PGT | 01-30-11 | Hawks @ Mavs = WIN!

[Dirkadirkastan]

I've always wondered about Haywood's vision. It appears there are some things that go on the court that Haywood simply doesn't see. He'll make defensive rotations when he sees them, but he gets blindsided from time to time. The same goes with his failure to box out for a rebound. I don't know if it's really due to a lack of 20/20 vision or a stiff neck or an inability to keep a mental map of the players on the court or what, but something does seem to be lacking with him.

It's another one of those shortcomings besides his athleticism that becomes exacerbated when compared to Chandler.

[grndmstr_c]

I'm not sure an indictment of Haywood's 'effort' in the most general sense is quite appropriate, given the many affirmations from numerous sources of his commitment to fitness and practice. I look at it more as an unwillingness to get himself in a focused, competitive frame of mind for games. It's a subtle point, but to me it fits better as an explanation for the more conspicuous peculiarities of his performance this year, like his struggles at the line, or some of those nonsensical FGAs we've seen from him (c.f., NJ).

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

I'm not sure an indictment of Haywood's 'effort' in the most general sense is quite appropriate, given the many affirmations from numerous sources of his commitment to fitness and practice. I look at it more as an unwillingness to get himself in a focused, competitive frame of mind for games. It's a subtle point, but to me it fits better as an explanation for the more conspicuous peculiarities of his performance this year, like his struggles at the line, or some of those nonsensical FGAs we've seen from him (c.f., NJ).

This is what Chandler said when I asked him about what the key to the game was and he said that it was Haywood.
"He came in and he made a world of difference,’’ Chandler said of Haywood. “He played with great energy, he was all over the floor, he got a couple of deflections, big key stops and he made himself available. He played aggressive and it was fun to watch, to be honest with you. He was focused pre-game, he was focused during warm-ups, and when he's focused and keyed in like that he's a huge difference for us, and like I said he definitely changed the game around.''

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Damp got benched all the time, too, and I know you don't think he was regularly loafing it out there (nor do I). And if the suspension bears any link to effort, it's a very tenuous one, at best. There was never any report that his argument with Carlisle had anything to do with lack of effort.

I think the real issue is that the suspension plays into the impression that Haywood isn't anywhere near a model team player, which leaves fans with a bad taste in their mouths, which then leads to fans assuming that his poor performances are because of bad effort. Understandable inferences, but tenuous ones nonetheless.

Damp was benched for matchups. I don't ever recall Damp being yanked five minutes into a game, never to return, despite the team desperately needing his skill set.

The suspension plays into the impression that he's unhappy, which fits perfectly with what my eyeballs have reported to my brain during the majority of the games that I've watched him play this year.

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

I'm not sure an indictment of Haywood's 'effort' in the most general sense is quite appropriate, given the many affirmations from numerous sources of his commitment to fitness and practice. I look at it more as an unwillingness to get himself in a focused, competitive frame of mind for games. It's a subtle point, but to me it fits better as an explanation for the more conspicuous peculiarities of his performance this year, like his struggles at the line, or some of those nonsensical FGAs we've seen from him (c.f., NJ).

This is an interesting assessment. I tend to think of focus pretty much going hand in hand with effort. And I personally do feel that I've seen plenty of nights where his energy level just wasn't at an appropriate level. But I find your slightly different assessment interesting.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Damp was benched for matchups. I don't ever recall Damp being yanked five minutes into a game, never to return, despite the team desperately needing his skill set.

Damp was benched plenty of times for the exact same stuff people are indicting Haywood for now. How many times did we hear someone on this board say (regarding Damp), "Our starting center has been playing X minutes and only has 1-2 rebounds. That's unacceptable."

It wasn't just matchups.

Originally Posted by jthig32

The suspension plays into the impression that he's unhappy, which fits perfectly with what my eyeballs have reported to my brain during the majority of the games that I've watched him play this year.

I have no doubt that's what your eyeballs have reported. What I'm saying is you (and everyone, me included) come into the assessment with a particular bias that is affected by, among other things, a mostly irrelevant suspension. It doesn't "fit perfectly" at all. You have to assume from the suspension that he's unhappy, then you have to assume from him being unhappy that he's not trying. Those are both tenuous assumptions, like I said.

[CadBane]

Effort and focus are pretty synonymous...

