You can't compare Hayward's skill to Butler and George's and use stats from Hayward playing the Warriors and the other two playing the Cavs. That's a little unfair considering the Warriors blew the Cavs out of the water. It seems obvious that George and Butler had easier competition (Cavs had one of the worst defenses in the league second half of last year while the Warriors had one of the best).
Would you prefer if I quote Hayward's regular season stats against Cleveland instead then?
Utah played Cleveland twice in the regular season. They split the games 1-1 (both games with a margin of 8 points, so a wash basically), and Hayward averaged 20.5 points, 7 rebounds and 3 assists.
Indiana played Cleveland four times in the regular season. They lost the series 3-1 (average margin of 4.7 points), and Paul George averaged 24.8 points, 8.8 rebounds and 5.8 assists.
I won't re-list Butler's results, as we already know how that went.
Also in talking about Butler beating the Cavs in the regular season where the Cavs didn't really care, that doesn't say a whole lot considering we beat the Bulls in a series and then were dismantled by the Cavs. That was more of a match up issue.
Chicago took the first two games by an average margin of 7 points
on our home court...then they lost Rajon Rondo (who was killed us in the first two games) to a season ending injury...after which we went on to win four straight and advance. That series may have ended
very differently had we gone back to Chicago, down 0-2, with a healthy Bulls roster.
It's entirely possible the result would have been the same, but it's hardly something we can bank on in this argument.
It's a team game with a lot of factors and you can't take random 4 game samples and plug them in to say one guy is better than the next because of their stats against different opponents. It really shows nothing.
That's not entirely true.
The NBA is all about matchups, and a player's ability to perform (and carry his team) against the best in the league is (I think) very relevant.
Paul George and Jimmy Butler both had better overall stats in the regular season then Hayward did. They have had better stats then Hayward for the last 2-3 seasons. They are also generally considered to be better defensive players then Hayward.
Then throw in the fact that they also had arguably better success when facing the best teams in the league, and I think that is a lot of relevant information to go off.
You can argue that Hayward is better then Butler and George if you like - that's your right. The three are all pretty close, so I'm got no doubts you could compose strong support for that argument if you want to.
Some seem to think Hayward is a clear step above them however, and I don't think anybody can objectively justify that claim.
The way I see it, personally, is that we had three of the best wing players in the league made available, and we ended up with the least impressive of the three.
I do understand why Danny didn't go for George, and I think his reason is justifiable. But i don't really understand why he didn't go for Butler - i don't see his apparent concerns about fit, and I think we'd be a better team with Butler in place of Hayward. But i don't get to make that decision, so it is what it is. I'm happy enough with Hayward as 3rd choice - he's a definite upgrade over what we head at the position before.
Some will disagree with me, and that's fine - nothing wrong with different people having different answers