I'm calling it...our #3 draft pick for 2016. Buddy Hield. Boom.

[Sixth Man]

Question to anyone wanting to answer me this

Would you guys like to have James Harden on the Celtics giving us an offense while other guys like Bradley and Crowder or Smart pick off the ball for defense ?

How about Carmelo Anthony ? Who could score and help in transition ?
Are these guys superstars ? Or are they worthless because their defense is suspect ?

Buddy Heild is an offensive player who can score points out on the perimeter. Isn't that what we need ? Wouldn't it make sense to draft a kid who is going to be a big time marksman from the three ?
That's what this team was lacking in the playoffs. All the complaints on this board about no offense tells me we needed a big time scorer. And now we need to find a guy who not only can score but has the ability to play defense. Non sense. We need scorers. We already have defense. So we are going to draft Bender who's 7'1" and is gonna take 3 years to play. Well, we won't be making the playoffs next year. If we draft Buddy Heild, we got a 23 year old kid who can score and will get better. I think the kid will be good all through his late 20's into his mid 30's. And we are going to pass on a Buddy Heild because he's to old smh. OK so the team that picks Buddy Heild has one hell of a player who I think will be a no miss. A no brainer. Just dumb and that's why our team has yet to find big time FA to come here because Danny would rather draft a Dragon Bender then a Buddy Heild. In a few years people on this board are going to say, [dang], n we had a chance to draft Buddy...

You make it sound like a foregone conclusion that Hield is going to be a dominant scorer. If that were the case, then Hield would be in the convo for #1.

You don't actually ask any questions here worth answering

Don't bother, he had a post yesterday claiming that in 3 years time Hield would be as good as Curry.  He has some... overinflated expectations

And you clearly have a crystal ball to consult, you lucky fellow...

[Sixth Man]

heh... i'll take your guys word for it.  His age can't be ignored.  He'll be a 23 year old rookie.  You best be very confident he's not going to come in and struggle, because most likely he is what he is.

He's the same age as Nik Stauskas.  Here's how their stats compared:

Sauce Freshman - 11 points, 3 rebounds, 1.3 assists, 46%/44%/85%
Hield Freshman - 7.8 points, 4.2 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 38%/24%/83%

Sauce Sophomore - 17.5 points, 2.9 rebounds, 3.3 assists, 47%/44%/82%
Hield Sophomore - 16.5 points, 4.4 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 45%/39%/75%

Sauce is 6'6 205.  Hield is 6'4 215.   Obviously, Sauce had trouble getting his shot off on the NBA level.  We'll see if Hield can do it.   

It'll be interesting to see how Sauce/Hield have developed after Sauce's two years of NBA trial by fire and Hield's two seasons of beating up on younger players in the Amateurs.

Firstly, why do you keep on bringing up guys who are NOTHING like Hield for comparison?  The only thing Stauskas and Hield have in common is that both are good outside shooters.  That's it.  You may as well be comparing Kevin Durant to Kyle Korver while you're at it.

Secondly, Hield is not 6'4".  He is 6'5" / 212 pounds with a 6'9.25" wingspan, 6% body fat and above average NBA athleticism. 

Stauskas on draft day was  6'6" / 207 pounds with 6'7" wingspan, 12% body fat and all the athleticism of a rock that's stuck in quicksand. 

In that respect, Stauskas is FAR more like Murray then he is like Hield, which is precisely why I am far more concerned about Murray working out at the NBA level.

What kind of pro do you expect Hield to be, Crimson?  I've read that he can be a nice role player.  A one-dimensional distance shooter who will struggle to create in the pros, but could still give you 8-15 points in his prime.  Could he he have a Kyle Korver-type impact on a contender someday?

Genuine question - have you actually watched any footage of Hield from last season?  Have you jumped not YouTube and watched the highlights of any of his 2016 games?

If you haven't, then I strongly suggest you take a modest 15-20 minutes out of your day and watch 3 or 4 of those game highlight videos just to give you an indication of exactly what Hield is capable of

Crimson... a highlight video of a 4th year college player excelling against younger competition isn't going to give me an idea of what Hield is capable of in the NBA no more than video of Adam MOrrison dominating on the College level does. 

But yeah, I was curious what you thought he'd be.  Sounds like you think he'll be an all-star.  Interesting.

Just curious... do you also expect Doug McDermott to be an all-star?