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Damp was benched plenty of times for the exact same stuff people are indicting Haywood for now. How many times did we hear someone on this board say (regarding Damp), "Our starting center has been playing X minutes and only has 1-2 rebounds. That's unacceptable."

It wasn't just matchups.

But those complaints about Damp were generally (when he was healthy) ignorant of the work Damp was doing blocking out to create rebounding opportunities for teammates. And anyway, it goes without saying that posters on this board didn't call the shots on Damp's playing time, so whether they were complaining about that or not is immaterial to the discussion about why his PT was sometimes cut short.

[fluid.forty.one]

Are people really trying to say most mavs fans didn't call out Damp on a regular basis for not trying (caring?) or being a contract whore? Come on...

Don't forget how shocked you were when Damp would actually throw it down and look excited. Dirk also called out Damp during the finals.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Effort and focus are pretty synonymous...

They can be causally related, and they can mediate one another, but they're not synonymous. Effort is a simple, stupid thing, like mass, or at best speed. Focus, on the other hand, is a vector. It's velocity; it's acceleration; it's the union of a clearly conceived goal and an understanding of the means by which it can be achieved. Without it you can exert all the effort in the world and it'll all be for naught. And it's what, to my eyes (and with the benefit of having seen his recent return to form), has been missing from Haywood's game most of the season.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Damp was benched plenty of times for the exact same stuff people are indicting Haywood for now. How many times did we hear someone on this board say (regarding Damp), "Our starting center has been playing X minutes and only has 1-2 rebounds. That's unacceptable."

It wasn't just matchups.

What people were saying about Damp is immaterial to what I'm saying. I do not ever remember Damp getting benched for an entire game against a traditional center.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

But those complaints about Damp were generally (when he was healthy) ignorant of the work Damp was doing blocking out to create rebounding opportunities for teammates. And anyway, it goes without saying that posters on this board didn't call the shots on Damp's playing time, so whether they were complaining about that or not is immaterial to the discussion about why his PT was sometimes cut short.

Not trying to be condescending, but I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making. I'm not saying I know why his PT was cut short, or that we can glean it from what the fans are saying. I'm saying the exact opposite. This whole conversation is about perception, and my point is that perception of lack of effort does not equal actual lack of effort. There are some firmly entrenched biases about Haywood now, and it's going to affect what people see.

But to be clear, that doesn't mean I think thig/Cad/whoever can't possibly be correct. I don't agree with their assessment, but I think there's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement. The troubling thing I'm hearing right now is this notion that there's not any room for reasonable disagreement on the issue, and that it's absolutely an objective fact supported by rock-solid evidence that he hasn't been trying. That's simply untrue, and it ignores the monumental role that perception and bias play into this.

And to the extent your first sentence means, "Yeah, but the people who criticize Haywood are doing it for better/smarter reasons than the people who criticized Damp"....well, I'm sorry, but that's just not very persuasive.

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Are people really trying to say most mavs fans didn't call out Damp on a regular basis for not trying (caring?) or being a contract whore? Come on...

Don't forget how shocked you were when Damp would actually throw it down and look excited. Dirk also called out Damp during the finals.

Seriously. People called him out for lack of effort all the time. Avery would regularly swap him and Diop in the starting role and people almost always assumed it was to try and spark more effort from Damp (and, hell, from Diop).

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

What people were saying about Damp is immaterial to what I'm saying. I do not ever remember Damp getting benched for an entire game against a traditional center.

It's absolutely material. It's one example (of hundreds) of fans railing against a mediocre, inconsistent player for allegedly not trying.

You may think this is somehow a different or special situation because there are supposedly pieces of hard evidence that Haywood hasn't been trying. I disagree.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Seriously. People called him out for lack of effort all the time. Avery would regularly swap him and Diop in the starting role and people almost always assumed it was to try and spark more effort from Damp (and, hell, from Diop).

Haywood was very clearly benched for lack of effort/lack of playing the right way last week, and it wasn't the first time this season. We don't have to make anything other than the most obvious assumptions to come to that conclusion.

The Damp comparison is actually the reason I feel so strongly about this. So many people railed on Damp for so long, but what I saw when I watched was pretty steady effort. The things that he did well, he did well consistently. His counting numbers varied depending on many different factors, but I rarely saw Damp mail in a game.

