Reply With Quote
to be fair, no one wants brent barry taking big shots in the 4th of tight games. I'll take Duncan, Manu, Horry, Parker or even Bowen before Brent. that doesn't mean Brent can't hit 'em, but the other guys are way more proven.
So where are the stats, Whott?
to be fair, no one wants brent barry taking big shots in the 4th of tight games. I'll take Duncan, Manu, Horry, Parker or even Bowen before Brent. that doesn't mean Brent can't hit 'em, but the other guys are way more proven.
Whott,
Where are the stats that we should just take your word on?
Game 1
Start of 3rd quarter: Score 52-52
6:35: Barry enters the game for Manu. Score 62-61.
End of 3rd quarter(Last time Barry was in the game).Score 73-75.
Barry difference +1.
Score when Barry enters the game for the final time(15 seconds left):84-92.
That's a - 10 point swing....even if you subtract the 4 FT's(and I will) it's still -6.
Nuggets were at worst +6 without Barry in the game.
With him in the game we were +1.
We won't do game 2 since Barry's good games don't count.
Game 3
Start of 3rd quarter: Score 50-41
8:11: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 54-46.
Barry difference -1.
1:43: Barry enters the game for Manu. Score 61-56
Nuggets were + 3 points on us without Barry.
End of the third. Score 61-58.
Start of 4th quarter:Score 61-58
4:35: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 76-69.
Barry difference + 2.
:22: Barry enters the game for Bruce Bowen. Score 83-78.
Nuggets were +2 on us without Barry.
I won't count the intentional fouls that would increase Barry's +/-.
Nuggets were +5 without Barry in the game.
With him in the game we were +1.
Game 4
Start of 3rd quarter. Score 57-51.
8:48: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 61-57.
Barry difference -2.
8:03: Barry enters the gamer for Bruce Bowen. Score 61-58.
Nuggets were + 1 with Barry out.
End of 3rd quarter. Score 86-80.
Barry difference +3.
Start of 4th quarter. 86-80.
10:07: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 89-84.
Barry difference -1.
:14: Barry enters the game for Bruce Bowen. Score 107-107.
Nuggets were +5 with Barry out.
Start of OT. Score 107-107.
2:21 Barry enters for Rasho. Score 114-109.
Nuggets were -5 with Barry out.
Hooray Hooray Hooray Hooray!!!! That OT period is the first time in the entire series the Nuggets had not outscored us with Barry sitting on the bench!!!!!!!!
The 1st time all series we outscored the Nuggets in the second half without Barry being in the game!!!!!!!!!.
Do you get the astounding signifigance?
Do you still need more proof?
Ok without counting the last 4 intentional foul FT's...
Final score 118-111.
Barry difference +2.
For the game:
The Nuggets were +0 without Barry.
With Barry we were +2.
Game 5
Start of 3rd quarter. Score 47-43.
7:05: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 54-53.
Barry difference -2.
Start of 4th. 67-71.
10:37: Barry enters the game for Manu. Score 73-67.
Nuggets were - 6 without Barry.
6:01: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 72-80.
Barry difference +1.
1:16 Barry enters the game for Horry. Score 92-83.
Nuggets were - 1 without Barry
I won't count the intentional FT's since that would help Barry's +/-, and lord knows, we don't want to count anything pos ive with him if we can help it.
For the game:
The Nuggets were -7 without Barry in the game.
With Barry we were -1 point for the game.
For the entire series:
The Nuggets were +4 without Barry.
We were +3 with Barry on the court.
But the Spurs did not outscore the Nuggets a single time with Barry being off the court, in the second half of games, this series, until the OT period of game 4.
And for the series the Spurs didn't outscore the Nuggets without Barry for an entire second half, until the last game....when the Nuggets gave up.
my stat is a 1.000 win % with barry as staring 2, which should regulate on any other stat
Spurs were 6-0 with Hedo starting at the 2 as well.
You have to remember, happens.
Other data...
The two games in which Barry played the most minutes(2 and 4) were our two highest scoring games.
The game where he played the fewest minutes, was our lone loss.
That trend has held up all season long...We have an ungodly w-l record when he gets @30 minutes in a game...when he gets @less than 20, it's not very good, and when he gets @less than 10 we have a losing record.
A fluke? Not when you do some research and find out he was the clutchest player on the team, using the definition used by 82 games.com.
Last edited by whottt; 05-09-2005 at 02:49 AM.
