is Gordon Hayward better than Jeff Green?

[mmmmm]

What you say could very well be true in regard to if Green touched the ball more or had a higher usage his numbers would go up.

But that's Jeff Green and has been his whole career "if green just got more touches" or "if green shot more" and he never has shown the drive to take his game to the next level. This team should have been Jeff's this year, he has all the tools to be a number one option but too often we see him relax or coast for entire quarters. We've seen Sullinger step in and be more aggressive and demand the ball on the block more than green has looked for his shot.

That is why I say Hayward is a better player, his team had a leadership void and he's stepped up to lead his team in points and assists. Green's team had a similar situation, and he constantly defers to other players. Even if Hayward is in a slump right now, I'd still take him in a heartbeat over Green because Hayward WANTS to lead a team and take his game to the next level and Green doesn't.

I'm sorry. But speak for yourself.  "You" may think you "see" that.  "We" see different things.

Sully is getting the ball because feeding the ball into the post is the first option on all our half court plays, as it should be.   I actually have zero problem with Sully getting the ball in the post.  He AND Green both should be getting more touches.  Green is NOT getting the ball because our guards are incapable of reading and going to a second option (when the first is taken away by the defense) other than chucking a shot up from 16 feet.

This isn't about 'aggressiveness' or 'demanding the ball'.  I am not a mind reader but as far as I can tell, none of that is going on and nor should it be.   This is about the offense being executed on the floor and the different roles different players fill.

It's wonderful that you have the ability to read minds and tell what Hayward "WANTS" and what Green doesn't want.   Maybe you can send them Christmas presents?

So in those two games where Green had a total of six points was all a product of our guards not getting him the ball?

Pretty much.  I guess you missed watching those particular games?   

In the game against the T-Wolves, that's the one Bradley famously became a ball-hog, firing up 23 shots.  And Crawford launched 14 of his own.  They combined for 37 FGAs, but just 5 assists...  Green was basically iced out on offense, though he at least grabbed 7 rebounds (6 defensive) and a couple of blocks.

The Houston game was more of the same - Bradley again fired 22 shots (only made 5) and Crawford 'contained' himself to just 8 shots.  Bass chipped in with 8 more.  Crawford and Bradley again combined for 30 shots ... but only 4 assists.   We got blown out wire-to-wire in this one and Stevens sat Green and others early.

So... what explains the two games that Hayward scored 6 or less in?   In one of them, against NO, he shot horribly, at 1 of 17, but at least was dealing dimes:  11 assists.  The other, just a bad, bad game.  Notably that was also against Minnesota.

We do see very different games.

Definitely.

Hopefully you had your eyes open and saw tonight's game.

NINE of Green's ten made FGs were assisted (by 5 different teammates).   He also was fed on several of the plays that he drew fouls on, getting to the line 13 times.

The result was 31 points for the team, scored very efficiently.   Team game.

[Jailan34]

What you say could very well be true in regard to if Green touched the ball more or had a higher usage his numbers would go up.

But that's Jeff Green and has been his whole career "if green just got more touches" or "if green shot more" and he never has shown the drive to take his game to the next level. This team should have been Jeff's this year, he has all the tools to be a number one option but too often we see him relax or coast for entire quarters. We've seen Sullinger step in and be more aggressive and demand the ball on the block more than green has looked for his shot.

That is why I say Hayward is a better player, his team had a leadership void and he's stepped up to lead his team in points and assists. Green's team had a similar situation, and he constantly defers to other players. Even if Hayward is in a slump right now, I'd still take him in a heartbeat over Green because Hayward WANTS to lead a team and take his game to the next level and Green doesn't.

I'm sorry. But speak for yourself.  "You" may think you "see" that.  "We" see different things.

Sully is getting the ball because feeding the ball into the post is the first option on all our half court plays, as it should be.   I actually have zero problem with Sully getting the ball in the post.  He AND Green both should be getting more touches.  Green is NOT getting the ball because our guards are incapable of reading and going to a second option (when the first is taken away by the defense) other than chucking a shot up from 16 feet.

This isn't about 'aggressiveness' or 'demanding the ball'.  I am not a mind reader but as far as I can tell, none of that is going on and nor should it be.   This is about the offense being executed on the floor and the different roles different players fill.

It's wonderful that you have the ability to read minds and tell what Hayward "WANTS" and what Green doesn't want.   Maybe you can send them Christmas presents?