When I've watched Haywood this season, I've seen a completely different player than the one that arrived from Washington. Not in any one particular area, but across the board. I've been disappointed in his effort long before his suspension, so I'm not sure what bias effect that would have had, other than confirming what I've seen.

If other people see it differently, that's fine. Certainly you will agree that some people are wired to always assume the best from the players on their team. Maybe others just had much lower expectations for Haywood going into this season, I don't know.

But for me, it's all about effort and happiness with Haywood, and I hope the NJ game serves as a wake up call for much longer than just the past three games.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

It's absolutely material. It's one example (of hundreds) of fans railing against a mediocre, inconsistent player for allegedly not trying.

You may think this is somehow a different or special situation because there are supposedly pieces of hard evidence that Haywood hasn't been trying. I disagree.

There's no supposedly about it. The NJ game is concrete evidence.

Edit to add: I should say, concrete evidence of *something* being wrong. Be it effort, focus, or knowing what kind of shot he's allowed to take. The NJ game was clearly a message.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

When I've watched Haywood this season, I've seen a completely different player than the one that arrived from Washington. Not in any one particular area, but across the board. I've been disappointed in his effort long before his suspension, so I'm not sure what bias effect that would have had, other than confirming what I've seen.

You're as well-informed as anyone. You know about Haywood's reputation for dogging it, going back to UNC. Maybe he seems completely different now from what he was in Wash, but I'm also betting you knew when we got him that Wizards fans had criticized him at times for lack of effort. Those are the kind of things that subtly create bias. It's a little nudge here, a little nudge there.

And I'm not saying I'm not guilty of the same thing.

Originally Posted by jthig32

If other people see it differently, that's fine. Certainly you will agree that some people are wired to always assume the best from the players on their team. Maybe others just had much lower expectations for Haywood going into this season, I don't know.

Of course. Like I said, I can't say you're absolutely wrong, just that I don't agree.

Originally Posted by jthig32

There's no supposedly about it. The NJ game is concrete evidence.

We have a very different definition of "concrete evidence." But actually, what I meant was I disagree that the evidence is any more concrete than plenty of evidence of the same sort regarding Damp (and several other players over the years).

*edit* I just read your edit. Yes, it was concrete evidence of something, for sure. So my last paragraph is fairly meaningless.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Not trying to be condescending, but I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making. I'm not saying I know why his PT was cut short, or that we can glean it from what the fans are saying.

You were talking about Damp being benched for the same things Wood was benched for, cited fan reaction in making the point, and concluded by saying that it wasn't just about matchups. That seemed like a pretty clear case of you arguing that fan perception of Damp and Avery's/Rick's substitution patterns were strongly correlated.

And to the extent your first sentence means, "Yeah, but the people who criticize Haywood are doing it for better/smarter reasons than the people who criticized Damp"....well, I'm sorry, but that's just not very persuasive.

I can go back and find team rebounding stats from Damp's early years with the Mavs if you really need to be persuaded on the specific point that I made, but Damp's not really at the core of this debate, so I'll just say that with Damp, my sense of the fan bitching was that it was exceedingly boxscore driven, 'He was a double-double guy in GS the year before he came to Dallas, his averages are down since he signed his 73 MILLION DOLLAR!!! deal, therefore he's a worthless lazy contract-whore.' However you feel about Damp vs. Wood, the fact remains that those were frequently very lazy and short-sighted criticisms.

Now, what is this conversation actually about?

[dude1394]

I think there is a difference in a guy going through the motions (showing up for work for example) and then laying it on the line and taking responsibility in the game. I"m seeing Haywood doing everything he's being told to do, but not buying into the situation and taking responsibility for his play.

I just work here as it were.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

You were talking about Damp being benched for the same things Wood was benched for, cited fan reaction in making the point, and concluded by saying that it wasn't just about matchups. That seemed like a pretty clear case of you arguing that fan perception of Damp and Avery's/Rick's substitution patterns were strongly correlated.

Yes, they are correlated. Fans based their perceptions on the situations and contexts in which Damp was benched. What you said before (and what I refuted) was that fan perceptions somehow controlled or affected when Damp was benched. That's not the same thing as "correlated."

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

'He was much better in Washington the year before he came to Dallas, his averages are down since he signed his 5-year, $50+ million dollar deal, therefore he's a worthless lazy contract-whore.'

