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

[Celtics18]

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

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

players traditionally make leaps in year 3.  If you want to compare the classes, compare their rookie and sophomore seasons in the NBA.  Or wait to see how the 2014 draft class performs in year 3, because as I said, Jabari Parker and Aaron Gordon looked outstanding down the stretch.  Embiid and exum didn't even play.  Randle played well in his first games.   And guys like Smart, hopefully, will see McCollum-Esque leaps in their 3rd season.   Even ol Dougy McBuckets could make a leap with minutes on Chicago next season.  In which case, maybe Hieldaholics will be less cranky at the comparison.

I worded that poorly.  I was actually contending that the 2013 class looked better after their sophomore NBA season than the 2014 class did after their sophomore season.

Apples to apples.

[LarBrd33]

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

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

players traditionally make leaps in year 3.  If you want to compare the classes, compare their rookie and sophomore seasons in the NBA.  Or wait to see how the 2014 draft class performs in year 3, because as I said, Jabari Parker and Aaron Gordon looked outstanding down the stretch.  Embiid and exum didn't even play.  Randle played well in his first games.   And guys like Smart, hopefully, will see McCollum-Esque leaps in their 3rd season.   Even ol Dougy McBuckets could make a leap with minutes on Chicago next season.  In which case, maybe Hieldaholics will be less cranky at the comparison.

I worded that poorly.  I was actually contending that the 2013 class looked better after their sophomore NBA season than the 2014 class did after their sophomore season.

Apples to apples.

ill look into it and let you know my findings one way or the other.

[Celtics18]

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

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

players traditionally make leaps in year 3.  If you want to compare the classes, compare their rookie and sophomore seasons in the NBA.  Or wait to see how the 2014 draft class performs in year 3, because as I said, Jabari Parker and Aaron Gordon looked outstanding down the stretch.  Embiid and exum didn't even play.  Randle played well in his first games.   And guys like Smart, hopefully, will see McCollum-Esque leaps in their 3rd season.   Even ol Dougy McBuckets could make a leap with minutes on Chicago next season.  In which case, maybe Hieldaholics will be less cranky at the comparison.

I worded that poorly.  I was actually contending that the 2013 class looked better after their sophomore NBA season than the 2014 class did after their sophomore season.

Apples to apples.

ill look into it and let you know my findings one way or the other.

I've already done some (admittedly fairly superficial) research on it myself.  Using the VORP stat, I found that the 2013 class performed better overall in their second NBA season than the 2014 class in their second season.

Maybe I'll look at some other measures later.  I look forward to seeing your findings.

[wiley]

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

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

players traditionally make leaps in year 3.  If you want to compare the classes, compare their rookie and sophomore seasons in the NBA.  Or wait to see how the 2014 draft class performs in year 3, because as I said, Jabari Parker and Aaron Gordon looked outstanding down the stretch.  Embiid and exum didn't even play.  Randle played well in his first games.   And guys like Smart, hopefully, will see McCollum-Esque leaps in their 3rd season.   Even ol Dougy McBuckets could make a leap with minutes on Chicago next season.  In which case, maybe Hieldaholics will be less cranky at the comparison.

Not cranky at anyone who feels Hield should go 5th or 6th or even 8th.  What makes me cranky is trying to argue against Hield at #3 based on anything connected to McDermott.  Why go there?  Why compare a tweener SF/PF from one year with a pure SG from another? 

Much better to look at lots of video of Murray, Hield, Dunn and whoever else and go from that.  OR think of past pure SG's who Hield reminds you of.  Or to just go with your gut. 

Your gut should lead to more accuracy than a Hield McDermott meta comparison.  If that kind of thing helps you with your gut fine, but don't pretend there's anything actually measurable there. 

[LarBrd33]

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

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

players traditionally make leaps in year 3.  If you want to compare the classes, compare their rookie and sophomore seasons in the NBA.  Or wait to see how the 2014 draft class performs in year 3, because as I said, Jabari Parker and Aaron Gordon looked outstanding down the stretch.  Embiid and exum didn't even play.  Randle played well in his first games.   And guys like Smart, hopefully, will see McCollum-Esque leaps in their 3rd season.   Even ol Dougy McBuckets could make a leap with minutes on Chicago next season.  In which case, maybe Hieldaholics will be less cranky at the comparison.