And I can't find the site anymore...but there was a site that calculated a players offensive contributions and figured out which player would score the most if he handled the ball on every posession...
The site is down now but Nikos knows the site I am talking about...according to that site Brent Barry was the best offensive player on the team using that forumula...that in the heart of his slump.
Add it up...
The guy is in the top 10 all time in PPS.
He's the only guy to have lead the NBA in 2pt PCT and 3 PT pct...
This guy is a highly skilled offensive player...he's not a proliffic scorer...but he know what to do on offense...it's a shame we don't utilize it more often.
Good job, Whottt. Congratulations.
Now if Brent will just be more aggressive we'll all be thrilled.
*Is this subject over yet?*
If we need agression we just need to bark...he's what you guys wanted Barry to be...and I don't know why anyone thought Barry was going to be that...he's averaged 10ppg playing nearly 30 mins a game, for his career.
Barry is something else...he's not a scorer...he's like offensive grease, he fills in the gaps on offense, he calms it down and controls the tempo, gets easy baskets and smart shots..but only if he gets the ball...he's like Horry...only it's not fair to say he is as clutch as Horry...then again, he's never played with Duncan, Shaq and Hakeem before...
Who knows...he might turn out to be Hedo, or he might turn out to be another Horry...
But Hedo didn't care about winning...he cared about getting paid.
I think he's going to turn out to be like Horry(only without the D)...that's the way he was in the regular season.
By the way TimVP...
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13419
Here's an article posted by erstwhile statdude RVB, that talks about the impact Barry and Horry and guys like that have...that doesn't show up in stats..
Position: Pass-First Guard
Team: San Antonio Spurs
vBookie Cash: $2451
Post Count: 838
NY Times Article: 3 Spurs' players in the top 10 most underrated list
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/s...html?oref=login
April 10, 2005
A Statistical Holy Grail: The Search for the Winner Within
By DAN T. ROSENBAUM
glance at ordinary statistics - points, assists, rebounds - suggests Jason Kidd and Dwight Howard are two of the league's better players. Kidd, the Nets' starting point guard, is considered one of the league's silkiest passers, and Howard, a rookie forward for the Magic, is one of the top rebounders.
Yet a closer look reveals they are players of vastly different value. The Nets are much better - 14 points better per 48 minutes - when Kidd is on the floor than when he is not. The Magic is slightly worse when Howard is on the floor. Orlando is outscored by 2 points per 48 minutes when he plays, and plays its foes even when he sits, according to 82games.com.
That traditional statistics and the increasingly popular plus-minus differential can measure players so differently highlights the difficulty in designing a rating system for the N.B.A.
Unlike baseball, with its repeated encounters between pitchers and batters, basketball is not a series of one-on-one contests. In baseball, the game's essence is captured remarkably well by box scores.
In basketball, statistics in box scores focus almost entirely on the player with the ball. This omits critical aspects of the game, like teamwork and defense.
These blind spots have made many fans and old-school basketball disciples skeptical of statistical analysis. Dean Oliver, author of "Basketball on Paper" and a statistical consultant for the Seattle SuperSonics, has likened attempts to produce an overall player rating to the quest for the Holy Grail.
But the statistic du jour in the N.B.A. - the plus-minus statistic - offers an opportunity to remedy many drawbacks of the traditional box score, even if it is limited. More teams are now using plus-minus as an important part of their front-office work.
In their most common form, plus-minus statistics measure how a team performs when a given player is on the floor versus when he is on the bench. When Stephon Marbury is on the floor, the Knicks lose by 0.1 points per 48 minutes. Put Marbury on the bench and the Knicks lose by 12.7 points. Marbury's net impact is a positive 12.6 points per 48 minutes.
Because plus-minus statistics depend on team performance, they capture almost every contribution a player can make. The good pick, the solid help defense, the threat of a 3-point shooter - all these contributions are captured by net plus-minus statistics. In theory, they are an ideal measure of a player's effectiveness.
But interpreting what plus-minus statistics tell us about players requires care and knowledge. For example, the impact of Joe Johnson, a Phoenix Suns guard, is overstated because he shares the court with several All-Stars. So is the impact of players, like Marbury, who have poor subs utes.
These factors can be mitigated by further refining plus-minus statistics to account for the quality of a player's teammates and opponents. Surprisingly, few teams use these adjusted plus-minus statistics.
