Author Topic: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics  (Read 38090 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #135 on: September 09, 2012, 05:08:48 PM »

fitzhickey

  • Guest
Matt Barnes would be a great signing for a third string SF.

I am kind of shocked he'd consider coming here though with Paul Pierce and Jeff Green already in place at his position. He should find himself a better home. Barnes should go somewhere where he can still play regular minutes.

He'll never find that place because he's not any good anymore.

I thought they were saving the BAE for a potential big.

Yes I agree, Celtics should use this last spot for a CENTER

Yeah Ben Wallace

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #136 on: September 09, 2012, 05:14:34 PM »

Offline KCattheStripe

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10726
  • Tommy Points: 830
Who,

There are "maybe" 23 true small forwards with higher regular season efficiency ratings from last year!!

So, efficiency rankings suggest that Barnes could / should start for seven teams?  Do you buy that?

Charlotte, Atlanta ( Unless they replaced Marvin and I missed it), Milwaukee ( He could win that job from Dunleavy),  Orlando,  Cleveland ( Casspi's been pretty bad),  Philly,  New Orleans.

I would buy him starting for all these teams. Note that none except for Philly are deep playoff threats and I don't mind them sticking with Dorrell Wright, I just could see Barnes starting over him.

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #137 on: September 09, 2012, 05:31:05 PM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47136
  • Tommy Points: 2401
Who,

There are "maybe" 23 true small forwards with higher regular season efficiency ratings from last year!!

So, efficiency rankings suggest that Barnes could / should start for seven teams?  Do you buy that?

Charlotte, Atlanta ( Unless they replaced Marvin and I missed it), Milwaukee ( He could win that job from Dunleavy),  Orlando,  Cleveland ( Casspi's been pretty bad),  Philly,  New Orleans.

I would buy him starting for all these teams. Note that none except for Philly are deep playoff threats and I don't mind them sticking with Dorrell Wright, I just could see Barnes starting over him.

I have three teams that I think Matt Barnes could clearly start on -- New Orleans (Aminu), Atlanta (D.Stevenson) and Cleveland (with Casspi starting at SG = his best position). And two more teams that I think are debatable -- Phoenix (Beasley) and Toronto (Fields) but I'd expect both teams to disagree with me there.

I don't think Barnes would start in Charlotte (MKG), Orlando (Hedo Turkoglu) or Philly (Evan Turner). I have Turner pegged as Philly's starting SF with Nick Young and J-Rich splitting the available time at SG. Thaddeus Young playing mostly PF but some SF. Dorell Wright fighting for scraps.

Oh Milwaukee, forgot them, I have Mbah a Moute or Tobias Harris starting there. I'd take both of them comfortably ahead of Barnes. Dunleavy only in a reserve role.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 05:37:09 PM by Who »

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #138 on: September 09, 2012, 07:04:07 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
You slipped my question, though.  If Barnes is as good as, or better than, guys like Green and Lee, why is he getting a minimum contract, while those guys are earning a combined $55 million+?

This is a very weak line of argument. Players' contracts are frequently only loosely related to their current abilities.

As just one example, if I recall correctly you yourself argued after the Lee signing that Ray Allen is better than Courtney Lee right now. So, why is Allen getting paid less?

And is Kris Humphries better than Kevin Garnett? They were both free agent PFs, and Humphries will make more next year.

You think Matt Barnes is as good as Courtney Lee and Jeff Green?  Why are you calling him a third stringer, then?

Either you and Smitty are wrong about how good Barnes is, or every NBA GM is.

I never said that Barnes was as good as Lee or Green. I never compared them at all, in fact.

I said Barnes is a bargain at the vet minimum and a very high quality third stringer, and I stand by that.

What I was saying above is a completely separate point: using salaries to infer relative player ability is not very informative.

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #139 on: September 09, 2012, 07:18:38 PM »

Offline Celts Fan 92

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1423
  • Tommy Points: 122
lol at us still talkin bout dis bum like i said earlier in da thread pass

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #140 on: September 09, 2012, 07:21:11 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23323
  • Tommy Points: 2509
It's hard to know whether C's would be better off finishing their roster with Barnes or a big like Wallace or Chris Anderson -- or perhaps leave as is.

The crystal ball we need is the one that shows us who will be injured over the course of the season.

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #141 on: September 09, 2012, 07:27:23 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58555
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley

What I was saying above is a completely separate point: using salaries to infer relative player ability is not very informative.

Of course it is, when the players you're comparing were all free agents, are all veterans, and play similar positions.  It's informative regarding how they're seen around the league.

Matt Barnes has been pegged as a veteran minimum guy.

