Similarities between Hayward and Green

[17wasEZ]

Hayward seems to be a better player. I wouldn't worry too much about his decline in efficiency this season - he's normally a 35-40% 3 point shooter as opposed to 30% this season. He's simply being asked to be "the man" when he really should be a 3rd option.

That's funny, because this is exactly what the situation with Green is right now.

Agree.  However, Green should be pretty close to his prime right now.  Probably not too much room left for improvement in his game.

[timpiker]

My best guess difference is it seems Hayward exerts more effort more of the time.

[mmmmm]

Hayward seems to be a better player. I wouldn't worry too much about his decline in efficiency this season - he's normally a 35-40% 3 point shooter as opposed to 30% this season. He's simply being asked to be "the man" when he really should be a 3rd option.

That's funny, because this is exactly what the situation with Green is right now.

Agree.  However, Green should be pretty close to his prime right now.  Probably not too much room left for improvement in his game.

Because NBA players never show improvement from ages 27-30 ... ?

Seriously - Green is missing a full season in his wear & tear log.   I think he's probably got a few more years of elite athleticism (because his knees got a whole year of rest).  Improvements in a players game from this point tend to be in the more nuanced things, such as improvements in shot-making, defense, ball-handling, etc.   For many players, though, their bodies wear out before they realize the latter improvements.

Throw in the fact that Green has generally been very durable, I suspect he's probably just entering his prime and is several years away from decline.

Money is probably a toss - Hayward will likely cost 9-10M as of this summer.

[cltc5]

I think that Hayward would thrive on the celtics. His numbers are down this year in efficiency because he does everything for his team. But the biggest difference between Green and Hayward is effort. Hayward brings it every game for the entire game. He always plays hard. Green goes off to la la land for stretches, sometimes for entire stretches of games. I would rather have a guy that scores 16 every game, than a guy that scores 9 one game and 22 the next. And like someone else said, Hayward is 4 years younger, and is already, in my opinion a better player regardless of Greens superior athleticism and talent. Effort makes a difference.

agree with this.  Green is lazy.  Him and Wallace can both take the early flight to anywhere.

[blink]

I am sorry, neither Green nor Hayward are a 1st or 2nd option on a contending team.  If we keep Green in a starting role, and then add Hayward then there are two starting spots that don't have the alpha dog-all-star at those two positions. 

I know he is a decent player, but I think we aim higher than Hayward if we want to improve our team in the long run.  We need to find our game changing players first.  Then fill in with the more complimentary players.

[2short]

i like both guys.  neither one should be THE MAN but both have good all around games.  green more efficient on offense and better defender, hayward better passer

[ChiefDK]

Hayward seems to be a better player. I wouldn't worry too much about his decline in efficiency this season - he's normally a 35-40% 3 point shooter as opposed to 30% this season. He's simply being asked to be "the man" when he really should be a 3rd option.

That's funny, because this is exactly what the situation with Green is right now.

I'd rather have Hayward as a 3rd option as opposed to Green. He has more upside too as he's till very young. Green has probably reached his potential unfortunately.

[Chris]

I like Hayward.  I think he is a nice player, but he absolutely is similar to Green.  They are both kind of that 3rd/4th option type.  The tier above quality starter, but below all-star level.  9-10 million players, who are always going to be a bit frustrating, but also can be very important on good teams.

I might like Hayward a little better, because he is younger, and because he is a better ball handler and passer, but overall the impact is about the same.  I think with either of them, it all comes down to how much you are paying them.  I would take either at $9 million a year.  When you get much above that, I just don't like it. 

[kozlodoev]

Hayward seems to be a better player. I wouldn't worry too much about his decline in efficiency this season - he's normally a 35-40% 3 point shooter as opposed to 30% this season. He's simply being asked to be "the man" when he really should be a 3rd option.

That's funny, because this is exactly what the situation with Green is right now.

I'd rather have Hayward as a 3rd option as opposed to Green. He has more upside too as he's till very young. Green has probably reached his potential unfortunately.

What, no complains about Hayward being a 6'8 player who barely grabs 5 rebounds per game?

Also, I really don't care whether my third option is Green or Hayward. I don't think replacing one with the other is the roster improvement we should be losing sleep over.

[LilRip]

Hayward seems to be a better player. I wouldn't worry too much about his decline in efficiency this season - he's normally a 35-40% 3 point shooter as opposed to 30% this season. He's simply being asked to be "the man" when he really should be a 3rd option.

That's funny, because this is exactly what the situation with Green is right now.

I'd rather have Hayward as a 3rd option as opposed to Green. He has more upside too as he's till very young. Green has probably reached his potential unfortunately.

What, no complains about Hayward being a 6'8 player who barely grabs 5 rebounds per game?

Also, I really don't care whether my third option is Green or Hayward. I don't think replacing one with the other is the roster improvement we should be losing sleep over.

there's a difference between a player who plays SG/SF and a player who plays SF/PF. Hayward's 5.5rpg avg ranks him 9th among all guards. meanwhile, Green is supposed to be in the frontcourt and he grabs only 4.8 rpg.

[mmmmm]

Hayward seems to be a better player. I wouldn't worry too much about his decline in efficiency this season - he's normally a 35-40% 3 point shooter as opposed to 30% this season. He's simply being asked to be "the man" when he really should be a 3rd option.

That's funny, because this is exactly what the situation with Green is right now.

I'd rather have Hayward as a 3rd option as opposed to Green. He has more upside too as he's till very young. Green has probably reached his potential unfortunately.

What, no complains about Hayward being a 6'8 player who barely grabs 5 rebounds per game?

Also, I really don't care whether my third option is Green or Hayward. I don't think replacing one with the other is the roster improvement we should be losing sleep over.

there's a difference between a player who plays SG/SF and a player who plays SF/PF. Hayward's 5.5rpg avg ranks him 9th among all guards. meanwhile, Green is supposed to be in the frontcourt and he grabs only 4.8 rpg.

For his first three seasons, Hayward had a DRB% of 9.8%.  That's because he was used exclusively on the perimeter (example: typically staying on-ball through picks).   This year, with a change in how they use him defensively (such as switching to the roll man) he is at 14.5%.

This is glaring evidence that how a player is used has a big effect on his numbers.

Green's career DRB% is 14.1%.  He's had one season at 16.5% but most seasons he's been just a hair under 14%.   Green has been typically used the last few seasons pretty exclusively on the perimeter on defense because based on Synergy ratings, he is extremely effective used that way and not so good if posted-up.  So he stays on the perimeter man through picks.   That's how Doc used him and that's how Brad uses him.

Guys staying out on the perimeter on D are not typically going to grab a lot of rebounds.

I concur with Koslodoev.   Any perceived differences between Green and Hayward are not going to be the key to rebuilding the C's to contender status.