« Glenn Perry -- an MVP team doctor | Main | Some Day II thoughts on Mike Dunlap and the Charlotte Bobcats »

June 11, 2012

Charlotte Bobcats narrow coaching search to Jerry Sloan, Brian Shaw and Quin Snyder

               The Charlotte Bobcats have narrowed their coaching search to three candidates: Former Utah Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, Indiana Pacers assistant Brian Shaw and Los Angeles Lakers assistant Quin Snyder, an NBA source confirmed Monday night.

               ESPN.com first reported those three as the Bobcats’ finalists from an original list of 10 candidates.

               The Bobcats are expected to hold a second round of interviews soon for Shaw and Snyder, so that each of them can speak with Bobcats owner Michael Jordan. Jordan was present in Salt Lake City when the team initially interviewed Sloan.

               The Bobcats are hiring a replacement for Paul Silas, after the team announced in late April that Silas’ contract would not be renewed following 1 ½ seasons as coach.        

               Sloan, 70, is a Hall of Fame coach who twice got the Jazz to the NBA Finals. Both times the Jazz lost to Bulls teams starring  Jordan.

               Sloan coached 19 Jazz teams to the playoffs. His regular-season record (he also coached the Bulls three seasons from 1979 to 1982) is 1221-803, a 60.3 winning percentage.

               Sloan has been out of coaching 1 ½ seasons after resigning from the Jazz. He’s made a point of saying he’s not deterred about taking over a Bobcats team that went 7-59 last season.

               Neither Shaw nor Snyder has been a head coach in the NBA. However, Snyder coached Missouri previously and was also a head coach in the NBA’s development league.

               Shaw was the last of 10 candidates interviewed, as the Bobcats waited for the Pacers to be eliminated by the Miami Heat in the second round of the playoffs. If Shaw gets the job, he’d likely install the Triangle offense he learned while playing and coaching for Phil Jackson. Jordan ran the Triangle while playing for Jackson as a Bull.

               Shaw might also be a candidate for the coaching opening with the Orlando Magic once that franchise hires a new general manager. Shaw has deep ties to the Magic organization.

               Snyder, a former Duke point guard, is a bit of a wild card in this process, as he’s not currently lead assistant with the Lakers. However, he’s a high-intellect guy who’s known to be an innovator offensively. The Bobcats were among the NBA’s worst teams last season in offense, as measured by both points-per-game and field-goal percentage.

               The Bobcats hope to have a coach hired in time for him to have input on what to do with the No. 2 overall pick in the June 28 draft. However, team management said from the start of the process that it felt no time pressure to make a hire.

Posted by Observer Sports on June 11, 2012 at 10:34 PM | Permalink


Snyder? Really? I don't even understand how we was granted an interview, let alone a finalist? What happened to Mike Malone? Of the 3, Shaw makes the most sense and is perfect for our current situation. I'm sure they could learn a thing or two from Sloan, but he is just too old to take over a rebuilding situation.

Posted by: Bobcat Matt | Jun 11, 2012 10:50:49 PM


Posted by: Gman | Jun 11, 2012 11:00:20 PM

I prefer Sloan but would be happy with him or Shaw. If MJ picks Snyder my days as a Bobcat fan may be over

Posted by: bronsyn | Jun 11, 2012 11:32:57 PM

You people that are saying no to Snyder are only saying so because you are a Tarheel fan or because you don't know enough about him!

Posted by: Luther | Jun 11, 2012 11:56:13 PM

Quin Snyder will not be hired as the head coach.

Posted by: Downtown Sports | Jun 12, 2012 12:01:58 AM

Expand sloan brings instant credibility to the team. He is nothing like Brown who was fired 20 times in the NBA. Sloan can coach for at least 3 years establishing the foundation for the team with sound fundamentals and winning compeititive spirit. There will always be shaw, quin, snyder or any other young coaches available after 3 years or later. This team should be honored to be coached by sloan.

Posted by: championshipss | Jun 12, 2012 12:32:00 AM

Enough with the legacy coaches. If you want to build a franchise you do it with a young, innovative guy like Snyder.

Sloan needs to be removed from consideration. Now.

You don't build a reputation as a team with a revolving door at the head coaching spot. Time to pick the right guy and build with him towards a perennial playoff squad...maybe in the next 3-4 years...if lucky.

Posted by: Bryan | Jun 12, 2012 1:23:18 AM

Sloan will be their first choice, Shaw 2nd and Synder 3rd. Synder could become Sloan's lead assistant and take over when Sloan retires. Shaw will probably be Orlando's cosch.

Posted by: Demon Rum | Jun 12, 2012 2:06:52 AM

@ Luther | Jun 11, 2012 11:56:13 PM

Since when do Tar Heels mind Dookies working for them? It's standard practice.

Posted by: MrMixx | Jun 12, 2012 6:16:07 AM

Hello Quinn Snyder. Good bye season tickets. A deliberate process, no open jobs in the league and that is thev best you can do? Embarrassing.

Posted by: James | Jun 12, 2012 6:48:06 AM

Wow - all the Duke hate from these UNC fans who have never even met Synder. First off - if anyone should hate Duke it is Jordan. He clearly doesn't - and is smart enough to hire the person he thinks will serve the Bobcats the best. Sloan is the best pick except for his age. I don't see him coaching more than a few years - and if the Bobcats want a coach for the long term then Snyder is as good as Shaw. Synder is a good coach and if he didn't break a few rules at Missouri he would still be there...

Posted by: Dom | Jun 12, 2012 8:03:56 AM

It has nothing to do with hating Duke you idiots. Is Quinn Snyder even considered one of the top 5 asssitant coaches in the league? He is not even the top assistant on LA. His experience is getting fired from Missouri, coaching in the D-league, and being the third guy for LA. He does not compare to Shaw (maybe the best assistant in the league) and Sloan (one of the greatest coaches in NBA history).

