Gordon Hayward breakdown

[Hikari]

I thought this was a good breakdown

Is Gordon Hayward a good enough athlete to play in the NBA>
28 September 2010 | 10:17 pm




Wherever you look the question is whether or not Gordon Hayward is a good enough athlete to play in the NBA. This is almost completely misplaced. At the Chicago camp ever draft prospect went through draft measurements.

Here are Gordon Hayward’s

No step Vert= 30.5

Max Vert = 34.5

Bench = 10

Agility = 11.73

¾ Sprint = 3.22



According to NBA Draft Express here are the average numbers for NBA players

Average Standing Reach / Wing Span by Position

Primary Position
Sample Size
Avg Height w/o Shoes
Average Weight
Average Wingspan
Average Standing Reach

PG
170
6' 0.52"
185
6' 4.7"
8' 0.5"

SG
168
6' 3.49"
202
6' 7.9"
8' 4.6"

SF
149
6' 6.09"
213
6' 10.4"
8' 8.1"

PF
259
6' 7.70"
235
7' 0.8"
8' 10.6"

C
138
6' 9.97"
252
7' 2.9"
9' 1.7"





Gordon Hayward stands at 6’6.75 without shoes. He is above average for both shooting guard and small forward. His wingspan is short for a small forward, but right on average for a shooting guard. His standing reach at 8’7 is long for a shooting guard and a bit short for a standing reach.



Average Athletic Testing by Position

Primary Position
Sample Size
No Step Vert
Max Vert
Bench Press
Lane Agility
3/4 Court Sprint

PG
137
29.3
34.9
8.1
11.15
3.21

SG
139
29.6
34.9
10.6
11.31
3.23

SF
116
29.6
34.6
10.9
11.38
3.26

PF
225
28.4
32.8
13.0
11.70
3.31

C
110
26.6
30.5
11.7
12.14
3.43





Now for the athletic test, Hayward’s no step vertical jump is 30.5, above average for any position in the NBA. His max vertical was 34.5 right on the average for both positions. His bench press was 10 again right on the average and his lane agility was 11.73 slightly above the average and his 3.22 sprint was right on the average.

It is clear that Hayward is not athletically deficient. More noticeable is that where he shines are the most important basketball skills.

According to NBA Draft express they feel the No Step Vert is a more valuable number than the Max Vert. The No Step Vert is “a good estimation for how tall a player can actually play, because it doesn't require a running start to reach this height. Things like dunking a drop-off pass underneath the hoop, jumping for an offensive rebound, jump-ball situations, contesting shots and other skills where players need to get off their feet quickly from stand-still positions are much easier for a player with a great combination of no-step vert+reach”

The Max Vert is not as useful, “The number may not be as useful as no step vert reach because there are fewer times an player gets a running start and gets to leap and still needs height—think alleyoop plays, chasing a block from behind,


What is more interesting is when you compare Hayward with other draftees.

Hayward is taller than Evan Turner, the 2nd pick, by an inch, weighs 3 pounds less. They have virtually the same wingspan and reach. Hayward has a 3 inch better no step vertical and the same max vert. Hayward is better in every other tested category.

James Harden a year ago had the same no step vert as Hayward, a superior max very with better lane agility testing and better ¾ court and he and Terrance Williams were the best wing athletes in the draft. Harden’s lane agility results are some of the best of all time.

Stephen Curry is smaller than Hayward by a good deal, but it is worth noting was inferior to Hayward in all the athletic tests.

It is not just that Hayward is above average. In some areas he is elite with the 12th best no step vertical jump of draft prospects. Gordon Hayward’s 30.5 no step vertical was only surpassed by Wesley Johnson (32), Derrick Favors (31.5) Avery Bradley (31.5) Jordan Crawford (31.5), Ekpe Udoh (31.0) Ed Davis (31.0) and Lazar Hayward (31.0) of the recognizable players in the draft. Blake Griffin a year ago had a 32 no step vertical and is thought of as an Amare Stoudemire type player, who had the same test results.

During the time leading up to the draft Al-Fawouq Aminu was talked about as though he is a freak athlete. However, he has a lower standing vertical than Hayward, he is has a smaller max Vert, and ¾ court sprint was slower. Hayward has a shorter wingspan and standing reach.

