Now for some realistic optimism

[Gobzilla]

You mean if he plays up to where he has all season next to Rudy Gobert?

I'm not fawning over Gordon's performances in games 1 and 2, but I'll push back on anybody who puts forward a facile argument stating that he's a problem.

I don't think he is saying that he's a problem, he just hasn't been playing up to par. We need that in order to win without Rudy on the floor...especially when Rudy is not on the floor.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I don't think he is saying that he's a problem, he just hasn't been playing up to par. We need that in order to win without Rudy on the floor...especially when Rudy is not on the floor.

He hasnt provided any super-human performances but he literally has the entire defensive focus of the Clippers team, especially with Gobert out. The worst part of it is that with Jordan/Mbah they can pretty effectively guard Hayward without committing too much weakside help.That is why we need to run more high PNR in the middle for him instead of this DHO elbow PNR because Mbah/DeAndre's length covers that **** up fast.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

He's been okay. His game is methodical and sometimes too robotic. Has made it easier for clips to game plan around. This is a tough matchup because of Luc and Deandre.

I was more disappointed in his defense than anything. He has fallen asleep three different times on Luc and it cost us 4 points last night. I think his head is turned to help but still.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Gordon isn't a guy who creates a ton of separation with speed... Luc is strong and physical and getting a ton of help from Jordan.

 

[NAOS]

I don't think he is saying that he's a problem, he just hasn't been playing up to par. We need that in order to win without Rudy on the floor...especially when Rudy is not on the floor.

it sounds a lot like he's calling him a problem.

My point is that we need several things to break in our favor in order to win this series without Rudy, and Gordon's performance would be pretty far down the list of things that I would outline for change. Like Cy is saying, maybe the coaches need to find different ways of using him, but whatever the case may be, identifying the problem as "Gordon Hayward" is wrong-footed.

 

[mellow]

Well, the optimism didn't last long in this thread.

Go Jazz.

 

[jope]

it sounds a lot like he's calling him a problem.

My point is that we need several things to break in our favor in order to win this series without Rudy, and Gordon's performance would be pretty far down the list of things that I would outline for change. Like Cy is saying, maybe the coaches need to find different ways of using him, but whatever the case may be, identifying the problem as "Gordon Hayward" is wrong-footed.

Never once called him a problem, simply that he has lots of room for improvement. But to be fair, if you want to win this series, the guy with the highest usage can't have the 2nd worst offensive and defensive ratings on the roster. That is my point.

 

[♪alt13]

JFC is clueless. This ain't church ball boys. No imagined reality here. Good lord

 

[Douchebag K]

In the words of Chris Paul "that's the hardest 20 points Hayward would ever have gotten" .. dude's being defended maniacally and he's still gotten 20 without the help of the threat of Rudy .. he's been fine. Playoffs are different. Anyone expecting a Michael Jordan type output needs to get a grip on reality.

ffs 1-1 at LA without Rudy and people are still bitching .. get real. Gordon has been really good and he's had to work like hell to do it.

 

[MT Steve]

Gordon kind of showed his lack of clutch when he missed that momentum-swinging wide open 3. That is the shot the super-stars just knock down. He missed, and missed badly. Realistically it is probably just the law of averages, but it sure seems we don't have "that guy" on this team.

The way this forum has bashed Hayward all season, you'd think superstars all shoot 100% in the clutch.

 

[yamers]

Moute has played amazing defense on hayward...he has nearly shut em down.

other people should be stepping up...johnson game 1 but game 2 nobody stepped up at all.

 

[gomretat]

Come on, he hasn't been "great," using any metric. He's worked very hard, that's pretty clear. But he hasn't been able to navigate his way to a great game in the face of being specifically keyed in on by the other team. However, the comments mentioning the absence of Rudy affecting Gordon are well taken. He's much better when Gobert is on the floor, as almost any first option would be. Maybe that's all it is. If that's the case, then the true reality check is just that Hayward is not a transcendent talent, which, candidly, everyone already knew, in which case, I was too hard on him before. But I stand by my original position, which is that if he leaves, it's not the worst thing ever. Realistically, you could insert a dozen other players into his spot these last two games, and although we'd lose the hair, the numbers would be very similar.

Who are the 12 guys we can insert that will be in Utah next year if he leaves? I concur that he is not "transcendent" but that category typically has 4-5 players on the list at any given time. In my book he is a well deserved all-star that will be very difficult to replace if he is gone. It would be wonderful to have someone as an number 1 option in front of him but I also realize that many teams in the NBA would love to have Gordon as their main option.

 

[akirac73]

Yes, Mbah a Moute is a great defender. But if we get past the Clippers do you think it gets easier? If we truly want this Jazz team to be a championship contender, you can't keep making excuses for Hayward. He has to step up regardless who's defending him, which teammate is injured, etc. I swear Hayward has to be the most coddled "star" in the league. For his sake, he better re-sign with the Jazz, because in no other City will a fan base make so many excuses for underperforming so often against good teams.

 

[NAOS]

Never once called him a problem, simply that he has lots of room for improvement. But to be fair, if you want to win this series, the guy with the highest usage can't have the 2nd worst offensive and defensive ratings on the roster. That is my point.

You don't have to say "problem", braugh.

