This might be the best article written in a long time. I totally agree that
Hayward, Bosh and Anthony are all way over-rated. I think the Jazz brass should
go after players who can help them win and have some time in the league to prove
their worth. Hayward has not proven his worth at all with his poor shooting.
It is always good to see another perspective that is well thought out and not
just a shoot-from-the-hip commentary we get so much of.
Now that makes sense!
"And those unconfirmed reports of Gordon Hayward being offered a max deal by
the Cavaliers? If true, that’s just nonsensical."Almost
right...turns out it was Charlotte. And the only thing more nonsensical than
that is that the Jazz - who could easily walk away - are going to match it.
Please have someone from the Jazz management read this and pay attention. They
are about to make a really bad mistake with Hayward. A 63 million dollar bad
I can appreciate that Carmelo Anthony is a little overrated but this guy's
logic is pretty out of wack. There is no way that you could honestly say there
are 48 other free agents you would rather have over Anthony.This
logic seriously discounts ability. Just because Chris Anderson has a good field
goal percentage from his extremely cautious shot selection doesn't mean I
want to give him the ball when I need a bucket.There's a 24 sec
shot clock so careful shot selection only goes so far. Eventually someone has to
take that shot and I want it to be the person who is most ABLE to do it.The Jazz essentially already tried this guy's logic this past year
by promoting Hayward to our number 1 option. With a careful shot selection, he
had very good shooting percentages the previous year but when he was made the
man and had to take more shots those percentages dropped off big time becuase he
It would extremely interesting to put together a team using this guy's
objective-based system and see the actual results. The premise of his
predictions makes a lot of sense. And it could very well carry over into the
real world of basketball. But until an actual team is put together based on this
system, we won't know for sure. It's doubtful any system
is perfect. But this one seems to make a lot of sense. It's hard to argue
The spurs did build their team on lottery picks, both David Robinson and Tim
Duncan were picked no. 1. That's what got their winning ways going.
@ cowboy99:You obviously don't understand this guy's
system. If the Jazz had used it, they would've never made Hayward their #1
offense option, since his percentages had previously (and still are) going down
each year he's been in the NBA. However, they did and the results are
history as far as the team record goes. But taking lots of shots... good and
bad... is now getting Hayward a max-contract. Besides that,
he's never been in a position when he's been forced to take more
shots. Taking shots are the determination of players, unless they get too
carried away and consequently benched. It's only a small percentage of time
that shots are taken without other options. If that happens often, then their
entire offense plan needs to be re-done. You didn't explain how
you would determine which player is most able to make shots toward the end of
shot clocks. You seem to be indicate that it's determined by non-objective
criteria. But when putting together determinations, numbers usually work better
than anything else. That's why the entire science of statistical analysis
exists. This system also combines many other factors.
@ JRM:Two things you need to consider regarding your statement.
First, those two foundation players for the Spurs were taken an average of
almost 20 years ago. Plus, the Spurs only played with both for a relatively
short time. The team has been a near-dynasty for the past half dozen years and
the most consistent in the NBA for over a decade.Secondly, those are
only 2 out of 14 or 15 players on their team. They started building with a
couple of good lottery picks, but then finished building their team with trades
and/or 2nd round picks. They have many more of those than lottery picks. Duncan
is still very good, but hasn't carried the team on his shoulders for quite
awhile. Therefore, there article's statement about the Spurs is
@BrioI was merely using Hayward as an example of how past shooting
percentages do not equal current ability or future production so you're
basically agreeing with me.Ability can be difficult to measure
objectively but there are shot maps that show shooting percentage at each
section of the half court and true shooting %'s which is an adjusted figure
based off of 3 point and free throw percentage and percentage on shots in a low
shot clock.I would say the best way would be to watch a ton of film
on players and evaluate how well they perform under similar situations this is
admittedly a little subjective but that's why GM's are paid the big
bucks.I'm just saying that it's pretty crazy to say Chris
Anderson is more valuable than Carmelo Anthony. When he couldn't dream of
doing things Anthony can.
San Antonio proved you do not need a superstar scorer to win a championship. If
you watched the finals, they did it on ball movement with quick solid passing
and cutting. Carmelo is a not a team player. He is a volume shooter who hurts
the team overall. Hayward is not a ball hog but he can't be counted on to
score when the game is on the line. Max contract players should have that
ability along with other intangibles. Does Hayward make his other teammates
better? Does he play effective defense? Is he a leader on and off the court?
And most of all, does he really want to be in Utah? I question his will to win.