I worded that poorly.  I was actually contending that the 2013 class looked better after their sophomore NBA season than the 2014 class did after their sophomore season.

Apples to apples.

ill look into it and let you know my findings one way or the other.

I've already done some (admittedly fairly superficial) research on it myself.  Using the VORP stat, I found that the 2013 class performed better overall in their second NBA season than the 2014 class in their second season.

Maybe I'll look at some other measures later.  I look forward to seeing your findings.

Preface it by saying how these draft classes performed in retrospect doesn't have anything to do with how they are seen heading into the draft.   We're talking about two different things here.   The 2014 draft was seen as epic.  The 2013 draft was seen as weak.  So you'd have to assume that draft picks at the top of the 2013 draft were seen as less valuable than draft picks at the top of the 2014 draft at the time.   Obviously Rudy Gobert, picked 27th, is a major surprise.  But just because the 27th pick net Rudy Gobert doesn't mean that the 23rd pick in this draft will be seen as a future star.

Hield might be a star.  Hield might be a role player.   But the same was true of Ben McLemore, Nik Stauskas and Doug McDermott - all of which, presumably, were seen as prospects on the same level as Hield heading into the draft (Tier 3).

That said, if you're curious how 2013 draftees performed in their second year compared to 2014 draftees, you can definitely make the case that 2013 draftees were better.   I'm just looking at the EFF stat (points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks... subtract missed shots and turnovers).   Blue represents the 2013 class.   Red represents 2014 class:  http://i.imgur.com/wPIkWsl.jpg



Top 5 players are from the 2013 class.   

So at least in year 2, one could make the case that the 2013 class was better.  But of course, some of the players taken at the top of the 2014 draft class, like Aaron Gordon, were thought to have exceptionally high ceilings.  We'd have to revisit this in a couple years to see if guys like Gordon lived up to their potential.   If we're curious how these guys might compare in a year 3 vs year 3 comp, here's a look at how both classes performed over the past 2 months of their sophomore seasons:  http://i.imgur.com/gWVLELY.jpg



It's still toploaded with 2013 players, but you can see guys like Gordon and Jabari Parker creeping up.   17 of the top 30 players were from the 2014 class, but there's still several guys from 2013 who were impressive.  You could suggest that the classes were about even.

But this doesn't take into account the fact that Parker was coming off an injury and two of the best 2014 prospects, Exum and Embiid, didn't play.  Those two might prove to be busts, but we don't yet know.

[LarBrd33]

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

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

players traditionally make leaps in year 3.  If you want to compare the classes, compare their rookie and sophomore seasons in the NBA.  Or wait to see how the 2014 draft class performs in year 3, because as I said, Jabari Parker and Aaron Gordon looked outstanding down the stretch.  Embiid and exum didn't even play.  Randle played well in his first games.   And guys like Smart, hopefully, will see McCollum-Esque leaps in their 3rd season.   Even ol Dougy McBuckets could make a leap with minutes on Chicago next season.  In which case, maybe Hieldaholics will be less cranky at the comparison.

Not cranky at anyone who feels Hield should go 5th or 6th or even 8th.  What makes me cranky is trying to argue against Hield at #3 based on anything connected to McDermott.  Why go there?  Why compare a tweener SF/PF from one year with a pure SG from another? 

Because the #3 pick in this draft might be the equivalent of the 10th pick in the 2014 draft.  That's the purpose of the tiers.  To get a sense on how these prospects are viewed.  The guy taken 3rd in this draft might not be seen as a player with star potential.  That doesn't mean he's incapable of getting there.   Guys surprise every year... as seen by the above where a draft thought to be weak has so far outperformed a draft thought to be strong.  So if you want to completely throw out expert opinions in favor of your own, it's fine.  But it seems to me that at least heading into this draft Buddy Hield, coming off impressive senior stats, is seen as an equal to Doug McDermott when he entered the 2014 draft coming off impressive senior stats.

[LooseCannon]

No, it's really not.

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws, or questions implicated by the totality of his college career, because he was an awesome shooter who scored a lot of points in his last year. I think as fans we tend to be skeptical of white dudes that fit that profile because of the prominent examples of white guys that have underperformed. There's a skepticism there that doesn't seem to be evident when we are talking about a guy who looks more like the typical NBA star.