Posted by: No to Snyder | Jun 12, 2012 8:19:57 AM

1. Sloan
2. Shaw

don't want to go any lower

Posted by: English Professor CMS | Jun 12, 2012 8:27:04 AM

Sloan is the right match for this team and this city. He is one of the toughest sob's ever and you give him guys like henderson and biyombo that fit his mold and augustin and mullens who are developing that as well it's an excellent fit for the personnel. Augustin and mullens mastering the pick and roll sounds about appropriate. Especially if we deal for luol deng.

Quinn snyder just seems like a slimeball.

Shaw doesn't seem like a fit. Surely he would prefer orlando or portland or LA since that's going to be available in about 6-10 months.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 12, 2012 8:28:54 AM

I know that Shaw is certainly a well regarded assistant but wonder if we any of the pieces needed to run the triangle offense. The 2 times that the triangle worked were with hall of fame players who would have probably won anyway.

I have a bias against Snyder based on the disaster that happened under his watch at the Missouri program. That did not show leadership and I think that we should aspire to be better than that.

I am pulling for Sloan to be the guy. He has what the Cats sorely missed last season - toughness.

Posted by: Cheeseburgerface | Jun 12, 2012 8:40:31 AM

@ Demon Rum | Jun 12, 2012 2:06:52 AM

So your in favor of a Snyder hire then! Glad we cleared that up!

Please do some research on Snyder before you turn your nose up at him! He did a good job at Missouri with 4 NCAA tourney appearances in a row and an elite 8 appearance, and is the only Coach in Missouri history to make post season play every season he coached at the University. Everyone thinks Snyder was caught up in some scandal but the scandal had more to do with the AD and the way he handled situations at Missouri than anything else. In the D league he took Austin to the NBDL finals his first year and the semifinals his second and third seasons. He is absolutely worthy of consideration for the job. I don't know that he will get the job but his accolades are certainly credible and worthy of the Bobcats consideration!

Posted by: Luther | Jun 12, 2012 8:58:00 AM

Shaw or Sloan is pretty much a tossup. Sloan for his experience and toughness. Shaw for his youth, recent success and can relate to the players better.

I'm leaning towards Shaw.

Con Phil Jackson to come back and coach the Cats and if he can turn the team around, there is no doubt he is the greatest coach ever. Come on Jordan, you helped him win Championships, he should return the favor.

Posted by: LOLcats | Jun 12, 2012 9:02:39 AM

Why are we interviewing 70 year old coaches? Lets go young with the coach, not old.

Posted by: Tim | Jun 12, 2012 9:36:25 AM

I don't think we want a young coach NOW, i think we want him in 2 years. If sloan can patiently teach and toughen up our core pieces and then a younger version of him take over (think scott skiles, mark jackson, lawrence frank, del negro, darvin hamm maybe. Somebody with balls and brains both.

I will point out for the duke fans that quinn was a larry brown assistant for one season with the clippers. Guys have been hired with less credentials than snyder but usually they played professionally, not went to law school and got their mba.

I will say this....dleague and college head coach trumps pro assistant. Just to big of a difference in leading vs. Following. Thats part of why I am bigger on sloan than shaw.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 12, 2012 10:45:42 AM

These are three good options. Both Snyder and Shaw have potential to become successful NBA head coaches.
But they can't match Jerry Sloan's huge experience and winning record.
Sloan can teach young players and give the Bobcats three seasons of continuous improvement. This franchise is lucky a proven winning coach of such caliber is ready to come and take over this project (especially after last season).

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 12, 2012 12:52:13 PM

You have a chance to HIRE a HALL OF FAME Coach. Reall people its a no brainer. Google Hall of Fame...WOW people are so stupid

Posted by: Mark | Jun 12, 2012 1:54:56 PM

Shaw is out. He has better options in Orlando and Portland. I think Sloan will get a call from Portland as well. I wouldn't be shocked if the Bobcats end up with Snyder, just b/c it's the 'Cats. While Sloan is a HOF, you want someone with patience for the 'Cats. Look at OKC. The coach and team grew up together. Will Sloan have the patience yr #3 when the team is only winning 30 games.
I think go Shaw, Snyder, and Sloan. Snyder has developed D-Leauge players basically what the 'Cats have today.
I keep seeing these DJ Augustin lovers. It's time to give up on him, we know what he is.. below average shooter that hasn't improved in 4yrs.

Posted by: El Toro | Jun 12, 2012 4:14:13 PM






Posted by: GAMBLE | Jun 12, 2012 5:37:31 PM

i would trade augustin for dragic in a heartbeat, but besides that? name a point guard better that's available. he's capable of more than what we've seen thus far. we've seen glimpses but not the whole movie. he's way better than walker though, that is apparent.

70 is old but we aren't asking the guy to coach for 15 years. we're asking.....3 years. he didn't run utah in debt so I don't think you can compare him and larry brown just because they are from the same era. brown valued athleticism where sloan values skill and toughness. they aren't polar opposites but they definitely aren't one in the same. he's been getting a lot out of young guys lately in utah too......

paul milsap, c.j. miles, deron williams, these guys weren't exactly seasoned veterans. I bet he could make tyrus thomas' contract look appropriate. to me........THAT's the guy we want to hire.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 12, 2012 10:44:50 PM

okay, i am tired of all these blogs saying that Bobcats are better is the pick is traded.

well of course they want to trade the pick but who is willing to give us picks that are valuable enough for rebuilding because it is better to keep the two than go far without 2 top picks.

and no Rudy Gay please.

Posted by: vinh | Jun 12, 2012 11:49:00 PM

NO Hornets and Blazers are the only two worth consider but i just don't see how they would be willing to give up their picks.

Posted by: vinh | Jun 12, 2012 11:50:13 PM

Cleveland actually makes the most sense but only if they are bluffing about barnes or if washington decides they want barnes. If we can convince cleveland that washington is taking barnes no. 3 and they give us 4 and 24 for 2, we get either robinson or gilchrist guaranteed and maybe even the same pick of the 2 we are looking at picking second. But we get another pick to go grab a fab melo or quincy miller or somebody that slides down.