FYI, Doug McDermott and Buddy Hield are not the same person, in case you didn't know.  Maybe that is why they have different names, n'est-ce pas?

[hpantazo]

What's separating Hield from the other sharp-shooting Seniors like Doug McDermott?

Doug McDermott was 5th in the NBA in 3 Pt %.  You don't want a player like that?

As the #3 pick in the draft, our best draft spot in over 20 years? Hell No!!

Would you rather draft Bender and have a total flame-out?  I am not advocating either way but understand if you draft the better prospect you may wind up getting the worse NBA player.

I'd rather swing for the fences and go for the highest upside available, with the risk that the player could be a bust, as always with any NBA draft pick. When drafting this high, you gotta go for a star, not a rotation guy. If you miss out, at least you know you went for it. No regrets. #3 picks don't come too often for the Celtics. Plus, we have 7 more picks throughout the rest of the draft for rotation level players.

[PaulP34]

Doesn't matter guys we r not drafting Buddy Heild. I think Ainge has trade on his mind.

[flybono]

Doesn't matter guys we r not drafting Buddy Heild. I think Ainge has trade on his mind.

Trade away Danny.

The talk of all these college hall of famers is deafening

[LarBrd33]

Danny Ainge is not gonna draft Buddy Heild at #3. I would love him to but he won't and I will tell you why. Look everyone knows I love the kid but I'm sick n tired of arguing the point. Instead of arguing about the talent he's capable of, Danny doesn't see this. Danny sees getting the most value out of the pick #3 as humanly possible. He's a snake, they all are but that's what Danny thrives on. He's going to trade #3 or trade whatever player he picks at #3 with no intention of putting him on the floor. Danny is going to put Dragon Bender on a pedestal even if it means him making the pick at #3. People are calling Danny on the phone right now about Jordan Mickey and Terry Rozier. Raptors want to trade #9 pick and Jazz wanna trade #12. Danny is not a great drafter but he builds teams through trades and with all the assets he's got at his disposal he's gonna build through trading young players for unutilized talent. Danny believes this is a opportunity driven league. So if anyone thinks that Danny is looking to draft the next superstar, stop and think again. Even if he drafts Bender, some team is gonna call him about Bender and offer him a plate full of talent for him. Buddy Heild will go to a team and become a great talent and one day maybe he falls on Danny's lap through a trade and he will get his opportunity to shine. But Danny's not drafting anyone to play next season that's for sure.

Everyone knows he can shoot 3s.

Can you answer LarBrds above question? What differentiates him from Doug McDermott. Im not at all against picking him, but I am trying to determine if he will be a really nice role player or a star.

Most people had Greg McDermott going anywhere from around 8 to 18 in the 2014 draft.  There was literally NO ONE projecting him as a top five pick because there were much, much more serious questions about his size and athleticism in the NBA than ANYONE has raised about Hield.  And he was universally seen as a big defensive liablity. 

Virtually everyone is rating Hield much higher than McDermott as an NBA prospect.  This is just more of LarBrd's pitiful trolling.

Mike

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

On the flip side, this is a (from what I understand) a 2 player draft where Hield has been projected anywhere from 3 to 7 on various mocks (draftexpress has him going 7th, for instance).   

Seems to me, if a guy went 11th in an 8 player draft (3 picks after the juicy tier), that compares favorably to a guy going 7th in a 2 player draft (5 picks after the juicy tier), but that's math for you.

So I find it insulting you'd call me a "troll" when I ask a legitimate question about Doug McDermott compared to Buddy Hield.  From my admittedly limited perspective, McDermott might have even been projected ahead of Hield if they were coming out at the same time. 

Junior McDermott:  23.2 points, 7.7 rebounds, 1.6 assists, 55%/49%/88% shooting.
Junior Hield:  17.4 points, 5.4 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 41%/36%/82%

Senior McDermott:  26.7 points, 7 rebounds, 1.6 assists, 53%/45%/86%
Senior Hield:  25 points, 5.7 arebounds, 2 assists, 50%/46%/88%

Seems to me, one could make an argument that McDermott would be drafted ahead of Hield.  And granted, McDermott is far from a "bust" at this point.  McDermott put up solid averages of 9.4 points with 45%/43%/86% shooting this year in just 23 mpg last year and might prove to be a solid starter heading forward.  A quality role player like that (turning 25 next season but still might develop further) would be nice to have. 

