Jon Barry on the Warriors and Pacers Trade

by Atma Brother ONE on Feb 6, 2007 11:20 AM PST in Links

Jon Barry of the Barry family fame did a little Q&A about the blockbuster Warriors and Pacers deal on today's Daily Dime on ESPN.com. Jon's a smart guy and he was a fun player in the league for many years. He's also a good analyst for ESPN. Unfortunately, his analysis of the trade is a real head-scratcher.

Here's some highlights:

Actually, I like this move better for Indy. Jackson and Harrington play hard, but this time they had the extra motivation. They scored the first 14 Warriors points.

Chances are Jon has barely watched Dunleavy and Murphy play. They don't play hard every night, especially on the defensive end. Jackson and Harrington scored the first 14 Warrior points, but don't forget Dunleavy and Murphy only scored 14 points the entire game. When these two Charmin soft defenders don't put up a lot of points (which is 90%) of the time, they really hurt your team.

Is Dunleavy going to shoot better? He made 4 of 15 in this one, and is under 40 percent with his new team.

He's going to be better in the long run because he's going to be playing with a talented post player in O'Neal. When you're the third pick in the draft, the expectations go through the roof. Remember, he came from a not particularly strong draft in 2002. But he is, and can be, rightfully viewed as a very solid complementary player. Dunleavy can get better.

Nope, get used to the poor shooting. Throughout his tenure on the Warriors (check his career numbers), Dunleavy proved that he's not an NBA shooter. Thanks to a questionable work ethic, dedication, and focus, he's never been able to shoot from the corners either. It shocks me that he's still labeled as a shooter. Well, I guess he does shoot the other team to victory!

People like to point to his #3 overall draft status and his ridiculous $44 million dollar contract as the reasons Dunleavy was a big disappointment and booed heavily at the Oracle arena. That's a big joke. Let's put that nonsensical explanation to rest. Adonal Foyle was drafted high (one spot ahead of TMac!) and was given another ridiculous Mullin contract, but when was the last time you heard him booed at the arena? Instead we hear "We want Foyle!" chants.

Warrior fans booed Dunleavy because of his poor effort, lack of focus, big talk and never walking the walk, times when he'd get into swearing matches with fans at the arena, and an unearned starting role and heavy playing time. Before Nellie came back to town, no matter how bad Dunleavy played the organization was foolishly committed to giving him every opportunity in the world. No other Warrior has received that type of treatment. Attributing the Dun disappointment to his draft spot or insane contract is the product of shallow and lazy analysis.

Where do you put the Pacers in the East?

Indy's now three games out of the East lead. If this team goes on and wins, say, eight of its next 10, then it's maybe the new No. 1 in the East. It's been the Wizards one week, the Pistons the next and so on. Will someone in the Eastern Conference, please stand up? As my colleague Mike Tirico astutely points out, Indy is now the sleeper to win the East.

Hahaha, sorry but a team with Dunleavy and Murphy playing significant minutes will not get past the 1st round of the playoffs if they're lucky enough to make it even in the NBA's JV conference. They both give up a lot of points at a high percentage and score at a very low percentage. They contribute very little else aside from Murphy's defensive rebounding numbers, which many in Warriors Nation have argued for years were inflated. It's going to take Danny Granger emerging to All Star status for the Pacers to be a top team in the Leastern Conference.

It still cracks me up how many in the national hoops media pretend as if they're informed about this trade. They have barely watched Murphy and Dunleavy play in the NBA (not that I blame them), yet they continue to make strong statements about how the Pacers were the winners in this deal. Their analysis, especially Charley Rosen's of Fox Sports.com (thanks to JB for linking to the piece and analyzing it), further illustrates how you should never believe everything you read in the newspaper (online too!).

Mo' Trade Fun:

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

It cracks me up more

that you think you're providing "analysis." Could you be more of a homer?

A little rebuttal to your lunacy:

You: Warriors made out like bandits. Indy got screwed.

Reality: How many analysts have to say it before Dubs fans see it? How much of a better record since the trade does Indy have to have?

While we saved some money down the road, the team is as poorly constructed now as ever. We're playing worse as a team, Sarunas can't contribute, and Steven Jackson may end up in jail before its all said and done. Meanwhile, Indy is back in playoff position.

