What part of that disagrees with what I said?
If Hayward was an 80% shooter from in close and Bell was 27% shooter from distance, fine. Since the actual difference in eFG% is more like 59%-47%, those extra offensive fouls do tip the balance.
Corbin - please start Favors/Hayward the rest of the way
- Thread starter udflyer
- Start date
What part of that disagrees with what I said?
If Hayward was an 80% shooter from in close and Bell was 27% shooter from distance, fine. Since the actual difference in eFG% is more like 59%-47%, those extra offensive fouls do tip the balance.
If Bell still played the way Hayward does, would he still be in the league?
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Hayward shoots better from the 3 and better from the field over all. So I would like to see you back up this statement with stats. I don't believe Bell is better at shooting than Hayward.
I supposed it's too much to expect you to look up the data yourself.
https://www.82games.com/1011/10UTA7.HTM
https://www.82games.com/1011/10UTA5.HTM
Bell: eFG% of .473 on jumpers, .735 up close, shoots 91% of shots as jumpers
Hayward: eFG% of .407 on jumpers, .590 up close, shoots 61% of shots as jumpers
Again, with our starting lineup of Millsap and Jefferson, there is something to be said for using the better jump shooter.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Basically this shows that Bell is not good enough to even try and get inside shots. I was actually looking for the NBA hot spots but they don't seem to be there anymore. I have a hard time punishing a player for working to get better looks. Or rewarding the player that only takes jump shots.
Also when looking closer into these #'s they can not possibly be accurate. Bell shoots 42.6% for the season. None of these stats are low enough to make them correct. He can not shoot 47% on jumpers, 75% from close, and 50% on tips and only shoot 42.6% for the season. So unless I am missing something these stats are either incomplete or just flat out wrong.
You're missing the difference between raw FG% and effective field goal %. Raja is benefitting from the latter measure because a greater percentage of his shots are three pointers and he has a higher free throw percentage.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Okay. Thanks for that.
your OP was correct:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hibble
yo, Millsap is always hibble!
You mean, as opposed to "his role as a starter is to spread the floor for Jefferson and Millsap"? Since he shoots better on close shots than Hayward, I find your position he's not good enough, but Hayward is, more than a little curious.
All other things being equal, sure. Does Hayward spend more of his minutes with Jefferson/Millsap, or with Elson/Fesenko? Does our offense run through Elson/Fesenko like it does through Jefferson/Millsap? Is it possible this means things are not equal, and Bell is actually doing his job here, less well than we would like, but still better than the proposed alternative could do it?
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Teams are barely guarding Raja. So I fail to see how he is spreading the floor. 34% from 3 from your starting SG is not good especially since he only takes 2-3 shots per game. Basically this season is not going to end well and Raja is under performing. When Hayward played in his place during Raja's injury he outperformed Raja. Therefore I see no reason why Hayward should not be given those minutes instead of Raja.
I don't care about future development. Hayward is better now he should play more.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Raja's doing a great job spreading the floor against Toronto. NOT! Everytime Jefferson gets the ball right now they are leaving Raja to double him.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
ugh... our wings...
Has there ever been a worst trio than what we have right now? CJ, Raja, and Hayward are just brutal.
At this point, I'd support bringing back Calbert Cheney or John Starks.
Has there ever been a worst trio than what we have right now? CJ, Raja, and Hayward are just brutal.
At this point, I'd support bringing back Calbert Cheney or John Starks.