Report: Harrington as sixth man?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/15/SPCJSQ8QA.DTL&type=sports
We've heard Nellie talk about Harrington as a sixth man before, and it really does make a lot of sense: he's a tweener that can play three positions (at least for Nellie), he can be a big time scorer, and Nellie can choose who to match him up against, rather than him going against the opposing PF by default. All well and good.
But who starts at PF? According to Janny:
If that happens, Nelson said that Matt Barnes, Mickael Pietrus and Austin Croshere were all candidates to start at power forward.Do any of these guys make more sense as starters than Harrington? I always thought the move would be great if we had a solid role-playing PF that could rebound, play defense, and finish inside when asked to. Barnes and Pietrus rebound well for their position, but their position is not starting PF. Croshere... well, we'll let Sleepy speak on him.
Obviously both Barnes and Pietrus did an admirable job down the stretch and in the playoffs last year. Does that work in the regular season, when teams have all of that game tape to scout and find advantages? Does this suddenly put even more of an onus on Baron in the first quarter, without one of their top scorers on the court?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
30 comments
Comments
a few problems
- none is a superior rebounder to Harrington
- unless Harrington completely lost his shot, none is a better shooter
- Pietrus has no midrange game at all; Barnes has some but not nearly enough and ends up committing a ton of turnovers trying to use what he does have
If Lasme or Wright were ready I could see a case for sitting Harrington, but right now none of the options are actual upgrades. Seems like a lateral (at best) move to me.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 15, 2007 11:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!
by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 16, 2007 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barnes and Harrington
An argument can also be made that Barnes is a more capable rebounder. Their rebound rates were close to identical, though Harrington had the advantage of playing center more often and should have had more rebounds accordingly. But they're remarkably similar in this regard too.
Barnes seemed to be a bit better at finding teammates relative to his turnovers, but it's marginal there too. Their turnovers per minute were pretty close to identical. Barnes got more steals and more assists and fouled less often.
There may be no advantage in starting Barnes over Harrington, but I'm not sure there's any advantage in starting Harrington over Barnes either.
by jae on Oct 16, 2007 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
I believe Monta Ellis should be our 6th man. Mainly because I don't like seeing him match up defensively against the Kobe Bryants and Tracy McGradys of the NBA. Buke has earned the starting SG role. I'm a little pensive about Belinelli. His stroke is so smooth and hypnotizing that you don't even realize he's been shooting at a cruddy 38% clip against 3rd-string defenses. He could be some nice instant-offense off the bench.
On a side note, I think POB is ready to see some backup center minutes in the NBA.
by jlagace on Oct 16, 2007 12:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm all for it.
Let's look at that same lineup with Barnes or Pietrus. I realize that Barnes does the same things Harrington does to initiate offense (Boards, pushes and dishes), however Barnes' game is weak in the half court set. I feel that he's similar to Azubuike; he needs good players around him in order to be fully effective.
Pietrus in that second unit would bring good D and hustle, but he's atrocious at creating for himself. He needs to see more minutes with the starting unit than the 2nd unit as well.
And Croshere... I like the man, but he's not fast enough and in good enough shape to be running with us. He's good for minimal use on this team.
by Bill Curley 0wns j00 on Oct 16, 2007 1:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nellie Being Nellie
Nellie also is starting to waffle on whether he'll start Monta at the 2. It is what it is, but I see it as nothing more than some posturing by the grizzly old coach.
by pree on Oct 16, 2007 3:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i'm
Can I kick it?
by tadams1080 on Oct 16, 2007 8:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the the Monta thing
You lose Buki and you lose not only defense but rebounding and all around physicality (Which we know is going to be a problem all year
by Zig on Oct 16, 2007 9:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't believe the Hype
by warriorsfiend on Oct 16, 2007 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Having
by J Rich 4 MVP on Oct 16, 2007 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Monta = 2
He needs to be our backup PG, period (though that doesn't mean he can't share the court with Baron@SG)
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 16, 2007 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or an offensive
I just don't see starting the game with Monta matching up against the leagues big 2 guards for the first 12 minutes
factor in JAX at the 3 and you have a really poor rebounding team
Maybe Nelson is just taking to keep guys from being complacent
by Zig on Oct 16, 2007 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rebounding
Perhaps Nellie sees it like this: one of either Harrington or Monta should start, and one should be the sixth man. You can't have both guys coming off the bench, as the first unit just might not have enough offensive firepower. I don't know if I agree with that idea--my faith in Booky is strong--but it does feel a bit odd to have both of those guys sitting on the bench in the first quarter.
by ffgolden on Oct 16, 2007 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kick in the pants
He is right that Al would be an ideal 6th man but we just don't have the right player to plug into his spot as the starting PF. As said before if Wright develops on an accelerated timetable I'm all for giving his the starting spot but he is still light-years away.
The only other reasonable option is Barnes, which as JAE pointed out would be a lateral move. My thing is why take both guys out of their comfort zones for a lateral move.
Monta:
I've said for a while that I'd prefer to see Monta primarily as the back-up PG and I feel even more strongly now that I've seen a solid (yeah it's just preseason) contribution from Kaz.
It just makes sense in the long run for Monta as a player and for the franchise to see if he can adapt to the point this year. Going into contract negotiation I'd like to know if he can play PG. And if he can't I'd like to have seen Marco enough to know if he can play in this league before giving Monta a pile of cash to be our undersized SG.
.
by olympicmike on Oct 16, 2007 12:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comfort zones.