You: Dunleavy was a cancer. He didn't care. He made us lose. Waaahhhh! Waaahhhh!

Reality: Dunleavy wasn't the problem. You and whoever else can boo him and talk shit all you want. Fact is, Dunleavy (and Murphy) always played hard and the both of them are solid players. You accuse others of lazy analysis, but then make the infantile mistake of thinking that BECAUSE he was getting booed, he must not have been playing hard. I was a season ticket holder and watched just about every game of he and Murph's careers and not once did I see either of them not playing hard.

No, neither played with a ton of emotion, but that has nothing to with effort, just personality. There are an infinite number of examples in sports of guys who have bad or neutral body language but still play hard and produce. Relative to the rest of the NBA, Dunleavy played as hard, if not harder, than anyone else.

The bottom line, this site is great for recaps and as a fan forum, but you guys have to find some objectivity in the analysis. Leave it to the drunk retard who knows nothing about basketball to take potshots at former players and analysts who criticize. See the Warriors for what they are, a mediocre team with very poor management / ownership. The problems start there, not with underachieving role players, past or current coaches, or poor refereeing.

by Carney04 on Feb 6, 2007 1:10 PM PST 0 recs

Totally out of line

I can respect you disagreeing with what Atma has to say, but the way you say it is bunk and pisses me off.

Attacking the character of people speaking their mind and suggesting anyone is "a drunk retard" is not in the spirit of the game here at GSOM.

by RonG on Feb 6, 2007 1:22 PM PST up 0 recs

i don't think that's what Atma is saying...

I think after much back and forth on the discussion of Dunleavy's supposed worth or detriment to a team (indy, gsw), people here at GSoM (not all of us) after much dialogue amongst a variety of community (again not all) believe that Dun was just not good at all. I think we've gotten past the belief that its Dun fault, tho i don't think we ever thought he was singlehandedly bringing down the team. I, personally, was continuously disappointed by him talking up his game with contradictory excuses to why he has been ineffective from saying he needs the ball in his hands more to being better off the ball to saying he needs more shots to then telling the public they were all fooled for believing he was anything but who he is and that we let his 3rd round pick cloud our own judgment. I don't think any bust has ever come out and defended themselves and their bust status the way Dun and some of his supporters have (nor have many ever tried).

But thats besides the point, I think your critique is somewhat misguided. The point is to critique how skewed national media is and what little they know about the skills of murphleavy--two players who are constantly out of position (or lack positions at all) and defensive liabilities nite-in-nite out. Perhaps what's also being critiqued is the east coast bias that goes with all sorts of sports.

Lastly, to use your logic that its the managements fault would be to say ANY player who isn't very good or isn't producing has an out. Are players thus never responsible for their horrendous play? So if Jax and Harrington DON'T play as we expected, do we again blame the management, specifically Cohan? I agree with you that management definitely has a role in the nba version of the titanic, but i don't think we can keep giving certain players excuses.

by dj fuzzylogic on Feb 6, 2007 1:52 PM PST up 0 recs

Not the point

Jon Barry was saying he thought the trade made Indy better (and they HAVE been better, so far). He wasn't saying the Murph or Dun were terrific; they're not. But despite the flashes Al and Jack have shown, OUR team hasn't played any better -- in wins and losses, which is a pretty fair measure in my book -- since the trade, and we HAVE learned that while Al can create his shot very well, he's not an NBA four. Plus, if you look up "inconsistency" in the dictionary, you'll see a picture of Jackson there, and I don't just mean in his streaky shooting. He turns his engine off way too much, and I'm waiting for a game when he doesn't allow his man to beat him as he complains to the ref about a non-call. In short, they both need to play with more urgency -- especially at game end (tho Al gets credit for his final shot -- on Joe Smith -- in the 76er game).

In short, no need to pillory NBA players or the national media for failing to divine Murph's and Dun's weaknesses; they'll become self-evident over time. The real issue for W fans is how OUR bunch -- which still doesn't play defense (tho they've been hitting the boards better) -- is going to compete in the fourth quarter, which it did poorly before and has done worse on this road trip. That's where some insight would be helpful. Because unless we start getting this down, and playing well when it counts, we can all watch the Pacers lose in the playoffs and snicker to ourselves about how bad Murph and Dun are.

by johnl on Feb 6, 2007 2:11 PM PST up 0 recs

missed the point

Leave it to the drunk retard who knows nothing about basketball to take potshots at former players and analysts who criticize.