The right pick here is barnes but nobody is going to admit it and make the pick because the perception is that he's not no. 2.

He is. You can't tell me mkg or robinson are going to be better than barnes. He put up monster numbers on a stacked team while deferring to upperclassmen a lot. 2 Bad games don't change what he is and has and will do.

Best picks in last years draft were guys like kawhi leonard, iman shumpert, kenneth farried, isaiah thomas, chandler parsons. Sure kanter and veseley and valanciunas and biyombo might change that over the next 7 or so years but it's not THAT likely that more than one of them do. The guys I named are already entrentched as starters on good teams (not thomas of course).

There is a ton of value in trading down and getting multiple guys in a situation like ours.

But seriously.....barnes is the guy and they won't take him. That 39.5 inch vert and 9 foot whatever standing reach and proven scoring ability and big game buckets will be going elsewhere. But I'm sure mkg's defense will make us feel better about that right?

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 13, 2012 9:07:13 AM

Give it up with Barnes already he is a bloody jump shooter, can't create off the dribble, can't drive to the basket, doesn't play d, certainly not a #2 pick. Robinson can score inside and out, rebounds, plays d. No futher comparisons needed.

Posted by: TrueBBallFan | Jun 13, 2012 11:59:59 AM

some people call kevin durant "a jump shooter"


^^^ this is how little of his games you watched. how many of those shots did he create himself? whole lot of non-jump shots there.

you guys just make things up.

guess that's not creating a shot either.

a jump shooter with a 39.5 inch vertical at 6 foot 8.

the worst part is that cleveland is an eastern conference team and they're going to have irving, barnes, thompson in place NOW all the same age and omri casspi and the 24th pick this year in addition to them.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 13, 2012 12:29:16 PM

Rick...Could you please explain how Snyder got on this list and gets an interview and Dave Hanners doesn't even get a sniff? Hanners has more basketball knowledge in his little finger than Snyder will ever think about having.

Posted by: drfritz | Jun 13, 2012 1:04:15 PM

Charlottean, the first video you linked is HIGHLIGHTS from his freshman year. The problem with ANY highlights video is that it shows whatever its author wants - and this is why it proves nothing.

Yeah, it shows H.B. driving in various games, and still, this is not characteristic of his game.
And the second video: you make us watch a 7 minutes video to see him nailing a 3-pointer (yeah, a game winner)?! He still averaged 36% from behind the arc in his second NCAA season. Quite unimpressive.

You could have a highlights video of Kwame Brown (even from his Wizards or Lakers days) making all his shots (lay-ups, dunks, short and some mid-range jumpers) and never fumbling a pass. Will that prove he's an offensive force ?!
You can have a highlights video of many nice assists dished by Kemba Walker. Will that prove he's a true (not a shoot first) point-guard ?
Heck, you can even have a video with the free throws Andre Drummond made in his freshman year (all 26 of them !), without missing even one (in the video...). Will you then say: "here is a center who can shoot free throws" ?!


No NBA executive or coach is able to watch all the players entering the Draft, in a lot of games for each and every one of them. And videos are selective.
That's what scouts and scouting reports are for. And Harrison Barnes' strengths as well as weaknesses are well documented in these reports.
Although he's among the players I've been watching (it's the ACC, and he's a Tar Heel!), I'm not arguing with you based on my observations vs. yours. I'm just telling you that teams will look carefully at scouting reports, and those don't lie, and they keep a balance between pluses and minuses.

From here on, it's a matter of judgment and of preferences (NOT of arguing whether this or that weakness really exists). In my opinion, he's still overrated (though much less than a year ago). He has his qualities that make him worthy of a lottery pick, but not in the top 8 (in my opinion, 10 to 12 is much more realistic, when thinking of his NBA potential).
To be honest, I'd take any other of his teammates in this Draft above him (between 5 to 10): Kendall Marshall, Tyler Zeller, John Henson. Why? Because they proved themselves, while he disappointed (mildly in the regular season - by not showing an overall significant improvement over his first season - and massively in the last two games they played in the tourney, i.e., when it mattered most).

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 13, 2012 10:14:29 PM

shaw for sure.

Posted by: thomas lewis | Jun 14, 2012 12:35:01 PM


if they are highlights or not, they still happened. obviously if you look at drummond's free throw highlight as you suggested, his stats will show that it was inconsistent. when you look at barnes stats, you'll see he was an absolute offensive force for a top program for back to back years as an UNDERCLASSMEN. the same people that are being touted as better than barnes, did less, for lesser programs.

ask coach K for his scouting report on barnes. guarantee it doesn't say "jump shooter only" on it. 70% of his fg attempts were inside the 3 point line.

the tape doesn't lie. the stats don't lie. the results don't lie. the measurements don't lie. he's 6 ft 8 with a monster reach and winspan and a 39.5 inch vertical and a sweet jump shot and the ability to finish at the rim IN TRAFFIC. he is an nba star. cleveland is going to take him #4 and we are going to cry about it for the next 30 years.

people that knock his ball handling to realize he's NOT a point guard and he's 6-8 right? name a guy in the league not named lebron or kevin durant at that size witha better handle. i'll wait. turkoglu? diaw? he has had his game dissected over and over with people looking for flaws because he was the #1 player in his class. still is. clearly. 1.9 turnovers for a go-to guy who supposedly has ball handling issues seems pretty solid. that's about 2.4 per game in the nba pace.

he's not going to be lebron or durant like people might have thought but he's absolutely going to be glen rice, jamal mashburn, steve smith, jim jackson, keith van horn, etc.

and anybody with a brain would take any of those guys with the 2nd pick in a draft like this one. especially if you need offense and especially if you need a small forward. that's the worst part about it is.....he is the perfect fit for this lineup that we have. I know we aren't going to take him but since cleveland IS......we should definitely act like we're thinking about taking him to get cleveland's #24 pick in the process and hopefully get quincy miller there.

and since we aren't going the barnes route we should absolutely be going the luol deng route and do whatever we can to get austin rivers in a trade for kemba walker.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 14, 2012 2:51:19 PM

It doesn't matter who they hire. They'll end of screwing that up. Then they'll end up screwing up the draft. This team goes nowhere until MJ sells it or moves it.

