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
ghsartin said:
2014-15 - usage% 26.2 - true shooting% .567
2015-16 - usage% 25.7 - true shooting% .559
2016-17 - usage% 27.2 - true shooting% .595
(per basketballreference.com)

I think we really disagree on this one, Cy. Hayward's usage was basically the same during the last three seasons, but only during the last one his efficiency was high. It doesn't matter if we label his efficiency during the 14-15 and 15-16 seasons "decent", "mediocre", "sufficient", or whatever... My point is that having your main scorer shooting at around .565 is no recipe for real success. So, if we are talking about Hayward during the three years in which he was clearly "the man", the two first seasons should have made, I think, us want him to shoot (slightly) less and only the last one should have made us want him to shoot more.
Click to expand...

Westbrook had a TS% of 55.4% this past season and his team hardly struggled.
 
I think it will be Rudy but I'm also hoping for a return to see the old DFavs. Those two together can be so awesome
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Westbrook had a TS% of 55.4% this past season and his team hardly struggled.
Click to expand...

Jimmy Butler .586
Damian Lillard .586
Joel Embiid .584
DeMar DeRozan .552
John Wall .541
Kyrie Irving .580
Kevin Love .572
Blake Griffin .569
Marc Gasol .554
C.J. McCollum .585
Paul Millsap .542
Kristaps Porzingis .546
Draymond Green .522

And so on.

Plenty of good players around those TS% that did a lot of scoring and lead their teams well this year.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Westbrook had a TS% of 55.4% this past season and his team hardly struggled.
Click to expand...

They kind of did. OKC won a lot of close games because of Westbrook, but they werent dominant or anything. If they had less luck in the final minutes of games, they could have been out of the playoffs. They only won 1 playoff game too.
 
ghsartin said:
2014-15 - usage% 26.2 - true shooting% .567
2015-16 - usage% 25.7 - true shooting% .559
2016-17 - usage% 27.2 - true shooting% .595
(per basketballreference.com)

I think we really disagree on this one, Cy. Hayward's usage was basically the same during the last three seasons, but only during the last one his efficiency was high. It doesn't matter if we label his efficiency during the 14-15 and 15-16 seasons "decent", "mediocre", "sufficient", or whatever... My point is that having your main scorer shooting at around .565 is no recipe for real success. So, if we are talking about Hayward during the three years in which he was clearly "the man", the two first seasons should have made, I think, us want him to shoot (slightly) less and only the last one should have made us want him to shoot more.
Click to expand...

Hayward shot 60% lmao. Who cares about what he shot when Raul Neto/Trey Burke/Shelvin Mack were his starting PG's?
 
GSw
Okc
Houston
Spurs
Minny
Denver
Portland

All better then Utah and then who gets spot 8
N.o.
Memphis
Utah
Kings
Clippers


Utah chances of not making playoffs are Also very high because the offense is going struggle and this isn't football where defense when championships theory works. Good to score the ball to win now in nba and jazz missing a go to guy who can get a basket whenever is needed.


Stoked said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
ncoloradojazz said:
GSw
Okc
Houston
Spurs
Minny
Denver
Portland

All better then Utah and then who gets spot 8
N.o.
Memphis
Utah
Kings
Clippers


Utah chances of not making playoffs are Also very high because the offense is going struggle and this isn't football where defense when championships theory works. Good to score the ball to win now in nba and jazz missing a go to guy who can get a basket whenever is needed.
Click to expand...

Lol @ Portland and Denver.
 
If healthy Hood. If Gobert is leading scorer on a team, that team has serious offensive problems...
 
fishonjazz said:
As for sample size. It's not huge but 32 games isn't tiny either.
Click to expand...

Over 7 years.

Inferring results over an insufficient sample size breaks one of the commandments of statistics.

I know everyone is so horny about flipping the bird to the ex that left them, but that doesn't change that in no way, shape, or form could the Jazz be better without Hayward. It sucks. You move on.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Over 7 years.

Inferring results over an insufficient sample size breaks one of the commandments of statistics.

I know everyone is so horny about flipping the bird to the ex that left them, but that doesn't change that in no way, shape, or form could the Jazz be better without Hayward. It sucks. You move on.
Click to expand...
All I said is that we won at a better percentage without him than with him.

Sometimes you can just say "yep, you were right" and then move on.

I never said I think he sucked or that I think we will be better off without him this year (I wanted him to stay) but I found it to be an interesting stat. I'm sorry if it's a stat you don't like. Doesn't make it any less true.
 
fishonjazz said:
All I said is that we won at a better percentage without him than with him.

Sometimes you can just say "yep, you were right" and then move on.