Plus-minus statistics are especially difficult to interpret when the analysis is applied to a small number of games, a point not well understood by many proponents of the statistics. Stable results take more than half a season; stable box-score statistics require only about 10 games.
Small samples of plus-minus statistics are probably more distracting than useful. For example, Minnesota's Kevin Garnett had the league's best net plus-minus in 2003-4 but one of the worst over the past month.
People in the game often claim to know instinctively how to measure intangibles, but salaries suggest otherwise. Teams pay for little more than the glory statistics (points, rebounds and, to a lesser extent, assists).
Although steals, blocks, shooting percentage and an ability to avoid turnovers are crucial to a team's performance, players proficient in these aspects are rarely rewarded with bigger paychecks.
Consider our most underrated players, whose adjusted plus-minus statistics most exceed their glory statistics. (The most overrated players are those whose glory statistics most exceed their adjusted plus-minus statistics.)
The underrated list has many role players, as well as Utah's Andrei Kirilenko and San Antonio's Manu Ginóbili, stars who are strong defenders with well-rounded games. The overrated players include three Olympians and several maximum-salary players.
The overrated list is dominated by high-volume shooters who commit lots of turnovers, like Richard Jefferson and Carmelo Anthony. Many are also low-percentage shooters, like Allen Iverson and Antoine Walker.
Scorers like Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph and Michael Redd who generate few assists are less valuable to their teams than is generally understood.
More can be learned by analyzing adjusted plus-minus statistics. With analysis, they can shed light on the age-old question of what kind of player helps a team win.
Dan T. Rosenbaum is an assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Right. That was a team meltdown in the fourth. Barry, in his time in the third quarter, was 0-1 with 1 rebound and two assists. There was no evidence that he was especially helping the team. The lead grew by one point in his six minutes on the court.
You can argue either way about whether he should have been in the game in the fourth, but it wasn't like he was producing at an amazing amount and then Pop just forgot about him.
That is pretty much holding par with him or without him. There were no "substantial" runs like you said. +3 here and -1 there doesn't mean much other than the Spurs held onto the lead with or without him in there.Game 3
Start of 3rd quarter: Score 50-41
8:11: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 54-46.
Barry difference -1.
1:43: Barry enters the game for Manu. Score 61-56
Nuggets were + 3 points on us without Barry.
End of the third. Score 61-58.
Start of 4th quarter:Score 61-58
4:35: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 76-69.
Barry difference + 2.
:22: Barry enters the game for Bruce Bowen. Score 83-78.
Nuggets were +2 on us without Barry.
I won't count the intentional fouls that would increase Barry's +/-.
Nuggets were +5 without Barry in the game.
With him in the game we were +1.
No, I do not get the astounding part. The Spurs hold par with him and the Spurs hold par without him.Game 4
Start of 3rd quarter. Score 57-51.
8:48: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 61-57.
Barry difference -2.
8:03: Barry enters the gamer for Bruce Bowen. Score 61-58.
Nuggets were + 1 with Barry out.
End of 3rd quarter. Score 86-80.
Barry difference +3.
Start of 4th quarter. 86-80.
10:07: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 89-84.
Barry difference -1.
:14: Barry enters the game for Bruce Bowen. Score 107-107.
Nuggets were +5 with Barry out.
Start of OT. Score 107-107.
2:21 Barry enters for Rasho. Score 114-109.
Nuggets were -5 with Barry out.
Hooray Hooray Hooray Hooray!!!! That OT period is the first time in the entire series the Nuggets had not outscored us with Barry sitting on the bench!!!!!!!!
The 1st time all series we outscored the Nuggets in the second half without Barry being in the game!!!!!!!!!.
Do you get the astounding signifigance?
Do you still need more proof?
Ok without counting the last 4 intentional foul FT's...
Final score 118-111.
Barry difference +2.
The Spurs lost ground in game one in the horrible fourth quarter and at the end of the fourth in game three when the Nuggets came back to tie the game. Are you saying that those runs never would have happened with Barry in the game?
Here is another example of the Spurs outscoring the Nuggets without Barry. Not too astounding ...Game 5
Start of 3rd quarter. Score 47-43.
7:05: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 54-53.
Barry difference -2.
Start of 4th. 67-71.
10:37: Barry enters the game for Manu. Score 73-67.
Nuggets were - 6 without Barry.
And here's another example.6:01: Manu enters the game for Barry. Score 72-80.
Barry difference +1.
1:16 Barry enters the game for Horry. Score 92-83.