Feel free to explain to me what I'm missing, but pause before you flippantly accuse me of trolling for asking questions about Buddy Hield - a player I have absolutely no stake in.   If Hield ends up on Philly via trade, will you still be this defensive of him?  I don't get the hostility.  I've read multiple scouting reports at this point that have questioned whether 6'4 Hield (with limited athleticism and a one-dimension game) will be able to get his shot off against NBA defenses.  McDermott, at 6'8 228, at least has NBA size to get his shot off.   So again, from my limited perspective, it wouldn't at all shock me if Doug McDermott ends up having a better career than Buddy Hield.

But of course, we go through some version of this every single year.  LIke last year where I questioned whether Willie Cauley Stein would be significantly better than Bismack Biyombo and folks attacked for it.  So far, he isn't.

I don't apologize for not watching College basketball.  I think it actually allows me to detach myself emotionally from the act of watching these guys play.  I totally get how watching a 4-year player beat up on younger guys in exciting college tourneys can cause someone to get caught up in the hype.  For all I know, Hield is the real deal.  But I think it's fair to question if he's overrated.

[BitterJim]

Question to anyone wanting to answer me this

Would you guys like to have James Harden on the Celtics giving us an offense while other guys like Bradley and Crowder or Smart pick off the ball for defense ?

How about Carmelo Anthony ? Who could score and help in transition ?
Are these guys superstars ? Or are they worthless because their defense is suspect ?

Buddy Heild is an offensive player who can score points out on the perimeter. Isn't that what we need ? Wouldn't it make sense to draft a kid who is going to be a big time marksman from the three ?
That's what this team was lacking in the playoffs. All the complaints on this board about no offense tells me we needed a big time scorer. And now we need to find a guy who not only can score but has the ability to play defense. Non sense. We need scorers. We already have defense. So we are going to draft Bender who's 7'1" and is gonna take 3 years to play. Well, we won't be making the playoffs next year. If we draft Buddy Heild, we got a 23 year old kid who can score and will get better. I think the kid will be good all through his late 20's into his mid 30's. And we are going to pass on a Buddy Heild because he's to old smh. OK so the team that picks Buddy Heild has one hell of a player who I think will be a no miss. A no brainer. Just dumb and that's why our team has yet to find big time FA to come here because Danny would rather draft a Dragon Bender then a Buddy Heild. In a few years people on this board are going to say, [dang], n we had a chance to draft Buddy...

You make it sound like a foregone conclusion that Hield is going to be a dominant scorer. If that were the case, then Hield would be in the convo for #1.

You don't actually ask any questions here worth answering

Don't bother, he had a post yesterday claiming that in 3 years time Hield would be as good as Curry.  He has some... overinflated expectations

And you clearly have a crystal ball to consult, you lucky fellow...

No, though I don't think I need one to suggest that someone will not be as good as last year's MVP within 3 years of being drafted.

Do you?

[CelticSooner]

Comparing Buddy Hield to Dough McDermott is laughable. It's like comparing Ray Allen to Kirk Hinrich in NBA terms.

[flybono]

Your not missing anything LarBird33.

Buddy Basketball had a great tourney. If OK was bounced the first weekend he would be a JAG like most of these College players. Don't get caught up in the hype.

Bottom line is this and the bottom line is undisputed. There is NO Duncan, Lebron or Larry legend in this draft or the 17 draft.
This is Ainge's last stand. Trades and free agents to be had. Picks to be traded.

If not? we've all been drinking the green kool-aid

[LarBrd33]

Your not missing anything LarBird33.

Buddy Basketball had a great tourney. If OK was bounced the first weekend he would be a JAG like most of these College players. Don't get caught up in the hype.

Bottom line is this and the bottom line is undisputed. There is NO Duncan, Lebron or Larry legend in this draft or the 17 draft.
This is Ainge's last stand. Trades and free agents to be had. Picks to be traded.

If not? we've all been drinking the green kool-aid

So he might be a great shooter on this level.  I don't know.  But I've consistently seen him called a one-dimensional player and there's been consistent questions about his ability to create on the NBA level.  This is straight from draftexpress:

There are some question marks about what type of creator he will be at an NBA level, though, as he at times struggles to turn the corner already against quicker collegiate guards, and can't always create much breathing room against bigger and lengthy wings.


