Trade idea, Hayward to the Suns

[fishonjazz]

Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.

I this particular discussion stats, history, evidence, etc mean nothing at all to some people.

In a different discussion with those same people stats, history, evidence, etc means everything.

 

[fishonjazz]

I kind of think (and may be wrong if someone wants to show me otherwise) that if you are the focus of the offense and primary ball handler/shooter on any team in the nba then you almost automatically will average around 20 points per game almost by default. (Someone has to score right? All teams get a lot of possessions and score over 90 points per game so those points have to come from somewhere)

What separates a good offensive load carrying player from one that's not as good is efficiency and getting to the line imo (along with low turnovers and high assists) I don't know where Hayward ranks efficiency wise among other offensive load bearing players. I do think he gets to the line at pretty good rate (don't how it compares to other first options) and is a really good defender (Though I don't have numbers to back it up)

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I kind of think (and may be wrong if someone wants to show me otherwise) that if you are the focus of the offense and primary ball handler/shooter on any team in the nba then you almost automatically will average around 20 points per game almost by default. (Someone has to score right? All teams get a lot of possessions and score over 90 points per game so those points have to come from somewhere)

What separates a good offensive load carrying player from one that's not as good is efficiency and getting to the line imo (along with low turnovers and high assists) I don't know where Hayward ranks efficiency wise among other offensive load bearing players. I do think he gets to the line at pretty good rate (don't how it compares to other first options) and is a really good defender (Though I don't have numbers to back it up)

there is some truth to this for sure. Even bad teams score 90 points a night. It would be interesting to see either Hood or Hayward alongside a true, efficient, number one scoring option.

Another note... Hayward has basically already exceeded my expectations of his ceiling. I didn't know he had this in him. Not sure if he gets much better, but when I doubt Hood can get to Hayward's level I do have that after thought in my mind.

I think Hood is a better shot creator for himself and out of the PnR, but i think hayward makes everyone better in a way that Hood hasn't yet.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but tbh, I think his inconsistency just lies with his scoring/shooting.

His defense, passing, etc, that never seems to be that inconsistent to me. I agree he's not really a #1, I'm more just saying I don't think Hood will be as good as Hayward is. What we really need is a PG who can take the pressure off all our guys. It's why Teague would've been a great pickup. Exum might be that guy, but I'm not overly optimistic.

 

[fishonjazz]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but tbh, I think his inconsistency just lies with his scoring/shooting.

His defense, passing, etc, that never seems to be that inconsistent to me. I agree he's not really a #1, I'm more just saying I don't think Hood will be as good as Hayward is. What we really need is a PG who can take the pressure off all our guys. It's why Teague would've been a great pickup. Exum might be that guy, but I'm not overly optimistic.

Damn I wanted teague

 

[NAOS]

when you watch SAS or GSW (especially GSW), the most striking thing is how quickly their offenses identify mismatches. They quickly read HOW and WHERE their opponents' transition defense has put them at a disadvantage. When GSW is clicking, they have that figured out by the time they cross half court, and they start attacking that point IMMEDIATELY. If they don't get what they want, they start a half-court set IMMEDIATELY. Both of these teams are excellently coached, and know their strengths at each PLACE on the floor RELATIVE TO the personnel on the floor. --The Jazz are **** at this, and I think that's a big reason why our offense is bad (they don't consistently attack on the break; and they take too long to get into a space-clogged half-court offense).

I really hope that they get better at attacking on the break, identifying mismatches EARLY (in less than 5 seconds), and using Hayward and Hood equivalently within the offense. Our offense shouldn't be looking for either of them by default (we default to Hayward waaaaay too much to be a good offense). Reward the player who's picked the right lane and created a mismatch (Draymond is great at this). If Exum is anything like what we thought he was, then he should be an asset in this kind of offensive flow (pushing pace, passing over the defense [sometimes long skip passes are extremely effective at taking advantage of a mismatch]).

I think we're lucky to have the combo of Hayward, Hood, and Exum. Hopefully they figure it out soon, before we no longer have that combo.

 

[RandyForRubio]

when you watch SAS or GSW (especially GSW), the most striking thing is how quickly their offenses identify mismatches. They quickly read HOW and WHERE their opponents' transition defense has put them at a disadvantage. When GSW is clicking, they have that figured out by the time they cross half court, and they start attacking that point IMMEDIATELY. If they don't get what they want, they start a half-court set IMMEDIATELY. Both of these teams are excellently coached, and know their strengths at each PLACE on the floor RELATIVE TO the personnel on the floor. --The Jazz are **** at this, and I think that's a big reason why our offense is bad (they don't consistently attack on the break; and they take too long to get into a space-clogged half-court offense).

I really hope that they get better at attacking on the break, identifying mismatches EARLY (in less than 5 seconds), and using Hayward and Hood equivalently within the offense. Our offense shouldn't be looking for either of them by default (we default to Hayward waaaaay too much to be a good offense). Reward the player who's picked the right lane and created a mismatch (Draymond is great at this). If Exum is anything like what we thought he was, then he should be an asset in this kind of offensive flow (pushing pace, passing over the defense [sometimes long skip passes are extremely effective at taking advantage of a mismatch]).

