Scottie Barnes did almost everything All-NBA voters claim to value. He was the clear best player on a playoff team, filled every column of the box score and defended at an elite level, as proven by his fifth-place finish in Defensive Player of the Year voting. In total, Barnes averaged 18.1 points, 7.5 rebounds and 5.9 assists while leading the Raptors to the fifth seed.
Somehow, that still was not enough to earn him an All-NBA spot. Despite putting together one of the most well-rounded seasons in the league, Barnes was left off all three All-NBA Teams. Instead, the All-NBA Third Team was made up of Tyrese Maxey, Jamal Murray, Jalen Johnson, Jalen Duren and Chet Holmgren.
All five players were coming off amazing seasons in their own right, but were they all really better than Scottie Barnes?
Scottie Barnes was the Raptors' best player
Winning should count for something. Holmgren and Duren were both starting centers on 60-win teams, and that clearly helped their cases. At the same time, both players were much more limited offensively than Barnes and benefited from playing alongside All-NBA First Team selections.
Holmgren finished second in Defensive Player of the Year voting, so his inclusion is easier to understand. The Duren comparison is much harder to justify.
Duren received a single third-place vote in the Defensive Player of the Year race. He was also only voted to an All-Defense Team by six voters, while Barnes was voted to an All-Defense Team by 88 of a possible 100 voters. Based on how voters evaluated defense in other award races, Barnes clearly had a much stronger defensive season than Duren.
If Duren’s All-NBA case was built heavily on winning and defense, then Barnes had a very strong argument of his own. He was the better overall offensive player and based on the voting results, the better defender.
Barnes’ all-around value should have mattered more
Comparing Barnes to the other three All-NBA Third Teamers is different. Maxey, Murray and Johnson are all offensive fulcrums for their teams. Their raw offensive numbers were stronger than Barnes’, and that clearly carried a lot of weight with voters. Again, Barnes was clearly the better defensive player, but the debate then comes down to what voters value more.
It is also worth mentioning that Barnes had better on/off ratings than both Maxey and Johnson. If winning counts for something, Barnes also played on a higher seed than both of them. There is a legitimate argument that Barnes contributed more to winning than either player, even if his offensive numbers were not quite as impressive.
That is not meant to take anything away from the players who made an All-NBA Team. Maxey, Murray, Johnson, Duren and Holmgren all had tremendous seasons. The issue is not that they were undeserving. The issue is that Barnes had a case voters seemed too willing to overlook.
Are we valuing being the focal point of a successful team enough? Are we valuing defense enough? Are we valuing players who contribute in every area, even when their scoring numbers are not the flashiest?
Barnes put together one of the most complete seasons in the league while leading the Raptors to the fifth seed in the Eastern Conference. He did not need an All-NBA selection to validate his season, but his omission says a lot about what voters still overlook.
Add us as a preferred source on Google