Is Paul George Better Than Gordon Hayward?

[SHAQATTACK]

Does anyone seriously think that Larry Bird is going to trade Paul George, especially for what DA is willing to offer?

I kinda think not at the moment.  George will have to push some ,  make it clear he is not coming back under any circumstances .

As long as Bird thinks Paul is staying , I don't see him trading for less than a Kings ransom.

[Who]

Paul George is better because of his defense. Hayward's defensive stats are only as good as they are because of Rudy Gobert and the other quality defenders around him in Utah. Hayward is a middling defender. Paul George a high level one.

Hayward has an advantage on offense due to his superior efficiency but the gap here is smaller than the one on the defensive end of the court.

[crimson_stallion]

Question 1A: Do we do a deal for George or sign Hayward this summer without a deal for Crowder (or, I suppose, Brown) already in place? If we pick up one of those guys and then have three small forwards, we become a forced seller.

Mike

Not a big deal. 

George can play SG or SF no problem.  Hayward is probably more of a SF, but could probably play SG at a stretch.  Either guy could probably play alongside Crowder effectively.

Brown is still too raw to start full time, but he'd potentially get plenty of minutes off the bench backing both guys up.

No need to do a panic sale.  It might take another two years yet before Brown is good enough to replace a guy like Crowder full time.

[Roy H.]

Paul George is better because of his defense. Hayward's defensive stats are only as good as they are because of Rudy Gobert and the other quality defenders around him in Utah. Hayward is a middling defender. Paul George a high level one.

Hayward has an advantage on offense due to his superior efficiency but the gap here is smaller than the one on the defensive end of the court.

I disagree about Hayward's defense. He holds opponents to well below their normal shooting percentages, something like 41.5% (seventh best among starting forwards, if I'm remembering correctly). That's not all, or even primarily, due to Gobert

[Vermont Green]

My initial reaction to this, based on what I have seen of them playing, is that George is a more dominant player.  He can be the guy when the other team makes it a priority to stop him.  Not sure Hayward has shown he can do that.

I will say that there is a diminishing but continuing difference between Paul George pre and post injury.  I know the team around him and many other things have changed.  He doesn't seem quite as dominant or as efficient.  I have not checked stats on this but this is more of a general observation.

I think efficiency is an important offensive stat that is not given enough emphasis.  Stars today are not only expected to put up the numbers but also do it efficiently while getting other players involved.  That is a big uptick for Thomas this season.  When I have seen Hayward play, he got his points and other numbers but I never got the feeling he was lifting the team up.  Paul George did pre-injury (and did it efficiently) but I have not seen him play back to that level.  He was close the last time I got to see him play but still not quite.

I will take Paul George over Gordon Hayward.

[crimson_stallion]

Paul George is better because of his defense. Hayward's defensive stats are only as good as they are because of Rudy Gobert and the other quality defenders around him in Utah. Hayward is a middling defender. Paul George a high level one.

Hayward has an advantage on offense due to his superior efficiency but the gap here is smaller than the one on the defensive end of the court.

I disagree about Hayward's defense. He holds opponents to well below their normal shooting percentages, something like 41.5% (seventh best among starting forwards, if I'm remembering correctly). That's not all, or even primarily, due to Gobert

Hard to be certain of that really. 

Hayward can play right up in the face of his opponent, which makes it hard for them to get a clean shot off.  He doesn't have to worry much about them blowing by him, because if they do he has Gobert at the rim as backup. 

Before the emergence of Gobert, nobody ever looked at Hayward as anything more then a mediocre defensive player.  Maybe he has improved, but I'm sure Gobert's presence has a hell of a lot to do with his plus stats.

By comparison if you look at guys like George and Butler, they don't really have above average rim protectors there to back them up.  They can't afford to play too close on a guy, otherwise they risk getting blown by and giving up a layup.  They have to respect the drive, hang back a bit, give the opponent a bit more space.  Makes it easier for them to get a shot off.