I should've said that better. I wasn't calling the poster that, I was saying LEAVE the pot shots and bitterness about the national media to drunk guys in the stands.

Obviously local fans are going to be more knowledgeable about their own team than national guys, but that doesn't mean you discount everything the national media says. When just about all of the major analysts are calling the trade, at worst, a break even (and I haven't seen a single one say the Warriors did better) then that shouldn't be totally discounted. The formula has been replayed over and over: national analyst calls a trade a wash (or says one team did better), and the locals get all pissy and defensive (and in our case, we take potshots at the guys who left). Just have some self-awareness is all I'm saying.

by Carney04 on Feb 6, 2007 2:27 PM PST up 0 recs

I'll assume you're just new here

It cracks me up more
that you think you're providing "analysis." Could you be more of a homer?

The only way you could possibly call me a homer is if you're new to this community. Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore Warrior fan, but I don't think you'll find anyone more critical of the Warriors mismanagement (Cohan and Rowell) and front office than me. I don't think you want to call a co-constructer of the Sell the Warriors movement a homer either. I'll just assume you're new and haven't read much of my work here and move on.

A little rebuttal to your lunacy:
You: Warriors made out like bandits. Indy got screwed.

Over the long run, yes Indy made an awful trade. If they wanted to open up the lane for O'Neal and playing time for Danny Granger (both understandable), there had to be a better trade than taking on Murphy and Dunleavy at over $70million.

I'm with Tim Kawakami from the SJ Mercury on this one- what were the Pacers thinking? I guess they just wanted to get rid of Stephen Jackson that badly. From their point of view maybe that's understandable.

Reality: How many analysts have to say it before Dubs fans see it?

Actually, I don't think there was one Bay Area writer/ blogger that didn't see this as a major coup for the Warriors. And these are all people who have seen these former Warriors play extensively.

How much of a better record since the trade does Indy have to have?

That's irrelevant. The Pacers have had a much softer schedule than the Warriors since the trade. Because of Jermaine the Pacers were better than the Warriors before the trade and now even after the trade they're still a better team.

You might want to flip back and see my points about Sarunas and fears about Jax in jail.

You: Dunleavy was a cancer. He didn't care. He made us lose. Waaahhhh! Waaahhhh!

Uhh, you might want to read more carefully my friend. In the reality check piece I wrote on the trade I specifically quoted MT saying Dunleavy is NOT a cancer. I've said that time and time again as well.
http://goldenstateofmind.com/story/2007/1/20/635/11174

Was he THE problem? No of course not. Was he A problem? Yes. Was he part of the solution? No.

Reality: Dunleavy wasn't the problem. You and whoever else can boo him and talk shit all you want. Fact is, Dunleavy (and Murphy) always played hard and the both of them are solid players.

Well, if that's your reality, there's not much I can say. I don't think Nellie from his interviews, the local media, or most of Warriors Nation would agree with that last statement.

You accuse others of lazy analysis, but then make the infantile mistake of thinking that BECAUSE he was getting booed, he must not have been playing hard.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion or made that inference. You're reversing my causal claim here. My point was that:

his lazy play was a reason for the booing
not the booing must be an indicator that he was playing lazy

I was a season ticket holder and watched just about every game of he and Murph's careers and not once did I see either of them not playing hard. No, neither played with a ton of emotion, but that has nothing to with effort, just personality. There are an infinite number of examples in sports of guys who have bad or neutral body language but still play hard and produce. Relative to the rest of the NBA, Dunleavy played as hard, if not harder, than anyone else.

Wow! Well, as a season tix holder I'm sure you paid a lot of money. All I can say is I'm glad you thought they were playing hard cause you were paying a ton of money to sit and watch them. If you really can say that they were both playing hard every single time you watched them- good for you and your hard earned dollars.

Objectivity means not making claims that Dunleavy and Murphy always played hard.

See the Warriors for what they are, a mediocre team with very poor management / ownership. The problems start there, not with underachieving role players, past or current coaches, or poor refereeing.

Um, you must be new here. Do a few google searches on the inept figures and you'll see my stuff pop up.

