[Man-crush?] Ron Artest's recent comments about Chuck Hayes

for his position?
He's a liability?
If Landry signs?
getting in the games?

At least write legibly when you are being an arse.

 

Scola is the only essential 4 we have on the team for the upcoming season IMO. If Landry can stay healthy and continue to improve that may change, but right now we have some overlap that could put us in play for a trade this season.

A Rafer, Battier, Hayes (or Landry) package could be very appealing to a team looking to deal an unhappy point guard.

But I think management wants to wait to see how RonRon behaves and how Landry develops before they pull any deals involving Shane or Hayes...plus you have to have someone who also wants to deal and they can't make that happen.

Imagin how quickly things could go south if Hayes and Battier were traded and then Landry got injured and Artest was a total distraction this year. We'd be struggleing to make the play-offs and could go from a 'win now' mantality to a 'rebuild now' mantality.

Besides, this team has enough talent on paper to compete with anyone. Why not see how things go before you make any core changes...unless of course, something low-risk, high-gain like the Artest deal comes along again. But that's not likely.

 

I think I've been pretty clear that Hayes' defense is necessary against certain matchups. I've also argued in other threads that Utah is our worst matchup because Yao Ming is a liability on the defensive end. He can't guard anyone. Nor can he even rebound well. Had Yao Ming been healthy last year against Utah, I honestly don't know who would have won. I honestly think we are better against Utah without Ming in the lineup.

But if Ming did play against Utah, would Hayes have gotten many minutes? We don't know because we don't know how much Landry's injury was still affecting him. I certainly wouldn't think he'd have played much. Ming would guard boozer and Chuck Hayes would be needed to guard who? Okur? It wouldn't think it would be worth it to give Hayes significant minutes simply to guard Okur. Scola or Landry could guard his perimeter shots just fine.

That said, I like Chuck Hayes. I just don't think he'll be getting many minutes on a regular basis if Landry comes back.

 

I almost forgot that too

 

no layups

 

w/e u say "Hayesfan". When did wade say that quote in ur sig.

 

Last week before the USA played China.

 

friendly advice

cool down on the insults, you dont want to attract too much attention to your posts.

 

we need Hayes even with his ft shooting % and awkward jumpshot. (with our big 3 + extras we have plenty of scorers) I don't know why scoring is such a big issue for some with Hayes. He isn't asked to score. He best at getting cheap buckets, steals, rebounds, and extra possessions from hustle plays. Last year he avged 1.1 steals per game.. in only 19.9 min per game. Any easy tip ins or close shots around the basket are a bonus. I think he's even more important this year than last because other teams are going to have trouble double teaming tmac,yao, AND ron.. so he will have more opportunities for easy baskets compared to last year.

I don't see how people can say Hayes sucks. The only thing that sucks is his FT%. His FG% was 51% last year. He does the little things extraordinarily well which is why he is still in this league with only a 4ppg avg for his career.

 

Hayes strength is how quickly he anticipates things on defense. the way he can close the baseline. or how smart he is in terms of cutting down the passing lane. until you see it up close, you truly dont appericate he's game and smarts.

 

What?!? So the only thing that qualifies as offense to you is shooting? Passing, setting picks, and, yes, offensive rebounding aren't a part of offense? Generating extra possessions for your side = more points. It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

He's actually the perfect prototype NBA player (without the offensive-talent of course.) Small enough to be quick and agile, but can still contribute with a lot of rebounds and miscellaneous stuff.

 

Wow, I'd say the exact opposite is true. Hayes is undersized for his position and only adds value at one end of the court. Hardly a "prototype". And you can't say he's the "perfect prototype... without the offensive talent." That's like saying "this car is perfect... other than it can't go in reverse."

The prototype of an NBA player should, at a minimum, be the right size for his position and not have glaring weaknesses in his skillset compared to the average player that plays the same position.

Michael Jordan and, as much as I hate to say it, Kobe Bryant, are closer to prototypes, at least when it comes to perimeter players. Duncan or Garnett would be prototypical big men.

The truth is that Hayes is an anomaly. His work ethic and basketball IQ allow him to get past the fact that he lacks the skill and size of a typical PF.

 

Be honest you find it necessary to make these points because they are in line with Van Gundy and Thibodeau. You say most fans don't recognize Haye's impact on defense. But I think it is the opposite, most people give him too much credit on defense as if he is so great to deserve to start in spite of his sucktitude on offense.

It's no coincidence that when Hayes was starting the Rockets went 24-20 (even this is decieving because his minutes started diminishing in January and the Rockets went 9-4 that month).

After Scola replaced him as the starter the Rockets went on a 22 game win streak and finished the season 31-7. Hayes is a legitimate NBA player who can contribute but if he is your starter you will have a lot to compensate for both in size and offense. In conclusion Hayes is a good guy to have on the bench but the Rockets can do without him and succeed.

 

I have no problem in agreeing that Scola should have been starting at the end of the season, but let's not give him all the credit for the improvement after the new year.

We started winning in January, when Chuck was still starting. Before the streak we were something like 11-3 in the month of January with Chuck still starting.

It had more to do with improved team offensive play overall than it did with Chuck losing the starting position.

Shoot we started winning when Tmac was hurt.

The team improved from craptastic in the beginning of the season to fantastic at the end.

Chuck has his limitations and its entirely possible that we would have won more of those early games with Luis starting, but I doubt it. They were still getting used to Adelman and each other. We were giving Bonzi, Mike James and when he was healthy Steve Francis minutes at the beginning of the season. Once we settled down into a rotation we improved from that point on.

I am just saying there were other reasons we went on that streak.

 

Let me start off by saying I am not a hater. I love Hayes' hustle and heart. But we were actually 10-4 in January and 7 of those wins he played less than 20 minutes. One of which was a DNP. So in reality he was only a starter by name and wasn't even getting close to starter minutes most of that month.

I absolutely concede that replacing Hayes with Scola isn't the only reason for the Rockets success. Certainly Adelman learning the team and vis-a-versa helped things get better. But the winning also coincided with Landry and Scola eating up Hayes' minutes. Even with Tmac out. Hayes received alot of DNP's until Yao went down. So Hayes being replaced in the starting lineup definitely was a big contributor to the Rockets turnaround.

IMO Hayes a starting PF for any team in the league is a weak spot. Hayes as a role player off the bench is not.

 

I think two factors were much more important then Chuck's demotion from the starting lineup: (1) McGrady returning to the team, and (2) the addition of Landry into the rotation while he was playing at a very high level. I agreed with the decision to start Scola, but I think the impact of that move was way overblown. The team as a whole started playing much better after a shaky late November, early December stretch. For about a month in January/February, Landry was arguably the third best player on the team. So sure, giving him minutes over Chuck would help. I don't see that as a huge knock on Chuck or an indicator that Chuck should never have been in the regular rotation to begin with.