The psychology behind starting Barnes

In a vacuum, the Warriors' starting lineup doesn't make sense for the NBA Finals vs. the Cavaliers. Super-sub Andre Iguodala is better at defending LeBron James than any player in Golden State's starting lineup, and James, of course, happens to start. The Warriors instead are beginning with Harrison Barnes on LeBron, mainly because he's their starter. To be clear, Barnes has had a fine defensive postseason, and he also gives full effort on that end of the floor. This just doesn't look like his matchup.

In Game 1, with Iguodala as LeBron's primary defender, the Cavs' star shot 4-of-14, with three turnovers. With Barnes as the primary, James was 7-of-10, with one giveaway. One of those misses against Barnes was a probable make that Andrew Bogut salvaged with a swat, and the turnover came via an astute steal by the Aussie. On Thursday, LeBron found what he wanted against Barnes and looked mostly befuddled against Iguodala.

Small sample size? Sure, but the larger sample size still favors Iguodala as Golden State's best option here. He's been guarding LeBron for eons, and doing a better job of it than pretty much anyone else. Also, the Warriors essentially tipped their hand on who's best for this job. When James had one shot to win the game, he was guarded by Iguodala, not Barnes.

When I asked if he might change the starting lineup in this series, coach Steve Kerr was succinct: "You realize we're 80 and 18?" When asked if that means such a change is "off the table," Kerr said again, "We're 80 and 18. You can take that for what it's worth."

Fair enough. The Warriors have won games at a higher rate than Paul Pierce makes free throws. It's difficult to argue with those results. When I relayed this exchange on Twitter, there were variations of "what a stupid question," which is understandable. It might well be a dumb question, but I wonder if more people would be asking it if, say, Iman Shumpert's buzzer-beater had bounced in. LeBron played 21 minutes with Iguodala on the bench, scoring 23 points on 16 shots. In a game decided by such a thin margin, this could have mattered a lot. After the threat passed, after Kyrie Irving suffered a series-ending injury in overtime, it's easy to get deterministic about the outcome.

To be sure, there are reasons to continue with a starting lineup that has been wildly successful. There are even reasons beyond that wild success, mostly of the psychological bent. There's a risk associated with giving a player a role that can be viewed as a demotion. David Lee might be an object lesson in this. His (necessary) role reduction quickly turned into a production falloff. Asking for less of the player meant losing the player.

Last season, Barnes was that guy. The Warriors shifted him to the bench and his production tanked, but many factors were associated with that slip. He was often surrounded by worse players and was forced into running isolation plays that didn't suit his game.

Still, there's a widespread perception that the demotion killed Barnes' confidence. Without getting into the realm of mind reading, Barnes' reputation is that of a man whose intelligence can sometimes be a hurdle. In the right situation, being analytical is a tremendous advantage. In the wrong one, that sensitivity leads to decision-stalling "analysis paralysis." This season has seen the more stilted aspects of Barnes' game smooth out. He's playing off the ball, often fluidly, and coming up huge in certain playoff moments.

The Warriors are quite pleased by this development, especially owner Joe Lacob, who especially likes Barnes. There's even some guilt internally over how the coaching chaos early in his career might have put Barnes' development on hold. Barnes was caught between the squabbles of former coach Mark Jackson and assistant coach Darren Erman. This season, Barnes has finally been able to growth amid stability.

His continued growth is key for Golden State's future because the Warriors have so much salary committed going forward. The isn't to say that future concerns dictate a current Finals lineup -- just that Barnes is a paramount project. It's crucial for the Warriors to develop their younger players as their veterans age.

Speaking of Iguodala, he's a victim of his own professionalism this season. You can move Iguodala to the bench without worrying about how it impacts his game. He'll find a way to help the team. Iguodala clearly didn't love getting ousted from the starting lineup by a youngster he solidly outplayed last season, but he also found new ways to contribute. Iguodala doesn't come off the bench so much as he runs the bench. He frequently expresses pride in the play of the second unit because he views it as something autonomous that he holds sway over.

So that makes two team chemistry issues to account for if you shift Iguodala to the starting five. There's the concern over how it would impact Barnes, plus the concern over what would happen to the bench without its leader. If you want to tack on a third concern, we're not exactly sure how Iguodala might play if his routine is disrupted.

Starting Iguodala is the right basketball move. He's the better Bron defender, and starting maximizes his time on that assignment. Sometimes, though, the right basketball move is ignored for an understandable explanation. In making this kind of choice, the Warriors are accounting for the psychology of their players. They could be wrong in choosing this, but they have their reasons. And, like their starting small forward, the 80-win team is pretty confident this season.

Open all references in tabs: [1 - 7]

Leave a Reply