Let's remember this is the only guy in NBA history to do a salary dump that lead to taking on more money AFTER year 1.

Posted by: I used to sit near Buzz | Jun 14, 2012 4:10:46 PM

Sloan just pulled out for consideration for the Bobcats job.

Posted by: Jon | Jun 15, 2012 12:01:34 AM

charlottean, there are several better players than Barnes in this Draft, at every position (other than 3). What Thomas Robinson has achieved in his only season as a starter for Kansas doesn't bear comparison to Barnes' last season. Even Kidd Gilchrist can be expected to do better than H.B. in the NBA (and I think they are both overrated).

You can see Barnes' pluses, but also his limitations, even in this flattering highlights video you linked, at a close look. He has nice moves and good elevation, but he's not quick. He can drive to the rim when he faces defenders who aren't quick either, or, when he sees the open space and exploits it. That's why he's not doing this frequently, and his main weapon is the jump shot (both inside and outside the arc). This is a serious drawback for a SF.

What the highlights will never show is the missed shots. I already mentioned his shooting percentage for 3s: 36%. As for 2 point shooting, he averaged last season 47%, while the sadly underrated Kendall Marshall shot 52% (also, for 2s). All this means that he needs to take a large number of shots to achieve decent scoring, and he'll do this even when passing is the better option.
Also, Barnes is not a good passer, and he is a mediocre rebounder for a small forward (despite his length).

So, the team that will draft him will get a player who is not a slasher and not a pure shooter; a pretty good shooter, who can shoot off the dribble, but only occasionally ventures to the rim.

There are many NBA forwards who are much better passers than Barnes. This helps your team a lot when you don't have a good shot. Besides the four players you mentioned, Iguodala is excellent in this aspect of the game. A few among the other ones: Paul Pierce, Luol Deng, Gordon Hayward, Josh Smith, former Bobcats Gerald Wallace and Stephen Jackson, etc. Even that famous "ball hog" Carmelo Anthony averaged 3.8 apg last season!

How does he compare to Kidd-Gilchrist? Kidd is far better as a slasher, and much worse as a shooter. I don't think any of those two has the potential to become the first scoring option in a good NBA team. They both can defend, with a plus for Kidd's toughness. What really separates them is Kidd's very good rebounding (for a SF), and also, Kidd is a better passer.

Briefly, if the Bobcats aren't drafting Harrison Barnes, they do the right thing.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 15, 2012 12:30:55 AM

Zeller and Barnes. Yes we can! Those guys will fill the seats! Just like 'Turnover' Felton and 'Fat Boy' May! Just get ole Roy to sit at center court with The Dean and we will back this joint every night!


PS. You guys just know we are going to pick Snyder to be our coach right? Remember, when confronted with options involving the Bobcats always select the one that will fail, you will be right 110% of the time.

Posted by: I used to sit near Buzz | Jun 15, 2012 8:57:45 AM

I'm curious, among all of you Duke haters opposing Snyder, I have a serious question. IF the Bobcats, through their interviews and research, were to decide that Snyder is the smarter/better fit to make Charlotte successful long-term, would you still want them to select Shaw to avoid the Duke connection?

In addition to the interviews and recommendations, I suspect that a lot of this will come down to Shaw being the "more senior" and longer-tenured NBA assistant (but no HC experience), versus Snyder who actually has long-term Head Coaching experience at MO and with the NBDL Toros, and is known as a strong innovator and developer of young talent (several success stories while with the San Antonio NBDL team).

Look, Phil Jackson isn't walking though that "next Coach" door. So we need to select someone who we think can stay with us for a while, will develop our young guys, and be patiernt enough to reaize that this won't likely be a playoff team for a couple more years. This is a long-term, development project.

Posted by: BDBD | Jun 15, 2012 11:36:31 AM

Is there anyway we can get Quin to cheat for the Bobcats like he did at Mizzou? And I'm not talking about cheating on his wife again. If so, I might change my mind.

Posted by: I used to sit near Buzz | Jun 15, 2012 11:51:18 AM

Ok Ok I told you so. Sloan, Ewing, Malone as the hot assistant were all for show so to appease the fans for when MJ makes the cheapest selection.

Posted by: TrueBBallFan | Jun 15, 2012 1:56:21 PM

when it god's name did 36% on 3's become mediocre? 40% is elite. ray allen is a career 40% shooter. so harrison barne's being 4% below ray allen equates to him being mediocre? eff outta here. ray allen has had 3 or 4 years at or below 36%.

bradley beal is being touted as an elite shooter and he shot 34% last year. He also scored 15 ppg on a non stacked team while barnes put up 17 on a team with 4 lottery picks.

Not getting a lot of assists on a team where your point guard set records in assists is the same as not scoring a lot on a team with the leagues leading scorer. there's only 1 ball. hard to get assists when you're on the finishing end of all of your teammate's assists and when you aren't, marshall is creating for others. horrible logic there. you say he is a mediocre rebounder, because he was on a team with zeller and henson grabbing everything under the sun?

I say the right move is to move back and get multiple picks because there are several starter caliber guys in this bunch and surely a few of them will become upper echelon players but nobody stands out clearly to be that. but if we're stuck at 2 and we're picking.........there is NOBODY safer than barnes to take there. if i'm wrong please provide better options and proof. the guy has the pedigree. the work ethic the character the experience the resume the physical traits etc. etc. etc.

keep focusing on what he's not going to be instead of what he will be. we need a 3. he's the best 3 in this draft. I really like quincy miller if he checks out medically and we're trading back but picking at 2? there's nobody better than barnes.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 15, 2012 5:00:34 PM


ok, is it 2nd(overall)BARNES or move down???????

NOOOO!!!!!! Riding the fence!!

