Starting Barnes makes a lot of sense for Suns
September 22nd, 2008, 12:46 pm · 8 Comments · posted by jerrybrown
Whether the decision has been made already - and the beans were spilled by team president Rick Welts at a recent function - or is yet to be determined until training camp, starting Matt Barnes over Grant Hill at small forward makes sense for the Suns on many levels.
In fact, the only reasons to keep Hill in the starting five are (1) seniority/respect and (2) the fear that you can only heat up Hill so many times a night and it doesn’t make sense to create another scenario each night. But if Hill is going to play far fewer minutes this season (as is the plan), not starting him goes along with that mindset.
Why start Barnes? Let us count the ways:
* It gives the Suns two (count ‘em, two) starters in their 20s, and a more athletic team out of the gate.
* The Suns need one more 3-point shooter, and Barnes is the closest thing to that among the new players. It makes sense to have him on the floor with Steve Nash, so the Suns can spread the floor with Barnes and Raja Bell on the wings and give Shaquille O’Neal and, specifically, Amare Stoudemire plenty of room to work in the paint. Hill proved last season that his 3-pointer is uncomfortable and inconsistent.
* Barnes is a better rebounder and runs the floor well, the closest thing on the roster (albeit a far cry) to providing the attributes lost with Shawn Marion’s departure.
* Hill coming off the bench gives the Suns another good ball-handler to help Goran Dragic during his minutes on the floor. With Dragic, Hill and/or Boris Diaw on the floor the adjustment curve is easier for Dragic. And he will be playing more against bench players, giving him an advantage in the basketball IQ category.
* Barnes is a solid defender, especially guarding small forwards, and would get a chance to keep good shooters from getting an early rhythm. His defense might earn him some time late in games, but Hill’s smarts (ability to draw fouls and keep away from committing them) and free throw shooting will get him the nod more often than not.
* And if Hill does miss time due to injury, replacing a bench player doesn’t affect as many people, rotation-wise.
All in all, as long as Hill is on board with the program, starting Barnes seems a good fit.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I know it would be a small unti, and a less defensive one than Porter may want, but why not start Nash, Bell and Barbosa?
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Belll has not been effective at SF position.and is a weak rebounder. Barnes played PF at times with the Warriors.
From what I can tell, Hill is more interested in winning than ego. If this works on floor, I do not see him complaining.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Bell is not a good rebounder and a bit small for defending big SF’s. Barnes played PF some of the time with the Warriors and is a very good rebounder for an SF.
As for Hill, I think he’s shown that winning is more important than ego with him.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
What does this say about Boris? He is a darned expensive bench player!
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“I know it would be a small unti, and a less defensive one than Porter may want, but why not start Nash, Bell and Barbosa?”
Why would they do that, Chris? how does that help the team? You lose defensive ability AND size. Of course, it puts our best 3-point shooters on the floor all at once, so teams would have to be constantly chasing someone off of the arc, but the team needs some size and Barnes and/or Hill can provide that. Thinking things through properly, sacrificing size and defense for shooting just goes against everything that Porter and Kerr are trying to instil in this club.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 am
If Barnes proves to be the better player at training camp, he should start over Hill at small forward. But if Hill is the better player, he should start; and I haven’t read an argument by anyone that explains how Barnes is the better player from a stat perspectives. Barnes career numbers are lower than Hills’. Heck, if compare their numbers from last year, Hill still has the better numbers overall. Let’s not forget the 26 points, 15 rebounds and 4 assists that he put up against Matt Barnes and Golden State last year after coming back from appendectomy sugery. Hill beat Barns in every major statistical category. If you make the argument that Barnes should start because you want to reduce Hill’s minutes or lessen the impact on the team if he has injuries, then why is no one discussing Nash or Shaq coming off the bench for those sam reasons. I hear that the team wants to reduce Nash’s minutes, and they fully expect Shaq to miss 10-20 games due to injuries; yet, no one is thinking about them being on the bench. What’ s up with that?
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
I agree. I think the Suns are going to be pleasantly surprised. Barnes is going to be a difference maker.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
Suns are in salary-cap trouble, and will work to avoid paying luxury tax. They may showcase Leandro and Boris early on, to generate some interest and offers. They need to move somebody making good money and there aren’t that many choices… Barnes, a starter with a low-ball contract, allows them trade flexibility; but he may not pick up serious minutes until the cap room issues are taken care of.