Nuggets were - 1 without Barry
I'll give you props for finally coming up with the stats. Although I fail to see the amazing runs the Nuggets went on when he was taken out of he lineup. The Spurs folded in game one in the fourth quarter. Would Barry have stopped that? I don't see any conclusive stats in this analysis that would point to that happening.
Last edited by timvp; 05-09-2005 at 03:05 AM.
By the way...where are all the Jon Barry and Sura lovers at these days...
Amazing how a combined 1-9 in an elimination game can shut so many people up...
I told you guys Sura was a choker....what was his excuse for an ofer on 2 shots...he's the freaking starting PG.
That'd be great but we're not talking about the regular season.By the way TimVP...
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13419
Here's an article posted by erstwhile statdude RVB, that talks about the impact Barry and Horry and guys like that have...that doesn't show up in stats..
Position: Pass-First Guard
Team: San Antonio Spurs
vBookie Cash: $2451
Post Count: 838
NY Times Article: 3 Spurs' players in the top 10 most underrated list
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/s...html?oref=login
April 10, 2005
A Statistical Holy Grail: The Search for the Winner Within
By DAN T. ROSENBAUM
glance at ordinary statistics - points, assists, rebounds - suggests Jason Kidd and Dwight Howard are two of the league's better players. Kidd, the Nets' starting point guard, is considered one of the league's silkiest passers, and Howard, a rookie forward for the Magic, is one of the top rebounders.
Yet a closer look reveals they are players of vastly different value. The Nets are much better - 14 points better per 48 minutes - when Kidd is on the floor than when he is not. The Magic is slightly worse when Howard is on the floor. Orlando is outscored by 2 points per 48 minutes when he plays, and plays its foes even when he sits, according to 82games.com.
That traditional statistics and the increasingly popular plus-minus differential can measure players so differently highlights the difficulty in designing a rating system for the N.B.A.
Unlike baseball, with its repeated encounters between pitchers and batters, basketball is not a series of one-on-one contests. In baseball, the game's essence is captured remarkably well by box scores.
In basketball, statistics in box scores focus almost entirely on the player with the ball. This omits critical aspects of the game, like teamwork and defense.
These blind spots have made many fans and old-school basketball disciples skeptical of statistical analysis. Dean Oliver, author of "Basketball on Paper" and a statistical consultant for the Seattle SuperSonics, has likened attempts to produce an overall player rating to the quest for the Holy Grail.
But the statistic du jour in the N.B.A. - the plus-minus statistic - offers an opportunity to remedy many drawbacks of the traditional box score, even if it is limited. More teams are now using plus-minus as an important part of their front-office work.
In their most common form, plus-minus statistics measure how a team performs when a given player is on the floor versus when he is on the bench. When Stephon Marbury is on the floor, the Knicks lose by 0.1 points per 48 minutes. Put Marbury on the bench and the Knicks lose by 12.7 points. Marbury's net impact is a positive 12.6 points per 48 minutes.
Because plus-minus statistics depend on team performance, they capture almost every contribution a player can make. The good pick, the solid help defense, the threat of a 3-point shooter - all these contributions are captured by net plus-minus statistics. In theory, they are an ideal measure of a player's effectiveness.
But interpreting what plus-minus statistics tell us about players requires care and knowledge. For example, the impact of Joe Johnson, a Phoenix Suns guard, is overstated because he shares the court with several All-Stars. So is the impact of players, like Marbury, who have poor subs utes.
These factors can be mitigated by further refining plus-minus statistics to account for the quality of a player's teammates and opponents. Surprisingly, few teams use these adjusted plus-minus statistics.
Plus-minus statistics are especially difficult to interpret when the analysis is applied to a small number of games, a point not well understood by many proponents of the statistics. Stable results take more than half a season; stable box-score statistics require only about 10 games.
Small samples of plus-minus statistics are probably more distracting than useful. For example, Minnesota's Kevin Garnett had the league's best net plus-minus in 2003-4 but one of the worst over the past month.
People in the game often claim to know instinctively how to measure intangibles, but salaries suggest otherwise. Teams pay for little more than the glory statistics (points, rebounds and, to a lesser extent, assists).
Although steals, blocks, shooting percentage and an ability to avoid turnovers are crucial to a team's performance, players proficient in these aspects are rarely rewarded with bigger paychecks.