[Who]

Paul George is better because of his defense. Hayward's defensive stats are only as good as they are because of Rudy Gobert and the other quality defenders around him in Utah. Hayward is a middling defender. Paul George a high level one.

Hayward has an advantage on offense due to his superior efficiency but the gap here is smaller than the one on the defensive end of the court.

I disagree about Hayward's defense. He holds opponents to well below their normal shooting percentages, something like 41.5% (seventh best among starting forwards, if I'm remembering correctly). That's not all, or even primarily, due to Gobert

I believe those type of stats are heavily influenced by a team's help defense.

How much space there is to attack. How well a team shrinks the court to deny driving lanes / passing angles. Leading to more forced shots. How quickly teams rotate to deny / limit open shooting attempts. Lowering number of high quality shooting attempts.

Those defensive stats are interesting but I do not put a lot of stock in them. 

[crimson_stallion]

My initial reaction to this, based on what I have seen of them playing, is that George is a more dominant player.  He can be the guy when the other team makes it a priority to stop him.  Not sure Hayward has shown he can do that.

I will say that there is a diminishing but continuing difference between Paul George pre and post injury.  I know the team around him and many other things have changed.  He doesn't seem quite as dominant or as efficient.  I have not checked stats on this but this is more of a general observation.

I think efficiency is an important offensive stat that is not given enough emphasis.  Stars today are not only expected to put up the numbers but also do it efficiently while getting other players involved.  That is a big uptick for Thomas this season.  When I have seen Hayward play, he got his points and other numbers but I never got the feeling he was lifting the team up.  Paul George did pre-injury (and did it efficiently) but I have not seen him play back to that level.  He was close the last time I got to see him play but still not quite.

I will take Paul George over Gordon Hayward.

George's stats pre-injury and post-injury are practically identical across the board, just FYI.

In 2013/14 (before the injury) he averaged:
21.7 pts, 6.8 reb, 3.5 ast, 1.9 stl, 0.3 blk, 2.8 TO, 42.4% FG, 36.4% 3PT, 86% FT

He missed 2014/15 due to injury (played only 6 games).

In 2015/16 (after the injury) he averaged:
23.1 pts, 7 reb, 4.1 ast, 1.9 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.3 to, 41.8% FG, 37.1% 3PT, 86% FT

Pretty much identical with the exception of his pts/reb/ast which were actually all higher post injury. 

In fact statistically, the last two seasons (post injury) have been the best of his career.

[Androslav]

Both players are really well rounded.
Tall, strong, think fast, can shoot, dribble and pass. Both defend and can switch. I have seen Paul George take over a game much more times than Hayward did, he can hit 5 4th quarter threes in a row and send a team goodbye. That, along with better defense is a lot.
But if you ask me would I rather have Hayward + an option to trade for PG13 in the summer or PG now for some package like Brown, Bradley, and 1 BKN pick, without cap space to wait for, I would rather wait for the summer. It is also a more realistic option.
I don't think that the time is now for Bird to let him go. They could win a series this year after all. Perhaps against Toronto (should have done it last year - Vogel was fired cause he rested PG too much in that pivotal game 6 of the series) or Washington. That could significantly shift the direction of the franchise. It may even help their long-term goal of resigning him.

What if Geroge was making $19M for 3 years and Hayward was making $26M for four years. Would you still rather have Hayward?

What's the acquisition cost?

Lets say, for argument's sake, that Bird wants Bradley + Smart + Jerebko + 2018 Brooklyn 1st.

* This gives us a starting five of Thomas, George, Crowder, Amir and Horford.

* George's defence and outside shooting more then makes up for what we lose with Bradley and Smart

* We keep the 2017 Brooklyn pick

* We still maintain enough cap flexibility to sign a max free agent - so we could still go after Hayward or Griffin

Together Smart and AB are set to earn 13,3 million next year, so after your proposed PG13 trade, that would leave us with about 22 million left to sign Hayward, not enough. That is if we trade away our 1st-4th pick in the draft.
So, the benefits of filling out the cap space first and then trading for talent is clear.