Courtney Lee has been identified as an MLE player.

Jeff Green is seen as deserving of more than the MLE.

Since we're talking about largely established players, and they were all unrestricted free agents, I think that examining each player's market value tells us a lot about how NBA GMs see those players.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #142 on: September 09, 2012, 10:15:49 PM »

Offline Smitty77

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3063
  • Tommy Points: 269
Crimson Stallion,

Could it have something to do with the FACT that Ron really won game seven of the 2010 World Championship game for them???  When Ron is focused, he is still a premier defender.  Yes, he is a better and MUCH MORE physical option for the Lakers over the last few years.

Smitty77

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #143 on: September 09, 2012, 10:17:39 PM »

Offline Smitty77

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3063
  • Tommy Points: 269
Roy,

I can guarantee you this.  Jeff Green is NOT 9 times better than a vet minimum Matt Barnes:-)))  How about that:-))??

Smitty77

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #144 on: September 09, 2012, 10:41:53 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065

What I was saying above is a completely separate point: using salaries to infer relative player ability is not very informative.

Of course it is, when the players you're comparing were all free agents, are all veterans, and play similar positions.  It's informative regarding how they're seen around the league.

Matt Barnes has been pegged as a veteran minimum guy.

Courtney Lee has been identified as an MLE player.

Jeff Green is seen as deserving of more than the MLE.

Since we're talking about largely established players, and they were all unrestricted free agents, I think that examining each player's market value tells us a lot about how NBA GMs see those players.

I agree with the (somewhat vague) statement that it tells us about how GMs "see those players." Their current market value is what it is, of course.

But what I said, originally, was that market value is not always informative about *current ability*. And contrary to what you said, Green, Lee and Barnes are actually at different career stages.

Lee and Green are both young guys, who have value now and in the future, and the (perceived) potential to get better. They are also attractive to almost any team in the league, from contenders to rebuilding teams. That drives up their market value.

Barnes is older, and also isn't a great fit for non-contenders looking to allocate minutes to younger, developing players (or who are worried about his negative influence on those younger guys). So, his market value is lower, both in terms of annual salary and in terms of total contract.

But it's entirely possible that right now, over this next season, Barnes could help a team like the Celtics as much, or nearly as much, as Green could. So, telling us their market values doesn't prove much about their relative talent.

I mean, just to give a couple more examples, last year Phoenix had no interest in Pietrus, buying out most of his $5 million salary, but we snapped him up and got good value for him at the minimum, because he's a good fit on a contending team.

Meanwhile, Phoenix went this summer and signed Beasley to an $18 million contract, based largely on the hope that he would reach his potential. But isn't it entirely possible that Barnes is a better player, right now and over the next year, than Beasley?

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #145 on: September 10, 2012, 05:49:29 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
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.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 07:20:23 AM by crimson_stallion »

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #146 on: September 10, 2012, 07:35:47 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Could it have something to do with the FACT that Ron really won game seven of the 2010 World Championship game for them???  When Ron is focused, he is still a premier defender.  Yes, he is a better and MUCH MORE physical option for the Lakers over the last few years.

2010 is exactly my point - since that time he has gone down hill HARD.  He's no longer the dominant defensive force he once was, his shot selection is attrocious, and he is a nutcase.  I can guarantee you that LA would love to get rid of the guy, but nobody wants him.

If Barnes efficiency rating was truly around the 12 mark then I can assure you that Artest's was not much above that, and Barnes had a higher 'Net Rating' then Artest, so why did LA play Artest 39 MPG in the playoffs while Barnes played about 1/3 of that?

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #147 on: September 10, 2012, 08:06:45 PM »

Offline Smitty77

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3063
  • Tommy Points: 269
CT,

They started Ron because he can bench press Matt Barnes with one arm:-))  Good point about Artest's E.R.  It was 8.60 for the regular season, but he upped it to 12.5 in the playoffs.  I stand by my first point. 

Smitty77

Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #148 on: September 10, 2012, 08:09:28 PM »

Offline Smitty77

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3063
  • Tommy Points: 269
CS,

First, I do NOT only go by ER ratings.  Matt Barnes is a solid defender (by my eye test) that gets under the skin of opposing players.

Second, there will be nights when JET and other of our older players get the night off.  We have a TON of back to backs and I bet KG, PP, JET, etc. will not play in many of them.  Therefore, your projected minutes chart works when everyone plays, but that is assuming everyone is healthy and suiting up every night.

Smitty77


Re: Rumour: Barnes may sign with Celtics
« Reply #149 on: September 10, 2012, 09:53:57 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
still praying this doesn't happen