He can be a little bit predictable when putting the ball on the floor, as he almost always pulls up off the dribble or tries to execute a step back when driving left, and will try to get all the way to the rim when going right (which is rare). Not blessed with an elite first step, he can still stand to continue to improve his advanced ball-handling skills to create space in the half-court. In traffic, as he doesn't always have the size or explosiveness to finish effectively against rim-protectors, and thus relies very heavily on his shot-making prowess from the perimeter.

I don't get how someone can read that and act like it's an insult to compare Hield to McDermott based on the idea that "there were concerns about McDermott's size and athleticism".   Yeah... seems to me, there's concerns about Hield's size and athleticism as well. 

[Ilikesports17]

Danny Ainge is not gonna draft Buddy Heild at #3. I would love him to but he won't and I will tell you why. Look everyone knows I love the kid but I'm sick n tired of arguing the point. Instead of arguing about the talent he's capable of, Danny doesn't see this. Danny sees getting the most value out of the pick #3 as humanly possible. He's a snake, they all are but that's what Danny thrives on. He's going to trade #3 or trade whatever player he picks at #3 with no intention of putting him on the floor. Danny is going to put Dragon Bender on a pedestal even if it means him making the pick at #3. People are calling Danny on the phone right now about Jordan Mickey and Terry Rozier. Raptors want to trade #9 pick and Jazz wanna trade #12. Danny is not a great drafter but he builds teams through trades and with all the assets he's got at his disposal he's gonna build through trading young players for unutilized talent. Danny believes this is a opportunity driven league. So if anyone thinks that Danny is looking to draft the next superstar, stop and think again. Even if he drafts Bender, some team is gonna call him about Bender and offer him a plate full of talent for him. Buddy Heild will go to a team and become a great talent and one day maybe he falls on Danny's lap through a trade and he will get his opportunity to shine. But Danny's not drafting anyone to play next season that's for sure.

Everyone knows he can shoot 3s.

Can you answer LarBrds above question? What differentiates him from Doug McDermott. Im not at all against picking him, but I am trying to determine if he will be a really nice role player or a star.

Most people had Greg McDermott going anywhere from around 8 to 18 in the 2014 draft.  There was literally NO ONE projecting him as a top five pick because there were much, much more serious questions about his size and athleticism in the NBA than ANYONE has raised about Hield.  And he was universally seen as a big defensive liablity. 

Virtually everyone is rating Hield much higher than McDermott as an NBA prospect.  This is just more of LarBrd's pitiful trolling.

Mike

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

On the flip side, this is a (from what I understand) a 2 player draft where Hield has been projected anywhere from 3 to 7 on various mocks (draftexpress has him going 7th, for instance).   

Seems to me, if a guy went 11th in an 8 player draft (3 picks after the juicy tier), that compares favorably to a guy going 7th in a 2 player draft (5 picks after the juicy tier), but that's math for you.

So I find it insulting you'd call me a "troll" when I ask a legitimate question about Doug McDermott compared to Buddy Hield.  From my admittedly limited perspective, McDermott might have even been projected ahead of Hield if they were coming out at the same time. 

Junior McDermott:  23.2 points, 7.7 rebounds, 1.6 assists, 55%/49%/88% shooting.
Junior Hield:  17.4 points, 5.4 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 41%/36%/82%

Senior McDermott:  26.7 points, 7 rebounds, 1.6 assists, 53%/45%/86%
Senior Hield:  25 points, 5.7 arebounds, 2 assists, 50%/46%/88%

Seems to me, one could make an argument that McDermott would be drafted ahead of Hield.  And granted, McDermott is far from a "bust" at this point.  McDermott put up solid averages of 9.4 points with 45%/43%/86% shooting this year in just 23 mpg last year and might prove to be a solid starter heading forward.  A quality role player like that (turning 25 next season but still might develop further) would be nice to have. 

Feel free to explain to me what I'm missing, but pause before you flippantly accuse me of trolling for asking questions about Buddy Hield - a player I have absolutely no stake in.   If Hield ends up on Philly via trade, will you still be this defensive of him?  I don't get the hostility.  I've read multiple scouting reports at this point that have questioned whether 6'4 Hield (with limited athleticism and a one-dimension game) will be able to get his shot off against NBA defenses.  McDermott, at 6'8 228, at least has NBA size to get his shot off.   So again, from my limited perspective, it wouldn't at all shock me if Doug McDermott ends up having a better career than Buddy Hield.

