What's new
By:

Stan Van gundy on Gordon Hayward...

latin jazz

latin jazz

Well-Known Member
A few quotes from SVG which I found interesting (considering some think he could a HC candidate next year):

"I think he’s a very good player, very athletic, can do a lot of things. But I think the way the game is going, a perimeter guy who is not a good shooter, not a real good shooter, I think that limits his value in today’s game."

On Gordon's value:

""a little bit above the mid-level exception,"

Ouuuuch. Personally I think gordon is a good shooter but just inconsistet. I also believe he is worth around 8-10 million. He has this long streches when he shoots like crap. The last few years he started shooting the ball much better after the all star break. Let's see.

Source: https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/57537340-87/hayward-think-jazz-gundy.html.csp
 
The difference between a star and a complementary player is consistency. Lots of guys can have good games, but can a particular player be RELIED upon? Hayward has never shown that he is that kind of player.

Glue guys are important, and Hayward is one of the better ones. I just have a hard time figuring out the worth of a guy like that on a team that will ideally have at least two legitimate max guys also on the team.
 
SVG would be right at home with the Jazz. He could make it like the poor-man's Dwight Howard-era Orlando Magic.

Burke = Nelson
Hayward = Hedo
Favors = Howard
 
NUMBERICA said:
The difference between a star and a complementary player is consistency. Lots of guys can have good games, but can a particular player be RELIED upon? Hayward has never shown that he is that kind of player.

Glue guys are important, and Hayward is one of the better ones. I just have a hard time figuring out the worth of a guy like that on a team that will ideally have at least two legitimate max guys also on the team.
Click to expand...

Don't see any legitimate max guys on the team yet. If that guy is in the draft, and we get him, his new contract will start when Hayward's new one ends, so you could prioritize the money back to the max guy if needed.
 
Also, Hayward's career pattern says he is going to be unconscious from deep next year.

Flat out refuse to believe there is a white person in the NBA who isn't a really good shooter.
 
If history repeats itself for the 4th straight year, Gordon is about to get real nasty come March. Something about March Madness that gets Hayward going.
 
NUMBERICA said:
The difference between a star and a complementary player is consistency. Lots of guys can have good games, but can a particular player be RELIED upon? Hayward has never shown that he is that kind of player.
Click to expand...

True. At this point, even Burks is bringing more to the table every night
 
latin jazz said:
A few quotes from SVG which I found interesting (considering some think he could a HC candidate next year):

"I think he’s a very good player, very athletic, can do a lot of things. But I think the way the game is going, a perimeter guy who is not a good shooter, not a real good shooter, I think that limits his value in today’s game."

On Gordon's value:

""a little bit above the mid-level exception,"

Ouuuuch. Personally I think gordon is a good shooter but just inconsistet. I also believe he is worth around 8-10 million. He has this long streches when he shoots like crap. The last few years he started shooting the ball much better after the all star break. Let's see.

Source: https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/57537340-87/hayward-think-jazz-gundy.html.csp
Click to expand...
I agree with the "not a real good shooter" part, but the part about Gordon's value being "a little bit above the mid-level exception" is ridiculous. The mid-level exception is $5.15M/year. I think Gordon's "fair" value is around $8-9M/year.
 
Here's my take on Gordon: if he's next to Jabari he's going to look really, really good an teams will have a difficult time defending them in tandem. If the team maintains a similar status quo structure, then there will be a lot of debate around his value. This brings me to my next point: why the hell aren't we tanking harder?
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
If history repeats itself for the 4th straight year, Gordon is about to get real nasty come March. Something about March Madness that gets Hayward going.
Click to expand...

Lol. I just looked it up and you're right. I knew he was better the second half of the season but it is way more significant than I had in mind.

2010-11:
52 G / 13.1 MIN / 3.6 PTS / .438 FG% / .367 3P%
20 G / 26.7 MIN / 10.1PTS / .536 FG% / .545 3P%

2011-12:
34 G / 27.7 MIN / 9.5 PTS / .424 FG% / .233 3P%
32 G / 33.5 MIN / 14.3PTS / .483 FG% / .442 3P%

2012-13:
48 G / 27.1 MIN / 14.0PTS / .429 FG% / .395 3P%
24 G / 33.4 MIN / 14.4PTS / .446 FG% / .444 3P%

Good to see that he steps up his game coming PO time but starting next year we need that from the get go!
 
Gordon is shooting 40% from the field this year. His poor shooting performances far out weigh his good shooting nights. Here are the reasons I think he isn't shooting well this year.

