Trade idea, Hayward to the Suns

[Hekate]

Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.

Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.

The stats? Someone named Rgiss pulled out some stats to see how much his game score deviated ans its lower than some players whom you may call more consistent . https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/3z6kf0/consistency_makes_a_superstar_best_nba_players/

After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

It was his first year being the first option under a bad coach. I suppose it is only natural but yeah he wasn't that good that year but he did come around eventually, didn't he?

Hayward has some "haters" around here, more than Hood at least. I really doubt Hood has been shown anything but love around here.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Hayward had an usage rate of %17.8, Hood had %21.5.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward had an usage rate of %17.8, Hood had %21.5.

Hopefully, but I doubt it, he could be a better scorer but he won't be near him in any other categories.

And why do you think Hayward was coddled, he was our pick and we tried to groom him as much as possible. Why is that wrong?

Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.

Nice assumption, I don't listen to those at all. Different time zone.

Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.

Who is trading a first option for Hayward?

 

[Stoked]

Some good b-ball discussion all the sudden. I'm liking it.

 

[franklin]

when you watch SAS or GSW (especially GSW), the most striking thing is how quickly their offenses identify mismatches. They quickly read HOW and WHERE their opponents' transition defense has put them at a disadvantage. When GSW is clicking, they have that figured out by the time they cross half court, and they start attacking that point IMMEDIATELY. If they don't get what they want, they start a half-court set IMMEDIATELY. Both of these teams are excellently coached, and know their strengths at each PLACE on the floor RELATIVE TO the personnel on the floor. --The Jazz are **** at this, and I think that's a big reason why our offense is bad (they don't consistently attack on the break; and they take too long to get into a space-clogged half-court offense).

I really hope that they get better at attacking on the break, identifying mismatches EARLY (in less than 5 seconds), and using Hayward and Hood equivalently within the offense. Our offense shouldn't be looking for either of them by default (we default to Hayward waaaaay too much to be a good offense). Reward the player who's picked the right lane and created a mismatch (Draymond is great at this). If Exum is anything like what we thought he was, then he should be an asset in this kind of offensive flow (pushing pace, passing over the defense [sometimes long skip passes are extremely effective at taking advantage of a mismatch]).

I think we're lucky to have the combo of Hayward, Hood, and Exum. Hopefully they figure it out soon, before we no longer have that combo.

I disagree in part. They aren't exceptional at identifying the mismatches. The problem comes in them not being able to exploit mismatches. They had some huge blunders last season attempting to do what seemed like an easy or automatic bucket. That alone shows the lack of talent and drastic need for upgrades.

 

[franklin]

The stats? Someone named Rgiss pulled out some stats to see how much his game score deviated ans its lower than some players whom you may call more consistent

What is "game score"? I lead this standard dev discussion about Favors about a month ago and the consensus was that stdev probably wasn't the best measurement. I like the adjustment for taking out up games but there wasn't a "game score" definition on that page unless I missed it somewhere.

 

[NAOS]

I disagree in part. They aren't exceptional at identifying the mismatches. The problem comes in them not being able to exploit mismatches. They had some huge blunders last season attempting to do what seemed like an easy or automatic bucket. That alone shows the lack of talent and drastic need for upgrades.

We probably agree even more than you think. Check your rep

 

[Hekate]

What is "game score"? I lead this standard dev discussion about Favors about a month ago and the consensus was that stdev probably wasn't the best measurement. I like the adjustment for taking out up games but there wasn't a "game score" definition on that page unless I missed it somewhere.

PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV.

 

[franklin]

We probably agree even more than you think. Check your rep

I'm sure we do.

I think they don't seek out mismatches as much as they should, that we agree on. I'm assuming that's a product of them sucking at finishing the job when they get them. What's the point in a mismatch when you can't score off of one? What's the player's confidence in creating that mismatch when he cannot convert?

That's what I saw last year. Inferior talent not being confident because they couldn't get the job done. There were several instances when Favors or another taller player could iso-post a smaller defender and just flat out failed to deliver. I don't remember any specific instances but it seemed like a narrative all season long whether it was a smaller guy not connecting on a step back jumper on a 7 footer or an iso high or low post.

I saw a lot of mismatches where a player simply did not want to call for the ball.

 

[franklin]

PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV.

How does that magically measure consistency? I'm not the best with stats but don't see how those random constants seem to prove consistency. I know there is reasoning behind most these measures but have never ran into this one.

 

[Hekate]

How does that magically measure consistency? I'm not the best with stats but don't see how those random constants seem to prove consistency. I know there is reasoning behind most these measures but have never ran into this one.

It doesn't. 'Game scoere' measures overall production, by calculating 'game score' for every game, Rgiss found how players deviated from their usual 'game score'.

 

[Douchebag K]

I disagree in part. They aren't exceptional at identifying the mismatches. The problem comes in them not being able to exploit mismatches. They had some huge blunders last season attempting to do what seemed like an easy or automatic bucket. That alone shows the lack of talent and drastic need for upgrades.

that 3 on 1 "fast break" they botched up against the Clippers probably cost us the playoffs that was a hideous effort.

 

[NAOS]

I'm sure we do.

I think they don't seek out mismatches as much as they should, that we agree on. I'm assuming that's a product of them sucking at finishing the job when they get them. What's the point in a mismatch when you can't score off of one? What's the player's confidence in creating that mismatch when he cannot convert?

That's what I saw last year. Inferior talent not being confident because they couldn't get the job done. There were several instances when Favors or another taller player could iso-post a smaller defender and just flat out failed to deliver. I don't remember any specific instances but it seemed like a narrative all season long whether it was a smaller guy not connecting on a step back jumper on a 7 footer or an iso high or low post.

I saw a lot of mismatches where a player simply did not want to call for the ball.

100% agreement.

But I think Hood and Lyles'a improvement can open up a lot of things. I'm a bit more bullish about Exum than you are, but I won't get into that more.

My brightest sliver of hope is through more improvement from Hood. I think running more quick action on the wings through Hood and Hayward can be a good base.

 

[Batman]

Hayward shoots .433 from the field, and .349 from the and .824 from the line.
Hood shoots .420 from the field and .359 from three and .860 from the line. (Hood doesn't get to the line much though and Hayward does)

Efg% for hood is .503
Efg% for Hayward is .493

So if hood is wildly inconsistent then Hayward is too.... Or Hayward is just consistently mediocre efficiency wise.

What is Haywards elite skill? What is he really good at?
He is not a good shooter. He is not a good ball handler. He is not good at posting up. Not particularly good in the pick n roll. Not particularly good at beating his man off the dribble (not a very quick first step). He is good but not great at rebounding and assists. He is pretty good at getting to the line.
I think he is underrated as a defender though and is pretty elite in that regard.
I also think he is very good at making tough shots. Problem with that is since he isn't very quick and doesn't elevate much he struggles to get easy shots.

However what about that Stat that Hood has more games where he scores under 9 points then games when he scores over 20. Interesting.



Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Batman]

Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.

Hayward came into the league almost 2 full years younger than Rodney was when he came into the league. That's a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app