therealdeal wrote:I think that's more a statement of how bad our bench was than how great he was. When Barnes is your go-to guy, that's a problem.
I call Matt Barnes inconsistent because he's terribly streaky. His average for that month may look fine, but from April 1-9 he shot 3/16 from deep. Then he shoots great for 4 games, then the last four he shoots 2/10 from deep. And while he did well in March and April, he shot only 29% from deep in February and 24% in January. He's very streaky, so his 3 point shooting doesn't come in handy the way people are making it out to be.
I never said Barnes was great or a go-to-guy. He wasn't our go-to-guy off the bench last year and he wouldn't be this year. That was the problem with our bench last year IMO. We didn't have a go-to-guy and nobody attempted to step up and become one. Everyone tried to play within their role, but because of that, the group collectively suffered because they had no one to carry them. I don't think that's going to be an issue this year now that we have some legitimate scorers. That's why I don't mind having Blake and Ebanks coming off the bench. Now, even if Blake just brings the ball up and camps at the line, or if Ebanks only cuts and shoots the occasional open mid-range jumper, it won't hurt the offense as much since we can always just dump it to Jamison and let him do his thing. I just think Barnes has proven he can more consistently provide the intangibles in that supporting role than Ebanks.
And about his three-point shooting, yes, it is inconsistent. But give me 24% in his worst shooting month over Ebanks' 0% any day. But more importantly, I don't think it really matters. You've made this argument in defense of Ebanks and I partially agree; our back-up SF doesn't need to be a three point threat now if they can help us out in other ways. With Ebanks, it would be his mid-range shot. With Barnes, it would be his ability to slash, get easy buckets, and get offensive boards (all of which he has proven to do much better than Ebanks). The fact that Barnes at least has the ability to shoot well from three-point range (even if he's streaky and it rarely happens) is a bonus since defenses won't be able to sag off of him as much as they would for Ebanks.
therealdeal wrote:At that time we can call up Matt or call up Terrence Williams or maybe Josh Howard if he still doesn't have a team. McGrady is still unsigned. There's other options available. Not to mention, we can slide Jamison up or Kobe down.
I think those options are going to dry up as we get closer to the start of the season. I don't think any of those players you mentioned (including Barnes) will be available in the middle of the season, and I think it's best if we get our roster set as soon as possible so everyone has a full training camp together.
Also, I've always been against the idea of playing Jamison or Kobe at 3. I'd hope we would try to reduce Kobe's minutes this year and I don't see Jamison being able to match up defensively with many opposing back-up 3's.
therealdeal wrote:Actually his numbers with Nash are all pretty pedestrian. Yeah, he averaged the most points in his career, but it was with an inflated offensive system and he shot terribly from the field. His best season ever was probably with Orlando the following year, but all of those numbers are VERY close to what he did last season. He's not going to be much different than he has been his whole career and if he gets better with Nash and Howard, it'll be marginal at best. Ebanks has a shot at matching that production while being faster, more athletic, and better defensively.
You're right. I don't actually expect playing alongside Nash or Dwight to noticeably improve Matt's game, but it definitely wouldn't hurt and it's noteworthy that he at least already has some sort of relationship with them.
But yeah, your last sentence is spot on and it's why I won't be losing any sleep if we don't bring back Barnes. I like Ebanks, but personally, I don't think it's likely he'll be able to match Barnes production from last year. But like you said, he at least has the chance to do so while making us younger. And even if he doesn't, it really won't hurt us that much.