But of course, we go through some version of this every single year.  LIke last year where I questioned whether Willie Cauley Stein would be significantly better than Bismack Biyombo and folks attacked for it.  So far, he isn't.

I don't apologize for not watching College basketball.  I think it actually allows me to detach myself emotionally from the act of watching these guys play.  I totally get how watching a 4-year player beat up on younger guys in exciting college tourneys can cause someone to get caught up in the hype.  For all I know, Hield is the real deal.  But I think it's fair to question if he's overrated.

I've been thinking about this a bit. I did some
Digging and I think the biggest difference is quickness. While Hield lacks ideal size he's not horribly undersized either and he is/ has the physical skills to be a solid defender while McBuckets is too slow.

That's comforting. Plus McDermott as you said looks solid. I think a JJ Reddick or a McBuckets with good defense is really nice, but isn't a superstar. If shield wants to be a star his ability to create his own offense will be crucial and I've got no idea of he can do that in the NBA.

But the big difference between mcBuckeys and Hield would be defense

[LarBrd33]

Danny Ainge is not gonna draft Buddy Heild at #3. I would love him to but he won't and I will tell you why. Look everyone knows I love the kid but I'm sick n tired of arguing the point. Instead of arguing about the talent he's capable of, Danny doesn't see this. Danny sees getting the most value out of the pick #3 as humanly possible. He's a snake, they all are but that's what Danny thrives on. He's going to trade #3 or trade whatever player he picks at #3 with no intention of putting him on the floor. Danny is going to put Dragon Bender on a pedestal even if it means him making the pick at #3. People are calling Danny on the phone right now about Jordan Mickey and Terry Rozier. Raptors want to trade #9 pick and Jazz wanna trade #12. Danny is not a great drafter but he builds teams through trades and with all the assets he's got at his disposal he's gonna build through trading young players for unutilized talent. Danny believes this is a opportunity driven league. So if anyone thinks that Danny is looking to draft the next superstar, stop and think again. Even if he drafts Bender, some team is gonna call him about Bender and offer him a plate full of talent for him. Buddy Heild will go to a team and become a great talent and one day maybe he falls on Danny's lap through a trade and he will get his opportunity to shine. But Danny's not drafting anyone to play next season that's for sure.

Everyone knows he can shoot 3s.

Can you answer LarBrds above question? What differentiates him from Doug McDermott. Im not at all against picking him, but I am trying to determine if he will be a really nice role player or a star.

Most people had Greg McDermott going anywhere from around 8 to 18 in the 2014 draft.  There was literally NO ONE projecting him as a top five pick because there were much, much more serious questions about his size and athleticism in the NBA than ANYONE has raised about Hield.  And he was universally seen as a big defensive liablity. 

Virtually everyone is rating Hield much higher than McDermott as an NBA prospect.  This is just more of LarBrd's pitiful trolling.

Mike

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

On the flip side, this is a (from what I understand) a 2 player draft where Hield has been projected anywhere from 3 to 7 on various mocks (draftexpress has him going 7th, for instance).   

Seems to me, if a guy went 11th in an 8 player draft (3 picks after the juicy tier), that compares favorably to a guy going 7th in a 2 player draft (5 picks after the juicy tier), but that's math for you.

So I find it insulting you'd call me a "troll" when I ask a legitimate question about Doug McDermott compared to Buddy Hield.  From my admittedly limited perspective, McDermott might have even been projected ahead of Hield if they were coming out at the same time. 

Junior McDermott:  23.2 points, 7.7 rebounds, 1.6 assists, 55%/49%/88% shooting.
Junior Hield:  17.4 points, 5.4 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 41%/36%/82%

Senior McDermott:  26.7 points, 7 rebounds, 1.6 assists, 53%/45%/86%
Senior Hield:  25 points, 5.7 arebounds, 2 assists, 50%/46%/88%

Seems to me, one could make an argument that McDermott would be drafted ahead of Hield.  And granted, McDermott is far from a "bust" at this point.  McDermott put up solid averages of 9.4 points with 45%/43%/86% shooting this year in just 23 mpg last year and might prove to be a solid starter heading forward.  A quality role player like that (turning 25 next season but still might develop further) would be nice to have. 

