Hayward, George, and Thompson

[retiredcoach]

I haven't posted on here in awhile. I hope you zealot's are all doing well.

I've read a lot of comparisons of Hayward, George and Thompson on some of the blog sites. Most of the posts have little to no facts in them--nothing new there--so I put together a table of stats comparing them.

I posted it on SLC Dunk for your reading pleasure. Hope it adds some off season diversion to your boring days waiting for the draft.

[Jazzfan12]

Hayward and George are good offensive players. Klay is a good shooter without much of anything else.

Klay and Hayward are decent defenders, George is the best perimeter defender in the NBA.

I don't think this is much of a discussion: It's George >> Hayward >> Klay

[reapaman]

We had a discussion on this not to long ago (well minus klay) and the conclusion was theres no debate; George blows hayward out the water.

Their close offensely but you gotta take into consideration that Hayward is in a more favorable situation stat wise since he gets way less defensive attention and plays much less versus starters than George.

Defensively is where this comparison becomes lopsided, they aren't even close.

George towers over both of them. With hayward and thompson it depends what you want. Thompsons a purer shooter and Haywards a better playmaker.

[retiredcoach]

Reapaman,

I don't know what discussions you've been engaged in regarding Hayward and George but if the conclusion was George blows Hayward away, it must have been a fact free debate.

Hayward is much more efficient than George, is a better 3 pt shooter, gets to the free throw line more frequently, has a lower ratio of turnovers to possessions, and contributes more effectively at improving his teammates scoring than George does.

Both Hayward and George are very good players. Hayward is more versatile and plays all parts of the game at a high level. At best it's a tie, and aside from a tie, overall I would give the edge to Hayward.

[Jazzfan12]

Reapaman,

I don't know what discussions you've been engaged in regarding Hayward and George but if the conclusion was George blows Hayward away, it must have been a fact free debate.

Hayward is much more efficient than George, is a better 3 pt shooter, gets to the free throw line more frequently, has a lower ratio of turnovers to possessions, and contributes more effectively at improving his teammates scoring than George does.

Both Hayward and George are very good players. Hayward is more versatile and plays all parts of the game at a high level. At best it's a tie, and aside from a tie, overall I would give the edge to Hayward.

A lot of Hayward's offensive efficiency advantage comes from George being forced into a first-option role that he shouldn't be in and because Hayward leaks out into transition far more frequently.

Defensively, I don't think it's really close. Hayward a good defender, but his help in the half-court isn't special and he doesn't really shut people down whereas George is the best perimeter defender in the NBA.

[reapaman]

Reapaman,

I don't know what discussions you've been engaged in regarding Hayward and George but if the conclusion was George blows Hayward away, it must have been a fact free debate.

Hayward is much more efficient than George, is a better 3 pt shooter, gets to the free throw line more frequently, has a lower ratio of turnovers to possessions, and contributes more effectively at improving his teammates scoring than George does.

Both Hayward and George are very good players. Hayward is more versatile and plays all parts of the game at a high level. At best it's a tie, and aside from a tie, overall I would give the edge to Hayward.

Stats are dangerous in the wrong hands

Why are you acting like comparing two guys effeciency is an even debate on both sides when one guy is the main guy on a contender while the other is basically a sixth man on a lottery team. Lets put hayward in georges role and see how effecient he is. its not even that big of a difference anyway.

Plus you said nothing about defense which where the debates goes from close (w/o consideration for role) to lopsided. One is argubly the best perimeter defender in the NBA and the other is an average defender. George rebounds alot better as you mentioned and actually George's facillitating skills improved vastly from last season. He even has more assist per 36 than hayward and a better assist percentage so your wrong on that one.

People need to stop this delusional thinking. George was, is and always will be a better overall player. Just accept it and you will be much happier.

[retiredcoach]

Stats are dangerous in the wrong hands--you're funny. Maybe they are dangerous in the hands of people who don't understand them and simply dismiss them since they can't deal with them.