Either you move down and score or you DRAFT BARNES AND SUFFER!!!!!!! until


Posted by: David Stern has to go!! | Jun 15, 2012 11:49:19 PM

ch., when the points you're trying to make don't hold against criticism, you start losing it, and go into your well-known insults and rudeness. "eff outta here", "horrible logic" (yeah right, because you don't get it).

I tried to explain this to you in the past, but you don't get it: it's the easiest thing to throw insults, it's a lot harder to keep up a civil dialogue through disagreements.
Believe it or not, I have a lot of demeaning epithets for you, and it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to spill them right here, right now. I don't do it, because that would lower me to your despicable kind of writing.
However, if you'll keep doing it,
I might end my restraint, throw at you all those names you already earned - and from that point on, ignore you.

Please understand: I prefer to talk basketball and keep it clean of rudeness, rather than prove that I can easily heap insults on anyone, at any time. It's just too easy, and doesn't prove anything on the issues discussed.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 16, 2012 12:58:43 AM

Back to basketball.
"Ray Allen is a career 40% shooter." That's NBA career, and it's comparing apples and oranges. As everybody knows, the NBA 3 point distance exceeds the NCAA distance; also, it's much harder to stay in top shape over many, long NBA season, than just over a much shorter college season - which must affect such long term averages. (And even so, the difference in Allen's favor is very significant).

So, I'll compare strictly 3 point percentages for the second year in college (comparing Barnes to anyone's junior or senior year would be unfair to him, since usually college players improve from year to year). Pure shooters are capable of above 40%, decent, pretty good shooters are 35 to 37%, lower than that (30 to 33%) is always counted as poor shooting.

Ray Allen (drafted 5th overall): 44.5%.
Steph Curry (7th overall): 43.9%.
Trajan Langdon (11th overall): 44.1%. Brandon Rush (13th overall): 43.1%.
Steve Novak (32nd): 43%.
Kyle Korver (51st overall): 48%. (too scary? OK, he already had 42.9 as a freshman).

Not very high picks (except for Ray Allen, and still, that's not 2nd), but, true pure shooters.

And some undrafted players:
Anthony Morrow: 42.9%.
Matt Carroll: 41%.

You don't have a lot of great shooters in this Draft, but still, there are some better shooters than Barnes.
John Jenkins (Vanderbilt) enters the draft at 43.9% for 3s; true to method, here is his sophomore year: 40.8%.
Doron Lamb (in my opinion, the most underrated player in this draft): 46.6%.
Damian Lillard: enters the draft at 40.9%, had 39.3% as a sophomore.

Hey, I didn't say they are better players overall than Barnes; this is just to show, again, the difference between really good (excellent for Doron Lamb) shooting, and H.B.

My point? There is a difference between true pure shooters and a decent shooter, and yes, differences of 3-4% (and MORE, as you can see) are always recognized to matter. Go just 3% below Barnes, and you get what's always seen as poor shooting.

Bradley Beal has a lousy 3 point shooting percentage for SG, and nobody praises him for it. He's praised for his clean shooting technique, his poor shooting percentage is explained by inconsistency. Since he only played one year in college, it's hoped he'll become more consistent and he'll raise his percentage. It's just hope; so, anybody picking him high takes a risk.

So, your favorite player is just what I said: not a slasher, and just a pretty good shooter.

Then, you're making excuses for his low assists and mediocre rebounding. I compared him with Kidd Gilchrist. Being just a freshman, in the same team with rebounders like A. Davis, and Terrence Jones at PF, he doesn't need any excuses; he clearly proved he's a better rebounder than Barnes. He's stronger and more athletic than Barnes, and knows how to use his physical tools.

All the scouts noted that Barnes is weak at creating for others; his assists average merely confirms this. It's not "because of Kendall". You conveniently ignore the point I made: as a wing player and finisher, you don't always get good shots, and then, passing ability helps your team a lot; so, it's not, and it can't be, all on the PG.
I mentioned that there are plenty of NBA forwards who are much better passers than Barnes - and some play in teams that have elite PGs. I already mentioned SFs, like Pierce who plays in Rondo's team, and Luol Deng in Derrick Rose's team.

Besides Thomas Robinson, who stands head and shoulders above anyone not named Anthony Davis in this Draft (and he proved himself, he's the opposite of a risky project, and there is no reason to believe that, at 21 years old, his development as a player stops), there are several other players - some underrated - who should be taken before Harrison Barnes, who doesn't belong in the top 8 (of course, he'll be drafted 4th or, at the very least 5th).

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 16, 2012 1:12:00 AM

Forgive me for interrupting earlier. My opinion prognosticating is futile, nobody asked for my opinion so I will shutup now.

However Barnes in "my opinion" is not a 2 pick and am disconcerted that Sloan "pulled" himself out of the coaching positon.

Posted by: David Stern has to go!! | Jun 16, 2012 7:55:57 AM

So sensitive.

You say his assist numbers are low when he plays with a record setting assist man. You say his rebounding is low he plays with not 1 but 2 leading rebounding big men. What do you want me to say about that? Good job with your not looking at the whole picture?

And look at your list of guys named as these better shooters. How many are 6-8 small forwards? 39.5 inch verts? I mean....outside of kyle korver of course. Dude is not being drafted top 5 strictly because of his 3pt shooting ability. 33% is the benchmark for good, 40% for elite. 33% = 50% on 2's. You're talking about a guy with a complete game, mid range, deep threat, slasher, transition finisher, etc. There is not a better small forward in the draft.

I think robinson is right there with barnes, but he's a 4. I wouldn't even say we don't need a 4 because he, biyombo and mullens could each clock 36 minutes and compliment each other effectively. But we have a bigger hole at the 3 and barnes stands a far better chance of scoring 25. A game in the pros than robinson.

You complain he shoots too many jump shots and then talk about how the pros are different from college without realizing you are contradicting your own point. Dude will have far more open lanes in the pros where colllege you get more open jumpers.

