Hayward starting from the bench

[MattyIce]

Anyone know where Hayward is in his recovery?  He hasn't been on the bench for one game throughout the postseason.  At least Kyrie stays for the 1st half.  If we make it to the finals, I can't imagine Hayward is a no show.

He was here one game in the playoffs, I believe it was game 7 of 1st series

[Neurotic Guy]

I would love it if Hayward embraced the Havlicek role. It would make our team more dangerous, as it would keep everyone fresher.

But, I suspect that that won’t happen.

I didn't think of it that way, but what a great way to frame this.    Probably could convince him that a 6th man role would suit the team and be beneficial to a gradual transition back to the rigor of the NBA. 

[ChillyWilly]

Baynes is a free agent.  Even if he resigns, I think it will be:

Irving
Brown
Hayward
Tatum
Horford

I got wood just thinking about that lineup. That's a serious death lineup with all 5 being 2 way players. I'd be p---ed off when my team had to face that lineup. Who do you try and expose on either end?

[bellerephon]

I would love it if Hayward embraced the Havlicek role. It would make our team more dangerous, as it would keep everyone fresher.

But, I suspect that that won’t happen.

I 100% agree with this. Haywood off the bench with Morris, Rozier aand Smart would be unbelievable.
I also don't see Haywood embracing the 6th man role, but if he did, it would be amazing.
Just because he's off the bench doesn't mean he can't play big minutes, a I would fully expect him to be on the floor at the end of the game, when it counts.

I see no advantage to not starting Hayward. Sure it makes the bench better, but it makes the starting lineup worse. If CBS is worried about scoring with the second unit, he can simply stagger his substitutions so that one or two of Kyrie, Hayward, Brown or Tatum are always on the floor. It's easy enough to do.

One reason Horford has been so successful against Embiid is because Baynes does the heavy defensive lifting early in the game. That leaves Horford fresh in the fourth quarter.

Having Horford defend centers full time, and using Tatum against bigger players, wears both down faster within games, potentially leaving both less effective.

Having five excellent offensive players on the court is a bit of a diminishing returns thing, especially compared to how much an elite player could help the bench.

If having an elite, HOF-level Sixth Man was good enough for Red Auerbach and Greg Popovich, maybe it’s an idea worth considering.  Or, maybe the two best coaches of all-time were arbitrary and foolish? (You can add Steve Kerr to that list, bringing Iguodala off the bench despite being one of his top five players and being part of Golden State’s “death” lineup.)

If CBS thinks it's the right thing to do, I certainly wouldn't question him, but I seriously doubt he'll go that route however. Havlicek was a unique situation, he came on the scene during the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and he was a sixth man at the beginning of his career, when he was the young guy, but for most of his career he was a starter. Iguodala is a very good player, but he's not at Hayward's level, and besides, if they put him as a starter that leaves Green as their only big. Those situations are not really like the Celtics situation. I also didn't suggest that they should go small the whole time. They can bring in Baynes, or whatever big they sign if he goes elsewhere, to give Al time away from center. Just because it has happened once or twice in certain specific situations doesn't mean that it's always, or even usually, a good idea to have one of your two best players come off the bench.

[RJ87]

The league is changing.  We have to avoid thinking in terms of traditional roles.  Switching everything on defense is the trend these days, but requires versatile players who can guard multiple positions while not sacrificing offense.

I look at it this way:  If GS can play D.Green at "center", then I think the C's can play GH or JT at "PF".

Bingo. This team is pretty much the vision Ainge and Stevens cooked up. A team full of versatile, lengthy wings. Peak switchability.

[tstorey_97]

OK...OK!

It's a good problem, but, it's not ours.

WWBD...(what will Brad do?)

I don't think he'll start Horford at Center. Not sure whom it will be but, close your eyes and imagine Amir + Baynes = ?

I don't understand why Stevens would keep Hayward off the court until the first rotation, thus, he starts.

Brown or Tatum come off the bench with:
Smart, Rozier and Morris....what is the matter with dat?

If C's dodge the injury thang and resign Smart...the NBA is going to be backed up trying to manage the constant procession of matchup nightmares waiting in Brad's quiver.

Enemy huddle, three minutes to go in the first quarter..."Hey coach? They got 4 guys coming in off the bench that all started 14 playoff games last year...what we gonna do, coach?"