Seriously though, although I strongly disagree with many of your points and wish you didn't make some false claims/ put words in my mouth, I do appreciate your opinion and time. But please in the future observe our GSoM community standards- if you want to swear or call people "drunk retard[s]" this isn't the place for you.

by Atma Brother ONE on Feb 6, 2007 2:28 PM PST up 0 recs

whatev

I've read this site long enough to see that your posts pretty much always end up taking pot shots at Dunleavy. JohnL sees the same thing, hence his comments. You can say you don't think he's the problem, but when you always end up talking about his short-comings (even weeks after he was traded away), well, that really says a lot more. Seriously, you should think about why you keep bringing him up.

Most fans at a game are there to cheer and boo, thats why they go. Thats not a good measure of a player's effectiveness or effort. The fans, for the most part, don't know a hell of a lot about the game itself. They cheer for Murphy because he's averaging a double-double and boo Dunleavy because he doesn't make enough 3's. The fact that Murphy brings the offense to a screeching halt AND doesn't play any defense are totally lost on them.

As for the local media here in the bay, well, they're pretty biased and often uninformed. I was a high school classmate of Marcus T and we played ball together, so I won't talk about him, but Tim K leaves a lot to be desired in terms of analysis. Him, and a lot of other local guys, are just glorified fans, like you and me. They've never been part of a successful franchise, they don't know what it takes to build a successful team, from a skill set and chemistry perspective. As the guys who've been there and know about the NBA have said: both teams got players that are better fits for their systems, but Indy will be better off. The pieces they got (even though only complimentary) make them more balanced and work better as a whole. They also have a better coach (yup, I said it) and a better superstar.

by Carney04 on Feb 6, 2007 2:57 PM PST up 0 recs

Dunleavy - No Heart

This trade made Indy better because Al & S-Jax took shots away from O'Neal & Granger. They messed up the team's chemistry. Clearly, they did not fit into Coach Carlisle's plans.

Now, it made us better because we didn't have that killer instinct. Al & S-Jax has that killer instinct when it counts, but bad thing is, when will they turn it on. Murph & Dunleavy did not have that killer instinct so even though they tried to show effort, they just lacked the IQ or the rage within them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Indy makes the playoffs and sees a first round exit. You would think teams would double team O'Neal and he would be forced to pass out to Dunleavy who would then clank a shot. Yes, Indy is a better team after the trade, but they're not championship material.

Reason fans boo Dunleavy is not of effort, but because of heart. He shows no heart. Yes, it looks as though he is hustling, but he lacks that mentality of taking advantage of a smaller defender, he tries to take charges but gets that surprised look it's a blocking foul, or he walks the ball up the court when it looks like we may have a fast break. Clearly, Dunleavy doesn't care about winning. I think he wanted to prove to us Golden State Warriors Fans that he can play and he's not a bust. So maybe he tries, but his menality keeps him from executing his effort.

by AntiLaker on Feb 6, 2007 1:30 PM PST 0 recs

I truly believe that

Dunleavy's issues were physical and not at all heart

I know he is 230 but his combo of not being strong with a high center of gravity and also not being quick are what did him in when he was trying ot post smaller players

Bottom line is if he can get a little more consistent with his shot it will open up the rest of his game. If not he is never going to be a solid player

by Zig on Feb 6, 2007 4:40 PM PST up 0 recs

Dunleavy's issues were physical

"and not at all heart"

Yes, His main problem is that he's just not athletic enough to be any better but he's also got personality that rubs folks the wrong way so he was not fun to have around either. Foyle also has skills problems but he's a nice man so we cut him slack for that.
The pacers record compared to the warriors record means squat as long as they have O'neil and we don't.
The bottom line for the trade is we won based solely on the contracts, if they players come out a wash we still won, nothing can override that.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 6, 2007 8:24 PM PST up 0 recs

Improved?

I think it's more than a bit premature to say that the trade made us better since, to date, the trade hasn't improved our record. Given that for their time here, the Warriors have been outscored more often than not when Harrington and Jackson have been on the court--much moreso than when Dunleavy was on the court-- (and given that this has been true about Harrington for most of his career so it's tough to expect that to change any time soon) there's not much to support the notion that we're better.