How many freshmen come in and put up 15 ppg at a big program? it's not many. It's the same reason davis is going number one and beal is going top 5 also. There's a certain pedigree there that you are ignoring. To say he's not top 7, I would love to know who, besides davis and robinson are better prospects and pleeeeease print that list and put it on your wall so you can look at it everyday for the next few years.

Let's hear who you have 2-10. As if we were picking 10 instead of 2.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 16, 2012 12:04:52 PM

ch., welcome back to civility.

Besides, everything you have in your last comment is a repeat of what you already said. My answers are posted in my previous posts, clear and detailed. As I was posting them, I was sure - knowing you - that you'll stick to your guns.
If you want a non-slasher, a pretty good shooter (not a pure shooter), a volume scorer who will have to resort to jump shots even when passing is the better option (unless he develops dramatically his passing skills - and that's making a bet) - if this is what you want as 2nd pick overall, well, too bad.
I remember you were campaigning for him since rather early in his freshman year, and you didn't change your mind. This is being very inflexible, regardless of the facts, on which tons have been written already.

Harrison Barnes has a good mid-range game, he can shoot off the dribble, he's decent for long range, and he's a good defender and a mediocre (relatively to his position, and to his length) rebounder. That makes him a lower lottery pick, to me.

As for thinking he's at the same level with a very good PF like Robinson, why should I argue on this? I saw both of them playing many times, and I see no room for arguing. Since you obviously didn't see the same things I saw, check their stats lines. Or, don't even bother, since nothing will ever change your standpoint.

You bet I have my own lottery picks order (and I hinted to a few above), and it's rather unorthodox. The "orthodox" beliefs always fail, as we know. I mean, some players are correctly evaluated, but for every Draft, it's confirmed after a few seasons that some players were underrated, and some were overrated; this has a lot to do with betting too much on potential, and doing it very often based on measurements, athletic ability and try-out impressions - not on what players proved in real competition.

I was sure you'll ask me about it, but, I'm not posting it. Why? Because it will lead to endless discussions.
It's not needed (since we only pick 2nd), and I simply don't have the time for it.
As is, we are tied for the dubious record of longest posts on this site, and I just don't have the time to amplify this!
Oh, if they trade down, and then they use the picks stupidly (there's fairly good chance that's just will happen), then you'll hear from me.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 16, 2012 3:53:25 PM

D.S. has to go, I always enjoy reading your posts.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 16, 2012 3:55:24 PM

If you are basing it on stat lines as you say, barnes put up 15 ppg as a freshmen and 17 ppg as a sophomore with solid shooting numbers. He's a proven 3 and has basically the same size as robinson. Robinson had a great year as a junior as a 4 after not playing as much as an underclassmen.

And I am severely struggling to find how 5.5 rpg is mediocre from a 3 on a team with 2 double digit rebounders. There's only so many rebounds available in 30 minutes.

As I've said, I understand the debate between barnes and robinson. I get beal being in the discussion. All 3 are in the same plane but different positions. But there is not a better small forward in this draft. Best resume, best size, best vertical, etc. I'll give you "he's the 5th best prospect in this draft" but when you say things like 10 or later.......just blasphemous. Especially when all of the teams picking 2 through 5 desperately need a 3.

Maybe I keep repeating the facts.... you keep ignoring them.

17 Ppg in the acc as a sophomore. Run down that list and look at their careers. It's not coincidental.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 16, 2012 8:06:27 PM

You don't know why 5.2 rpg for a small forward (with such wingspan) is mediocre ?!
Sure you know, but you wouldn't apply such knowledge to a player you strongly favor since he was recruited by his college team (with all that unforgettable hoopla surrounding him).

The number of rebounds per team per game is somehow limited ?! Again, you sure know better than that, but this is what you're ready to say to defend your preference.
The more good rebounders you have, the more you can dominate in this area of the game (and leave less rebounds for the opponents).

You don't agree that Robinson's superiority over Barnes is a clear fact ? There is some difficulty in comparing players who play different positions (and so, have to meet different expectations) , but still... without writing down the names, what's better: 17.7 PPG, 50.5 FG%, 11.9 RPG, 1.8 APG, or 17.1 PPG, 44 FG%, 5.2 RPG, 1.1 APG ? Again, I think you knew the answer before seeing my post ... but, it's not the one you'd like.

I went into detail in my previous comments on the two small forwards. I really shouldn't repeat what's already there (above). I'll just say I don't think Kidd Gilchrist should go higher than 5th (but, of course, he will), but I agree with most commenters, that he's the top SF in this Draft. Barnes is the second best at his position. Why don't I see him as one of the top eight? Because there are several underrated (mildly to severely) players in this Draft, who are generally expected to be lower lottery picks, or maybe even below the lottery. I see no point in launching an argument on this, since only time will prove who is underrated and who is overrated in this Draft - and this will take several years. (However,I posted a comment on my favorite underrated player under one of Rick's article).

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 16, 2012 11:08:27 PM

How you can't grasp the concept of how barnes playing with zeller and henson would hurt his rebounding is mind boggling. Seriously.

Scottie pippen averaged 6.4 in 35 mpg
gerald wallace 6.1 in 31
Paul pierce avaerages 6 in 37
iguodala 5.8 in 37.7
This has got to be a stat I am making up....lebron averages 5.9 in 39.9

That really makes harrison barnes 5.5 in 29.3 minutes look crazy mediocre.
And you are comparing what robinson did in 1 year as a junior to what barnes did in back to back years as a freshmen and sophomore. I bet you used to tell 3rd graders how you already read that book (when you were in 4th grade).

I'm not arguing my opinion....I'm stating facts. You just make ish up.

You draw comparisons to kyle korver and matt carroll and anthony morrow for 3 pt shooting, then you compare to thomas robinson for rebounding, then you say MKG is better when dudes stats do not at all suggest that. Advanced defensive stats suggest that dude is onlly slightly better defensively while offensively it's a landslide to barnes. AND to boot with your "argument" his assists are right in like with barnes' while his turnovers are higher. For all that weak passing you say barnes does, he def wasn't a ball stopper and his turnover rate was exceptional for his scoring.