So in those two games where Green had a total of six points was all a product of our guards not getting him the ball?

Pretty much.  I guess you missed watching those particular games?   

In the game against the T-Wolves, that's the one Bradley famously became a ball-hog, firing up 23 shots.  And Crawford launched 14 of his own.  They combined for 37 FGAs, but just 5 assists...  Green was basically iced out on offense, though he at least grabbed 7 rebounds (6 defensive) and a couple of blocks.

The Houston game was more of the same - Bradley again fired 22 shots (only made 5) and Crawford 'contained' himself to just 8 shots.  Bass chipped in with 8 more.  Crawford and Bradley again combined for 30 shots ... but only 4 assists.   We got blown out wire-to-wire in this one and Stevens sat Green and others early.

So... what explains the two games that Hayward scored 6 or less in?   In one of them, against NO, he shot horribly, at 1 of 17, but at least was dealing dimes:  11 assists.  The other, just a bad, bad game.  Notably that was also against Minnesota.

We do see very different games.

Definitely.

Hopefully you had your eyes open and saw tonight's game.

NINE of Green's ten made FGs were assisted (by 5 different teammates).   He also was fed on several of the plays that he drew fouls on, getting to the line 13 times.

The result was 31 points for the team, scored very efficiently.   Team game.

Jeff Green had a scoring outburst and I'm supposed to "open my eyes"?

I don't need my eyes opened, maybe you need to take your green colored glasses off?

This is what he is, scores a lot one game, disappears for a few, this is what he's been over the course of his career and all of his time in Boston.

[wiley]

Rather have Jeff Green....agree both could be nice. 

Come playoff time give Green.  Clutch at the end with excellent defense...

[mmmmm]

What you say could very well be true in regard to if Green touched the ball more or had a higher usage his numbers would go up.

But that's Jeff Green and has been his whole career "if green just got more touches" or "if green shot more" and he never has shown the drive to take his game to the next level. This team should have been Jeff's this year, he has all the tools to be a number one option but too often we see him relax or coast for entire quarters. We've seen Sullinger step in and be more aggressive and demand the ball on the block more than green has looked for his shot.

That is why I say Hayward is a better player, his team had a leadership void and he's stepped up to lead his team in points and assists. Green's team had a similar situation, and he constantly defers to other players. Even if Hayward is in a slump right now, I'd still take him in a heartbeat over Green because Hayward WANTS to lead a team and take his game to the next level and Green doesn't.

I'm sorry. But speak for yourself.  "You" may think you "see" that.  "We" see different things.

Sully is getting the ball because feeding the ball into the post is the first option on all our half court plays, as it should be.   I actually have zero problem with Sully getting the ball in the post.  He AND Green both should be getting more touches.  Green is NOT getting the ball because our guards are incapable of reading and going to a second option (when the first is taken away by the defense) other than chucking a shot up from 16 feet.

This isn't about 'aggressiveness' or 'demanding the ball'.  I am not a mind reader but as far as I can tell, none of that is going on and nor should it be.   This is about the offense being executed on the floor and the different roles different players fill.

It's wonderful that you have the ability to read minds and tell what Hayward "WANTS" and what Green doesn't want.   Maybe you can send them Christmas presents?

So in those two games where Green had a total of six points was all a product of our guards not getting him the ball?

Pretty much.  I guess you missed watching those particular games?   

In the game against the T-Wolves, that's the one Bradley famously became a ball-hog, firing up 23 shots.  And Crawford launched 14 of his own.  They combined for 37 FGAs, but just 5 assists...  Green was basically iced out on offense, though he at least grabbed 7 rebounds (6 defensive) and a couple of blocks.

The Houston game was more of the same - Bradley again fired 22 shots (only made 5) and Crawford 'contained' himself to just 8 shots.  Bass chipped in with 8 more.  Crawford and Bradley again combined for 30 shots ... but only 4 assists.   We got blown out wire-to-wire in this one and Stevens sat Green and others early.

So... what explains the two games that Hayward scored 6 or less in?   In one of them, against NO, he shot horribly, at 1 of 17, but at least was dealing dimes:  11 assists.  The other, just a bad, bad game.  Notably that was also against Minnesota.

We do see very different games.

Definitely.

Hopefully you had your eyes open and saw tonight's game.