[crimson_stallion]

Both players are really well rounded.
Tall, strong, think fast, can shoot, dribble and pass. Both defend and can switch. I have seen Paul George take over a game much more times than Hayward did, he can hit 5 4th quarter threes in a row and send a team goodbye. That, along with better defense is a lot.
But if you ask me would I rather have Hayward + an option to trade for PG13 in the summer or PG now for some package like Brown, Bradley, and 1 BKN pick, without cap space to wait for, I would rather wait for the summer. It is also a more realistic option.
I don't think that the time is now for Bird to let him go. They could win a series this year after all. Perhaps against Toronto (should have done it last year - Vogel was fired cause he rested PG too much in that pivotal game 6 of the series) or Washington. That could significantly shift the direction of the franchise. It may even help their long-term goal of resigning him.

What if Geroge was making $19M for 3 years and Hayward was making $26M for four years. Would you still rather have Hayward?

What's the acquisition cost?

Lets say, for argument's sake, that Bird wants Bradley + Smart + Jerebko + 2018 Brooklyn 1st.

* This gives us a starting five of Thomas, George, Crowder, Amir and Horford.

* George's defence and outside shooting more then makes up for what we lose with Bradley and Smart

* We keep the 2017 Brooklyn pick

* We still maintain enough cap flexibility to sign a max free agent - so we could still go after Hayward or Griffin

Together Smart and AB are set to earn 13,3 million next year, so after your proposed PG13 trade, that would leave us with about 22 million left to sign Hayward, not enough. That is if we trade away our 1st-4th pick in the draft.
So, the benefits of filling out the cap space first and then trading for talent is clear.

That's why I said enough flexiblity to sign Hayward. 

If we got both George and Hayward, we wouldn't need Crowder at all.  In fact we wouldn't really be able to keep him - he wouldn't be content sharing minutes with Brown off the bench. 

We could easily offload Crowder's contract to the Pelicans in return for a pick - they just paired Cousins with Davis, so they are going to be desperate to bring in quality talent to surround those guys with.  Crowder would fit in perfectly, and I can almost guarantee that they would be wetting themselves for the chance to add him at a minimal cost.

Now that you have offloaded Crowder's salary you are back where you started Cap Space wise - so you can sign Hayward, pair him with George, Thomas and Horford - and still bring in Fultz via Free agency. 

[Who]

Shot selection

I think Paul George settles for long jump shots too much instead of driving to the basket. You can see this in his shot distribution vs Hayward or J.Butler.

P.George - 852 FGAs

At rim = 115 attempts
 3-10 foot = 93
10-15 foot = 110
15-23 foot = 243
3 pointers = 294


G.Hayward - 752 FGAs

At rim = 174 attempts
 3-10 foot = 95
10-15 foot = 90
15-23 foot = 146
3 pointers = 247

J.Butler - 823 FGAs

At rim = 222 attempts
 3-10 foot = 100
10-15 foot = 136
15-23 foot = 195
3 pointers = 170

---------------------------

I think Paul George settles too much on offense. Takes too many long jumpers. Too many contested shots. Does not utilize his athletic advantages to get to the basket. You can see P.George has taken the most shots overall but the fewest at the basket. Almost as little as half as many as Jimmy Butler. Both Butler and Hayward make a more concentrated effort to take the ball to the basket and attack the rim.

You can see this in FT attempts too. P.George averages 4.9 FTAs per game. Hayward is at 6.6 FTAs while Butler leads the way with 9.6 FTAs per game.

Turnover Prone

George is also the most turnover prone. 2.8 turnovers per game vs 2.1 turnovers for Butler and 1.9 turnovers for Hayward.

Which is even more [dang]ing when you look at those shot distribution figures and see how many long shots Paul George is attempting vs shots around the basket.

There is no reason to turn the ball over on 3 point attempts. So the turnover percentage vs two point shots is even worse for George.

