b_line
Well-Known Member
in one season he was slightly lower, but still lower, the season before he was much lower in usage.
Hayward & Jazz - not close to agreement (Hayward leaving 4/40 on the table)
- Thread starter udflyer
- Start date
in one season he was slightly lower, but still lower, the season before he was much lower in usage.
b_line
Well-Known Member
I am in no way saying that you can build an offense around Hayward, I was using it as a point that it was not a clear cut thing that Harden was a max player before the trade to Houston. He was about 15% better than Hayward in points, shooting percentage, rebounds, assists, and just about everything across the board. That, to me, means that he was a much better player. If Hayward had Hardens stats, then there would be no question on whether or not to give him the $52 million contract. But there was a question as to whether or not Harden deserved max money with those numbers.
Um okay... we're clearly talking about last season. His numbers aren't lower in any meaningful way. It's not about winning the argument, it's about objectively evaluating Hayward's worth. And according to your numbers, he got starter minutes and starter role. In other words, we know what we currently have. And what we have is not Harden.
Which is how he should be featured. He's also an above average cutter (rank 60th), but you can't rely on that for anything more than taking advantage defensive lapses.
Are you trying to tell us Hayward wasn't given the keys to the city his rookie year?
b_line
Well-Known Member
Ok, lets throw out the rookie year, and second year, and just look at last year. When Mo was healthy, he got more minutes and had a slightly higher usage rate than Gordon. So that means that Gordon was fourth to Al, Paul and Mo. How is that being given the keys to the city? Al is an inefficient scorer, Paul is a hard worker, but not an all star, and Mo was always a ball hog. If you can honestly say that you really think Hayward was given every possible opportunity to succeed, then you must not think very highly of the way the Jazz develop players.
GVC
Well-Known Member
1. Usage rates for Paul, Mo and Gordo were virtually identical. You can just as easily conclude that they were options 2a, 2b and 2c.
2. Al was not an inefficient scorer when you consider his role/shot types.
3. Hayward showed no ability to score on-ball. As such, expecting him to get lots of touches was/is unrealistic.
Mo ended with 30.8 mpg and 22.4 usage. A minute more than Hayward, and the same usage. But he only played in 46 games. But this is getting tedious. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the management come up with, and how Hayward performs now that he's the team's first option.
b_line
Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see how Hayward performs in a role that does not involve the offense moving around Big Al. I think he will be a lot better in an offense that is not so slow, as he is pretty good in transition.
GVC, what you said makes more sense, that he was an option 2, along with Millsap and Mo.
How do you guys think Hayward would look on the seven seconds or less Suns/Nash teams? That would be interesting.
GVC, what you said makes more sense, that he was an option 2, along with Millsap and Mo.
How do you guys think Hayward would look on the seven seconds or less Suns/Nash teams? That would be interesting.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Hayward would have put up numbers with those Suns sitting in the corner and waiting for a pass. Of course, no one would think he's worth $10mm+.
They took a huge risk giving the max to a player that scored 17 points on 11 shots a game, did it on the ball, off the ball, was the 2nd best player on an NBA finalist in just his third year, was on a dream team, and would've gotten that contract from every team in the NBA (in a vacuum, OKC wasn't in a vacuum)? Alright dude.
GVC
Well-Known Member
It's hard to overstate how efficient Harden was in 11/12. 10 in overall PPP, even with over 46% of his terminal possessions coming in isos, post-ups and as PnR ball handler.