And beyond the appearance / name thing, I think there's a tendency to overlook the big picture with a prospect because you really want to believe in their potential.  To me this seems especially common with players who shoot really well and score a lot of points. The flaws of those players is easier to overlook at the time, then in retrospect we wonder how Doug McDermott could be drafted top ten.

None of the guys Buddy has been compared to in this thread have come close in accolades with regards to character and work ethic. No player in recent draft memory in fact is as highly touted in that regard.  KG level work ethic is rare.  High character is always great to have on one's team.

Of course, how much to ignore or include those intangibles in draft evaluations is another part of the process.  But Buddy praise is about more than just him having a nice senior year.  (so you don't think I'm a blind Buddy lover...I've got Murray one slot ahead of him...based more on what I see as future team need than anything else (I have zero clue who will be better in the NBA between Hield and Murray)

The thing about his work ethic is that it suggests that he has come a lot closer to maximizing his potential than other players in the top ten, especially since he is older and has had more time to hone his game.  He is much more likely than anyone else in the top ten to be a "what you see is what you get" player who doesn't improve that much.  When you factor in that scoring is the college skill least likely to translate to the pros, there should be some concern about his future.  Is Hield the sort of player who will be useless on nights when his shot isn't falling?

[Celtics18]

I'm going to re-iterate that as a fan, I am much more interested in how the players taken in this draft actually turn out as pros than how they are ranked going into the draft.

I don't put quite as much stock in the scouts' take as some of you.  That's why I pointed out that a draft that was seen to have 9 potential superstars has been outperformed (admittedly, very early still) by one that was seen to have no potential superstars.

What this all has to do with Buddy Hield, I'm actually not really sure other than as a completely amateur observer, I expect him to be a really good pro and would be thrilled if he became a Celtic, regardless of where he falls in Chad Ford's tier system.

[CelticSooner]

Hey Morrison has two rings he must have done something right  Also Buddy'a real name is Chavano, his mom nicknamed him Buddy after Bud Bundy from Married with Children. I'd say Buddy rolls off the tongue just a little better than Chavano does.

[LooseCannon]

I wonder how many people rate Hield higher or lower because he sleeps in the same bed as his mom.

[LarBrd33]

I'm going to re-iterate that as a fan, I am much more interested in how the players taken in this draft actually turn out as pros than how they are ranked going into the draft.

I don't put quite as much stock in the scouts' take as some of you.  That's why I pointed out that a draft that was seen to have 9 potential superstars has been outperformed (admittedly, very early still) by one that was seen to have no potential superstars.

What this all has to do with Buddy Hield, I'm actually not really sure other than as a completely amateur observer, I expect him to be a really good pro and would be thrilled if he became a Celtic, regardless of where he falls in Chad Ford's tier system.

I think what it has to do with Hield is that it gives us some sense of expectations.   Is it important to you if a group of experts thinks Karl Towns is a transcendent prospect?   Is it important to you if a group of experts thinks Kelly Olynyk has a limited ceiling?    Our entire concept of draft rankings comes from expert analysis.   I don't think there's any casual fan who is coming up with a picture-perfect mock draft based on their own analysis without influence.   I'll pick a player on the draft board at random... Josh Hart is coming off a strong season averaging 15.5 points, 7 rebounds, 2 assists with 51%/36%/75% shooting.   Without influence, a fan might see those stats and say, "those look like stats from a player who will be taken in the lotto".   Josh Hart is projected in the late 2nd round.

It's true that a lot of stuff can happen after a player is drafted.   A guy like Isaiah Thomas can shock the world after going at the end of the lotto.  A player like Michael Beasley might dramatically underperform.  But having a sense of how these prospects are seen is interesting.  And if we want to set expectations for a guy like Buddy Hield... knowing if he's more a Doug McDermott level than Karl Towns level is nice to know.

SUpposedly the 2017 draft is "stacked".  Maybe that draft disappoints again like 2014, but knowing these things are helpful.  We have swap rights with Brooklyn.   If it's a draft filled with Buddy Hield/Doug McDermott types, i'm less concerned about trading it than if it's a draft filled with Andrew Wiggins types.