I realize the danger of invoking Dunleavy here, but his best games as a Warrior came when he had to play "out of position." When he spot started for Richardson when he was injured or spot started at the point or spot started at PF, he was a more effective player. He played more aggressively, almost as if he knew that his 'natural' talents wouldn't carry him, but also likely unburdened by a fear of failure. When he performed lackluster for so long as a "3" he had nothing to hide behind. He'd been drafted as a 3, versatile (though that meant he could do so many things at a strictly adequate level, never enough to really shine and help) and expected to do so much. He knew that as a 1, 2 or 4 he'd be overmatched in some regard. Failure was to be expected, nothing to fear. With that, it seemed like he tried harder knowing that was his best shot in whatever role he was in. And it worked reasonably well in short stretches. This didn't mean he was more capable of those positions. As a starting PF when that was the general expectation, he wasn't any more (or really any less effective) than his particularly uninspired average performance as a starting SF. The expectations changed. He couldn't hide behind 'being out of position' and again drooped into mediocrity.
I can see a Barnes/Harrington switch helping in a similar way if it keeps both uncomfortable enough to keep them trying rather than resting in their roles. Neither are talented enough to dominate by sheer force of talent, but both have some versatility that can be used to their advantage so long as they both try and don't settle for being mediocre one-dimensional contributors, something I'd fear from both.
by jae on Oct 16, 2007 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
.
by olympicmike on Oct 16, 2007 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is an overhyped issue
The issue of who starts is way overhyped in all pro sports. It is all a mind game for these big-headed fools's egos.
Nellie changed the starting line-up how many times last year? I know there were injuries to deal with, but it is fair to change the line up based on who the opponent is and the chemistry we need on the court at any given moment.
I hope articles like this die down for the next couple weeks
by attatt on Oct 16, 2007 12:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Minutes
Baron
Ellis
Jackson
J-Rich
Harrington
Biedrins
Pietrus
Barnes
Azubuike
Jasikevicius
Powell
Foyle
If Monta had the second most minutes/game on last season's team, I think he's a pretty good bet to play starter's minutes this year. Barnes played more minutes as the season went on, so he probably moves up on this list. Azubuike replaces a lot of J-Rich's minutes.
Here's my guess how the minutes order plays out this season, not-withstanding player personnel moves.
Jackson
Baron
Monta
Biedrins
Harrington
Barnes
Azubuike
Pietrus
Beyond the top 8, I have no idea.
by San Francisco Slim on Oct 16, 2007 1:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So it looks like

THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!
by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 17, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
by San Francisco Slim on Oct 17, 2007 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starters and Bench Players
Starters:
PG Baron Davis
SG Kelenna Azubuike
SF Stephen Jackson
PF Al Harrington
C Andris Biedrins
Bench players:
PG Monta Ellis
SG Marco Belinelli
SF Matt Barnes
PF Austin Croshere
C Patrick O'Bryant
THud can play 4-5 minutes maybe and cover when/if injuries occur. Hopefully Wright and Lasme will gain experience and start to contribute towards the end of the season when other players tire (Lasme seems more ready than Wright). I don't think Perovic will see a lot of time and MP can fill the 3 as a back-up as well as playing the odd minutes at the 2 where he has good rebounding for the average 2(and maybe the 4 if necessary).
Obviously, Nellie will want to change things round a fair bit but that (or similar) is how I would like to see it.
by zaki on Oct 16, 2007 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
laugh away, but here's what I'd like to see a few
by sfhand on Oct 16, 2007 1:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Biedrins at the 4
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 16, 2007 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
minutes breakdown:
PG BDavis 24
SG Buke 36
SF SJax 36
PF Harrington 36
C Biedrins 36
PG Ellis 24
SG Belinelli 12
F Lasme 12
F Barnes 24
When Barnes subs into the game, he'll either be subbing for Harrington or subbing for Biedrins and have Harrington slide down to Center.
Lasme, despite being an NBA rookie, is almost 25 years old and experienced. I believe he'll be getting some PT this year off the bench (moreso than Wright or Perovic). I'm unsure whether he's better slated for the 3 or the 4. He has the exact same build as SJax, but he doesn't have the range on his jumper to spread the defense as a Nellie small forward should.
by jlagace on Oct 16, 2007 2:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
pietrus
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 16, 2007 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pietrus
Baron Davis will probably average closer to 32 than 24. The key for Nelson, is that he doesn't play Baron over 30 minutes when playing the mediocre and bad teams, because he'll probably be pushing 40 minutes against the good teams.
by San Francisco Slim on Oct 16, 2007 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minutes
Last year, no team played 4 players 36 minutes a night. Washington had three players who averaged that many minutes. Unless I missed one, no other team had more than two players logging that much floor time.
I'd be shocked if Baron was really limited to 24 mpg. He's their best player, by quite a bit and while he needs to have his minutes limited to make it through a season, when it comes game time, Nelson will be hard pressed to keep his best player on the bench for half the game. Keeping him down to 30 minutes a game would be more like it and I suspect Nelson will have a hard time restricting it even that much.
by jae on Oct 16, 2007 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only way Baron plays 24 minutes a game
34 is alot more realistic. There will be too many close games where Nelson would be willing to risk playing BD extra minutes for a much increased chance of victory.
More Hardware Coming!
by gsw4life on Oct 16, 2007 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
shoot
I'm liking the idea less and less.
We'll be severely undersized in the short term, and at the negotiating table next summer, assuming Ellis plays alot of 2, he'll likely have better "money" stats (PPG, really).
I believe the best solution is Baron/Buike to start, Ellis/Belinelli off the pine, sharing ballhandling duties. This assumes Belinelli has sufficient grasp of the offense to run it from time to time.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Oct 16, 2007 6:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




















