sam_I_am wrote:Captain_Caveman wrote:jeremym480 wrote:There are only three teams that have four players scoring more than 16 ppg - Us, the Clippers, and OKC. Hayward is basically our 4th option. If you're expecting him to average 20+ ppg then you're going to be disappointed. He does need to be more consistent like he was during the first nine games of the season when he was our most consistent player. If he can get back there, then this team could be really good, if not, we'll have trouble making it out of the 1st Round but I believe Hayward's play will be the difference between making a good run or going out early.
I'm not 100% on board with not trading Hayward, mainly because I'm afraid that he will pull a Horford, but I wouldn't trade him unless it's a trade that clearly makes the team better. I have yet to see that trade and honestly, I don't think that he has the trade value right now to replace himself (if that makes sense).
Unless management is really concerned about him leaving then I say stay the course, see who shakes loose in the buyout market and maybe make a minor trade to bolster the bench. Guys like Aaron Gordon and Robert Covington aren't better than Hayward and doesn't move the needle, at all.
I'm gonna highlight the underutilized 4th scorer point again, because I think it is the key to how this dude is perceived here. Been around long enough to know that the majority here really overemphasize per game scoring stats in evaluating players. Hayward averages 16.3ppg on 12.9 shots a game. If we were missing Tatum or Jaylen and Hayward were averaging 20.5ppg on 16 shots a game, no one would be complaining about him at all. I truly believe that.
In fact, I will go a step further and say that once you account for the differences in shots per game (and account for each additional ~2.3 free throw attempts essentially equating to an extra shot per game), there is little to no difference in the scoring efficiency of any of our top 4 right now, and that the slightly lesser PPG for Hayward is attributable almost solely to him having slightly less usage than the other 3 as a scorer.
Put another way, provided with 17 possessions a game each, all four would score 19-20ppg. If anything, Tatum would be the least efficient of the 4. For whatever reason, it is perceived differently on this board, but I don't think the facts support that.
I can’t speak for anybody else but for me it’s not a numbers thing. It’s my perception that when the team is struggling and needs him to step up, he tends to miss bunnies, miss wide open 3s, has unforced TOs and gets scorched defensively. Now the Laker game was an awesome exception. I think it’s first time all year where the team was playing like crap and Hayward helped turn the tide.
Best thing for Hayward would be a trade to a team desperate for wing play and he can average 22/6/4. Then he can opt out and get his payday. Might be good for Celtics too if they rebalance roster as he is an unnecessary luxury when we have Tatum and Brown and Smart plus emergency options on Green and Langford.
Maybe on his flaws, but unless the equal or greater flaws of other guys bothers you as much, I see a double standard here. Given that you were a huge IT guy, just wondering why it is Hayward's unselfishness-to-a-fault, and Smart's shooting percentages that get you, and not IT's historically poor defense? Isn't it all more or less the same?
I'd even say that Hayward's deference is actually a lot preferable than the other two. A guy who always wants to make the right play and fit his game into the team at large? Sign me up.
