Gordon Hayward's Worth?

[jjscap]

Hayward is a damn good all-around player. But he is not clutch at all, lacks killer instinct.
Building around a #1 option is normally the way to go in the NBA but JAZZ don't have this player yet. Who are they building around?
Kanter or Favors MAY be that guy but not Hayward. At the end of this year we will have a much better idea when they finally are all given starter minutes. That's why I am not a big fan of signing long-term deals at this moment.

That being said, players like Hayward are extremely rare, can bring so much to the floor. I'd give him 4 years $45m

[xBulletproof]

Reading this board is painful sometimes for one solitary reason. Too many people act like the per 36 means something. It's frustrating.

Here's some per 36's for you guys from 1996-1997:

Player A: 25 PPG, 10 RPG, 1 assist. All on 52% shooting.

Player B: 23 PPG, 9 RPG, 3 assists. On 51% shooting.

Player C: 21 PPG, 8 RPG, 1 assist. On 48% shooting.

I'm sure many of you would take player A based on these stats, but the per 36 is so stupid and useless you have no clue who you'd be picking.




Player A is Chris Gatling. Player B is Hakeem Olajuwon, and Player C is Patrick Ewing. Out of those 3 who do you want on your team? I'm sure NOBODY picks Chris Gatling knowing who they are. That's how useful the crap called the per 36 is. Stop using it.

[TheGoodDoctor]

I wouldn't pay more than $9M/yr

[165bows]

Reading this board is painful sometimes for one solitary reason. Too many people act like the per 36 means something. It's frustrating.

Here's some per 36's for you guys from 1996-1997:

Player A: 25 PPG, 10 RPG, 1 assist. All on 52% shooting.

Player B: 23 PPG, 9 RPG, 3 assists. On 51% shooting.

Player C: 21 PPG, 8 RPG, 1 assist. On 48% shooting.

I'm sure many of you would take player A based on these stats, but the per 36 is so stupid and useless you have no clue who you'd be picking.




Player A is Chris Gatling. Player B is Hakeem Olajuwon, and Player C is Patrick Ewing. Out of those 3 who do you want on your team? I'm sure NOBODY picks Chris Gatling knowing who they are. That's how useful the crap called the per 36 is. Stop using it.

[xBulletproof]

Reading this board is painful sometimes for one solitary reason. Too many people act like the per 36 means something. It's frustrating.

Here's some per 36's for you guys from 1996-1997:

Player A: 25 PPG, 10 RPG, 1 assist. All on 52% shooting.

Player B: 23 PPG, 9 RPG, 3 assists. On 51% shooting.

Player C: 21 PPG, 8 RPG, 1 assist. On 48% shooting.

I'm sure many of you would take player A based on these stats, but the per 36 is so stupid and useless you have no clue who you'd be picking.




Player A is Chris Gatling. Player B is Hakeem Olajuwon, and Player C is Patrick Ewing. Out of those 3 who do you want on your team? I'm sure NOBODY picks Chris Gatling knowing who they are. That's how useful the crap called the per 36 is. Stop using it.

Hey, if you wanna put merit into a stat that says Chris Copeland is a top 20 scorer in the NBA then by all means, assume I'm the stupid one. Dominique Jones and Earl Watson were top 10 in assists. I can't believe those guys didn't get 15 million dollar deals as free agents last year and GM's didn't want to build a team around their scoring/passing abilities. They were top notch players in the per 36. That means something, right? Of course not.

In reality, there's a reason guys get minutes in the NBA, and there are reasons that certain guys don't. Acting like those reasons don't matter by using per 36 to draw any kind of conclusions and put them on a level playing field is pure tunnel vision and flawed.

[sixerswillrule]

Hey, if you wanna put merit into a stat that says Chris Copeland is a top 20 scorer in the NBA then by all means, assume I'm the stupid one. Dominique Jones and Earl Watson were top 10 in assists. I can't believe those guys didn't get 15 million dollar deals as free agents last year and GM's didn't want to build a team around their scoring/passing abilities. They were top notch players in the per 36. That means something, right? Of course not.

