The bottom line is if you can't score then that makes getting back on defense so much harder because transition starts with great defense and having Chuck in the rotation limits your offense. I say start Scola and have Landry as the back up. Chuck only needs spot minutes for defensive purposes only like to close out a quarter in a crutial moment.
It's an interesting topic you raised Durvasa, and it got me thinking a bit. There is causes on why players that play on only one end of the floor being treated differently, I think it's because that activities on two ends of the floor is not the same in terms of evaluation, making two types of players uncomparable. 1. The difference in effective areas A well rounded offensive player can play defense on any spot of the court. Meanwhile, a defensive specialist can only play offense in very restricted areas, like under the basket, where defensive specialists like Hayes operates. 2. The difference in effectiveness A well rounded offensive player can perform out sorts of defensive moves and be passable with it, not at the same level of defensive specialists, but still better than none, blocking out, rebound, man to man, rotation, make a steal... In fact, some all offense bad defense players can be good at certain defensive areas, such as Steve Francis making steals. On the other hand, defensive players can't make many sorts of offensive moves with passable effectiveness, for example, it would be suicidal to ask Hayes to do dribble penetration, shoot three pointers and run fast breaks. Analogically, playing Hayes is like playing 4 on 5 on offense, while playing Francis is to play 4.5 on 5 on defense. Let me put it this way, it won't be suicidal to ask all offense no defense players to play more D, but it will be suicidal to ask defensive specialists like Hayes to play more O. 3. The difference in stepping up A good offensive player can key in on defense and play better defense. Defense is often about desire. Okur wasn't known for D but he defended Yao OK in the playoffs. However, it would be next to being impossible to ask Hayes shoot 33% of threes when playoffs come. Due to much greater limitations for defensive players on offensive end, the term defensive specialist is coined and become popular. Sorry, Hayes is what he is, an undersized defensive specialist.
I think that's because you can always LEARN to play more D, while you can't really LEARN to become a better offensive player. For example, Carmelo Anthony is often referred to as pure offense, but it isn't inconcievable he could pick up his defense as well. He has the athletic ability and if he ever became more dedicated to that part of his game, I'm sure he can be a good defender. At the same time, you can't teach size or strength. Chuck, even though he's only 6'6, he plays much larger than that and naturally is very strong. He can keep up with bigs much taller than him and push they away from the basket. Landry, although an inch or two taller, is not naturally as big as Chuck. Honestly I like Landry's game but I'm afraid the power forwards of the West would tear him up. Landry is not particularly big OR tall. He's lean and athletic, kinda like travis outlaw. I think Landry matches up better with power forwards of second units than the Boozers, Amare, KG, Jermaine O'neal, Pau Gasols, Zach Randolph, etc etc. of the league. How did he do against Duncan? I missed the San Antonio game so I couldn't see. But I think Landry would be better suited for matching up against the perimeter bigs like Nowitski, than the power bigs like Boozer.
They don't call them "offensive specialists" they call them "pure shooters" or something along those lines.
First, I appreciate the discussion Panda. You bring up some interesting and important points. I don't think that's true. Hayes can do things to help the offense away from the basket, such as setting screens (which he's particularly good at) or receiving the ball in the high post to set up a play. He's probably our best at chasing long offensive rebounds as well. He isn't a scoring threat away from the basket, but that doesn't mean he can't "play offense" away from the basket. Again, I think your portrayal of offensive play is limited, while recognizing that there are multiple facets to defense which a player can contribute. And I think it would definitely be suicidal to, for instance, ask Luther Head to guard Kobe Bryant or Yao to guard Dirk Nowitzki. The coach has to define roles on both ends as per his player's abilities. I think one thing you can say is that a "great" defensive player (relative to average) probably doesn't impact the game as much as a great offensive player. I suspect that there are very, very few defensive players, historically, that could have the same impact on defense as a Tracy McGrady on offense, for instance. And they probably were all dominant shot-blockers / rebounders. I don't have any evidence for that, but that's my hunch. There's something to this. It's why teams tend to value offensively-skilled young players more, because they feel that any player can be trained to be at least adequate on defense. That's a consideration for potential. But I wouldn't say that it's something that can just be turned on, like a switch. I think that if a player hasn't developed the proper habits and discipline, you can't just rely on him to be a good defender when a stop is needed. Also, as with offense, there are definitely limits to how good a player can be defensively. Luther will always have problems with bigger guards that post him up, and Yao will always have problems with the pick and roll, for instance. And unlike with offense, where you have more control over who's involved in the play, if you have a player who is a "defensive liability" you're pretty much at the other team's mercy on whether that vulnerability gets exposed.
