Best Starting 5 vs Best Rotation?

[Vermont Green]

There is literately no possible way Gordon does not start other than being injured again.  To think otherwise is an exercise in delusion

Yeah, this kind of statement was thrown around a lot before last season too.  Hayward ended up playing in 72 games, starting 18 games.  The delusion became the reality.  Hayward may well start but I don't see it as a foregone conclusion.  My preference would be Hayward staring as the SG with Walker, Tatum, and two bigs (Kanter + Theis/Ojeleye/RWill?) or coming off the bench.  Either is fine really, he will end up playing the same minutes, but I think he would have better production and a bigger contribution coming off the bench.  I feel sixth man would be a great role for him.

Hayward hasn't played SG for years. As he aged his body was growing out of the ability to play that position, even before the injury. Hayward is very much a 3-4 nowadays and not a 2-3.

Boy, I see this totally differently.  I think we agree that Hayward's natural position is SF, but what I saw on the court last year was much better as SG than a PF.  He has the quickness and ball-handling to handle SG but not even close to the strength to play PF.  I can't imagine he would line up defensively against any PFs, unless we played zone or something like that.  He would have trouble defending some quicker guards but he would have trouble with every PF.

Yeah, I completely disagree with this assessment, so I will just agree to disagree.

The Celtics were something like, better on D with him as PF and crap on D with him as SG. On offense it was the reverse.

http://www.82games.com/1819/18BOS10.HTM

How you measure these things is not at all settled.  According to this link he was indeed crap on D against SG's, and good against PF's, but he was also pretty good on O as a PF.

But let's keep it in perspective; by this method, he played almost no minutes at SG, while playing about the same at SF as at PF.

I saw the 82games breakdown.  In most of the cases where Hayward was indicated as the "4" in the 5-man units, Tatum was indicated as the "3".  It is hard to say exactly what role Hayward was playing in those instances.

I just don't understand how Hayward is being viewed as an option at PF.  I get that the new age bigs can be more skilled, Thad Young being a good example I think.  Young does play primarily as a big but he is a "skill big", not a traditional big.  Nowitzki is probably another good example.

I just don't see Hayward in this kind of role  And if we do go that route out of desperation (no better options), I don't see it being successful.  I guess we shall see.

[__ramonezy__]

There is literately no possible way Gordon does not start other than being injured again.  To think otherwise is an exercise in delusion

Yeah, this kind of statement was thrown around a lot before last season too.  Hayward ended up playing in 72 games, starting 18 games.  The delusion became the reality.  Hayward may well start but I don't see it as a foregone conclusion.  My preference would be Hayward staring as the SG with Walker, Tatum, and two bigs (Kanter + Theis/Ojeleye/RWill?) or coming off the bench.  Either is fine really, he will end up playing the same minutes, but I think he would have better production and a bigger contribution coming off the bench.  I feel sixth man would be a great role for him.

Hayward hasn't played SG for years. As he aged his body was growing out of the ability to play that position, even before the injury. Hayward is very much a 3-4 nowadays and not a 2-3.

Boy, I see this totally differently.  I think we agree that Hayward's natural position is SF, but what I saw on the court last year was much better as SG than a PF.  He has the quickness and ball-handling to handle SG but not even close to the strength to play PF.  I can't imagine he would line up defensively against any PFs, unless we played zone or something like that.  He would have trouble defending some quicker guards but he would have trouble with every PF.

Yeah, I completely disagree with this assessment, so I will just agree to disagree.

The Celtics were something like, better on D with him as PF and crap on D with him as SG. On offense it was the reverse.

http://www.82games.com/1819/18BOS10.HTM

How you measure these things is not at all settled.  According to this link he was indeed crap on D against SG's, and good against PF's, but he was also pretty good on O as a PF.

But let's keep it in perspective; by this method, he played almost no minutes at SG, while playing about the same at SF as at PF.

I saw the 82games breakdown.  In most of the cases where Hayward was indicated as the "4" in the 5-man units, Tatum was indicated as the "3".  It is hard to say exactly what role Hayward was playing in those instances.