Feel free to explain to me what I'm missing, but pause before you flippantly accuse me of trolling for asking questions about Buddy Hield - a player I have absolutely no stake in.   If Hield ends up on Philly via trade, will you still be this defensive of him?  I don't get the hostility.  I've read multiple scouting reports at this point that have questioned whether 6'4 Hield (with limited athleticism and a one-dimension game) will be able to get his shot off against NBA defenses.  McDermott, at 6'8 228, at least has NBA size to get his shot off.   So again, from my limited perspective, it wouldn't at all shock me if Doug McDermott ends up having a better career than Buddy Hield.

But of course, we go through some version of this every single year.  LIke last year where I questioned whether Willie Cauley Stein would be significantly better than Bismack Biyombo and folks attacked for it.  So far, he isn't.

I don't apologize for not watching College basketball.  I think it actually allows me to detach myself emotionally from the act of watching these guys play.  I totally get how watching a 4-year player beat up on younger guys in exciting college tourneys can cause someone to get caught up in the hype.  For all I know, Hield is the real deal.  But I think it's fair to question if he's overrated.

I've been thinking about this a bit. I did some
Digging and I think the biggest difference is quickness. While Hield lacks ideal size he's not horribly undersized either and he is/ has the physical skills to be a solid defender while McBuckets is too slow.

That's comforting. Plus McDermott as you said looks solid. I think a JJ Reddick or a McBuckets with good defense is really nice, but isn't a superstar. If shield wants to be a star his ability to create his own offense will be crucial and I've got no idea of he can do that in the NBA.

But the big difference between mcBuckeys and Hield would be defense

In the scouting reports I've read, there's been concerns about Hield's defensive ability.  Lacking in lateral quickness and size.

[PaulP34]

There were concerns about Dwayne Wades defense skills but I didn't see that stopping him from being an NBA star. I think this thought that everyone drafted has to be able to play defense or they won't become an NBA star is ridiculous. Carmelo Anthony sucks at defense, James Harden sucks at defense and Kobe Bryant wasnt the best defender but yet they were NBA superstars cause they scored points.   

[MBunge]

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

Here is why every attack you get is deserved.

Drafted before McDermott in 2014...

10.  Elfrid Payton.
9.  Noah Vonleh.
8.  Nik Stauskus.
7.  Julius Randle.
6.  MARCUS SMART
5.  Dante Exum.
4.  Aaron Gordon.
3.  Joel Embiid.
2.  Jabari Parker.
1.  Andrew Wiggins.

2014 was a three star draft.  That's what everyone said at the time.  That's what everyone thinks now, unless Embiid can't ever play and then they think of it as a two star draft.  Aaron Gordon was not a star.  Dante Exum was intriguing but not a star.  You've spent the last two years constantly whining about Marcus Smart.  Julius Randle was not a star.  Nik Stauskus was surely not a star.  Some of these guy may turn out to be very, very good, even great players but NO ONE thought the 2014 draft was "epic" that went 8 stars deep.

You are just flat out making stuff up about a draft that only happened two years ago.  So, you're either trolling or you have some sort of a brain disorder.

Mike

[LarBrd33]

Exactly. I think using age as a way of saying Hield has dedication but Murray doesn't is a poor excuse to take Hield. Murray, from what I've seen, has shown a ton of dedication and effort to get even better. I see it with Hield too, but Murray shows it as well. You can't say Murray doesn't have it just because he's 19 and Hield has it because he's 22 or whatever.

You're missing the point. 

The point is that, since his first year in the league, Hield's Per40 numbers have improved from:

* 12/6/3 (39% / 24% / 83%)
* 20/7/2 (44% / 38% / 75%)
* 21/6/2 (41% / 36% / 82%)
* 28/6/2 (50% / 45% / 88%)

In four seasons., Hield has made dramatic leaps in his production twice:

- An increase of +60% scoring, +5% FG Percentage and +14% 3PT Percentage going from 12/13 to 13/14

- An increase of +30% scoring and +9% FG Percentage and +9% 3PT Percentage going from 14/15 to 15/1^

For most players, just ONE increase of that magnitude would be incredibly impressive.  Hield has made that type of leap twice in four years. 

By comparison Murray has only played one season, so we haven't seen any indication that he is capable of improving. 

The difference here?

In Hield's cases we're talking about actual improvements (and dramatic ones at that) that have happened.  We are talking about a work ethic and willingness to get better that has been PROVEN.