I think we're lucky to have the combo of Hayward, Hood, and Exum. Hopefully they figure it out soon, before we no longer have that combo.

So my question is, is our offense poor at creating mismatches, transition play, etc, because of the players, because Quin is a bad offensive coach, or because Quin can't adapt what he wants bc of our players?

I'm leaning more towards Quin being a subpar offensive coach, which makes me question what to do next. He's not leaving, he's a good defensive coach and he's good at development...but does that excuse his offense? More and more I'm thinking he's a good coach for a rebuilding team, but maybe not for a contender. I think he's at his best as an assistant tbh.

 

[NAOS]

So my question is, is our offense poor at creating mismatches, transition play, etc, because of the players, because Quin is a bad offensive coach, or because Quin can't adapt what he wants bc of our players?

I'm leaning more towards Quin being a subpar offensive coach, which makes me question what to do next. He's not leaving, he's a good defensive coach and he's good at development...but does that excuse his offense? More and more I'm thinking he's a good coach for a rebuilding team, but maybe not for a contender. I think he's at his best as an assistant tbh.

Good/reasonable questions. I think it might still be too soon to say. I also think that Quin is a guy who is working to get better.

When I look at our current roster I see some players who are good at creating and attacking mismatches (I think Exum and Lyles could be big pieces as far as this is concerned). But it's a clear indication of coaching when you see a team consistently identify a mismatch -- quickly -- and then attack it -- quickly. That's drills, practice, drills, practice, knowing your job, practice, etc.

In Q's defense:

Going into this last season I really don't think we had the personnel to run this kind of offense (who is Lyles? what can Rudy do? how soon will Hood be a reliable threat? who teh **** is Howl Neto? and why is he our starting point guard? Will Alec Burks always play with tunnel vision and therefore be unreliable in a read-option system? etc.). That's why I was shocked when we stood pat. I'm still shocked.

So, while I like your questions, the brunt of my scrutinizing questions are aimed at Lyndsey, not Quin.

 

[Hekate]

Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.

Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.

The stats? Someone named Rgiss pulled out some stats to see how much his game score deviated ans its lower than some players whom you may call more consistent . https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/3z6kf0/consistency_makes_a_superstar_best_nba_players/

After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

It was his first year being the first option under a bad coach. I suppose it is only natural but yeah he wasn't that good that year but he did come around eventually, didn't he?

Hayward has some "haters" around here, more than Hood at least. I really doubt Hood has been shown anything but love around here.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Hayward had an usage rate of %17.8, Hood had %21.5.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward had an usage rate of %17.8, Hood had %21.5.

Hopefully, but I doubt it, he could be a better scorer but he won't be near him in any other categories.

And why do you think Hayward was coddled, he was our pick and we tried to groom him as much as possible. Why is that wrong?

Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.

Nice assumption, I don't listen to those at all. Different time zone.

Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.

Who is trading a first option for Hayward?

 

[Stoked]

Some good b-ball discussion all the sudden. I'm liking it.

 

[franklin]

when you watch SAS or GSW (especially GSW), the most striking thing is how quickly their offenses identify mismatches. They quickly read HOW and WHERE their opponents' transition defense has put them at a disadvantage. When GSW is clicking, they have that figured out by the time they cross half court, and they start attacking that point IMMEDIATELY. If they don't get what they want, they start a half-court set IMMEDIATELY. Both of these teams are excellently coached, and know their strengths at each PLACE on the floor RELATIVE TO the personnel on the floor. --The Jazz are **** at this, and I think that's a big reason why our offense is bad (they don't consistently attack on the break; and they take too long to get into a space-clogged half-court offense).

I really hope that they get better at attacking on the break, identifying mismatches EARLY (in less than 5 seconds), and using Hayward and Hood equivalently within the offense. Our offense shouldn't be looking for either of them by default (we default to Hayward waaaaay too much to be a good offense). Reward the player who's picked the right lane and created a mismatch (Draymond is great at this). If Exum is anything like what we thought he was, then he should be an asset in this kind of offensive flow (pushing pace, passing over the defense [sometimes long skip passes are extremely effective at taking advantage of a mismatch]).

I think we're lucky to have the combo of Hayward, Hood, and Exum. Hopefully they figure it out soon, before we no longer have that combo.

I disagree in part. They aren't exceptional at identifying the mismatches. The problem comes in them not being able to exploit mismatches. They had some huge blunders last season attempting to do what seemed like an easy or automatic bucket. That alone shows the lack of talent and drastic need for upgrades.

 

[franklin]

The stats? Someone named Rgiss pulled out some stats to see how much his game score deviated ans its lower than some players whom you may call more consistent

What is "game score"? I lead this standard dev discussion about Favors about a month ago and the consensus was that stdev probably wasn't the best measurement. I like the adjustment for taking out up games but there wasn't a "game score" definition on that page unless I missed it somewhere.