NINE of Green's ten made FGs were assisted (by 5 different teammates).   He also was fed on several of the plays that he drew fouls on, getting to the line 13 times.

The result was 31 points for the team, scored very efficiently.   Team game.

Jeff Green had a scoring outburst and I'm supposed to "open my eyes"?

I don't need my eyes opened, maybe you need to take your green colored glasses off?

This is what he is, scores a lot one game, disappears for a few, this is what he's been over the course of his career and all of his time in Boston.

Tonight's game was relevant because it is exemplary of what I've been trying to point out.

It demonstrates who Green is on offense.   He's an extremely efficient finisher.  He is not a ball-dominant player.  He plays within the system that the coaches put in place.  Thus, like many excellent players in the league, he requires the team around him to _use_ him.  This has nothing to do with 'disappearing' vs 'aggressiveness' or whatever machismo cliche' you want to come up with.

Your expectations of him to be someone else is setting up your own disappointment.  Your projections on who you think these players are, personality-wise, are just your projections and have pretty much nothing to do with who they actually are.

[Jailan34]

What you say could very well be true in regard to if Green touched the ball more or had a higher usage his numbers would go up.

But that's Jeff Green and has been his whole career "if green just got more touches" or "if green shot more" and he never has shown the drive to take his game to the next level. This team should have been Jeff's this year, he has all the tools to be a number one option but too often we see him relax or coast for entire quarters. We've seen Sullinger step in and be more aggressive and demand the ball on the block more than green has looked for his shot.

That is why I say Hayward is a better player, his team had a leadership void and he's stepped up to lead his team in points and assists. Green's team had a similar situation, and he constantly defers to other players. Even if Hayward is in a slump right now, I'd still take him in a heartbeat over Green because Hayward WANTS to lead a team and take his game to the next level and Green doesn't.

I'm sorry. But speak for yourself.  "You" may think you "see" that.  "We" see different things.

Sully is getting the ball because feeding the ball into the post is the first option on all our half court plays, as it should be.   I actually have zero problem with Sully getting the ball in the post.  He AND Green both should be getting more touches.  Green is NOT getting the ball because our guards are incapable of reading and going to a second option (when the first is taken away by the defense) other than chucking a shot up from 16 feet.

This isn't about 'aggressiveness' or 'demanding the ball'.  I am not a mind reader but as far as I can tell, none of that is going on and nor should it be.   This is about the offense being executed on the floor and the different roles different players fill.

It's wonderful that you have the ability to read minds and tell what Hayward "WANTS" and what Green doesn't want.   Maybe you can send them Christmas presents?

So in those two games where Green had a total of six points was all a product of our guards not getting him the ball?

Pretty much.  I guess you missed watching those particular games?   

In the game against the T-Wolves, that's the one Bradley famously became a ball-hog, firing up 23 shots.  And Crawford launched 14 of his own.  They combined for 37 FGAs, but just 5 assists...  Green was basically iced out on offense, though he at least grabbed 7 rebounds (6 defensive) and a couple of blocks.

The Houston game was more of the same - Bradley again fired 22 shots (only made 5) and Crawford 'contained' himself to just 8 shots.  Bass chipped in with 8 more.  Crawford and Bradley again combined for 30 shots ... but only 4 assists.   We got blown out wire-to-wire in this one and Stevens sat Green and others early.

So... what explains the two games that Hayward scored 6 or less in?   In one of them, against NO, he shot horribly, at 1 of 17, but at least was dealing dimes:  11 assists.  The other, just a bad, bad game.  Notably that was also against Minnesota.

We do see very different games.

Definitely.

Hopefully you had your eyes open and saw tonight's game.

NINE of Green's ten made FGs were assisted (by 5 different teammates).   He also was fed on several of the plays that he drew fouls on, getting to the line 13 times.

The result was 31 points for the team, scored very efficiently.   Team game.

Jeff Green had a scoring outburst and I'm supposed to "open my eyes"?

I don't need my eyes opened, maybe you need to take your green colored glasses off?

This is what he is, scores a lot one game, disappears for a few, this is what he's been over the course of his career and all of his time in Boston.

Tonight's game was relevant because it is exemplary of what I've been trying to point out.

It demonstrates who Green is on offense.   He's an extremely efficient finisher.  He is not a ball-dominant player.  He plays within the system that the coaches put in place.  Thus, like many excellent players in the league, he requires the team around him to _use_ him.  This has nothing to do with 'disappearing' vs 'aggressiveness' or whatever machismo cliche' you want to come up with.