If we start winning more often than we lose, then we're better. If the notion is a vague talk about killer instinct while the team continues to lose more games than they win, we've reshuffled the deck chairs on the Titanic.

by jae on Feb 6, 2007 5:24 PM PST up 0 recs

Geez, Atma!

We're almost a month down the road since the trade now -- and lo and behold, all four major pieces have warts -- so isn't it about time to put the anti-Dun lunacy in the cooler? I understand you and a lot of people don't like the guy, and I'm hardly blind to his weaknesses. (Still, pulling a Jon Barry interview just to lob a few at Dun seems, well, weird.) But a lot of us who like the trade still like a lot of what Dun does bring to the table. And even if you could never admit it, there have been times on this strange road trip we could have used his presence, such as when no one seemd to know (or care) where to be on defense. (And does MP ever garner criticism on the same heat meter even though he has absolutely no clue where to be out there -- just because he has enormous physical gifts?)

And of all the ex-W's, Dun had by far the best game DESPITE his overall poor shooting. (Murph, for example, was simply execrable.) You DID note, didn't you, that Dun almost got a triple-double (three assists short), and 13 rebounds would be astonishing for any W not named Biedrins. (Ironically, Jack had almost an opposite game: shooting the lights out, but getting only 2 RBs and 1 assist in 47 minutes (if Dun had done that, you'd ask, properly, how is that possible?), along with 7 -- YES SEVEN -- turnovers.)

Really. It's high time you put away the "anti-Dun" scalpel and focus on our team and our players -- and there's plenty to focus on, both good and bad. Remember, this site is GSOM, not A-DSOM. He's gone. Be happy. Now let it go.

by johnl on Feb 6, 2007 1:53 PM PST 0 recs

Oh def

I put this up because it was basically the headliner on ESPN.com's Daily Dime today- this is supposed to be the most credible and well thought out daily hoops update on the web. Instead it wasn't exceptional analysis at all. Again, I respect Jon Barry, but I don't think this interview was any good.

I agree about Dun last night. A few Warriors were lighting up him when he was defending them and his shooting was atrocious, but I liked his rebounding and passing last night. I noted that in the recap comments.

I also agree about the defensive struggles, but I actually think that if Dun and Murphy were here things would've been the same if not worse. I think we need to give Jax and Harrington some time to learn Nellie's zone and how to play defense with their new teammates. Defense as you know is all about teamwork.

by Atma Brother ONE on Feb 6, 2007 2:38 PM PST up 0 recs

OK

We can disagree about Dun (although I'd think we could let that pass by now). But while I'll give Al and Jack time to learn team defense (though I'd have thought they could pick up Nellie's zone principles by now), and I'm sure they'll improve. What concerns me about their D now though is more fundamnetal. Al's pretty good on his man if he's not overpowered; his two problems are that he's not really a four and he's a mediocre rebounder. That's not going to change that much. Jack is fast and has really good hands around the ball on D; his two problems are that he doesn't use his talents consistently (he can disappear on D just as much as Dun ever did) and he has that absolutely horrid habit of whining to officials on a non-call as his man blows by him for a lay up (which shows little self-control -- a problem that's plagued him off the court as well).

If these guys play with urgency on D -- and they didn't last night; the Pacers just couldn't hit the ocean -- the W's will have a chance to be a good team, and that alone will get them over their pfrolonged 4th quarter hump. If they don't, though, the D will remain porous and they'll simply not win close games, maintaining their mediocre minus stature for the foreseeable future.

So I'll give them more time to learn. But they BOTH (especially Jackson) need to play harder more consistently. They've had nearly a month now to get in better shape; within a few weeks they should be able to play hard all the time. Let's see if they have the will to push this team up a few notches -- or if we're just going to keep on losing, but with a few more highlights.

by johnl on Feb 6, 2007 4:32 PM PST up 0 recs

Good points

Those are good points on Jax and Harrington. For all that they've brought they do have the shortcomings you note. I have faith that things will pick up for them in Warriors jerseys, but maybe that's just blind faith right now. We'll see what happens in April. It's too early for me to comfortably make claims about their D.

by Atma Brother ONE on Feb 6, 2007 5:06 PM PST up 0 recs

My take

I actually think Murphy did play hard most of the nights when he was here. This season he just started at the wrong foot (broken nose and other minor injuries) and never settled in.