Paul George = 11.4 two point FGAs vs 2.8 turnovers = 24.6%
Gordon Hayward = 10.4 two point FGAs vs 1.9 turnovers = 18.2%
Jimmy Butler = 13.1 two point FGAs vs 2.1 turnovers = 16%

Include FTs in numbers (as 0.44 a possession)

Paul George = 11.4 two point FGAs + 4.9 FTAs vs 2.8 turnovers = 20.7%
Gordon Hayward = 10.4 two point FGAs + 6.6 FTAs vs 1.9 turnovers = 14.3%
Jimmy Butler = 13.1 two point FGAs + 9.6 FTAs vs 2.1 turnovers = 12.1%



Those are the things that bug me about Paul George's offensive game and why I do not think he is as good offensively as either Butler or Hayward. He settles for too many long jump shots, he doesn't attack the basket well enough, he does not utilize his athletic advantages to get to the basket for higher percentage shots, in turn does not get enough FTAs and he makes too many turnovers. Too many bad decisions on offense.

[crimson_stallion]

Shot selection

I think Paul George settles for long jump shots too much instead of driving to the basket. You can see this in his shot distribution vs Hayward or J.Butler.

P.George - 852 FGAs

At rim = 115 attempts
 3-10 foot = 93
10-15 foot = 110
15-23 foot = 243
3 pointers = 294


G.Hayward - 752 FGAs

At rim = 174 attempts
 3-10 foot = 95
10-15 foot = 90
15-23 foot = 146
3 pointers = 247

J.Butler - 823 FGAs

At rim = 222 attempts
 3-10 foot = 100
10-15 foot = 136
15-23 foot = 195
3 pointers = 170

---------------------------

I think Paul George settles too much on offense. Takes too many long jumpers. Too many contested shots. Does not utilize his athletic advantages to get to the basket. You can see P.George has taken the most shots overall but the fewest at the basket. Almost as little as half as many as Jimmy Butler. Both Butler and Hayward make a more concentrated effort to take the ball to the basket and attack the rim.

You can see this in FT attempts too. P.George averages 4.9 FTAs per game. Hayward is at 6.6 FTAs while Butler leads the way with 9.6 FTAs per game.

Turnover Prone

George is also the most turnover prone. 2.8 turnovers per game vs 2.1 turnovers for Butler and 1.9 turnovers for Hayward.

Which is even more [dang]ing when you look at those shot distribution figures and see how many long shots Paul George is attempting vs shots around the basket.

There is no reason to turn the ball over on 3 point attempts. So the turnover percentage vs two point shots is even worse for George.

Paul George = 11.4 two point FGAs vs 2.8 turnovers = 24.6%
Gordon Hayward = 10.4 two point FGAs vs 1.9 turnovers = 18.2%
Jimmy Butler = 13.1 two point FGAs vs 2.1 turnovers = 16%

Include FTs in numbers (as 0.44 a possession)

Paul George = 11.4 two point FGAs + 4.9 FTAs vs 2.8 turnovers = 20.7%
Gordon Hayward = 10.4 two point FGAs + 6.6 FTAs vs 1.9 turnovers = 14.3%
Jimmy Butler = 13.1 two point FGAs + 9.6 FTAs vs 2.1 turnovers = 12.1%



Those are the things that bug me about Paul George's offensive game and why I do not think he is as good offensively as either Butler or Hayward. He settles for too many long jump shots, he doesn't attack the basket well enough, he does not utilize his athletic advantages to get to the basket for higher percentage shots, in turn does not get enough FTAs and he makes too many turnovers. Too many bad decisions on offense.

These are valid points.

Though I still feel a lot more comfortable with Paul George battling Lebron James / Kevin Durant then I feel about Gordon Hayward battling those guys.

I feel George has a chance to win that matchup on any given night, whereas I feel Hayward is going to lose it 9 times out of 10 - at least.

It's possible that we might actually be a better regular season team with Hayward. 

But I think we would be a MUCH better playoff team with George.