Opinions without any facts are just that opinions.

Let's see the numbers that back up the claims that George is "so much" better than Hayward. No objective data no proof.

[Jazzfan12]

Stats are dangerous in the wrong hands--you're funny. Maybe they are dangerous in the hands of people who don't understand them and simply dismiss them since they can't deal with them.

Opinions without any facts are just that opinions.

Let's see the numbers that back up the claims that George is "so much" better than Hayward. No objective data no proof.

Pacers points per 100 possessions allowed with George on-court: 99.3
Jazz points per 100 possessions allowed with Hayward on-court: 106.6

George is prodigal defender, if Hayward was as well, the Jazz wouldn't have been one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA.

George is also the leading minute getter and scorer (and who always gets the toughest defensive assignment with little help) on an ECF team.

[retiredcoach]

by Jazzfan12 » Sat May 18, 2013 7:11 pm

Pacers points per 100 possessions allowed with George on-court: 99.3
Jazz points per 100 possessions allowed with Hayward on-court: 106.6

George is prodigal defender, if Hayward was as well, the Jazz wouldn't have been one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA.

Okay, I get it now. I thought there were five guys on the court at the same time. I didn't know Hayward and George were singularly responsible for the team's performance on both offense and defense. I thought Big Al, and a couple of the other defenseless mopes on the Jazz might have contributed.

I posted another comparison of Hayward and George on SLC Dunk looking more at defense. It's those dreaded stats again. Stats in the wrong hands--or was that heads--can be dangerous.

[Jazzfan12]

How is George being a good deal better at D than Hayward even remotely controversial? George is clearly a top 2 defender on the best defense in the NBA. Hayward is the 3rd or 4th best defender on the 21st best defense in the NBA. The Jazz would be much better defensively even with Al's terrible defense if Hayward was on the level of George defensively. George is much better help defender in the half-court and always defends the best perimeter player on the other team with little to no help on the perimeter.

[StocktonShorts]

It's good to have you back, rc.

For what it's worth, Klay Thompson is no slouch on defense either. Hayward may be the third-best defender from this group.

[retiredcoach]

Thanks StocktonShorts, I'm just passing through on the way to somewhere else.

I'm not arguing Hayward is a better defender. I am saying that there isn't that much difference between Hayward and George. Hayward has the edge in efficiency. George is a better rebounder.

Defensively I also believe they are close. However, I'm willing to accept that George is better when I see some objective evidence. All I've gotten so far is passionate opinion supported by eye-ball observations. Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, personal observations does't add up to squadouche!

Hayward is on a poor defensive team. George is on a good one, so of course he looks better. If Hayward were on a good defensive team he would look better also. Looks don't matter. Let's see the numbers. The coaches have the numbers. They assign defensive grades after every game.

I've posted the stats to support what I've said. I know that's not going to change anyone's passionate opinion when they know what they know, but maybe some other fans will be enlightened and entertained.

[reapaman]

Well there's no way to provide stat evidence defensively. Defense stats are crap. All I know is what I see and when hayward is defending a guy straight up man to man, I constantly see him get beat off the dribble where George doesn't that much. I also see Hayward doesn't slide his feet properly to cut off defenders. He also gets beat off of screens a lot, often doesn't know when to go over or under the screen an often goes around the screen too wide. None of that has anything to do with anyone but him.

Sure Hayward can sometimes look good defensively due to his energy and he does have good length to guard jump shooters but his fundamentals and lateral quickness ain't cutting it. We can agree to disagree but I just don't think even the offensive stats are telling the whole story and I rarely have heard anyone say Hayward is even close to George defensively. As I always have said, stat debates are always tough to believe because there so many factors of some differences between guys stats especially effeciency.

[retiredcoach]

Well, Reapaman, if you can't accept stats as having validity, then buckle up because the Jazz have hired a couple of APBRmetrics guys to work with Dennis Lindsey to do exactly that.