Who are we talking about, again?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think there is a difference in a guy going through the motions (showing up for work for example) and then laying it on the line and taking responsibility in the game. I"m seeing Haywood doing everything he's being told to do, but not buying into the situation and taking responsibility for his play.

I just work here as it were.

There is a fascinating discussion going on in this thread, but to me it boils down to exactly what dude says here. And it's not as if this idea is somehow novel. CutTheCheck, as Rasheed used to say.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

What you said before (and what I refuted) was that fan perceptions somehow controlled or affected when Damp was benched.

Huh? Here's what I wrote:

...it goes without saying that posters on this board didn't call the shots on Damp's playing time, so whether they were complaining about that or not is immaterial to the discussion about why his PT was sometimes cut short.

That is the exact opposite of the statement that you just attributed to me.

Who are we talking about, again?

Damp. And I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make, as I've posted my current thoughts on Haywood's overall ineffectiveness and recent resurgence, and they have almost no relation whatsoever to your adaptation of my caricature of the whining I've seen in the past about Damp.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Huh? Here's what I wrote:



That is the exact opposite of the statement that you just attributed to me.

That was poorly worded, sorry. I meant I refuted your insinuating that I was saying fan perceptions controlled Damp's PT. At least, that seemed to be what you were insinuating. Perhaps not?

Anyway, the two are correlated, and they relate to this conversation because my overall point is that we (and all fans) have a history of blasting underwhelming players for not trying hard enough.

Damp. And I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make, as I've posted my current thoughts on Haywood's overall ineffectiveness and recent resurgence, and they have almost no relation whatsoever to your adaptation of my caricature of the whining I've seen in the past about Damp.

I just thought it was very funny that you used the caricature quote about Damp to try and distinguish that situation, because you ended up doing the opposite. The quote above as I altered it, or some variant, was probably uttered a hundred times on this board in November and December about Haywood. The situations aren't nearly as different as you're making them out to be.

[dalger]

I've got to agree with chumdawg that this has turned into quite the thread. And I'd also tend to agree with those who think that Haywood's lack of productivity and effectiveness may not exclusively be a result of a lack of effort. Said effort or lack thereof could be a part of the problem, but I don't believe it's all there is to it.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The situations aren't nearly as different as you're making them out to be.

Fan perception being the situation, I agree that the two situations are similar. If the magnitude of underachievement on the part of the players is the situation, then to my mind the two situations are night and day, because I thought the mean quality of Damp's contributions was perfectly acceptable given his talent and skill levels (if not his contract), whereas up until this week I've felt that 'Wood was very consistently failing to live up to his abilities (which I would argue fully merit his contract).

But it seems to me trying to sort out opinions on two polarizing players like Wood and (especially) Damp is probably one two many equations to try to juggle with much success. And seeing as how this PGT was for a game in which Wood was a major component in bringing home the W, I'll just say again, so the heart of my perspective isn't lost in the subtleties of countless differences of opinion, that the Wood who showed up against LAC and ATL is a game-changer.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Fan perception being the situation, I agree that the two situations are similar. If the magnitude of underachievement on the part of the players is the situation, then to my mind the two situations are night and day, because I thought the mean quality of Damp's contributions was perfectly acceptable given his talent and skill levels (if not his contract), whereas up until this week I've felt that 'Wood was very consistently failing to live up to his abilities (which I would argue fully merit his contract).

I won't quite say they're night and day as far as court performance, but I definitely agree with you that they're different. Haywood has consistently underperformed (whatever the cause may be), whereas I thought Damp generally did about what I expected him to do.

But I was never trying to compare the two as players, anyway. Just noting that it's fairly similar how people have assumed each guy's failings often stemmed from lack of effort.

I wonder, though, about this talk of Haywood's abilities and his failing to live up to them. You're definitely not the first person to reference that. I know what Haywood's A-game looks like, and it's good. But one of the underlying assumptions seems to be that he must be loafing it out there sometimes, simply because his A-game is so much better than what we get 95% of the time. In other words, people assume he's not trying because we've seen him at his best and we rarely ever get that.

I just wonder if that's a sound assumption. One of the biggest components of skill isn't what your ceiling is, it's how consistently you perform at or near that ceiling. Maybe one of the big reasons Haywood doesn't often hit is A-game is just because he's not good enough to often hit his A-game.