In reality, there's a reason guys get minutes in the NBA, and there are reasons that certain guys don't. Acting like those reasons don't matter by using per 36 to draw any kind of conclusions and put them on a level playing field is pure tunnel vision and flawed.

Where are these people who are comparing 15 mpg players to 36 mpg players?

[xBulletproof]

Hey, if you wanna put merit into a stat that says Chris Copeland is a top 20 scorer in the NBA then by all means, assume I'm the stupid one. Dominique Jones and Earl Watson were top 10 in assists. I can't believe those guys didn't get 15 million dollar deals as free agents last year and GM's didn't want to build a team around their scoring/passing abilities. They were top notch players in the per 36. That means something, right? Of course not.

In reality, there's a reason guys get minutes in the NBA, and there are reasons that certain guys don't. Acting like those reasons don't matter by using per 36 to draw any kind of conclusions and put them on a level playing field is pure tunnel vision and flawed.

Where are these people who are comparing 15 mpg players to 36 mpg players?

It doesn't have to be that wide of a gap to be significant. Paul George played just short of 3,000 minutes, and Hayward played 2,100. That's a wide gap in minutes (30% more minutes), and there are reasons for it. Assuming those reasons are irrelevant enough to plant them on a level playing field and think you're making a great point is just not sound logic.

Hell that doesn't even account for the fact that Paul was on a much better team, and still earned more minutes by a wide margin. So even comparing Paul to Gordon clearly is flawed, and people have done that here, haven't they?

[sixerswillrule]

Hey, if you wanna put merit into a stat that says Chris Copeland is a top 20 scorer in the NBA then by all means, assume I'm the stupid one. Dominique Jones and Earl Watson were top 10 in assists. I can't believe those guys didn't get 15 million dollar deals as free agents last year and GM's didn't want to build a team around their scoring/passing abilities. They were top notch players in the per 36. That means something, right? Of course not.

In reality, there's a reason guys get minutes in the NBA, and there are reasons that certain guys don't. Acting like those reasons don't matter by using per 36 to draw any kind of conclusions and put them on a level playing field is pure tunnel vision and flawed.

Where are these people who are comparing 15 mpg players to 36 mpg players?

It doesn't have to be that wide of a gap to be significant. Paul George played just short of 3,000 minutes, and Hayward played 2,100. That's a wide gap in minutes (30% more minutes), and there are reasons for it. Assuming those reasons are irrelevant enough to plant them on a level playing field and think you're making a great point is just not sound logic.

Hell that doesn't even account for the fact that Paul was on a much better team, and still earned more minutes by a wide margin. So even comparing Paul to Gordon clearly is flawed, and people have done that here, haven't they?

The ridiculous hyperbole of your previous post wasn't necessary because no one comes even close to doing that, and anyone who does isn't taken seriously.

I see nothing wrong with comparing a 29 mpg player to a 38 mpg player using per 36 as one part of a comparison. Of course the fact that one player actually played more minutes is kept in consideration. And of course there are other considerations besides these simple stats, like the team they're on, defense, etc. But it's definitely not meaningless like you insist. Especially because we're looking at a 23 year old who, for projection purposes, could be playing those minutes next season. It's not like looking back at the careers of Manu Ginobil vs. Clyde Drexler and pretending they played equal minutes, when that's not something that will change. In this case, it could change.

[Novocaine]

The ridiculous hyperbole of your previous post wasn't necessary because no one comes even close to doing that, and anyone who does isn't taken seriously.

Exactly. His thesis was a strawman.