You won't like who they sign because it's going to be based on stats and value.

[erudite23]

Reapaman has always championed the "this is the way it is because it is my completely biased and unsubstantiated opinion, and you're an idiot if you question me" line of reasoning. He's become very good at selectively using stats that back up what he thinks and completely ignoring or discarding ones that don't. Welcome back, RC! We've been having a blast while you were away!


Anyway, this debate is a lot closer than people here would like to think. The reality is that right now Paul George is the "it" young player. He's tall, long, athletic and skilled, and if you watch him play its easy to start thinking he's a superstar in the making. When you check the boxscore, it looks the same way. Unfortunately, he is the beneficiary of a several of the most common misperceptions among casual viewers and unwary fans. Namely:

- Playing time. George led the NBA in minutes played this year, inflating his overall contribution and misrepresenting his true value to those who don't grasp the concept of production in proportion to playing time.

- Volume. George was the closest thing that the Pacers had to a first option this year. He really is not that good of a scorer. He doesn't create THAT many shots (usage of 23.5 isn't even in the top 30 for the year) and on the shots he does create he is not that efficient. But he has the ball in his hands often and he generates a lot of (mediocre) offense.

- Secondary shooting percentage. George shoots 42% from the field and 80% from the FT line. Those numbers by themselves are at least decent. His FG% at least hovers above the dreaded 40% "Mendoza Line" that starts to alert people that you are a terrible shooter. George is also thought to be a deadly 3 point shooter--he was invited to participate in this year's 3 point shoot out--even though he shot just 36% from deep this year. But he doesn't get to the line and his lack of top notch 3 point shooting fails to make up for it all, resulting in a poor TS%. The casual fan does not get this and as a result they don't see the inefficiency.


- Novelty. Players like George emerge every year. They find the spotlight, they are hailed as the next great thing and then a few years later when they have failed to take the next step they are abandoned as "never fulfilling their promise." But the real culprit is us. The fans. The media. We get caught up in looks and can't see beyond to the real 'stuff' of greatness.


In the NBA, efficiency is king. If you want to be a great player, you have to be an efficient one. Paul George turns the ball over at an extremely high rate and he doesn't make up for it by creating high percentage looks for himself and others. You can't build a contender around that. He's Rudy Gay with defense right now. He might get there, but he has a lot of growth to make before he does.


Gordon Hayward, on the other hand, is already one of the more efficient scorers/shot creators in the NBA. There is no doubt who is better in that phase of the game.

The fact that George is a massively superior rebounder and defender ultimately makes him the better player by a small margin. But its very close and depending on the team and situation, I may take Gordo over him.

[retiredcoach]

Erudite23 everything you've said about George shows up in the stat comparisons I posted on SLC Dunk.

George is a good player, and I agree his stats benefit from major playing time making him look better than he is. That's why I based everything on 36 minutes.

If you haven't seen the two tables on SLC Dunk, take a look. Interesting numbers.

I would enjoy watching Hayward and George play together on the same team. With Hayward at the SG and George at the SF, that would be an interesting combination.

[reapaman]

Please ... Erudite you said some of that same crap last year and bet me that haywards overall FG% and effecicncy would go up and guess what .. you were wrong (wrong about Favors too).

Your whole analysis is based off the assumption that if he was in the same role as george that he could maintain or even improve his current level of effeciency. Even though he was actually in a more favorable role thanlast year (since he spent more time playing versus bench guys), his effeciency still dropped. If that happened then what in the blue hell makes you think his effeciency won't take a big drop if he was in the same role as George? I mean George's effeciency was alot closer to haywards last year when their roles were closer (Hayward still had the easier role and less responsibilty). He can do a little better going to the line (although that may be by design of the offense), it was still ovious that being thrown into the role as the man unexpectedly hurt his effeciency. Yet RC had an agenda so he didn't even bother to mention that. Give George a full summer and training camp where he knows he's the man now and he will do much better, I guarentee.