I can cite Landry's shooting % because Landry and Hayes are basically taking the same kind of shots. But u cite Hayes FG% in the paint and compare with Scola's and Yao's FG% in the paint, which are not comparable because of different kinds of shots. Where did I say Landry is an average finisher around the rim? You are so weird. As long as Landry can finish 65-70% around the rim, he's better than average. An average finisher around the rim with those layups is in the low 60%. I dont even need anything from 82games.com to tell you what's the average FG% of layups. It's in my head. LMAO! Hayes cant convert a layup 3 feet within the basket wtih no defender on him and now you want him to have a jump shoot. Let me tell you what Chuck's real problems are: Chuck needs to grow 3 more inches and install springs in his knees.
If Chuck can learn how to shoot jumpshots, then by all means, put him in the starting four! But, one thing you guys don't realize is, since Yao doesn't dominate the basket usually, and prefers to shoot from 10 feet, Chuck is a hardnosed guy who can stand underneath the basket and box people out/rebound from there. From a lot of offensive rebounds I've seen Scola get, he usually runs in from the outside, and not box people out like Chuck. That is because outside shooting is also Scola's game. Chuck stands near the basket, which is a good compliment for the entire team. Head, Alston, Mac, and Yao all like to shoot from the outside, and rarely penetrate in.
Have you compared their percentage on similar shots? You seem convinced that whatever you're saying is "fact", but that requires real evidence. You said (more or less) Landry shoots 80%, and therefore Chuck must be below average (and, further, that this conclusion is fact). One doesn't follow from the other, unless you assume Landry is average. And the "it's in my head" remark isn't convincing, I'm sorry. As I said, you can have the opinion that he's a poor finisher, you perhaps you're right. But without hard evidence to back it up, I wouldn't call that "fact". That's all I'm saying. You completely ignored my argument. The difference between a 65% and 55% shooter, given Chuck's number of field goal attempts, is marginal. If you want to criticize him, focus on his inability to make a play away from the basket. Not his FG%.
Wow, did I say Landry shooting over 80%? You need glasses, man! Landry is currently shooting 72% (from nba.com). I have been saying all along an average finisher can finish those layups at low 60%, ie 60-65%. You can check it out in your favorable stats websites what's the average FG% of layups. Do you even know what's the FG% of dunks? Talking about basketball. Well, I dont have any HIGH expectation of Hayes as you. I just want Hayes to finish those easy ones. Those are the shots within Hayes abilities and Hayes should have finished them. I dont pray I wake up tomorrow and Chuck suddenly has a jump shoot. Let's use the example of last game vs Spurs, Chuck was 0-6, 2 shots Chuck attempted were point-blank with no defense on him. That's 4 points. Some games are determined by a MARGINAL difference of 1-2 points. Some MARGINAL difference is good enough for a couple of wins. If everyone think like you then I dont think Rafer Alston needs to work on his runners and floaters. Alston has blew those shots in last 2 seasons anyway. Why is Alston so stupid to work on his runners and floaters just to make some MARGINAL difference? Alston should just continue to shot his spot up 3s.
