Stan Van gundy on Gordon Hayward...

[infection]

Here's my take on Gordon: if he's next to Jabari he's going to look really, really good an teams will have a difficult time defending them in tandem. If the team maintains a similar status quo structure, then there will be a lot of debate around his value. This brings me to my next point: why the hell aren't we tanking harder?

 

[Primetime]

If history repeats itself for the 4th straight year, Gordon is about to get real nasty come March. Something about March Madness that gets Hayward going.

Lol. I just looked it up and you're right. I knew he was better the second half of the season but it is way more significant than I had in mind.

2010-11:
52 G / 13.1 MIN / 3.6 PTS / .438 FG% / .367 3P%
20 G / 26.7 MIN / 10.1PTS / .536 FG% / .545 3P%

2011-12:
34 G / 27.7 MIN / 9.5 PTS / .424 FG% / .233 3P%
32 G / 33.5 MIN / 14.3PTS / .483 FG% / .442 3P%

2012-13:
48 G / 27.1 MIN / 14.0PTS / .429 FG% / .395 3P%
24 G / 33.4 MIN / 14.4PTS / .446 FG% / .444 3P%

Good to see that he steps up his game coming PO time but starting next year we need that from the get go!

 

[SojoDave]

Gordon is shooting 40% from the field this year. His poor shooting performances far out weigh his good shooting nights. Here are the reasons I think he isn't shooting well this year.

1. Way too much responsibility on the offense. Bringing up the ball and trying to create is very taxing on the legs and flattens out his shot.
2. Ty's offense does not produce screens and it's pretty rare for us to swing the ball from one side to the other. Gordon often looks like he is forcing his jumper.
3. Gordon needs a back-to-the basket move. He is often taller than his defenders, but he can't take advantage of it.
4. Let's face it, his contract has weighed him down this year and he gets really down after missing his first two jumpers.
5. I heard Locke say that Gordon practices with friends in the off season and doesn't concentrate on shooting...his shooting percentage proves this.

 

[Doublea]

Gordon is shooting 40% from the field this year. His poor shooting performances far out weigh his good shooting nights. Here are the reasons I think he isn't shooting well this year.

Let's say that 50% is a good shooting night, and 30% is a bad shooting night. That would mean he is have just as many good shooting nights as bad ones to have 40%. I don't think he could have more bad shooting nights then good and be at 40%.

_

Just looked it up
he's had 24 games under 40% and 23 games above 40%. So he's pretty much had has many good shooting nights as bad.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Lol. I just looked it up and you're right. I knew he was better the second half of the season but it is way more significant than I had in mind.

2010-11:
52 G / 13.1 MIN / 3.6 PTS / .438 FG% / .367 3P%
20 G / 26.7 MIN / 10.1PTS / .536 FG% / .545 3P%

2011-12:
34 G / 27.7 MIN / 9.5 PTS / .424 FG% / .233 3P%
32 G / 33.5 MIN / 14.3PTS / .483 FG% / .442 3P%

2012-13:
48 G / 27.1 MIN / 14.0PTS / .429 FG% / .395 3P%
24 G / 33.4 MIN / 14.4PTS / .446 FG% / .444 3P%

Good to see that he steps up his game coming PO time but starting next year we need that from the get go!

20 is half of 72? 24 is half of 72?
A little arbitrary with dividing those stats. I agree he's been better towards the end of the season, but to use "half" would mean along the lines of your 2011-12 split for the other 2 seasons.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Let's say that 50% is a good shooting night, and 30% is a bad shooting night. That would mean he is have just as many good shooting nights as bad ones to have 40%. I don't think he could have more bad shooting nights then good and be at 40%.

Assume
1. 60% or above is great.
1. 50%-59.9% is very good.
2. 40-49.9% is "average" (and I say that because I think 40% is not very good and 49% would be very good).
3. 30-39.9% is bad.
4. Under 29.9% is abysmal.