In Murray's case we are talking about a guy who SEEMS to have a hard working mentality, and who SHOULD be able to improve.

You always take something that is proven over something that is promised.  If PersonA tells you he has $200 he's willing to lend you, and PersonB pulls $200 out of his pocket and hands it to you - who will you trust more?  The guy who promises he'll give it to you, or the guy who is already doing it?

Age is irrelevant here, because both guys are very young - yes, 22 years old is still VERY young for a basketball player.

When you have proof versus promise, you take proof every day.

I get all of that.  But aren't dramatic leaps like that pretty standard for College players?  The longer you keep playing against that level of competition, the better you get against that level of competition.  Studies show that most players make their more dramatic improvements before the age of 23.  So if we're talking about drafting a 19 year old who is 80% as good as the 23 year old, conventional wisdom says you should take the 19 year old.  He's pretty likely to leapfrog the other guy.

You raise some good points about the risks of drafting seniors.  That said, as your earlier post illustrated, there is some precedence of highly successful NBA players who played four years of college ball.

I think my earlier post showed that there's been like 1 guy in the past 13 years ... Brandon Roy... and he only lasted 4 years in the NBA for other reasons.

Typically, players who need to play four years of College ball to get drafted have lower ceilings.  Hield might be a good player.  Who knows.  Maybe his stats translate to a player who can average 12-14 points with decent shooting percentages and improve minimally.   But if you can draft a guy a few years younger who will get you 10-12 points with slightly worse shooting percentages as a rookie, but has a much higher ceiling, you take that kid.

It's pretty clear that Buddy Hield didn't compare well as a Freshman to the top freshman in this class.  Conventional wisdom says he's probably done the bulk of his developing.   It's the same argument people have every year when Boston ends up taking an old rookie like Kelly Olynyk.  Generally, you get what you get with those guys.  So while Hield might have been slightly better than these Freshman coming up, ask yourself what these Freshman will look like 4 years from now after development. 

If your an ivy league school giving out an academic scholarship, do you want the 17 year old who got a 3.6GPA... or do you want 20 year old who failed Senior year of high school 3 times before finally putting up a 4.0GPA?  I mean, yeah... technically the 20 year old had better scores, but he had 4 times to figure it out.

I dunno where you're getting this one guy Brandon Roy thing from.
There are many more 4 year guys that became All Stars.

I listed off every 4 year player taken in the lotto since 2005.  Lillard (who was actually a redshirt junior since he got injured his junior year and probably would have come out had he stayed healthy), McCollom (who took 3 years to show something in the NBA) and Roy were the only notables.   Roy is the only one who who showed that kind of development over 4 years, was drafted high and succeeded... though for only 4 years.

Yeah, obviously there's players sporadically all over the draft that exceed expectations.  The fact that an undrafted player succeeded has little to nothing to do with expectations of Buddy Hield.

Also, right before your post, Crimson brought up successful 4 year players like Patrick Ewing.  I have to assume Crimson is aware why that is a ridiculous comp.  Players use to play 4 years of College ball on the regular.  These days, the elite jump ship after 1 or 2 seasons.  And since the elite are jumping ship after 1 or 2 seasons, one must assume that the overall quality of College basketball is considerably weak in comparison to the 1980s.   So, as an outside perspective who doesn't follow College basketball, I can make the assumption that if all the best players jump ship early and the overall competition level is weak, there's an even greater competitive advantage to players staying longer.   Peers who were arguably better than Hield (like Nik Stauskas) didn't stay in College ball.  So while he may have improved, he also just has an advantage over kids who are transitioning directly from high school.     

I have to assume that leap from high school to College is pretty dramatic.  So the longer you have to make that transition, the better you'll be.   But just because you've adjusted (after 4 attempts) to College basketball doesn't mean you can make the leap to the pro level.   

This is the same thing I bring up when people talk about the D-League.   The D-League is filled primarily with undrafted amateur players.   The level of competition has been set as "undrafted semi pro".   These are mostly guys who were not good enough on the College level to be drafted in the NBA.  So naturally, drafted players who spent time in D-League (like the James Youngs of the world) were obviously better than those guys on the College level (hence being drafted) and should be better than those guys on the D-League level.  Beating up on lesser players in the D-League does no guarantee success against elite players in the NBA, though.  Just like beating up on amateur players with less experience in the College level doesn't guarantee success in the pros.