We need offense. We need leadership. We need a complete player.

Again argue for robinson in favor of barnes all day....that's reasonable. And more a choice of position/style. But 7 other people? you are going to ruin free speech for the rest of us.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 17, 2012 3:55:33 AM

Sandy & Charlottean

I see the stats and "logic" that each of you are applying to Barnes/Robinson but I think the biggest selling point for Robinson is his toughness. Based on what the Bobcats have said is a need it would seem to me that Robonson makes more sense at #2. In three years I can see him as a 20/10 guy with attitude.

Posted by: TrueBBallFan | Jun 17, 2012 11:24:10 AM

^^^^ That I can buy into. He's in exceptional shape too. I believe the best body fat % of prospects.

I am not at all against robinson being taken at 2. I think trading back is still the best option, and I take major exception to those that dismiss barnes as a prospect especially for the lack of reasoning given.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 17, 2012 2:36:23 PM

True BBallFan, I agree with you.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 17, 2012 9:14:41 PM

ch., I gave a fair summary of Harrison Barnes' strengths and weaknesses, and I already answered your point about playing with two very good rebounders in the same team. Then, I'm writing about low ability to create for others (as confirmed by low assists), and you answer about low TOs. Two different categories. Also, I explained why I see MKG as better than HB. Most people agree to this; you don't and that's your right.

I didn't dismiss him as a prospect, I said he's not in my top eight. I have in mind six players I definitely see as better NBA prospects than him, and four others at more or less the same level.
That's where I was subjective: I put him lower than players at about the same level, because, as I mentioned already, his last season was below expectations, and his performance in the tourney was even more disappointing.
So OK, he can be 7th or 8th overall; he'll go higher, and that's overrated.
For me, that's more than enough arguing about this player.


Now, here is something about the method of comparison. Again, you want to compare his college stats to NBA career averages, which is totally wrong. Just like with the 3 point shooting, this is apples and oranges.

On rebounding; the NBA is tougher, you face much stronger competition, also you don't (in most cases) achieve high numbers early on in the career, and, during long careers, weaker years are inevitable (I explained why in that earlier post). [Anyway, 1. those players have higher numbers even in the NBA and 2. if you chose to do it, you should at least have the correct numbers. LeBron's NBA career averages is 7.2 RPG for regular season; for playoffs, it's much higher].

Also, for ANY Draft prospect, I look at his last year in college; that's fairness, because they usually improve from season to season. So, I'll keep this comparison to second year in college. Now, you can't do this for one-and-dones; there, you only have their freshman year to compare, which in most cases is a disadvantage when comparing to a sophomore.

So, in his sophomore year Barnes had 5.2 RPG, down from 5.8 RPG as a freshman. If he went up .6, that would've been 6.4 RPG (2nd year), and I would've said: really good! But he went down, and heck no, 5.2 RPG for a high Draft prospect is not good.
The fact that he improved in a few stats categories, and declined in a few others caused many UNC fans - and also journalists and scouts - to declare his sophomore year "disappointing", because of lack of significant improvement -
which is what you ask for from a highly touted NBA prospect.

Please understand: any judgment on him is RELATED to being a high Draft prospect, and so are any comparisons.

Paul Pierce: 6.7 RPG, 10th overall.
Andre Iguodala: 8.4 RPG, 10th.
Gerald Wallace: 6 RPG, 25th overall.

Luol Deng: 6.9 RPG, 9th.
Trevor Ariza: 6.5 RPG, 14th.

I entered here the players you mentioned, plus a couple more. (Scottie's college stats? unavailable and of course, LeBron never played in college).

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 17, 2012 9:28:21 PM

apologies on the lebron number, that was his defensive rebounds per game number.

7.2 in 40 still makes the point.

I hear what you are saying, but you fail to factor in how a team can influence someone's stats. look at chris bosh. look at dwayne wade. you put guys on an island and they have inflated numbers than when you put them on a team.

none of the guys you named had 2 double digit rebounders on their team like barnes did with barnes and zeller. they also weren't 1 of 4 lottery picks. you say this doesn't matter as if it is even humanly impossible for 1 team to get EVERY SINGLE rebound for themselves. UNC was 1st in rebounding this year they were a horrible 2nd last year. saying barnes numbers were mediocre is like saying ron harper is a mediocre scoring threat after watching his 1st season with the bulls.

You say that it's harder to get rebounds in the pros but....statistically that's not true. there are way more rebounds per game in the pros. more shots, more minutes. more actual rebounding opportunities. still 10 players on the floor. harder competition yes but less rebounds? they don't move the line back like they do with 3's. it's still the same thing. wing players numbers usually suffer because they go from being the best rebounder in the lineup to the 3rd or 4th best. or they change positions going to the pros due to size. That's not the case with barnes.

iguodala, ariza, pippen (who averaged 8.1 rpg over 4 years at central arkansas), deng and pierce all clocked a few more minutes....wallace clocked significantly less.

pierce had lafrentz, ariza had.........,deng had shelden williams, iggy had channing frye, pippen had nobody, wallace had erwin dudley. none of them had 2 lottery pick bigs. none of them led the nation in team rebounding.

there is a finite number of rebounds per game based on how many shots were taken. same with assists. you have to factor it all in to get to true comps. you cannot say that by being on the same team as tyler zeller and john henson, harrison barnes' rebounding numbers were not affected. not logical.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 18, 2012 4:38:45 PM

Wow. I think they got this right. Now we just need to maneuver the draft.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 18, 2012 11:22:54 PM

charlottean, I compared him directly with Kidd Gilchrist on the rebounding issue, and I reminded you that MKG also played with two very good rebounders: Anthony Davis, and Terrence Jones.

MKG is stronger, tougher and more athletic than HB, he knows how to use his physical attributes, and that's why he's the better rebounder between the two. That's the point I made, and anybody I know commenting on this draft agrees with it.