Hayward this season
1. Great = 4
2. Very good = 8
3. Average = 11
4. Bad = 12
5. Abysmal = 12

TBH, 40% average is at the very low end of acceptable. Compared against the "qualifying" SG's (those on pace for 300 or more made FG's), Hayward is 27th. Only J.R. Smith is worse. If you look at SF's, all 17 listed at the position have higher shooting percentages than Hayward.

Whichever way you slice and dice, Gordon is having the worst year of his career in a season in which there is huge motivation to perform at a top level. Pressure of trying to do too much? Perhaps. But if he wants to be paid at the level of an all-star, he should be performing at the level of an all-star level.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Assume
1. 60% or above is great.
1. 50%-59.9% is very good.
2. 40-49.9% is "average" (and I say that because I think 40% is not very good and 49% would be good).
3. 30-39.9% is bad.
4. Under 29.9% is abysmal.

Hayward this season
1. Great = 4
2. Very good = 8
3. Average = 11
4. Bad = 12
5. Abysmal = 12

TBH, 40% average is at the very low end of acceptable. Compared against the "qualifying" SG's (those on pace for 300 or more made FG's), Hayward is 27th. Only J.R. Smith is worse. If you look at SF's, all 17 listed at the position have higher shooting percentages than Hayward.

Whichever way you slice and dice, Gordon is having the worst year of his career in a season in which there is huge motivation to perform at a top level. Pressure of trying to do too much? Perhaps. But if he wants to be paid at the level of an all-star, he should be performing at the level of an all-star level.

When did he say he wanted to be paid like an All-Star?

 

[Stifle Tower]

[/COLOR]]Let's say that 50% is a good shooting night, and 30% is a bad shooting night. That would mean he is have just as many good shooting nights as bad ones to have 40%. I don't think he could have more bad shooting nights then good and be at 40%.

_

Just looked it up
he's had 24 games under 40% and 23 games above 40%. So he's pretty much had has many good shooting nights as bad.

You redefined your criteria to fit the conclusion you wanted to reach.

 

[Stifle Tower]

When did he say he wanted to be paid like an All-Star?

Wouldn't you say $10M or more is all-star type pay? He did say he wanted to paid somewhat less than George, not somewhat more than Korver.

OK, let me rephrase it. If he wants to be paid like an upper-tier starter, then he has to shoot better than 27th at his position. Better?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Wouldn't you say $10M or more is all-star type pay? He did say he wanted to paid somewhat less than George, not somewhat more than Korver.

OK, let me rephrase it. If he wants to be paid like an upper-tier starter, then he has to shoot better than 27th at his position. Better?

He wants to be paid what the market feels his maximum value is. That is the truth and not some over-dramatic crap that fans use to vilify Hayward with. "Hayward wants to be paid the max cuz he thinks he is the next Larry Bird!". No, he is just trying to maximize his value like most people do in their jobs. He took a risk and didn't sign an extension (pretty small risk because his value floor is probably 9 million dollars). Hayward isn't out there making comparisons to players he wants to be paid like. His agent might be, but it for sure ain't Hayward.

 

[Fishsticks]

The great debater is back! Damn near every thread. Cy has some pent up debatin and he ain't holding back.

 

[Stifle Tower]

He wants to be paid what the market feels his maximum value is. That is the truth and not some over-dramatic crap that fans use to vilify Hayward with. "Hayward wants to be paid the max cuz he thinks he is the next Larry Bird!". No, he is just trying to maximize his value like most people do in their jobs. He took a risk and didn't sign an extension (pretty small risk because his value floor is probably 9 million dollars). Hayward isn't out there making comparisons to players he wants to be paid like. His agent might be, but it for sure ain't Hayward.

Fantastic. I hope the Jazz fire back on comparisons by showing 44 out of the 45 wings in the NBA that are on pace to make 300 FG's or more are shooting a better FG%. That ought to really establish his market value.