I never said I think he sucked or that I think we will be better off without him this year (I wanted him to stay) but I found it to be an interesting stat. I'm sorry if it's a stat you don't like. Doesn't make it any less true.
Click to expand...

No he doesnt. You are saying nonsensical stuff and that doesn't mean anything meaningful.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
No he doesnt. You are saying nonsensical stuff and that doesn't mean anything meaningful.
Click to expand...
I'm not even saying theres meaning to it. Just saying it's true. Sorry you don't like the truth.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Over 7 years.

Inferring results over an insufficient sample size breaks one of the commandments of statistics.

I know everyone is so horny about flipping the bird to the ex that left them, but that doesn't change that in no way, shape, or form could the Jazz be better without Hayward. It sucks. You move on.
Click to expand...
The only hope to be better with Hayward gone is it clears room for someone to step up and break out.

We are worse without him. Although we might be better or the same as last season if we have average league health this year. But we would be better if we had average league health and Hayward.
 
NUMBERICA said:
You are clearly making a statistical inference that is not true. I'm going to call it out.
Click to expand...

NUMBERICA said:
This discussion was never about debating the raw data, and you know that.

Wait, do you know that?
Click to expand...
Here is how it went cause you obviously have no idea what you are talking about so i will clear it up.
fishonjazz said:
Pretty funny how they seemed to win more games (% wise) 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...
Here was my first post (i put the parenthesis part in) which was a response to franklin who posted a doom and gloom post about how bad the jazz will suck without hayward (frank gonna frank). I was only saying that it was funny (not funny ha ha but funny as in a strange weird way) that we seemed to actually do better without him than with him. (at this point it was just something that i remembered hearing but didn't have the raw data)
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...
Here you tell me that im flat wrong. Siro came with the raw data later on to show that i was actually flat right. You were flat wrong. Not that you would ever admit it. Also you didn't find it funny. Thats fine. The sample size is small. we both agree on that. it is what it is. In my original post i wasn't claiming that it wasn't a small sample size.

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...
There was the raw data showing that i was right.

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...
It ended up being a better record without him than i thought. (was thinking about .500) I do think its pretty crazy/unexpected/weird that a roster during our tanking years with no haywood on it won at a pretty good rate, small sample size and all. I would think that we would lose more when he doesn't play since he is a good player. Apparently you think it to be perfectly normal and maybe even likely(?) that we would win at a better rate without him than with.
 
fishonjazz said:
Here is how it went cause you obviously have no idea what you are talking about so i will clear it up.

Here was my first post (i put the parenthesis part in) which was a response to franklin who posted a doom and gloom post about how bad the jazz will suck without hayward (frank gonna frank). I was only saying that it was funny (not funny ha ha but funny as in a strange weird way) that we seemed to actually do better without him than with him. (at this point it was just something that i remembered hearing but didn't have the raw data)

Here you tell me that im flat wrong. Siro came with the raw data later on to show that i was actually flat right. You were flat wrong. Not that you would ever admit it. Also you didn't find it funny. Thats fine. The sample size is small. we both agree on that. it is what it is. In my original post i wasn't claiming that it wasn't a small sample size.


There was the raw data showing that i was right.


It ended up being a better record without him than i thought. (was thinking about .500) I do think its pretty crazy/unexpected/weird that a roster during our tanking years with no haywood on it won at a pretty good rate, small sample size and all. I would think that we would lose more when he doesn't play since he is a good player. Apparently you think it to be perfectly normal and maybe even likely(?) that we would win at a better rate without him than with.
Click to expand...

You just said you werent trying to put meaning behind it but this clearly shows you are. It's a small sample that has no meaning.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Wow, that's not a very good record and an incredibly small sample size.
Click to expand...
18-14 with a crap roster is pretty good imo. We can agree to disagree. apparently you think a tanking team without hayward should be really really good. Strange.
fishonjazz said:
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.
Click to expand...


So things you were wrong about were: 1. That my supposition was flat wrong. It was actually totally right. 2. That the discussion was never about raw data. That is exactly what i was discussing. 3.That I was making a statistical inference. If you inferred something out of me stating that the jazz won at a better rate without him than with him like that i was trying to say that haywood sucked or we will be better without him or something then that is on you. I never said any of that. In fact i have often said the opposite and I wanted him to stay with the jazz. Losing him was a bad thing imo.

What you were right about was the small sample size. I agree its a small sample size. Also i dont care. I never made reference that it was a big sample size in my original post. Just that the jazz won at a better clip when hayward was out than when he was in. Which i was right about.

Im curious to see if you own up to the fact that i was right about what i said after you told me i was flat wrong. I doubt it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top