[tcat075]

Look for a Haywood debate piece on MMB to go up in an hour. I don't actually give my actual opinion, just lay the two sides of the debate out. I hint at it though. As you'll see, I state that no matter which side you believe in (the lack of effort or the adjusting to the bench), there's probably some element of the other in it. That's basically where I am. I think Haywood has been giving a lot of effort, but there was a span of time at the beginning of the season where he coasted because he was coming off the bench, causing him to lose confidence, and he's been screwed ever sense. He's finally regaining some confidence now (as evidenced by his FT percentage rising) and hopefully will be fine the rest of the way.

[chumdawg]

I don't want to misinterpret anyone here, but it seems that some are arguing that you can not reliably identify--from a fan's perspective--lack of effort or hustle. The natural counter to that argument, the way I see it, is to ask if you CAN identify strong effort and hustle.

I think that you can, which is why I also think you can identify its absence.

[tcat075]

The Curious Case of Brendan Haywood, now in theaters.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

I'm fine with Haywood "just working here" as long as that involves some "I give a damn about working here." In a way, coming off of the bench is a huge test and task for Big Wood. Do you want to be forever known for being an overpaid, mediocre center or a guy that gave one up for the team to come off the bench.....the same way both Terry and Marion have.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't want to misinterpret anyone here, but it seems that some are arguing that you can not reliably identify--from a fan's perspective--lack of effort or hustle. The natural counter to that argument, the way I see it, is to ask if you CAN identify strong effort and hustle.

I think that you can, which is why I also think you can identify its absence.

I think it's most certainly identifiable as a general matter. Take the classic example you always like to point out (I think it's you?) of Kobe during Game 7 at Phoenix in 2006. Blatant, easily perceptible lack of effort. NBA superstar standing 5 feet outside the three point line while his team sputters...not much debate there.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I think it's most certainly identifiable as a general matter. Take the classic example you always like to point out (I think it's you?) of Kobe during Game 7 at Phoenix in 2006. Blatant, easily perceptible lack of effort. NBA superstar standing 5 feet outside the three point line while his team sputters...not much debate there.

That was in an entirely different realm then mere lack of effort. That would be better termed as mutiny.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That was in an entirely different realm then mere lack of effort. That would be better termed as mutiny.

You ain't lyin'.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So three games, ago, we played the Nets. Five minutes into his stint in the first half, Haywood took a ridiculous fadeaway jump shot. RC immediately sent in Ian, and Haywood didn't sniff the court the rest of the night, even though the Mavs were desperate for Haywood's size to help with Lopez, who was destroying them.

This was a very loud and clear message being sent.

Since that time, Haywood has turned in his two best performances of the season. There was the Houston game sandwiched in between where he barely played, but that was matchups related.

Haywood was really, really good tonight, and played with the kind of emotion that we haven't seen at all from him this season. I really, really hope this continues.

Great pick up.

On that Jet led break that finished with the Marion trail dunk, Haywood was filling the right side, sticking his hand up, wanting a lob. Hope he's turned the corner and we get this through June.

[Kante]

Originally Posted by Kidd Karma

Great pick up.

On that Jet led break that finished with the Marion trail dunk, Haywood was filling the right side, sticking his hand up, wanting a lob. Hope he's turned the corner and we get this through June.

On the replay you saw Haywood got excited over the dunk from Marion!

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by Kante

On the replay you saw Haywood got excited over the dunk from Marion!

Yea he saw it coming, but after the dunk, the guy made a U Turn and hustled his butt back to the defensive end.

[Kante]

Originally Posted by Kidd Karma

Yea he saw it coming, but after the dunk, the guy made a U Turn and hustled his butt back to the defensive end.

Yep, he wasn´t mad he did got the ball, instead got back!

[Kante]

Another move i remember was, when Haywood had the offensive rebound and had a clear path to the basket and got fouled and missed the layup, RC looked to the bench and waived his arms to get the bench to cheer a bit more for Haywood.

Chandler and Stevenson were the first ones to response!

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by Kante

Yep, he wasn´t mad he did got the ball, instead got back!

You hustle down 5 times get a lob dunk, once, not a bad ratio. Hopefully the others pick up on his hustle and reward him.