Your expectations of him to be someone else is setting up your own disappointment.  Your projections on who you think these players are, personality-wise, are just your projections and have pretty much nothing to do with who they actually are.

Green is on record as saying he sees himself as a go to guy scorer, and thinks of himself as the number 1 option on this team. I'm not projecting anything, that's what he thinks of himself.

[Celtics4ever]

Green is on record as saying he sees himself as a go to guy scorer, and thinks of himself as the number 1 option on this team. I'm not projecting anything, that's what he thinks of himself.

He must only look in the mirror every 3-4 games because a lot of games he let's the game come to him too much.

[2short]

What you say could very well be true in regard to if Green touched the ball more or had a higher usage his numbers would go up.

But that's Jeff Green and has been his whole career "if green just got more touches" or "if green shot more" and he never has shown the drive to take his game to the next level. This team should have been Jeff's this year, he has all the tools to be a number one option but too often we see him relax or coast for entire quarters. We've seen Sullinger step in and be more aggressive and demand the ball on the block more than green has looked for his shot.

That is why I say Hayward is a better player, his team had a leadership void and he's stepped up to lead his team in points and assists. Green's team had a similar situation, and he constantly defers to other players. Even if Hayward is in a slump right now, I'd still take him in a heartbeat over Green because Hayward WANTS to lead a team and take his game to the next level and Green doesn't.

I'm sorry. But speak for yourself.  "You" may think you "see" that.  "We" see different things.

Sully is getting the ball because feeding the ball into the post is the first option on all our half court plays, as it should be.   I actually have zero problem with Sully getting the ball in the post.  He AND Green both should be getting more touches.  Green is NOT getting the ball because our guards are incapable of reading and going to a second option (when the first is taken away by the defense) other than chucking a shot up from 16 feet.

This isn't about 'aggressiveness' or 'demanding the ball'.  I am not a mind reader but as far as I can tell, none of that is going on and nor should it be.   This is about the offense being executed on the floor and the different roles different players fill.

It's wonderful that you have the ability to read minds and tell what Hayward "WANTS" and what Green doesn't want.   Maybe you can send them Christmas presents?

So in those two games where Green had a total of six points was all a product of our guards not getting him the ball?

Pretty much.  I guess you missed watching those particular games?   

In the game against the T-Wolves, that's the one Bradley famously became a ball-hog, firing up 23 shots.  And Crawford launched 14 of his own.  They combined for 37 FGAs, but just 5 assists...  Green was basically iced out on offense, though he at least grabbed 7 rebounds (6 defensive) and a couple of blocks.

The Houston game was more of the same - Bradley again fired 22 shots (only made 5) and Crawford 'contained' himself to just 8 shots.  Bass chipped in with 8 more.  Crawford and Bradley again combined for 30 shots ... but only 4 assists.   We got blown out wire-to-wire in this one and Stevens sat Green and others early.

So... what explains the two games that Hayward scored 6 or less in?   In one of them, against NO, he shot horribly, at 1 of 17, but at least was dealing dimes:  11 assists.  The other, just a bad, bad game.  Notably that was also against Minnesota.

We do see very different games.

Definitely.

Hopefully you had your eyes open and saw tonight's game.

NINE of Green's ten made FGs were assisted (by 5 different teammates).   He also was fed on several of the plays that he drew fouls on, getting to the line 13 times.

The result was 31 points for the team, scored very efficiently.   Team game.

Jeff Green had a scoring outburst and I'm supposed to "open my eyes"?

I don't need my eyes opened, maybe you need to take your green colored glasses off?

This is what he is, scores a lot one game, disappears for a few, this is what he's been over the course of his career and all of his time in Boston.

Tonight's game was relevant because it is exemplary of what I've been trying to point out.

It demonstrates who Green is on offense.   He's an extremely efficient finisher.  He is not a ball-dominant player.  He plays within the system that the coaches put in place.  Thus, like many excellent players in the league, he requires the team around him to _use_ him.  This has nothing to do with 'disappearing' vs 'aggressiveness' or whatever machismo cliche' you want to come up with.

Your expectations of him to be someone else is setting up your own disappointment.  Your projections on who you think these players are, personality-wise, are just your projections and have pretty much nothing to do with who they actually are.