It is worth noting that Wesley Johnson is a superior athlete statistically to Hayward or anyone else in the draft not named John Wall.

Some of Hayward’s teammates might be surprised. Hayward is taller than Millsap, has a 2 inch higher no step vertical, a 2 inch higher max vertical and scored better in all agility and sprint tests. Millsap did weigh nearly 50 pounds more coming out of college than Hayward.

Finally, historically the players who came out most similar to Gordon Hayward are not players who often have their athleticism challenged. The comps are Danny Granger, Ed Davis, Corey Brewer, Brendan Wright, Renaldo Balkman, John Salmons and Andre Iguodala.

http://www.nba.com/jazz/features/locked_on_jazz.html

[BarneyGumble]

Im not worried about Hayward, he will be fine. The disappointment in drafting him was that we didnt get one of the big guys we wanted (who were already off the board). But that didnt matter after we traded for Al. Hayward turned out to be a good pick for us.

Hope I dont eat crow later.

[jazzfan1971]

spin

[kwill]

Back in grad school 30 years ago I took an applied statistical analysis class and found out quickly how statistics lie, especially when they are incomplete. In the class we read a study which statistically proved beyond any question that the number of tigers in the local zoo had a direct correlation to the crime rate. The higher the number of tigers the higher number of crimes. It was such a concern that some places actually started recommending selling their tigers to other zoos in order to reduce the number of crimes. As it turns out, the people doing the study left out one key variable. When I say key it was the most important variable. The number of tigers in a city's zoo was actually correlated to the number of people living in the city. The bigger the city the more tigers the zoo had. The problem with their analysis is that the more people in a city, of course the crime rate goes up. Tiger were irrelevant to the crime rate.

In this case, whoever wrote this article, only focused on the statistics they wanted to prove a point. They completely left off the fact that Hayward scored very low, in the bottom 30 % of all people tested, in the test that measures lateral quickness, i.e., defense. Moreover, by his own admission Hayward is a tweener 2-3. I also like how they left off the fact he shot 29% from college three point land last year.

It seems like the board has completely gone crazy for Hayward. Everyone wants him to succeed, even me because were all Jazz fans. However, please please dial down the expectations that Hayward will start, will play 30 minutes a game or will average 15 points a game. I have read all these predictions in the last month on various boards. Lets just hope Hayward can contribute and be happy if he does.

[HolyToledo]

He is a rookie on a playoff team and that usually means little minutes but Sloan is not your normal coach when it comes to playing time (see Matthews last year). If He earns his minutes, he will get his minutes. I still dont expect much this year but 10 min per game.

[Luigi]

It makes sense to compare him to the next best 2/3 player in the draft.

Xavier Henry had better combine numbers:

SIZE
-Henry is a bit shorter, but they weigh almost the same, and Henry has a 2" better standing reach. Hayward's T-rex arms hurt him vertically and laterally, but he can see over the defense a bit better.

JUMP
-Henry is 2" shorter on standing vert, but his reach makes them equal on hand height. Henry is 2" better on max vert., which puts his highest touch 4" better, again due to his long arms.

SPEED
-Henry is barely faster in the sprint (.04), but his lateral quickness is .63 better. .63 is a country mile for a three and a half second race. Add in his 6' 11.25" wingspan vs Hayward's 6' 7.75" wingspan, and the deflections and defensive potential is drastically divergent.

From the God given gifts, Henry could become a defensive stopper for elite scorers out of the NBA 2/3 position. Hayward could become a skinny Matt Harpring. I was hoping for something more like Henry with out NY pick.

But Hayward's fit into the team is a safe bet. He has virtually no bust factor outside of his athletic shortcomings, which means even if his ceiling isn't very high, his floor isn't very low either. He is athletic enough, and smart enough, to not get chewed up and spit out of the league leaving us with nothing to show for the pick. He was a safe pick, but man I wanted a risk pick in the lottery.

[Ziploc]

maybe if we get some more tigers at the hogle zoo we might win a championship?

[d-will8]

A skinny Harpring with better range and vastly superior ballhandling and passing. I can see the Harpring comparison in that both players are smart, scrappy white guys who move well without the ball and can hit mid-range jump shots and rebound , but Hayward, while nowhere near as strong, has a far more versatile skill set.