I just don't understand how Hayward is being viewed as an option at PF.  I get that the new age bigs can be more skilled, Thad Young being a good example I think.  Young does play primarily as a big but he is a "skill big", not a traditional big.  Nowitzki is probably another good example.

I just don't see Hayward in this kind of role  And if we do go that route out of desperation (no better options), I don't see it being successful.  I guess we shall see.

Agreed, not seeing him as a PF. That's why quietly I wanted us to take a flyer on Bender. During the draft when we took Jaylen the board was split between him or Bender... would have loved to see him within a proper system

[td450]

There is literately no possible way Gordon does not start other than being injured again.  To think otherwise is an exercise in delusion

Yeah, this kind of statement was thrown around a lot before last season too.  Hayward ended up playing in 72 games, starting 18 games.  The delusion became the reality.  Hayward may well start but I don't see it as a foregone conclusion.  My preference would be Hayward staring as the SG with Walker, Tatum, and two bigs (Kanter + Theis/Ojeleye/RWill?) or coming off the bench.  Either is fine really, he will end up playing the same minutes, but I think he would have better production and a bigger contribution coming off the bench.  I feel sixth man would be a great role for him.

Hayward hasn't played SG for years. As he aged his body was growing out of the ability to play that position, even before the injury. Hayward is very much a 3-4 nowadays and not a 2-3.

Boy, I see this totally differently.  I think we agree that Hayward's natural position is SF, but what I saw on the court last year was much better as SG than a PF.  He has the quickness and ball-handling to handle SG but not even close to the strength to play PF.  I can't imagine he would line up defensively against any PFs, unless we played zone or something like that.  He would have trouble defending some quicker guards but he would have trouble with every PF.

Yeah, I completely disagree with this assessment, so I will just agree to disagree.

The Celtics were something like, better on D with him as PF and crap on D with him as SG. On offense it was the reverse.

http://www.82games.com/1819/18BOS10.HTM

How you measure these things is not at all settled.  According to this link he was indeed crap on D against SG's, and good against PF's, but he was also pretty good on O as a PF.

But let's keep it in perspective; by this method, he played almost no minutes at SG, while playing about the same at SF as at PF.

I saw the 82games breakdown.  In most of the cases where Hayward was indicated as the "4" in the 5-man units, Tatum was indicated as the "3".  It is hard to say exactly what role Hayward was playing in those instances.

I just don't understand how Hayward is being viewed as an option at PF.  I get that the new age bigs can be more skilled, Thad Young being a good example I think.  Young does play primarily as a big but he is a "skill big", not a traditional big.  Nowitzki is probably another good example.

I just don't see Hayward in this kind of role  And if we do go that route out of desperation (no better options), I don't see it being successful.  I guess we shall see.

What's to understand? Two of our best players are small forwards. Hayward is stronger than Tatum, so he will probably defend at power forward or we don't start one of our best players.

You are hung up on the fact that Hayward isn't suited to be an effective power forward. That is true. There will be matchup problems for him. That problem works both ways. The same power forwards that will bully him will have a difficult time covering him too. Whether it works or not depends on who exploits who more, not whether Hayward works as a real power forward.  I think we need to try it and see how it goes.

[wiley]

I know I'm in the minority, along with the OP.  But I love the idea of Tatum, for this year's team, as a weapon off the bench. 

I would start whomever Brad thinks is the best defensive 5 next to Grant Williams, specifically for his IQ starting the game...to get the team into the right flow...he doesn't need big minutes if not playing well or not effective...just be the kind of guy who does exactly what Brad is looking for to start the game at a high IQ level.

Kemba
Brown
Hayward
G. Williams
Best Defensive 5.


Then Smart and Tatum step in and either share or steal time from Brown and Hayward, depending on who's playing at the best, smartest level. 

End of game you have 3 of Smart/Brown/Tatum/Hayward in the game....whoever had the least effective game on the bench at the end....  if two of those four guys sucked it up in a game you can go bigger at the end.

Next year Tatum back to starter (if not sooner due to how this season played out)....



edit:  I not only don't like the small size to start the game, I don't like having so many offense first guys to start the game.