What's new
By:

Gordon Hayward or Chandler Parsons?

Parsons is pretty much the same player as Hayward minus the multiple month-long slumps and horrific shooting percentages. I'll take the more consistent player. It's Parsons for me.
 
akirac73 said:
Parsons is pretty much the same player as Hayward minus the multiple month-long slumps and horrific shooting percentages. I'll take the more consistent player. It's Parsons for me.
Click to expand...

Grass always seems greener on the other side. Hayward is by far the better player, and this is the first year he's finished with bad %'s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
Bodhi-bro, did you watch the playoffs? Go read clutch fans from around that time period. Parsons was crucified. He had a knack for being completely scoreless in the 2nd half all series long, in a tightly-contested series. His defense was porous. In fact, the only meaningful possession he had offensively was that tip-in right before Damian Lillard drained the game-winner. Hundreds of posters slam Parsons as weak, mentally-speaking. Apparently before the series, Parsons announced that he's the best SF of either team-- and clutch fans constantly brought this up amidst laughter as Batum outplayed him on both ends of the floor.
Click to expand...

It's often useful to get another perspective. These fan boards are infused with negativity, gloom and despair and it's easy to succumb to the 'grass is always greener' thinking. Again, try making Parsons the #1 option, and that's the closest I can come to guaranteeing that his efficiency would suffer significantly, same as Batum. All three are highly skilled complementary players, put any of them in the primary role, and it's a matter of time before the fan base will start wanting to show him the door.

By the way, I watched the entire Portland/Houston series and I don't agree that Batum badly outplayed Parsons all the time. Batum is another player that can have a great game one night and disappear for the next 3 games (at least during reg season).
 
what conclusion is to be drawn from Haywards playoff #'s ? nothing? excuses?

18.4ppg and 7 rebounds a game on 40% shooting from 3 in that series from Parsons, if thats what Rockets fans are complaining about from a player making 850k they're spoiled rotten.

Hayward's not any more consistent, we have all seen the disappearing act in games the Jazz desperately need offense. Im not saying Parsons should be a #1 option or that he's the answer on offense, I just think its a better fit. I dont think theres a great gap in skill, i just prefer Parsons who at this point is definitely a more natural SF.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Put Hayward in the second or third option who can do pick'n roll, and from time to time be the lead guy with less pressure, he'd be an Allstar Hayward is a better offensive and defensive player and stat stuffer. Hayward by a mile.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you can say Hayward is "a mile" better than Parsons, the facts do not bear that out.

Parsons averaged more points, rebounds, shot the ball better (both FG & 3PT) and had less turnovers than Hayward this past season. Hayward had more assists and shot better from the FT line.
Even the career numbers are better for Parsons...

Parsons: 14.1 ppg, 47.3% FG, 37.0% 3PT, 5.2 RPG, 3.3 APG
Hayward: 12.0 ppg, 43.6% FG, 36.5% 3PT, 3.4 RPG, 3.1 APG

All in all, I'd say they are very equal.
 
If Hayward's camp is seeking $12M+/year and Parsons' only $8-10M/year...it's a ****ing absolute no brainer you go for Parsons. One is asking to be overpaid, the other is not.
 
Core4 said:
Really? Link?
Both Perrin and Lindsey have talked about expecting and wanting him back.
Click to expand...

Jazz said the same things about Marshall, Boozer, Bell, AK and others. It is business as always for the Jazz and if he gets 11+ mil offer from other team he is gone like a wind.
 
akirac73 said:
If Hayward's camp is seeking $12M+/year and Parsons' only $8-10M/year...it's a ****ing absolute no brainer you go for Parsons. One is asking to be overpaid, the other is not.
Click to expand...

Yes sir
 
akirac73 said:
Not sure how you can say Hayward is "a mile" better than Parsons, the facts do not bear that out.

Parsons averaged more points, rebounds, shot the ball better (both FG & 3PT) and had less turnovers than Hayward this past season. Hayward had more assists and shot better from the FT line.
Even the career numbers are better for Parsons...

Parsons: 14.1 ppg, 47.3% FG, 37.0% 3PT, 5.2 RPG, 3.3 APG
Hayward: 12.0 ppg, 43.6% FG, 36.5% 3PT, 3.4 RPG, 3.1 APG

All in all, I'd say they are very equal.
Click to expand...

