Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

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?

Poll
Should Harrington be the sixth man?
Yes
23 votes
No
78 votes
Allison Stokke
22 votes

123 votes | Poll has closed

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  |  Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

a few problems
There's no advantage gained by starting any of those guys over Harrington:
  • 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
Croshere looks like he'd be a solid rebounder and does bang, but he's been cold from deep.

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...
I also have a problem with monta starting at the 2.  As much as I love monta, I think AZ would work better as the starter, mostly because monta would be downgrade in the rebounding department.  A team that just got pounded on the glass by a euro team should be trying to find a way to add boards, not lose them.
THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!

by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 16, 2007 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Barnes and Harrington
It remains to be seen if either Barnes or Harrington can shoot the long-ball as well as they did last year, but if last year is an indication, they're remarkably similar in their efficiency.  In terms of points per fg attempt, they're close to a dead heat.

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
AC is just nasty.  he doesn't board well for his size, and he has horrible shot selection.  if he just stuck to spotting up and taking open shots he'd be alot better off, i can tell he has a nice touch.  but these step-back contested 20 footers just aren't working out for him.  I don't think he's an improvement over Al at starting PF at all.

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.
I've never been an Al Harrington fan, but man I was at the Lithuanian game today and he was running the whole time with the 2nd unit. When he was out there with Wright, POB, Belinelli, and Tierre Brown (who I realize in the regular season would be replaced by Monta Ellis) Harrington was commanding attention on the floor. He'd get the board and push it like crazy, initiating offense on his own. If the fast break didn't work, we know we can count on him to do well in the half court set.

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
Just trying to light the fire under Al. Sunday wasn't exactly a good performance for the team, so media jabs and 'possible' tinkering are natural courses of action.

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
a little confused by her article, or maybe by what Nellie's thinking. He basically said Azuibuke had a great training camp, and is the best 2 guard. But then he says that Monta will probably start, even though he's missed all of preseason. In my opinion, I think Bookie deserves a shot at the starting 2. He matches what he had athletically and in strength with J-Rich, and he seems like he could muscle up with the bigger 2 guards in the league.
Can I kick it?

by tadams1080 on Oct 16, 2007 8:15 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think the the Monta thing
is even worse than the Al idea

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
I don't think there's any way that after watching Azubuike and his smooth power game play the last 4 games he would start Monta over him.  Monta hopefully will see little to no time at the 2 this kid is definately made to be a point guard, he just needs some work on his handles and his vision.  As far as who starts at PF Al is by far the best candidate but I don't want to see him trying to create in the half court set, his dribble drive is attrocious he's lucky he didn't get called for multiple charges last night.  Also I would love to see him get a bit more consistent from the 2 foot layup range, I mean come on you're 6'9".  As far as Croshere goes I like his hustle he plays rugged and he boards pretty well he won't make the stupid turn overs that Al makes and he's a little more consistent, but I still start Al based on the fact that Austin has shown me nothing from outside.  
It's all about the killer cross-over baby!

by warriorsfiend on Oct 16, 2007 10:17 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Having
Al as a sixth man isn't a bad idea. He may have been the best training camp as Nellie said but that doesn't mean that he should automatically be in the starting line up. Most people put too much stock into the starting line up, it's not a bad thing to come off the bench, just look at Leandro Barbosa and what he does for the Suns or Ginobili for the Spurs. They're both players on great teams with a lot of talent, sometimes staggering your best players is a good idea because it decreases the drop off in talent when you do go to your bench. All in all it's really not important who starts the game, it's important who finishes the game and in most cases you can bet you'll see Al out on the floor in crunch time.

by J Rich 4 MVP on Oct 16, 2007 10:33 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Monta = 2
I didn't see that part, but that'd be stupid as well. Another rebounding downgrade and it gives him the chance to rack up points, which mean dollars at the extension table.

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
scorer off the bench (if the point guard thing doesn't work)in more mix and match lineups

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
I think is indeed the biggest worry. There may not be much of a loss using Barnes rather than Harrington (unless Al's new physique and attitude really does improve his rebounding prowess), but those rebounds at the two guard are critical, esp. with Jack at the 3, as you say.

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
I think that this is just another Nelson mind game.

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.
Two things may happen when you take someone out of their comfort zone.  You may see a player appear lost, not sure of expectations and not sure how to fill whatever expectations they perceive.  This you do not want. But you may also see a player rise to the occasion, unburdened by the expectations or seeing that they can no longer rest on whatever it was they had done.

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...
Interesting take. I hadn't really thought about it that way. These are the times when the coach has to play psychologist and try to figure out how his guys would react. This could be an interesting experiment after all, and I wouldn't be surprised if Nellie tries this out at some point or another.
.

by olympicmike on Oct 16, 2007 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

this is an overhyped issue
who cares who starts when Nellie can substitute at every dead ball?

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

Dammit Dampier!

by attatt on Oct 16, 2007 12:41 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Minutes
Starting positions are somewhat irrelevant compared to minutes played.  Here is the order of minutes/game for last season's team.

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
Monta will start instead of buki.  Don't agree, but then again, I'm not a coach.

THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!

by Tim N Chris Burger on Oct 17, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think
Monta will get more minutes than Buike, whether he starts or not.

by San Francisco Slim on Oct 17, 2007 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Starters and Bench Players
I don't mind the idea of playing Harrington as sixth man but I don't think it is worth doing as he is used to starting and links up well with the starting line-up (especially Jackson who he had previous experience of playing with). I would pick the following as 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
times: POB at 5 with AB at 4 with Al rotating in at 4.

by sfhand on Oct 16, 2007 1:37 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Biedrins at the 4
Can we give up on that? Nelson doesn't play anyone at power forwards if he doesn't have 3 point range.

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:
This is a rough breakdown of how I believe the minutes should be distributed at the beginning of the season.

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
No love for the Frenchman?

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
will be playing over Belinelli and Lasme.  With his injury, Lasme has an uphill battle just to make the active roster.

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
I would be shocked if there were 4 players averaging 36 minutes a night for too long.  For the most part Nelson used one player that much last season and it was Baron prior to his injury.  Biedrins will have a tough time averaging more than 30, in part because Nelson will often go to a small lineup without any real interior player and in part because he still prone to early foul trouble.  

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
is if we have a 20 point lead at halftime every night. That'd be nice, but ummmmm... no

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
Besides the loss of rebounding if Ellis starts at the 2 over Special-K, we'd also lose 3P shooting.

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

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)

Start posting about the Warriors »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Help Fire Don Nelson By Signing Petition
We_re_back__small
Terms of Service and Moderation on GSoM...
Small
Five Good Things So Far
484214594_82b6b3554a_small
The Warriors as Simpsons
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Live-Tweeting from Row 8!!! (GSoM's Charity Auction seats)

Recent FanPosts

Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Jonny Flynn, Wayne Ellington, Corey Brewer: Summer Glimpse to Fall For-Real
Sp_baron_edited_small
Could the Warriors run the triangle offense?
Small
Would you be opposed to trading Ellis?
Australian_flag_reduced_small
Miami Interested in Stephen Jackson Trade
Small
Who is your starting 5 if you ran the team?
Follett_small
The Golden State Warriors players have already given up on Don Nelson
Photo-225x300_small
On Mikki Moore, Anthony Randolph, and 'Done' Nelson
Oaklandathletics_small
facebook Members: Keep the A's in OAKLAND
Small
They're bad

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

GSoM Motto

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)

Ads

SPONSORS

2009-2010 Around the Association

2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Preview

Golden State Warriors 2k9-2k10 Super Preview Blowout Special!


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Chef_randolph_gs_small Tony.psd

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Small jae