I have seen, heard and heard it pointed out when green is calling for the ball.  Crawford is doing a nice job filling in but he is no rondo.  Green regularly gets switches on defense and ends up on the block with a guard on him.  So far this season we are not that good getting the ball into him.  Jeff is leading the team in scoring and will do so all year.  Rondo gets back everyone will be better but I think bass, green and fav will get the most help.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

No way...no one takes heyward seriously ...yet...he can shoot...but dseeing as though their team currently sucks...no one defends him that tightly...he can shoot...but anything else he gets is for what I said.....no one is yet bothered by him......He is good...but Jeff Green is much better...and people cover Jeff Green much harder...!

[celtic -_- pride]

both players won't win you a championship so i don't think its really necessary to nit pick each players game. Green has the abilities to do more on the floor in my opinion so i would stick with JG but all in all they're not going to be the man for their teams.

[kozlodoev]

Green is on record as saying he sees himself as a go to guy scorer, and thinks of himself as the number 1 option on this team. I'm not projecting anything, that's what he thinks of himself.

Sure he said that. But you know what else he said in the same interview, one paragraph further down? Let me refresh your memory:

Green said that coach Brad Stevens “draws up the plays. I just try to play my part in doing what I have to do. I can’t ask for the ball every time. I’ve just got to find other ways to figure things out for myself.”

... and further down:

“Now all the attention is on me,” Green said. “I’ve been the guy who has been the third option most of my career. Now, it starts with me, in my eyes. But we’ve got to figure it out as a team how we can get past that and how we can win as a team.”

Selective reading is selective.

[The One]

Hayward with 37 points and 11 rebounds against OKC.

Green had 19 points and ONE rebound.

Score one for Gordo!!!

[playdream]

Green is on record as saying he sees himself as a go to guy scorer, and thinks of himself as the number 1 option on this team. I'm not projecting anything, that's what he thinks of himself.

Sure he said that. But you know what else he said in the same interview, one paragraph further down? Let me refresh your memory:

Green said that coach Brad Stevens “draws up the plays. I just try to play my part in doing what I have to do. I can’t ask for the ball every time. I’ve just got to find other ways to figure things out for myself.”

... and further down:

“Now all the attention is on me,” Green said. “I’ve been the guy who has been the third option most of my career. Now, it starts with me, in my eyes. But we’ve got to figure it out as a team how we can get past that and how we can win as a team.”

Selective reading is selective.

but he can ask for the ball most of the time
endless excuses, zero agressiveness even in a interview

[clover]

Yeah, Green always disappoints those who wish he'd have the drive and success that they think he can, but he's actually having a much better year than Hayward.

Hayward's shooting percentage has gone down every year he's been in the league, and he's shooting .317 from the 3, compared to Green's .382.

Green's defensive rating every year back to 2009 has been better than Hayward's has been any year. And at 5.7 to 3.3, Green's the better rebounder, too.

Even per 36 Green's scoring slightly more than Hayward, at 17.3 to 17.0, this year.

Hayward is much better at assists than Green, at a career 3.7 versus 1.8 per 36.

[PhoSita]

Absolutely.

[Moranis]

Yeah, Green always disappoints those who wish he'd have the drive and success that they think he can, but he's actually having a much better year than Hayward.

Hayward's shooting percentage has gone down every year he's been in the league, and he's shooting .317 from the 3, compared to Green's .382.

Green's defensive rating every year back to 2009 has been better than Hayward's has been any year. And at 5.7 to 3.3, Green's the better rebounder, too.

Even per 36 Green's scoring slightly more than Hayward, at 17.3 to 17.0, this year.

Hayward is much better at assists than Green, at a career 3.7 versus 1.8 per 36.

why use career numbers unless you want to skew everything to the veteran? 

This year Hayward and Green have similar roles, minutes, etc. on similar W/L teams. 

Hayward 17.1/5.4/4.9/1.3/0.7 with 2.6 t and 2.1 f on 31.7 (3), 45.1 (2), 82.9 (f)

Green 15.9/4.5/1.5/0.5/0.5 with 1.9 t and 1.8 f on 38.2 (3), 46.2 (2), 78.5 (f)

In other words, Green is a bit better shooter from the field (both 2 and 3) and doesn't turn the ball over or foul as much, but Hayward is better at everything else and is 4 years younger.