stated earlier there is certainly a reason why Barnes is going for the veteran minimum, and yet STILL hasn't been signed up. Out of ~30 cash strapped teams struggling under a new bargaining agreement, surely one of those teams would have by now leaped out at Barnes for the minimum if he had
that much positive impact.
Looking at his stats by category I'l grant you he has some upside.
His rebound ratio (9.9%) and his astRatio (17.4) are both right up there with Paul Pierce's numbers, and Pierce is very good in both areas by SF standards.
On the other hand, Barnes' turnover ratio (16.35) is VERY poor for a SF.
To put this into perspective Jeff Green's Rebound ratio is not far behind (8.9%) and his astRatio is much lower (9.5).
Both Jeff Green (8.73) and Mickeal Pietrus (9.89) had turnover ratio's nearly half that of Barnes, meaning Matt Barnes is about twice as likely to turn the ball over as either of those two guys.
Far as scoring goes, Barnes' numbers are pretty unspectacular.
The only place where he shoots often
and efficiently is inside the restricted area (58%)
From in the Paint (not restricted area) he shot a horrific 26%, but only took 35 attempts (roughly one every 2 games). Too small a sample to accurately judge.
From midrange he shot a very godo 49%, but again this was only 35 attempts - too small a sample size to put any faith into.
About 33% of all his FG attempts came from outside the three point line, where he shot pretty average from both the corner (35%) and above the break (33%). You won't be scared to see him put up an open three, but he's not the guy you want taking one with the game on the line either.
Pietrus by comparison was mediocre from above the break (26%) but deadly from the corner (42%). When he gets an open look from that corner, it's usually money.
So yes, Barnes does have some positves. Stats indicate that he's a solid rebounder a very good passer, and a
barely above averge defender. Offensively he's a bit of a liability with pretty average shooting efficiency and a high turnover ratio. The Personality is another liability, especially if it could potentially create locker room problems on a Roster that Doc has tried so hard to build a good attitude into.
I'd much rather see Ben Wallace come our way to be honest because I think he gives fills two critical needs (rebounding and shotblocking) that no one else on our roster really contributs to.
Barnes wouldn't be a BAD signing, but I just don't see what need he fills. What does he do that either Pierce, Green or Lee doesn't at the SF position? He just creates more playing time problems.
Lets break down minutes for positions 1 through 4:
Starters:
C - Garnett (28 MPG)
PF - Bass (28 MPG)
SF - Pierce (28 MPG)
SG - Bradley (28 MPG)
PG - Rondo (32 MPG)
Now assuming Doc wants both Terry and Green playing up around the 28 MPG mark (which I believe he will) that leaves the bench as follows:
C - Wilcox (15 MPG), Collins (5 MPG)
PF - Green (8 MPG), Sullinger (12 MPG)
SF - Jeff Green (20 MPG)
SG - Terry (10 MPG), Lee (10 MPG)
PG - Terry (16 MPG)
That's every single minute of the rotation accounted for. Now, if we sign another big (like Ben Wallace) then we can easilly give that last 5 mins at the Center spot to either Collins, Wallace or Melo depending on who we need on any given night - either of those three guys will be content warming the bench if need be.
However if we get Barnes, how are we going to give him ANY playing time at all without digging in to the minutes of Terry, Lee and Green - all of whom came to Boston with the promise of having a solid role on the team?
Barnes would be a pure bench warmer, and given his personality issues, do you really think he'd accept that role as calmly as guys like Marquis and Dooling did? I doubt it...
This is why I'd rather see us get another servicable big man int he form of Ben Wallace (who fills important needs yet has no expectation of playing time) rather then adding guys who just duplicate skill sets we already have.