Consider our most underrated players, whose adjusted plus-minus statistics most exceed their glory statistics. (The most overrated players are those whose glory statistics most exceed their adjusted plus-minus statistics.)
The underrated list has many role players, as well as Utah's Andrei Kirilenko and San Antonio's Manu Ginóbili, stars who are strong defenders with well-rounded games. The overrated players include three Olympians and several maximum-salary players.
The overrated list is dominated by high-volume shooters who commit lots of turnovers, like Richard Jefferson and Carmelo Anthony. Many are also low-percentage shooters, like Allen Iverson and Antoine Walker.
Scorers like Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph and Michael Redd who generate few assists are less valuable to their teams than is generally understood.
More can be learned by analyzing adjusted plus-minus statistics. With analysis, they can shed light on the age-old question of what kind of player helps a team win.
Dan T. Rosenbaum is an assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Here is an article calling Hedo Turkoglu the MVP of the league last season.
Hidayet Turkoglu named Most Valuable Player of NBA 2003-2004 season
ISTANBUL (CIHAN) - Turkish star player Hidayet Türkoglu was named as the MVP (most valuable player) of the NBA 2003-2004 season, in a recent survey carried out by expert Jeff Sagarin and professor Wayne Winston.
Hedo Turkoglu, who played for San Antonio Spur last season, ranked first, outshining all other NBA stars, to become MVP for the season, showed the survey carried out by Wayne L. Winston, a professor of decision sciences at Indiana University and his friend Jeff Sagarin, a professional sports statistician.
Sagarin and Winston have formulated a ranking that is similar to hockey's plus-minus system, in which players receive credits for being in the game when their team does well. Whether they actually score points or grab rebounds does not matter.
Hidayet was followed by Toronto Raptors' Vince Carter, by Minnesota Timberwolves' Kevin Garnett, by Sacramento Kings' Brad Miller and his old teammate Emanuel Ginobili.
Hidayet will play for Orlando Magic this season.
well he was 6-10
TimVP...we never lost a lead with him in the game...The Nuggets never gained more than 3 points on us with him in the game...and we never lost the lead.
You can't argue against the fact that the team performs better with him in the game.
We blew big leads in the 4th with him on the bench....We did it in game 4 as well, not just in game 1.
If you take out game 5, the Spurs were outscored by 11 points with Barry out of the game.
If any game in this series was meaningless it was that one...the Nugs were down 3-1 at that point.
You can say he doesn't make any difference in the 4th quarter...but I can show you a season long trend that says he does....How come our last Houston game was the only one where he got substantial minutes in the 4th and it was our biggest win over them this season...and he went off in that 4th quarter...
He was his typical 1-5 up until that point...just like he was 1-5 up until the final minutes of the Phoenix game...
Same thing with that GS double OT win...he didn't do until the 4th...
This guy has been good under pressure all season long. It's just a fact.
Whottt, I have a serious question ...
If you were a woman, would you want to have Brent Barry's baby?
Before you get mad, I think timvp wants to have AJ's baby too.
327%
188%
That's Stephen Jackson's FG and 3PT PCT against the Lakers the year we won the le....
He wasn't the reason we beat LA. But he did draw a defender...and so does Barry.
Okay, close game against the Sonics. Eight minutes to go in the game. The Sonics have their starting five on the court. Everyone on the Spurs is well rested and ready to go.
What lineup do you use down the stretch?
QUESTION.
Kori...the guy just gets trashed unfairly...he had a bad month or else he shoot 40 for the season...
He's scoring 7 PPG in 21 minutes...in his career he's score 10ppg in 29 minutes...it looks about the same ratio to me...he's never taken a bunch of shots...he hasn't shot at his highest PCT this season...but he's never been a Gleen Robinson type.
The only thing that's down are his PCT's...he was 12 3 pointers away from shooting 40% from 3 this season. And he shot 50% from 2.
I am not the worlds biggest Brent Barry fan...
I was a Jack fan remember? I could swear I had TimVP and Marcus Bryant telling me to STFU and just let Jack go....
This guy just deserves to be defended...if I didn't see a correlation between his minutes, our offense, and winning...I wouldn't defend him...
Think about it...I hate AJ because he couldn't shoot...I hate Hedo because he choked...I don't really even like Danny Ferry...
I don't like chokers, I don't like guys that can't hit open shots...
But I defend this guy because you can't argue with the W-L record...you can't argue with a clutch stat PCT that leads the team.