Put Hayward with Howard, and the beard, and Parsons with Favors and Kanter, and it's not even close!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Put Hayward with Howard, and the beard, and Parsons with Favors and Kanter, and it's not even close!
Click to expand...
So basically you're saying, based on pure speculation and disregarding any statistics, Hayward is "a mile" better than Parsons. OK...just wanted to know what your analysis was based on, not very analytical but it's an analysis nonetheless...
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Put Hayward with Howard, and the beard, and Parsons with Favors and Kanter, and it's not even close!
Click to expand...
Just for ****s and giggles...I did a different comparison. In the 2012-13 season, Parsons didn't have Dwight Howard (a low post threat to draw double teams), and Gordon Hayward had better talent to play with (Big Al and Millsap). Here's how the numbers compared:

Parsons: 15.5 ppg, 48.6% FG, 38.5% 3PT, 5.3 RPG, 3.5 APG
Hayward: 14.1 ppg, 43.5% FG, 41.5% 3PT, 3.1 RPG, 3.0 APG

Still...Parsons put up better numbers than Hayward (without Dwight Howard). In fact, Parson's numbers went down this season compared to last, so having Dwight Howard on the team didn't help him statistically.
 
This was going to be my post originally:

Too lazy to find stats to back this up, but I swear every time they go head to head Parsons outplays GTime.

But...I decided not to be lazy.

10 games, both sat out 1. Jazz 4-6. Min, Ast, TO, Stl are virtually identical (32-ish, 4.1, 3.1, 2.1, 1.1). Parsons has 1 more rebound and block per game. Scoring and shooting (EFG%) Hayward has a good edge at 18.1 and 62% vs Parsons at 12.1 and 56%.

Here's the individual game-by-game breakdown: google doc
 
akirac73 said:
So basically you're saying, based on pure speculation and disregarding any statistics, Hayward is "a mile" better than Parsons. OK...just wanted to know what your analysis was based on, not very analytical but it's an analysis nonetheless...
Click to expand...

Statistically Hayward has a higher PER despite having a career worst 3pt shooting season (by a wide margin).
 
AKMVP said:
Jazz said the same things about Marshall, Boozer, Bell, AK and others. It is business as always for the Jazz and if he gets 11+ mil offer from other team he is gone like a wind.
Click to expand...
They never said that about Boozer. They let him look for a trade the year before his contract was up. AK? No offer was extended after his MAX contract expired. As for Bell, yes, but he was a FA and signed a deal with Phoenix at 12:01.
 
akirac73 said:
Just for ****s and giggles...I did a different comparison. In the 2012-13 season, Parsons didn't have Dwight Howard (a low post threat to draw double teams), and Gordon Hayward had better talent to play with (Big Al and Millsap). Here's how the numbers compared:

Parsons: 15.5 ppg, 48.6% FG, 38.5% 3PT, 5.3 RPG, 3.5 APG
Hayward: 14.1 ppg, 43.5% FG, 41.5% 3PT, 3.1 RPG, 3.0 APG

Still...Parsons put up better numbers than Hayward (without Dwight Howard). In fact, Parson's numbers went down this season compared to last, so having Dwight Howard on the team didn't help him statistically.
Click to expand...

Just for ****s and giggles, maybe you should look at how many minutes they played.

Parsons 12-13: per 36 15.4/5.3/3.5 PER 15.3
Hayward 12-13: per 36 17.4/3.8/3.6 PER 16.8

Parsons didn't put up better numbers than Hayward that year.

And you shouldn't expect 'bigger numbers' from a guy when you put a star on a team. You should expect more efficiency.
 
cjs55 said:
Just for ****s and giggles, maybe you should look at how many minutes they played.

Parsons 12-13: per 36 15.4/5.3/3.5 PER 15.3
Hayward 12-13: per 36 17.4/3.8/3.6 PER 16.8

Parsons didn't put up better numbers than Hayward that year.

And you shouldn't expect 'bigger numbers' from a guy when you put a star on a team. You should expect more efficiency.
Click to expand...
Maybe for ****s and giggles you should try understanding the context of my post...It's in response to some dude claiming that Hayward is a mile better than Parsons (and according to him...It's not even close). All I'm contending is that they are very similar. Can you prove otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top