 

[jope]

You don't have to say "problem", braugh.

impressive rebuttal. so beyond your obvious attraction with the "eye test" (and who can blame you with that hair??), which you adamantly prefer to any sort of measurable success rate, what true value are you adding to this conversation? I know you don't like looking at n=2, but that's all there is in this series, and through these 2 games, he's been the 2nd worst offensively and defensively rated player, while having the highest usage rate.

As i see it, there are 3 main paths for him to take going forward (this isn't an argument of why he isn't doing some things, or how he can start doing so, merely an exercise on how improving the play of our highest usage player impacts us).

Option 1) He starts scoring and defending more closely to the way he did through the season == high efficiency, high usage, team == net gain in efficiency

Option 2) He plays as he has been, but he drops his usage rate AND someone else uses the possessions with greater efficiency == low efficiency, low usage, team == net gain in efficiency (from another player)

Option 3) He keeps his team-high usage rate, and still struggles to score or defend, and barring a miraculous return from Rudy, probably lose the series == low efficiency, high usage, team == net loss in efficiency.


winning this series boils down to him bringing up that 2nd worst -4.4 OBPM, team worst -3.4 BPM, team worst VORP, 2nd worst win share rate, and 2nd worst true shooting %. If he's going to use more possessions than anyone else on the team, those possessions can't be so inefficient.

 

[NAOS]

impressive rebuttal. so beyond your obvious attraction with the "eye test" (and who can blame you with that hair??), which you adamantly prefer to any sort of measurable success rate, what true value are you adding to this conversation? I know you don't like looking at n=2, but that's all there is in this series, and through these 2 games, he's been the 2nd worst offensively and defensively rated player, while having the highest usage rate.

As i see it, there are 3 main paths for him to take going forward (this isn't an argument of why he isn't doing some things, or how he can start doing so, merely an exercise on how improving the play of our highest usage player impacts us).

Option 1) He starts scoring and defending more closely to the way he did through the season == high efficiency, high usage, team == net gain in efficiency

Option 2) He plays as he has been, but he drops his usage rate AND someone else uses the possessions with greater efficiency == low efficiency, low usage, team == net gain in efficiency (from another player)

Option 3) He keeps his team-high usage rate, and still struggles to score or defend, and barring a miraculous return from Rudy, probably lose the series == low efficiency, high usage, team == net loss in efficiency.


winning this series boils down to him bringing up that 2nd worst -4.4 OBPM, team worst -3.4 BPM, team worst VORP, 2nd worst win share rate, and 2nd worst true shooting %. If he's going to use more possessions than anyone else on the team, those possessions can't be so inefficient.

You keep saying "Gordon Hayward" and thinking you've isolated a problem -- with 2 games of data. Why can't this be about how Q is game-planning for G to get his shots? Why can't it be about why Hill and Hood haven't really stepped up to bend the defense away from Hayward? We could plausibly find the root of the problem in several other places besides "Gordon Hayward."

Also, for someone who isn't making a "problem" here, you're certainly dedicating a lot of time to repeating these unconvincing statistics.

 

[jope]

You keep saying "Gordon Hayward" and thinking you've isolated a problem -- with 2 games of data. Why can't this be about how Q is game-planning for G to get his shots? Why can't it be about why Hill and Hood haven't really stepped up to bend the defense away from Hayward? We could plausibly find the root of the problem in several other places besides "Gordon Hayward."

Also, for someone who isn't making a "problem" here, you're certainly dedicating a lot of time to repeating these unconvincing statistics.

Lol. You're so focused on the how. His lack of production is probably a combination of all the things you've said, along with nerves, pressure, isolation, and whatever else. But all the other "problems" you listed are still centered around his lack of results, and getting Hayward to improve his play, and the players you mentioned already have far better efficiencies than that of Hayward as well.

But what's important is that you're finally acknowledging that he's lacking production. Right on! Now hopefully the correct adjustments by staff and players have been made for game 3 because having our highest usage player play sub par turns the uphill battle we face into a mountain.

 

[NAOS]

Lol. You're so focused on the how. His lack of production is probably a combination of all the things you've said, along with nerves, pressure, isolation, and whatever else. But all the other "problems" you listed are still centered around his lack of results, and getting Hayward to improve his play, and the players you mentioned already have far better efficiencies than that of Hayward as well.

But what's important is that you're finally acknowledging that he's lacking production. Right on! Now hopefully the correct adjustments by staff and players have been made for game 3 because having our highest usage player play sub par turns the uphill battle we face into a mountain.

The How is everything, holmes. Grats on finally acknowledging that your method was seriously flawed.

Also, it only seems like I'm acknowledging that he's lacking production; I'm not, but because I'm engaging with the question implied with your posts (i.e. What's wrong with Gordon Hayward?), it seems so. My point all along has been that your question is bad. If you're feeling me push toward the How, well, that's because that'd be a different (i.e. better) question.

 

[jope]

The How is everything, holmes. Grats on finally acknowledging that your method was seriously flawed.

Also, it only seems like I'm acknowledging that he's lacking production; I'm not, but because I'm engaging with the question implied with your posts (i.e. What's wrong with Gordon Hayward?), it seems so. My point all along has been that your question is bad. If you're feeling me push toward the How, well, that's because that'd be a different (i.e. better) question.

the crux of your argument has shifted from "hayward has been great" to "these are the ways hayward can stop being sub par". obviously my point had some impact. sall good.

 

[NAOS]

the crux of your argument has shifted from "hayward has been great" to "these are the ways hayward can stop being sub par". obviously my point had some impact. sall good.

did i say "great"?