[xBulletproof]

I was a bit dramatic in the beginning true, but there are 100's of factors and I couldn't even begin to point them all out. One example though is that Paul was starting and Gordon was coming off the bench most of the time. Say both teams are playing the Lakers. Paul plays the first 10 minutes of the game being guarded by Kobe. By the time Gordon is coming in the game against the Lakers, Kobe is coming out after a couple minutes and for 5-7 minutes in that half that Kobe sits, Gordon is being guarded by Jodie Meeks. An advantage that Paul wouldn't likely see. So not only does he play less minutes, but those minutes have the opportunity to be more productive against lesser defenders.

They aren't in the same roles, so it skews the results as well. Like I said, there are 100's of variables and that's just one. Besides that, I just don't like a stat that gives a guy 'pretend' production that he didn't earn. Y

That said I don't want this to come off as me being down on Hayward. He has a shot at clearly cementing himself as a very good starter this year in the league, and I think he will. I think he eventually becomes the best NBA player currently on Utah's roster. Paul is just on a different level. It's not a fair comparison for Gordon. In preseason it certainly looked like Paul has made leaps in his mid range/isolation game and that could push him towards the top 15 players in the game if he wasn't already (All NBA 3rd team kinda implies he's already there).

So even though the per 36's are close, their impacts on the game aren't.

Anyway, this is off the topic so I'll leave it alone after this, but I just find it to be bogus representation. Assuming guys will continue the same production despite the extra fatigue and wear and tear on their body with extra minutes over the course of a whole season. I make a point to watch every team in the NBA several times a year, and there are plenty of guys with per 36's lower than someone else's that I would prefer be on my team as a fan.

I'm not sure how its anything close to straw man. I clearly think that even a Paul vs Gordon comparison with per 36 doesn't carry merit and people ARE doing it. Straw man implies people aren't doing what I'm complaining about, but they are. I just exaggerated the point in the beginning and was being dramatic, and sarcastic. Not serious.

[StocktonShorts]

And to the guy saying the Celtics would take Hayward as a free agent, they'd much rather spend the same if not a little more on Chandler Parsons.

Without comparing him to Hayward or George specifically, I think Chandler Parsons is criminally overrated in some circles. I don't get the love affair with him. He doesn't appear to do any one thing particularly well; to me he just looks like an average NBA swingman who is already 25 years old going into his third year.

[Scraptor]

I have never seen a player go from underrated to overrated as quickly as Gordon Hayward. I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread.

One of the things that people don't realize is how good defensively Hayward is. He is probably the best wing defender that the Jazz have ever had

AK47 would like a word.

If you can't spot the difference between Hayward and Batum, I can't help you. Hayward has a complete floor game and can create his shot from anywhere on the floor. Batum simply isn't that talented.

Batum had a higher iso PPP than Hayward, and Wizenheimer pointed out all the other ways in which this statement is false.

Hayward is a much better passer and playmaker than players like Batum, DeRozan or even Iguodala.

Iguodala has a career 21.0% assist rate and by his third year was over 20%, while Hayward's career high was last year at 16.7%. Nic Batum was also over 20% last year.

Lets say Hayward continues to play all year like he has in pre-season, basically a triple-double threat any given night.

I just don't even know where to start with this.

I can only suspect that it's this kind of Jazz fan hyperbole that Hayward's agent is using as leverage in negotiations. I guess we're about to see what Dennis Lindsey is made of.

[xBulletproof]

The ridiculous hyperbole of your previous post wasn't necessary because no one comes even close to doing that, and anyone who does isn't taken seriously.

Exactly. His thesis was a strawman.

It just hit me that if you didn't look it up you might think that Gatling played like 10 minutes per game. Which is where you believe the straw man occurred. He played 27 MPG that year. Ewing played 37 and Hakeem played 36.

It really wasn't very far from the Paul vs Gordon comparisons. I guess I should have stated that. I'm sure everyone assumed Gatling barely played and that's not true.

[sixerswillrule]

The ridiculous hyperbole of your previous post wasn't necessary because no one comes even close to doing that, and anyone who does isn't taken seriously.