As for Dunleavy, he is more of a scapegoat on how bad the expectations the management had in him. This team made fans believe Dunleavy was some kind of a savior, which he never was. As far as his on-court demeanor, I won't say he didn't play hard but he never really fitted into his given role - a game-changer - largely because he is just incapable. I did hate his whinnings on media outlets but they didn't come that often.

Bottom-line: We won't know which team 'wins' this trade until at least 3 seasons later. Indiana got off to a better start (thanks to their cake schedule) but the Warriors really aren't far behind.

by MightyReds2020 on Feb 6, 2007 2:00 PM PST 0 recs

Very true

I've tried hard not to lump Murph in with Dunleavy because I think Troy did work hard on his offensive game (look at my past report cards for TMurph), but I did a poor job seperating them in this post. Before a few welcome moments this season however, both looked like they're weren't even trying or concentrating on defense.

by Atma Brother ONE on Feb 6, 2007 2:32 PM PST up 0 recs

It's amazing how all the pundits think...

that somehow Murphy and Dunleavy are "Jesus in hightops" now!

Amazing!?!?!?!?!

Those guys didn't fit in Golden State, have terrible contracts, and are marginal players at best!

Hating on Atma for pointing out these simple facts is just simply retarded!

by bigcity7 on Feb 6, 2007 2:10 PM PST 0 recs

haha

even with a jesus in high tops (literally) i don't think the warriors could make the playoffs. we need all the deities, prophets, etc at this point...

by dj fuzzylogic on Feb 6, 2007 3:30 PM PST up 0 recs

we need all the deities, prophets, etc

"we need all the deities, prophets, etc at this point..."

Yep, we need the "Super best friends"
(episode 504}

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 7, 2007 9:29 AM PST up 0 recs

Records so far

You can make of this what you want but here's how the two teams have fared up since the new players started playing for their teams. This might help in the analysis. I don't think you can say who's a winner and who's a loser yet, it's much too early. You can speculate and offer opinions though.

Warriors
4wins, 5 losses
6 road games (2-4), 3 home games (2-1)

Pacers
6 wins, 3 losses
2 road games (1-1), 7 home games (5-2)

Honestly, this trade made the Warriors better AND it made the Pacers better. Every trade does not need a winner and a loser. The players who switched sides are better suited for their new systems.

by Fantasy Junkie on Feb 6, 2007 2:59 PM PST 0 recs

actually i think the national media is correct,

at least initially. in fact, most of the comments outside of dunleavy's shooting are fairly accurate. murph & dun aren't as bad as most gsomers think and al & jax are as good as most gsomers think.

dun, murph, & diogu have strengths. and they happened to be pacer weaknesses. i disagree w/ most gsomers claim that they need time to work into this amazingly complex system the warriors run - which took d-leaguers a day to learn. fortunately for the pacers, dun & murph are blend players & i suppose they must run a much simpler system out there. being that they are blend players, the remaining cast of pacers have all improved w/ the increased ball movement. part of this is due to this misconception that dunleavy and murphy are consistent outside threats. as the w's showed last night, let them shoot those wide open 3's/jumpers.

w/ the w's receiving two baron-like ball pounders in al & sjax, the production of the remaining cast has suffered (though beans has picked it back up in the last 2 games) - turnovers have risen, assists are down, and ball movement is non-existant.

so the difference is that whereas the ex-w's are just taking the ex-pacer's minutes, jax & al have been taking away from the production that guys like azubuike, pietrus, and barnes were giving them. so initially the trade works out better for the pacers. but 3 things for the future:

as the last two games and the games leading up to the trade have shown, their rebounding is bad but not atrocious if they can keep their man in front of them half the time. so if this holds up, they've changed from a decent zone defense team to a decent man-2-man team.

and i'm pretty sure diogu will never be what hollinger envisions him as. his game is too tailored to one on one. and his passing is just atrocious... the warriors exposed him last night. the guy couldn't even throw a pass back out correctly.

and no matter what pundits say about the tradeability of any nba player, once packageable, al, jax, & rooney are a whole lot easier to trade than murph & dun.

by the evil monkey on Feb 6, 2007 6:26 PM PST 0 recs

dude

the only media attention the warriors get is from the bay area. To everybody else we are the "huh theres a team called the warriors?" "Oh Oakland! E-40!"

by djchuckdeez on Feb 6, 2007 7:43 PM PST 0 recs

numbers can lie

I gotta agree with atma here, plus one thing is that after 9 games you can't tell who won. The Warriors are 4-5 and the Pacers are 6-3. Oh yeah and the Warriors beat the Pacers at home, and the Warriors are not the best road team.