Until he fails, or we stop losing when he sits, I'll defend...Unfortunately he doesn't get that opportunity as much as he should IMO.
thats exactly what i said
but different
My favorite lineup is Duncan, Barry, Manu, Horry and Parker. And it's one we've hardly used this season...but we did use it when we built the biggest lead we had in Denver...I was happy about that.
As for which lineup I want under any cir stances to close out a game...
It just depends...
The only two I know for certain I want out there are Duncan and Manu.
And even they are not totally guranteed to make my lineup. It just depends...but those two would make it nearly every time.
If we are choking and can't buy a shot, and we have a lead...I better see Barry, Horry, and Big Dogg out there...or I am gonna have a major hate on for Pop.
You know that Duncan, Parker and Manu are going to be out there in crunch time. That's a given. The four will most likely be Horry.
It really comes down to Bowen versus Barry. I can't argue with Pop's thinking about using Bowen down the stretch. Especially against a team with a go-to perimeter scorer (Anthony and Allen). Do you want to see the Spurs trying to win games WITHOUT Bowen on Allen? I don't.
So basically, the Spurs will never have Barry in the game in the fourth if it's close unless:
1) Manu or Bruce are in foul trouble.
2) The other team has no go-to perimeter scorer.
Otherwise, Bowen will be in the game and rightfully so.
Agree?
No, I don't agree...because if Ray Allen or McGrady are going off...it doesn't matter what Bruce does, and he gets forgotten about on offense, and we end up playing 4 on 5 on the offensive end......Sometimes you just need to trade baskets...and we can do that better with Barry than we can with Bowen...and honestly, I think Barry should get minutes at the point in that sitation...
Read my breakdown again...it's not that we blow guys out with Barry in there all the time...it's that we do an excellent job of trading baskets with them...you say we never blew a really big lead without him in the game...we didn't have any really big leads...and not a single time did we lose a lead we had with him in the game.
Barry is a good NBA player...you guys act like he's Calamity Jane any time he steps on the court...
See that's the problem I have with Spurs fans and Pop's defense is all phiolosopy...I swear, if Steve Nash was on this team, he'd be the 3rd string PG...
Guess what...he plays no D, and he still wins a ton of freaking games and he almost beat us...
You guys act like Barry never won a game before coming to the Spurs...
, he pushed the Jazz to an elimination game, something we never did, his team pushed us to an elimination game(Duncan was injured though)..
Not only would I be willing to sub Barry for Bowen...there would be times when I would consider doing it for both Manu and Parker...there are times where I would consider letting him run the point....because he never has the mindset that he has to do it all by himself...and Parker, Duncan and Manu, our 3 go to guys, all get in that frame of mind and make TO's from time to tim...Barry is always as willing to pass as he is too shoot...I like his fast passes because they beat the defenders to their man.
I am not talking about an 8 minute stretch...I am talking about situationally...prefererably before our 8 point lead has become and 6 point deficit.
There are no absolutes...and you don't have to think of the game in 8 minute increments.
I think Manu is clutch like Kobe...he's a guy that can destroy a team in the final 5 minutes of a game...but he's not necessarily the guy I want with the ball as the clock expires....and neither is Parker....because I've seen both of them try to force it...Barry never forces it...and I have seen him hit a bunch of last seconders...just this season alone...not to mention at least one against us in San Antonio(with Bowen on him) the year we won the le.
For all we know Bowen could be the greatest clutch shooter in history...but we'll never know because he never gets passed the ball in that situation...neither does Barry. Let Barry run the offense in that situation at time or two and we might find out a lot about both of them...
Barry's has been on the court for our biggest and grittiest wins this season...the big comebacks against Phoenix and NJ, the double OT wins, the clutch FT's against Detroit, the big 4th against the Rockets, the last seconder against the Lakers...
Last edited by whottt; 05-09-2005 at 04:06 AM.
Cool. I want pom poms! umm... The spurs can beat up an alligator even if the alligator is on steroids. gimme some pom poms!!
and seriously. Barry has been quite a story this season. It so happens that he has been a catalyst for many of the spurs greatest victories, and a scapegoat for many of their lowest defeats.
He's neither the player we expected him to be, nor deserving of much of the scorn he recieves.
Whottt-like reverence aside, he can do some good things. You just have to wait, and when it happens, it's like magic....not unlike another streaky shooter that so many spurs fans are still in love with. aka, SJAX.
Barry is more like HedoJax.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