[kwill]

dwill8

Do you understand the type of pressure you are putting on Hayward. You call him a skinny Harpring. No hes not, hes nothing. He's a rookie that has never played a NBA game and you compare him to Harpring, a guy who averaged 12-18 points over his career and played hard nose sloan-type defense. Not only do you compare him to Harpring you add the following:

vastly superior ball skills
better passing
smart, scrappy
good with mid-range jump shots
good rebounder
far more versatile skill set than Harpring.

You are in for a big let down if you keep up these unrealistic expectations. Hayward has shown nothing to anybody in the NBA. Let him play a year before we heap undeserving accolades on the poor kid.

[colts2004]

Remember one thing guys.... Athleticism or size isnt everything. Gordan is a smart ball player, he will do well especially under Sloan

[d-will8]

k-will: It's largely my own fault, but you thoroughly misinterpreted what I meant to say. I wasn't saying that Hayward will be a skinny Harpring with superior ballhandling and passing skills; rather, I was merely responding to Luigi's claim that the best case scenario for Hayward is becoming a skinny Harpring by pointing out that, while there are some basic similarities between the two, there are also noteworthy differences between them and, further, there are some areas in which Hayward's probably better than Harpring.

Matt Harpring was a pretty good player and, consequently, it would indeed be foolish to suggest that Hayward simply will be that good or better. As with practically any rookie, there's a chance that he'll be out of the league in two years. That being said, if you've watched Hayward play or have listened to anything any coach, executive or analyst has said about him, I don't think you can deny that he's smart and scrappy, that he plays well off the ball and that he can hit some mid-range jump shots. It's possible that those skills won't translate to NBA play, but, on a basic level, they're certainly present.

Finally, Harpring wasn't exactly an elite ballhandler or passer. He was great at what he did, but he was never anything close to a point forward (in fact, whenever he was handling the ball on the break, I was relieved if he didn't dribble the ball off his foot). Hayward, at least, has the potential to occupy that type of role because he handles very well and he is (or at least projects to be) a terrific passer for his position. Harpring was a solid, smart passer, but I'd argue that Hayward easily has more potential in that area. So, in sum, I don't think it's certain that Hayward will be a skinny Harpring with deeper range and vastly superior ballhandling and passing skills, but I don't think it's all that absurd to say that he could be (I mean, c'mon, some of the comparisons/best case scenarios on sites like nbadraft.net and draftexpress are far more ridiculous).

[GP]

spin

+1000. Thank you. Exactly what I was thinking. Throw all the stats you want at me, if the guy can't keep up athletically with the other guys on the court, it means nothing.

[Jazzfan12]

He is more athletic than Turner though.

[HammerDunk]

Crap, we are never gonna beat LA, they have WAY more tigers at their zoo than we ever will...

Seriously guys, just stfu until the season starts and watch what happens. Until then, you're ALL blowing hot air...

[erudite23]

Listen...measurables are a relevant part of the process. Lets not try to argue that they aren't. They are. They don't guarantee anything, and they don't win games all by themselves, but used as guidelines they are certainly worthy of attention.

I think the measurables for Gordon prove that he will not be unable to compete because of a serious deficiency in one of those areas. No more than that, but certainly enough to know that he is up to snuff as an NBA athlete. We don't have to be concerned about that.

We also know that he won't have an advantage in that respect, either.

That's what it tells us. At the end of the day, a player has to have the skills. Its not enough to make you certain that Hayward will be an NBA player, but its a small piece to the puzzle that's worth noting.

[carrottop12]

While measurements and things to matter, and it's great to have freakishly long players who can jump out of the building, the truth is 90% of the game is played on the floor as opposed to in the air. Like Erudite said, he's not giving us a Josh Smith like advantage when he's on the floor, but it isn't like we're putting O-Tag out there at small forward.

When it comes down to it, a guy who is willing to work harder will beat his opponent more often than not regardless of athleticism.

[Paper Face]

+1, erudite.

[UGA Hayes]

To me measurables are less important than how well they are able to use what they have in the game. I can't count the number of great athletes I have seen enter the NBA who don't really use their athleticism. Whatever athleticism Haywood has, he uses it in a way that you notice it.