The pacers have played a lot of games at home since the trade and the warriors have played a lot of games on the road and 2 without baron. So the jury is out. What we do know is that Dunleavy and Murphy are vastly overrated, and that most national commentators know more about Dunleavy from his Duke days than his warrior days. They don't watch the warriors (who aren't on TNT or ESPN a lot), and so they don't really know the deal.

Lastly, I think the warriors when all is said and done will be the better team, even though they play in a much better conference. People who watch the warriors know they are better now than they were a month ago (let's hope monta's injury is not serious!). But it will take making the playoffs until the team gets any respect from the national media. Well, let's make that happen!

by stujackson6 on Feb 6, 2007 8:25 PM PST 0 recs

Overrated?

I watch more or less every game and I don't see them as being particularly different from the team they were. Harrington and Jackson are wildly inconsistent (as they were elsewhere). They have at times had an excitment that comes with some new faces and new hope, but they've also shown that they're still a team with one really good player (Baron) who is usually doing too much, some very nice young players with some serious flaws in their games, and a whole lot of question marks who play more minutes than they should.

Whether a player is "overrated" or "underrated" is a matter of reputation. On the court, the 'rating' has little impact on their actual production. I think most Warrior fans had soured on Murphy (who, during his first couple of seasons was a fan favorite) and few people ever thought much of Dunleavy.

Dun's disfavor is largely a factor of disappointment coupled with minimal personality cues to make him more likeable. He's a dull millionaire's son, prep-school raised, dookie whose parents contributed money to politicians who get minimal votes in the Bay Area. He's distant and since he's not particularly good, I suspect that it's easy in this case to find things that would otherwise go unnoticed and turn them into flaws. Certainly I've seen comments of his like "we need to stop playing street ball," a comment where he specifically mentioned the culprit as "we" become "he called out Baron." Many were quick to find fault beyond what he actually did. And I think when this began, it spiraled to the point that people wouldn't see him as a ridiculously average player, but as a guy who didn't belong as a towelboy on the jr. high team. So people here in general didn't like Dun and weren't going to cut him any slack.

I agree that few national commentators pay enough attention to evaluate Dun and Murphy, but similarly, they're not inclined to hate them (particularly Dun) based on some irrational feeling attached to personality and/or unmet expectations.

The flip side is that most Warrior fans didn't know enough about Harrington or Jackson to really evaluate how limited both of them are. The initial comments last summer and right after the trade rarely mentioned that Harrington was an inconsistent and generally below average rebounder for a guy his size. Few seemed to care that he was an integral part of a team even worse than the Warriors for a couple of years, showing absolutely no ability to make them anything other than a doormat. No one mentioned that he seems to have problems elevating for rebounds or seems to blow layups. Instead, Harrington's points per game were cited, he was declared "athletic" and "a better" fit. I suspect that much of this will change with time and more will grow to realize that he and Jax was available for Dun and Murphy and Diogu because the Pacers didn't see him as helpful and were willing to take a gamble on Diogu to swap two guys who were pretty mediocre for two other guys who were mediocre. They picked up more salary (a burden for them and a win for us) but got the only real prospect in the deal too (a potential win for them).

by jae on Feb 7, 2007 6:31 PM PST up 0 recs

hey djchuckdeez... you remind me of something

[new] dude the only media attention the warriors get is from the bay area. To everybody else we are the "huh theres a team called the warriors?" "Oh Oakland! E-40!" by djchuckdeez on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 01:43:46 AM EST [ Reply to This ] On friday I went to a DJ tiesto concert in San Juan Puerto Rico and i was wearing a J-Rich Jersey and a friend of mine saw me and told me "do that team still exists?" damn! i was pissed off, and youre right every fu***ng nba analyst(from barkley to kiki)talk negative things from the W's since the unfamous C-Webb trade........that ghost still chasing us!!!