I would think Novak is the anti-Hayes, although that's probably too much credit to Novak. He's not really an offensive scorer, just a shooter.
Chuck Hayes is a poor finisher. The stats don't tell the whole story. He very rarely makes a difficult shot and most of his misses are inexcusable. These are things we know from observation. If someone created a montage of all of his FG attempts for the season, it would prove my point. The problem is Chuck is short and can barely jump, which is the perfect recipe for not being a good finisher. But I do agree the bigger problem is his inability to score away from the basket, which makes the Rockets a lot easier to defend when he's on the floor. The picks and things he contributes don't come close to making up for Chuck's lack of skills. Hopefully Scola and Landry continue to improve so we can dial back Chuck's minutes and use him more as a spot player.
Steve Nash can play enough team defense to compensate. He...and players like him...are quick enough and saavy enough to funnel dribble penetration to a shot blocker, use the sidelines as a 6th defender or strip a player trying to post them up. Chuck Hayes doesn't get any "help" making shots (including FT's) over 5 feet from the basket. A totally different level of mono-dimensional. Plus, no one in NBA history has committed personals fouls per minute at Hayes' level and been productive enough to warrant significant oncourt minutes. It's a fact embedded in 82games' article on Varejao. In his career thus far, Hayes commits the same PF's/min as Vaejao. http://www.82games.com/chaikin2.htm
You've been saying that, without proof. Sorry if I don't have much faith in your perception of these things. After all, up until the last game, Chuck was shooting over 60% on shots around the basket. Evidently, you weren't able to compute that in your head. I've done so in the past, actually. Among PFs and Cs, his FG% around the basket was slightly above average. And it was well above average if don't include tip in attempts (which tend to be low percentage). That's based on 82games data. If you want to go off NBA.com Hotzones, here's a spreadsheet with FG% over the last several seasons from different areas of the court: http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1010445 On average, over the previous 4 seasons, FG% immediately around the basket was 55%. Here's Chuck FG% from this area over his career: Code: [B]FG FGA FG%[/B] 05/06 55 96 57.3% 06/07 189 322 58.7% 07/08 60 106 56.6% Career 304 524 58.0% I suppose the "facts" you have stored in your head trump this? How are you not understanding what I'm saying yet? I don't expect Chuck to shoot from outside. I'm identifying his inability to do so as the significant problem. The marginal difference you reference is probably closer to 1 point per game than the 4 points from the Spurs game (as I showed in a previous post). Again, I would argue that is more than offset by other things he does. It's really simple: Chuck isn't in the game to score. For his role, 55% shooting is adequate and you don't get much extra benefit from him shooting 60+%. Fixating on missed layups is really missing the bigger problem, in my opinion. That's not a defense, just a shift in the criticism. Chuck shouldn't be benched because of missed layups. If anything, it should happen because he's so limited in the type of shots he's capable of attempting and making. That's a different and, I feel, much more significant problem.
Where's HayesStreet when you need him? No one parses minutea better than he does. This thread is tailor made for the guy!
Landry is getting it done, again. One other thing his increased minutes will do is help lower Yao's minutes over the rest of the season. I'd rather he play around 33 minutes a game instead of 36-38 mpg.
I distinctly remember Scola getting lost on at least 2 pnr possessions Saturday night, resulting in wide open layups for Duncan. Scola is definitely improved in that area but he's not nearly on Chuck's level yet.
What's that FG% immediately around the basket? dunks, layups, jumpers within 5 feet. So, the players around the League finish dunks at an average 55%? Landry must be superman shooting almost 18% over the average. You know I always love your creative thoughts on using numbers. Last time I got a good chuckle when you posted actually when Chuck is off court, Yao's FGA and FG% drops. Keep that coming, buddy.
It's referring to shots inside the blue border, immediate basket area: He's only played 60 minutes before today's game ... So when the facts contradict your perception, you laugh nervously? Just admit you're wrong ... it's more healthy.