1. Way too much responsibility on the offense. Bringing up the ball and trying to create is very taxing on the legs and flattens out his shot.
2. Ty's offense does not produce screens and it's pretty rare for us to swing the ball from one side to the other. Gordon often looks like he is forcing his jumper.
3. Gordon needs a back-to-the basket move. He is often taller than his defenders, but he can't take advantage of it.
4. Let's face it, his contract has weighed him down this year and he gets really down after missing his first two jumpers.
5. I heard Locke say that Gordon practices with friends in the off season and doesn't concentrate on shooting...his shooting percentage proves this.
 
sojodave said:
Gordon is shooting 40% from the field this year. His poor shooting performances far out weigh his good shooting nights. Here are the reasons I think he isn't shooting well this year.
Click to expand...

Let's say that 50% is a good shooting night, and 30% is a bad shooting night. That would mean he is have just as many good shooting nights as bad ones to have 40%. I don't think he could have more bad shooting nights then good and be at 40%.

_

Just looked it up
he's had 24 games under 40% and 23 games above 40%. So he's pretty much had has many good shooting nights as bad.
 
Primetime said:
Lol. I just looked it up and you're right. I knew he was better the second half of the season but it is way more significant than I had in mind.

2010-11:
52 G / 13.1 MIN / 3.6 PTS / .438 FG% / .367 3P%
20 G / 26.7 MIN / 10.1PTS / .536 FG% / .545 3P%

2011-12:
34 G / 27.7 MIN / 9.5 PTS / .424 FG% / .233 3P%
32 G / 33.5 MIN / 14.3PTS / .483 FG% / .442 3P%

2012-13:
48 G / 27.1 MIN / 14.0PTS / .429 FG% / .395 3P%
24 G / 33.4 MIN / 14.4PTS / .446 FG% / .444 3P%

Good to see that he steps up his game coming PO time but starting next year we need that from the get go!
Click to expand...

20 is half of 72? 24 is half of 72?
A little arbitrary with dividing those stats. I agree he's been better towards the end of the season, but to use "half" would mean along the lines of your 2011-12 split for the other 2 seasons.
 
Doublea said:
Let's say that 50% is a good shooting night, and 30% is a bad shooting night. That would mean he is have just as many good shooting nights as bad ones to have 40%. I don't think he could have more bad shooting nights then good and be at 40%.
Click to expand...
Assume
1. 60% or above is great.
1. 50%-59.9% is very good.
2. 40-49.9% is "average" (and I say that because I think 40% is not very good and 49% would be very good).
3. 30-39.9% is bad.
4. Under 29.9% is abysmal.

Hayward this season
1. Great = 4
2. Very good = 8
3. Average = 11
4. Bad = 12
5. Abysmal = 12

TBH, 40% average is at the very low end of acceptable. Compared against the "qualifying" SG's (those on pace for 300 or more made FG's), Hayward is 27th. Only J.R. Smith is worse. If you look at SF's, all 17 listed at the position have higher shooting percentages than Hayward.

Whichever way you slice and dice, Gordon is having the worst year of his career in a season in which there is huge motivation to perform at a top level. Pressure of trying to do too much? Perhaps. But if he wants to be paid at the level of an all-star, he should be performing at the level of an all-star level.
 
Core4 said:
Assume
1. 60% or above is great.
1. 50%-59.9% is very good.
2. 40-49.9% is "average" (and I say that because I think 40% is not very good and 49% would be good).
3. 30-39.9% is bad.
4. Under 29.9% is abysmal.

Hayward this season
1. Great = 4
2. Very good = 8
3. Average = 11
4. Bad = 12
5. Abysmal = 12

TBH, 40% average is at the very low end of acceptable. Compared against the "qualifying" SG's (those on pace for 300 or more made FG's), Hayward is 27th. Only J.R. Smith is worse. If you look at SF's, all 17 listed at the position have higher shooting percentages than Hayward.

Whichever way you slice and dice, Gordon is having the worst year of his career in a season in which there is huge motivation to perform at a top level. Pressure of trying to do too much? Perhaps. But if he wants to be paid at the level of an all-star, he should be performing at the level of an all-star level.
Click to expand...

When did he say he wanted to be paid like an All-Star?
 
Doublea;767040[COLOR=#ff0000 said:
[/COLOR]]Let's say that 50% is a good shooting night, and 30% is a bad shooting night. That would mean he is have just as many good shooting nights as bad ones to have 40%. I don't think he could have more bad shooting nights then good and be at 40%.

_

Just looked it up
he's had 24 games under 40% and 23 games above 40%. So he's pretty much had has many good shooting nights as bad.
Click to expand...

You redefined your criteria to fit the conclusion you wanted to reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top