Smart
Rozier
Morris
Tatum are in with, take your choice of 5 Celtic's starters...go small? Go big? Put five wingahs out there? Whatever you wanna do...a veritable buffet of "Brad's gonna get your weak guy and kill'em."

 

[footey]

I would love it if Hayward embraced the Havlicek role. It would make our team more dangerous, as it would keep everyone fresher.

But, I suspect that that won’t happen.

I 100% agree with this. Haywood off the bench with Morris, Rozier aand Smart would be unbelievable.
I also don't see Haywood embracing the 6th man role, but if he did, it would be amazing.
Just because he's off the bench doesn't mean he can't play big minutes, a I would fully expect him to be on the floor at the end of the game, when it counts.

I see no advantage to not starting Hayward. Sure it makes the bench better, but it makes the starting lineup worse. If CBS is worried about scoring with the second unit, he can simply stagger his substitutions so that one or two of Kyrie, Hayward, Brown or Tatum are always on the floor. It's easy enough to do.

One reason Horford has been so successful against Embiid is because Baynes does the heavy defensive lifting early in the game. That leaves Horford fresh in the fourth quarter.

Having Horford defend centers full time, and using Tatum against bigger players, wears both down faster within games, potentially leaving both less effective.

Having five excellent offensive players on the court is a bit of a diminishing returns thing, especially compared to how much an elite player could help the bench.

If having an elite, HOF-level Sixth Man was good enough for Red Auerbach and Greg Popovich, maybe it’s an idea worth considering.  Or, maybe the two best coaches of all-time were arbitrary and foolish? (You can add Steve Kerr to that list, bringing Iguodala off the bench despite being one of his top five players and being part of Golden State’s “death” lineup.)

Agree. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Hayward shoukd be the guy coming off the bench. Remember Hondo did that the first half of is career. Ditto McHale. Most likely candidate would be Tatum.

[droopdog7]

Man, some of you guys have lost your mind.  Hayward is a better player than either brown or Tatum.  If we’re basing it on that, then he’s [dang] sure starting.  And if that means that one of brown and Tatum don’t start, so be it.

[Roy H.]

Man, some of you guys have lost your mind.  Hayward is a better player than either brown or Tatum.  If we’re basing it on that, then he’s [dang] sure starting.  And if that means that one of brown and Tatum don’t start, so be it.

There’s no rule that says you start your best five players. San Antonio won multiple titles with their second best player coming off the bench, for instance.

[Roy H.]

Iguodala is a very good player, but he's not at Hayward's level, and besides, if they put him as a starter that leaves Green as their only big

Isn’t that the situation we’re talking about here? Playing small with Tatum at the 4?

Durant seems better suited as a small ball PF than Tatum, doesn’t he?

Pop, Kerr, Red, etc. have all seen the value in having a versatile ball-handling swing coming off the bench, despite being better than the guys starting in front of them. I think it’s worth thinking about.

In order to maintain our defensive identity I think that Brown, Horford and Baynes (if he comes back) should start. That leaves Tatum vs. Hayward as sixth man. There are advantages to both, but I think Hayward has better skills to lead the second unit at this point.

Havlicek was a unique situation, he came on the scene during the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and he was a sixth man at the beginning of his career, when he was the young guy, but for most of his career he was a starter.

People get confused about this sometimes, but Havlicek remained a sixth man well after he had established himself as a perennial all-star.  He came off the bench until he was 29. Red coached him for seven years, and every single on of those years he began games on the bench.

[KGs Knee]

The league is changing.  We have to avoid thinking in terms of traditional roles.  Switching everything on defense is the trend these days, but requires versatile players who can guard multiple positions while not sacrificing offense.

I look at it this way:  If GS can play D.Green at "center", then I think the C's can play GH or JT at "PF".

Draymond doesn't start at center and plays less than 10 MPG there during the regular season.  Even during the playoffs Draymond is only plying center about 15 MPG.

There's a legit argument that it's better to start Horford at PF and save his energy for more crucial parts of the game.

Regardless, I suspect Stevens is going to use the same lineup next season, provided everyone is healthy and no trades are made, that we saw on opening night this season.