Exactly. His thesis was a strawman.

It just hit me that if you didn't look it up you might think that Gatling played like 10 minutes per game. Which is where you believe the straw man occurred. He played 27 MPG that year. Ewing played 37 and Hakeem played 36.

It really wasn't very far from the Paul vs Gordon comparisons. I guess I should have stated that. I'm sure everyone assumed Gatling barely played and that's not true.

I was talking about the crap about Chris Copeland and Earl Watson. That was the straw man.

And Gatling did that in only 47 games, and for a terrible team. There are other factors like I already said. No one is picking one player over another just based off per 36 raw stats (which is basically PER by the way). That doesn't make it meaningless and I still stand by what I said before.

[Blame Rasho]

I think the real point is that if you are using per36 numbers to justify upcoming contracts... it isn't a wise idea to think of them as concrete numbers because those 8 or so mins extra mins is assumed production... Let me repeat that... assumed. There is one thing to put up numbers as a guy coming off the bench facing 2nd units when your 1st team scorers go out for a break, it is another thing all together to be the sole guy that the defense look at stopping. Jazz fans can think the world of Hayward... there is no skin off my teeth, I wouldn't care less if he signs for 8 or 14 million dollars but you can't expect people to buy into the logic that has been posted.

[Novocaine]

Every future contract is justified by assumed future production, regardless of what Arenas might tell you. Past performance is an estimator of future performance, but obviously not a linear one.

OTher than that, projections must be strictly based on a case to case basis. It's as silly to say that you can extrapolate from per minutes numbers to every player as it is to say you can never use per minute production as an element of estimation.

[sixerswillrule]

James Harden used his performance in 31 minutes per game, a lot of which came against 2nd units, to earn himself 80 million dollars.

[Tetlak]

The way I see it, Hayward will get just about the contract a young, comparable Luol Deng got. Maybe a little less, as Deng did it in the playoffs. That should translate roughly to 11-13 mil a year.

[165bows]

Exactly. His thesis was a strawman.

It just hit me that if you didn't look it up you might think that Gatling played like 10 minutes per game. Which is where you believe the straw man occurred. He played 27 MPG that year. Ewing played 37 and Hakeem played 36.

It really wasn't very far from the Paul vs Gordon comparisons. I guess I should have stated that. I'm sure everyone assumed Gatling barely played and that's not true.

I was talking about the crap about Chris Copeland and Earl Watson. That was the straw man.

And Gatling did that in only 47 games, and for a terrible team. There are other factors like I already said. No one is picking one player over another just based off per 36 raw stats (which is basically PER by the way). That doesn't make it meaningless and I still stand by what I said before.

Pretty confident that some competent understanding of rate stats is used by teams throughout the league. It's well established that they were an important advance in the understanding of the game compared to solely using counting type statistics alone. Doesn't help to criticize something that is used improperly by showing that it can indeed be used improperly.

What, we shouldn't use any type of shooting efficiency statistic because it doesn't tell us the total number of points scored? It's like refuting that statement by saying Sam Dalembert shot 3-3 and therefore all the stupid people will think he is better than Durant if anyone discusses shooting percentages. Just didn't make sense to me on many levels.

If the way it's used is incorrect, fine, criticize away.

[pr0wler]

And to the guy saying the Celtics would take Hayward as a free agent, they'd much rather spend the same if not a little more on Chandler Parsons.

Without comparing him to Hayward or George specifically, I think Chandler Parsons is criminally overrated in some circles. I don't get the love affair with him. He doesn't appear to do any one thing particularly well; to me he just looks like an average NBA swingman who is already 25 years old going into his third year.

You're right in the sense that he doesn't excel in one particular category, but he is slightly above average at almost everything. He's almost 6'10'' with shoes, handles the ball wall, solid shooter, decent athleticism and lateral quickness, good passing ability. He's good at everything basically.

PS - This is no knock on Gordon Hayward either I think he's a really good player too.