What's new
By:
Filters

Who will lead in PPG this season?

Who's it going to be?

  • Hood

    Votes: 33 46.5%

  • Burks

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Favors

    Votes: 8 11.3%

  • Johnson

    Votes: 2 2.8%

  • Mitchell

    Votes: 5 7.0%

  • Gobert

    Votes: 22 31.0%
  • Total voters
    71
fishonjazz said:
Pretty funny how they seemed to win more games when hayward was hurt or sick than when he was on the court doe.
Including the playoff game when he was sick.
Click to expand...

Not funny. Also your supposition is flat wrong, and using a microscopic sample size does as much to undermine your argument as support it.

Franklin is 100% correct. Sorry if stating simple, obvious reality isn't macho enough.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Not funny. Also your supposition is flat wrong, and using a microscopic sample size does as much to undermine your argument as support it.

Franklin is 100% correct. Sorry if stating simple, obvious reality isn't macho enough.
Click to expand...
What microscopic sample size? 7 years?
 
You're not going anywhere if Hayward is your no.1 guy. He's a good player but he's not a superstar by any means. I'm glad we didn't get in a toxic contract with Haywoodie ******.
 
franklin said:
If Hood is the leading scorer then this team won't average 70 ppg. I think they'll be lucky to not set a franchise low in ppg. Next season is going to suck ***.
Click to expand...

Bold. Someone who cares more than me save this one for a Cold Takes Exposed later.
 
fishonjazz said:
Pretty funny how they seemed to win more games when hayward was hurt or sick than when he was on the court doe.
Including the playoff game when he was sick.
Click to expand...

Que? We won 1 playoff game without him an 3 with him.

We won way more games w/ him than w/o him.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Que? We won 1 playoff game without him an 3 with him.

We won way more games w/ him than w/o him.
Click to expand...
I meant to say win percentage. My bad.

Of course we won way more games with him than without him. We also lost way more games with him than without. Lol at me.
 
fishonjazz said:
I meant to say win percentage. My bad.

Of course we won way more games with him than without him. We also lost way more games with him than without. Lol at me.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Jazz record without Hayward for the past 5 years is 18-14. For the past 2 years, it's 7-4.
 
Ron Mexico said:
In April when he was playing his best ball of the season he was averaging 17.3 ppg on 71.5% shooting. Post all-star this year he averaged 16.7 ppg on 70%. I think it is conceivable he could get to 18 on good averages.
Click to expand...

To me, the averages you're talking about seem unsustainable during a whole season, especially without Hayward, who drew much attention from the defenses. Besides, let's not forget that Gobert is not the most durable player ever - far from it. I don't think management would like to see him banging in the paint enough to average about 16-18 ppg while ALSO being the defensive anchor of the team.

I agree that everybody should expect Gobert to have a higher usage rate, but not a much higher one. On the other hand, Gobert offensive efficiency, which was off the charts, should be expected to come down a bit, even if he improves his limited skill set, due to Hayward's absense and the increased attention that he should receive from the opposition.

I'm predicting 15-16 ppg for Gobert, in slightly less minutes per game, 32.0, with a FG% around 60%.
 
Siro said:
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Jazz record without Hayward for the past 5 years is 18-14. For the past 2 years, it's 7-4.
Click to expand...
Wow. It's even better than I remembered. **** haywood.

That's pretty crazy considering some of those years were tank type years when the roster was crap yet a crap roster minus haywood still did pretty good (and did better than with haywood which was my point)

Thanks for posting that
 
fishonjazz said:
Wow. It's even better than I remembered. **** haywood.

That's pretty crazy considering some of those years were tank type years when the roster was crap yet a crap roster minus haywood still did pretty good (and did better than with haywood which was my point)

Thanks for posting that
Click to expand...
Wow, that's not a very good record and an incredibly small sample size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
NUMBERICA said:
Wow, that's not a very good record and an incredibly small sample size.
Click to expand...
It's a winning record during years when our record was horrible

18-14 is a win % that could get you into the playoffs. And thats with some horrible rosters and no amazing hayward out there either.
Did you forget that we missed the playoffs for many years before last year.

I'm shocked that a team that couldn't make the playoffs would have a winning record without their "best" player.

As for sample size. It's not huge but 32 games isn't tiny either.

It what is. We had a better winning % when hayward didn't play than when he did, no matter what excuses you want make and how you want to spin it. Which was my original point.
 
ghsartin said:
To me, the averages you're talking about seem unsustainable during a whole season, especially without Hayward, who drew much attention from the defenses. Besides, let's not forget that Gobert is not the most durable player ever - far from it. I don't think management would like to see him banging in the paint enough to average about 16-18 ppg while ALSO being the defensive anchor of the team.

I agree that everybody should expect Gobert to have a higher usage rate, but not a much higher one. On the other hand, Gobert offensive efficiency, which was off the charts, should be expected to come down a bit, even if he improves his limited skill set, due to Hayward's absense and the increased attention that he should receive from the opposition.

I'm predicting 15-16 ppg for Gobert, in slightly less minutes per game, 32.0, with a FG% around 60%.
Click to expand...
I think he will be around 16 ppg as well. But it's not a stretch to be higher. This will be the first time in his career playing with a PG who can pass to him properly. Rubio is much better at getting the ball to bigs than Hill. That is worth a couple points jump alone.
 
I voted Hood but very strong likelihood that it's Rudy, especially when you factor in Rubio.

This will be a fun team to follow
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
NUMBERICA said:
Wow, that's not a very good record and an incredibly small sample size.
Click to expand...
So over the last 5 years the jazz went 197 (wins) and 213 (losses). (This number is slightly inflated with a higher win % than it would be if this were just a reflection of the jazz record with hayward due to the fact that this includes games that hayward missed, which we won at a higher percentage)

Over that same time without hayward the jazz went 18-14 (credit to hayward for rarely missing games btw).

Looks like they had a better win % without him to me. I don't know how to figure out the win percentages so I don't know exactly what they are but even someone as bad at math as me can see that 18-14 means we won over 50% and 197-213 means we won less than 50%.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Not funny. Also your supposition is flat wrong, and using a microscopic sample size does as much to undermine your argument as support it.

Franklin is 100% correct. Sorry if stating simple, obvious reality isn't macho enough.
Click to expand...

Franklin does have a point but takes it to far IMO. Some of the teams that improved were already playoff teams. Like Houston and OKC. Minny got much better but the Clips also got worse.

I think the Jazz will be better defensively and worse offensively. Hayward absolutely mattered. But I say the Jazz finish as the 7th seed.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Who isnt playing so Burks can get minutes?
Click to expand...

I don't think people understand that he won't be a rotation player when we are healthy. If we are healthy Hood, Ingles, Mitchell, Exum, Thabo, will eat up all the minutes at 2/3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top