[jambr380]

@Crimson - you aren't far off on numbers as Crowder and Bradley make a combined $15.6M next year. Butler will make $18.7M and George will make $19.3M.

Unfortunately, the only way to make the numbers work in order to trade for either player and sign a max guy is to trade away our '17 BKN pick rather than the '18 BKN pick since that will account another several million, but that seems like a steep price to pay. I guess if you are 'guaranteed' both Hayward and Butler/George, then the price doesn't seem so steep. Still, though, there would be a lot of disappointed people in Boston

[dreamgreen]

Paul George is better because of his defense. Hayward's defensive stats are only as good as they are because of Rudy Gobert and the other quality defenders around him in Utah. Hayward is a middling defender. Paul George a high level one.

Hayward has an advantage on offense due to his superior efficiency but the gap here is smaller than the one on the defensive end of the court.

This. Also wings are easier to find than swings IMO.

[boscel33]

Shot selection

I think Paul George settles for long jump shots too much instead of driving to the basket. You can see this in his shot distribution vs Hayward or J.Butler.

P.George - 852 FGAs

At rim = 115 attempts
 3-10 foot = 93
10-15 foot = 110
15-23 foot = 243
3 pointers = 294


G.Hayward - 752 FGAs

At rim = 174 attempts
 3-10 foot = 95
10-15 foot = 90
15-23 foot = 146
3 pointers = 247

J.Butler - 823 FGAs

At rim = 222 attempts
 3-10 foot = 100
10-15 foot = 136
15-23 foot = 195
3 pointers = 170

---------------------------

I think Paul George settles too much on offense. Takes too many long jumpers. Too many contested shots. Does not utilize his athletic advantages to get to the basket. You can see P.George has taken the most shots overall but the fewest at the basket. Almost as little as half as many as Jimmy Butler. Both Butler and Hayward make a more concentrated effort to take the ball to the basket and attack the rim.

You can see this in FT attempts too. P.George averages 4.9 FTAs per game. Hayward is at 6.6 FTAs while Butler leads the way with 9.6 FTAs per game.

Turnover Prone

George is also the most turnover prone. 2.8 turnovers per game vs 2.1 turnovers for Butler and 1.9 turnovers for Hayward.

Which is even more [dang]ing when you look at those shot distribution figures and see how many long shots Paul George is attempting vs shots around the basket.

There is no reason to turn the ball over on 3 point attempts. So the turnover percentage vs two point shots is even worse for George.

Paul George = 11.4 two point FGAs vs 2.8 turnovers = 24.6%
Gordon Hayward = 10.4 two point FGAs vs 1.9 turnovers = 18.2%
Jimmy Butler = 13.1 two point FGAs vs 2.1 turnovers = 16%

Include FTs in numbers (as 0.44 a possession)

Paul George = 11.4 two point FGAs + 4.9 FTAs vs 2.8 turnovers = 20.7%
Gordon Hayward = 10.4 two point FGAs + 6.6 FTAs vs 1.9 turnovers = 14.3%
Jimmy Butler = 13.1 two point FGAs + 9.6 FTAs vs 2.1 turnovers = 12.1%



Those are the things that bug me about Paul George's offensive game and why I do not think he is as good offensively as either Butler or Hayward. He settles for too many long jump shots, he doesn't attack the basket well enough, he does not utilize his athletic advantages to get to the basket for higher percentage shots, in turn does not get enough FTAs and he makes too many turnovers. Too many bad decisions on offense.

These are valid points.

Though I still feel a lot more comfortable with Paul George battling Lebron James / Kevin Durant then I feel about Gordon Hayward battling those guys.

I feel George has a chance to win that matchup on any given night, whereas I feel Hayward is going to lose it 9 times out of 10 - at least.

It's possible that we might actually be a better regular season team with Hayward. 

But I think we would be a MUCH better playoff team with George.

But if we're signing GH, that means we also still have Crowder to play D, no?  If we trade for PG, good chance he's gone in that deal.