As for playing in the same team with Zeller and Henson (who, btw, are sadly underrated - just as HB is still somewhat overrated, though less than a year ago), that explains why you can't expect from ANY SF playing with them to get some super numbers in rebounding - like 8 to 10 RPG (examples: Kenneth Faried, Shawn Marion, even Iggy as college sophomores, and our own Gerald W., in some seasons with the 'Cats). But, it stops here. It's definitely no excuse for going down instead of up as a sophomre: as I already said, from 5.8 to 5.2 RPG, instead of 5.8 to 6.4 RPG ! No excuse for that.

Really, don't you think it's time to stop arguing about this player ?! He can be picked anywhere between 7-8 to 10-11 in this Draft as far as I'm concerned,
he'll actually go 4th or 5th, he's NOT gonna be a Bobcat anyway - so, it's really not that important to keep overscrutinizing and discussing him. Really.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 19, 2012 2:29:14 AM

A little correction: Shawn Marion is an one-and-done, so his 9.3 RPG was in his freshman year.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 19, 2012 2:37:22 AM

Wow Rick really scored a coup here. It's down to Sloan, Shaw and Snyder and the cats choose......Dunlap!

Posted by: apauldds | Jun 19, 2012 8:50:41 AM

Faried and marion are 4's who sometimes guard 3's. You talk about comparing apples to oranges. Best player for comparison purposes you've given has been luol deng. And he's available if we give chicago the number 2 pick (so they can take barrnes). No bs, we give up #2, we get luol deng. They may even take diop or carroll's salary if they have to.

I'm saying everything I'm saying because I expect barnes to be an elite nba player. Us not drafting him (even at 2) is a mistake. I think trading back to cleveland's spot, getting him AND an additional pick is probably the best thing we could do. Except he might not be there at 4.

You can't knock a small forward for losing out on .6 rebounds per game to his teammates when the team's rebounding rate, rank, and totals improve.

I said the mkg situation was very similar. Kentucky was 2nd in rebounding. They had a stacked team. Now zeller and henson had a bit more size and 2 years more experience, but the mkg comp is fine. The others isn't. I said that. And in mkg you lose on offense for what you get on defense. We need offense.

And for all the proported athletic advantages, barnes tested out better in about half the exams at the combine. And has better size.

How you can say that zeller and henson are underrated and in the same breath say barnes is overrated because of his lack of rebounding just blows my mind. I don't understand how you don't see your contradiction.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 19, 2012 10:15:21 AM

You stated your case on Harrison Barnes, I stated mine, and really, there's nothing significant on this subject that wasn't said already here (two or three times).
So, for me arguing on this player is closed.


I will only clarify that I mentioned
Kenneth Faried and Shawn Marion as examples of players who are about the same size with Barnes and had very high rebounding stats in college. And my point was that such rebounding
COULD NOT BE expected of Barnes, exactly BECAUSE of playing with Zeller and Henson. That's what make sense to say in his favor.

But to say that no little improvement of rebounding could be expected of him - when he became a sophomore (which usually means necessary improvement), even when the team as a whole improved in rebounding, that's very different, it's what you can believe if you like - but it's stretching a point beyond any credibility (trust me, I tried to find the nicest way to say this...).

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 19, 2012 5:28:57 PM

In hindsight this was not a very good piece of reporting. Makes me doubt other things I'll read from you in the future unless you give us a believable accounting of why you got this wrong.

Posted by: JeffP | Jun 19, 2012 7:15:29 PM

haha....thanks for clarifying the last comps, but you're wayyyyyy off harping on his "lack of improvement". rebounding is about getting the ball for your team. his team did that better than anybody else. he didn't lose rebounds to the opponents he lost them to his teammates. which was the way the roles were supposed to be played.

that's a joke.

Posted by: charlottean | Jun 20, 2012 1:14:35 PM

No, pal.
The joke is to say "he didn't take more rebounds because others were doing it for him".

1. MKG didn't say: "Rebounds? No problem. The Unibrow and Terrence are enough to get the job done..." No. All THREE of them did very well at it. #1: the C. #2: the PF. #3: the SF - MKG at 7.4 RPG as a freshman.

2. One of many points you prefer to ignore: the total amounts of rebounds available per game is limited, but there is NO such thing as a rigid limit to the number of rebounds per game PER TEAM. The more capable rebounders you have, the more rebounds your team gets - and the fewer get in the opponents' hands. And when the SF's rebounding declines, while the team's rebounding increases, although the talented SF is absolutely expected to improve in his sophomore year (like college players who get to be starters as sophomores usually do), that says something about the talented SF.

Keep making excuses for your idol, it evidently helps you feel better. As for me, I call it as I see it; no personal preference, just preferring those I see as better prospects (one at SF, six others (at least) at all positions in this Draft).

3. Will you ever get it? I'm sick and tired of arguing about Barnes, his shooting, his passing, his rebounding, or what he had for breakfast yesterday. There are other talented players in this Draft, there are other interesting things happening in the basketball world, there are other interesting things, period. This going round and round in circles
around ONE player, arguing endlessly and repeating endlessly the same points, this is absurd.

Anybody reading this should be scratching his head: "so why do you keep answering ?!! You know very well ch. will stick to his guns, you already said you don't care that he'll NEVER change his mind, so ?...".
Well, because it's annoying you're arguing with me in a twisted way (distorting some things I said, ignoring various others).

Here is a deal for you: make a big resounding statement, saying why Harrison Barnes is the best Tar Heel and best small forward in this Draft, remind us that the Cats should do whatever it takes not to miss out on this wonderful prospect, then follow this with an unforgiving statement that "anybody who can't understand this doesn't know anything about basketball", and leave it at that.
As long as you won't take issue with what I said, in your distorting ways, I promise, I won't argue with you again. But, if you make it a personal argument again, I don't know, I might get nasty ... because, man, you're pursuing this issue with great passion, but I don't care anymore at all about arguing on this player.
So, feel free to pour your heart out, and make your definitive statement on the wonderful Harrison Barnes - but, leave me out of it.

Posted by: Sandy | Jun 20, 2012 3:39:14 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.