[KGs Knee]

Man, some of you guys have lost your mind.  Hayward is a better player than either brown or Tatum.  If we’re basing it on that, then he’s [dang] sure starting.  And if that means that one of brown and Tatum don’t start, so be it.

There’s no rule that says you start your best five players. San Antonio won multiple titles with their second best player coming off the bench, for instance.

Conversely, just because some other team chose to not start their best five players doesn't mean that every team has to follow that same path, or that it's even the right path in the first place.

Not every situation is the same.

[Roy H.]

Man, some of you guys have lost your mind.  Hayward is a better player than either brown or Tatum.  If we’re basing it on that, then he’s [dang] sure starting.  And if that means that one of brown and Tatum don’t start, so be it.

There’s no rule that says you start your best five players. San Antonio won multiple titles with their second best player coming off the bench, for instance.

Conversely, just because some other team chose to not start their best five players doesn't mean that every team has to follow that same path, or that it's even the right path in the first place.

Not every situation is the same.

Nobody said it was?  But, the arguments in this thread largely boil down to “guys like Hayward don’t come off the bench” or “Hayward is better than Player X, so he needs to start”. Pop, Red, Kerr, etc. would all say that’s nonsense.

And, I’d like to hear the argument that it wasn’t the right path in San Antonio or Golden State.

As for here, playing small for 82 games seems risky. It hurts the defense, while having diminishing returns on offense. I suspect that due to egos and perceived status we’ll start both Tatum and Hayward, but that doesn’t mean it’s the optimal lineup.

[KGs Knee]

Man, some of you guys have lost your mind.  Hayward is a better player than either brown or Tatum.  If we’re basing it on that, then he’s [dang] sure starting.  And if that means that one of brown and Tatum don’t start, so be it.

There’s no rule that says you start your best five players. San Antonio won multiple titles with their second best player coming off the bench, for instance.

Conversely, just because some other team chose to not start their best five players doesn't mean that every team has to follow that same path, or that it's even the right path in the first place.

Not every situation is the same.

I’d like to hear the argument that it wasn’t the right path in San Antonio or Golden State.

As for here, playing small for 82 games seems risky. It hurts the defense, while having diminishing returns on offense. I suspect that due to egos and perceived status we’ll start both Tatum and Hayward, but that doesn’t mean it’s the optimal lineup.

I didn't say it wasn't the right path for either of those teams.  My point was their situations have nothing to do with ours.

Personally, I like starting Horford at PF next to a beefier center.  But I'm not sure I like the idea of asking one of Hayward/Tatum/Brown to come off the bench, as I don't really think that's the optimal use of their abilities.

It's a very difficult decision, that I'm not sure what the right answer is at this moment.  I think we'll actually need to see what works better.  I do think, though, that Stevens will be open minded about it and do what is best for the team.

[droopdog7]

Man, some of you guys have lost your mind.  Hayward is a better player than either brown or Tatum.  If we’re basing it on that, then he’s [dang] sure starting.  And if that means that one of brown and Tatum don’t start, so be it.

There’s no rule that says you start your best five players. San Antonio won multiple titles with their second best player coming off the bench, for instance.

Conversely, just because some other team chose to not start their best five players doesn't mean that every team has to follow that same path, or that it's even the right path in the first place.

Not every situation is the same.

Nobody said it was?  But, the arguments in this thread largely boil down to “guys like Hayward don’t come off the bench” or “Hayward is better than Player X, so he needs to start”. Pop, Red, Kerr, etc. would all say that’s nonsense.

And, I’d like to hear the argument that it wasn’t the right path in San Antonio or Golden State.

As for here, playing small for 82 games seems risky. It hurts the defense, while having diminishing returns on offense. I suspect that due to egos and perceived status we’ll start both Tatum and Hayward, but that doesn’t mean it’s the optimal lineup.

The initial post seems to suggest that Tatum and Brown were too good to bench.  Or, as was stated, they see no argument for benching either one of them.  Well, I see several arguments why they could be benched.  Hayward is better than both, he’s a max player (which matters), and he’s a veteran. 

In fact, what I don’t see is any legitimate reason why he shouldn’t start.  I mean, you can point to ginobli but he’s far and away the exception to the rule.  And no one said that the best five should start.  But generally speaking, the best player at each position do in fact start.  So whether Hayward is a sf or a sg, he will and should take his place as a starter.  All this other stuff is just nonsense.