And you oviously have not been paying attention if you think George us a novelty. Georges ball handling made a rare improvement along with his decision making and court vison skills. Guys especially non pg's rarely ever improve in that area that one reason I'm sure he's legit. And since you like stats so much I would like to point out to you this guys assist percentage went up from 13% to 19% and his apg per 36 went from 2.9 to 4 which is not only a rare jump, only a few non pg's achieve those number per year. This while he's playing elite level defense (would've been 1st team all defense had it not been for Lebron), increased rebounding rate and took the pressure on himself to lead a contending level playoff team.

Lets see what hayward does next year.

[erudite23]

Please ... Erudite you said some of that same crap last year and bet me that haywards overall FG% and effecicncy would go up and guess what .. you were wrong (wrong about Favors too).

Proof? I'd love to see anything backing this up.

[erudite23]

Your whole analysis is based off the assumption that if he was in the same role as george that he could maintain or even improve his current level of effeciency. Even though he was actually in a more favorable role thanlast year (since he spent more time playing versus bench guys), his effeciency still dropped. If that happened then what in the blue hell makes you think his effeciency won't take a big drop if he was in the same role as George? I mean George's effeciency was alot closer to haywards last year when their roles were closer (Hayward still had the easier role and less responsibilty). He can do a little better going to the line (although that may be by design of the offense), it was still ovious that being thrown into the role as the man unexpectedly hurt his effeciency. Yet RC had an agenda so he didn't even bother to mention that. Give George a full summer and training camp where he knows he's the man now and he will do much better, I guarentee.

This is the funnest part about Reapaman. All of his opinions are based upon hazy, ambiguous aspects of the game that cannot be measured or quantified. This opens up a very convenient environment for him to operate in where there is no accountability for what he says.

Reapa, I would actually suggest that Hayward played a far more similar role on the Jazz than you would allow. The two players' usage and assists rates are quite similar, and yet George turns the ball over significantly more than Hayward does. As the season wore on, Gordon became more of a primary creator on the Jazz offense.

And let me explain a little to you about efficiency versus volume. The two have an inversely proportionate relationship to each other. George achieved a significantly higher usage rate this year than last. As a result, his efficiency fell off to an even larger degree. Gordon Hayward saw an even greater increase in his usage this year. His efficiency, though, actually improved. That's what you call improvement as a player, instead of just robbing from Peter to pay Paul.


And I will always get a kick out of your "playing versus backups" line of reasoning. Not only does it qualify as the hazy anti-logic which you're so famous for, but its also been proven to have very little significance in evaluating player performance. Players in general perform better as starters and smaller per-minute production has shown many times over to hold up when increased playing time is presented. For reference, check Gordon's starter vs bench splits. Coming off the bench he played less per game, scored more, rebounded and assisted about the same. As a starter he played more, scored less but did so at a higher level of efficiency.

What we see is not the result of playing versus inferior competition, then, but the result of playing as the primary offensive weapon on the second unit more often and creating more offense but at a lower level of efficiency....just as one would expect if they have a brain.

Thanks for trying to muddy the waters, but I think we all have a really good idea of where its at.

[king everything]

This is why I hate advanced metrics so badly. I'm firmly convinced teams use them not because of their true usefullness, but because if one team does, other teams are afraid to fall behind the curve, so they do too.

Basketball is a simple game. I can hear the neighbor kids outside playing now. Y'all are complicating it. Watch a jazz game, watch a pacer game. Tell me who is a better player. It's George. I love Gordon, but it's really that simple. I don't need crazy math equations that ignore so many intangible factors to tell me who a better basketball player is. When you're at the gym, standing on the sideline waiting to get next, are you studying a stat sheet about the guys on the floor, or are you trying to figure out who the beast is and how you're gonna guard him?