[Celtics18]

I'm going to re-iterate that as a fan, I am much more interested in how the players taken in this draft actually turn out as pros than how they are ranked going into the draft.

I don't put quite as much stock in the scouts' take as some of you.  That's why I pointed out that a draft that was seen to have 9 potential superstars has been outperformed (admittedly, very early still) by one that was seen to have no potential superstars.

What this all has to do with Buddy Hield, I'm actually not really sure other than as a completely amateur observer, I expect him to be a really good pro and would be thrilled if he became a Celtic, regardless of where he falls in Chad Ford's tier system.

I think what it has to do with Hield is that it gives us some sense of expectations.   Is it important to you if a group of experts thinks Karl Towns is a transcendent prospect?   Is it important to you if a group of experts thinks Kelly Olynyk has a limited ceiling?    Our entire concept of draft rankings comes from expert analysis.   I don't think there's any casual fan who is coming up with a picture-perfect mock draft based on their own analysis without influence.   I'll pick a player on the draft board at random... Josh Hart is coming off a strong season averaging 15.5 points, 7 rebounds, 2 assists with 51%/36%/75% shooting.   Without influence, a fan might see those stats and say, "those look like stats from a player who will be taken in the lotto".   Josh Hart is projected in the late 2nd round.

It's true that a lot of stuff can happen after a player is drafted.   A guy like Isaiah Thomas can shock the world after going at the end of the lotto.  A player like Michael Beasley might dramatically underperform.  But having a sense of how these prospects are seen is interesting.  And if we want to set expectations for a guy like Buddy Hield... knowing if he's more a Doug McDermott level than Karl Towns level is nice to know.

SUpposedly the 2017 draft is "stacked".  Maybe that draft disappoints again like 2014, but knowing these things are helpful.  We have swap rights with Brooklyn.   If it's a draft filled with Buddy Hield/Doug McDermott types, i'm less concerned about trading it than if it's a draft filled with Andrew Wiggins types.

Sure, the expert analysis guides our impressions of the prospects that are out there.  As fans, we add our own personal opinions based on additional research in the form of games watched, articles read, videos we've seen, draft combine measurements and so forth.

As basketball fans, some of us will value different strengths and see the prospects in different lights.  We'll develop favorites and guys whose games we aren't that enamored with.

We'll try to convince each other of our respective points of view.  Anyway, that's how I do it.  Basing every opinion I might have on a draft prospect on something like Chad Ford's tiers would be dull, not to mention it's a frequently inaccurate prediction process.

[D Dub]

my personal feeling is that experts haven't evolved their valuations to an ever changing league. 

shooting is the biggest example of this.  still today, much like it was 25 years ago, we see experts put greater value on the 6'7 wing who can't shoot over the 6'5 wing with deadly range. 

problem is, that 6'7 guy will be a work in progress for like five years.  the Marvin Williams, Mo Harkless', Wes Johnsons, MKG's ---- all these guys end up with the same ceiling as a 3/D role player. 

it's the transcendent shooters who, in today's game, really have the higher ceilings.  guys like Lillard, Curry, IT were all doubted by the experts because of their size.  but thanks to a superior shooting touch, each were able to carve out All Star births.   

that's why I like both Bender and Hield -- they can shoot the 3 better than their peers.  simple as that for me. 

[alldaboston]

my personal feeling is that experts haven't evolved their valuations to an ever changing league. 

shooting is the biggest example of this.  still today, much like it was 25 years ago, we see experts put greater value on the 6'7 wing who can't shoot over the 6'5 wing with deadly range. 

problem is, that 6'7 guy will be a work in progress for like five years.  the Marvin Williams, Mo Harkless', Wes Johnsons, MKG's ---- all these guys end up with the same ceiling as a 3/D role player. 

it's the transcendent shooters who, in today's game, really have the higher ceilings.  guys like Lillard, Curry, IT were all doubted by the experts because of their size.  but thanks to a superior shooting touch, each were able to carve out All Star births.   

that's why I like both Bender and Hield -- they can shoot the 3 better than their peers.  simple as that for me.

Plus Murray.

[MBunge]

Is Hield the sort of player who will be useless on nights when his shot isn't falling?

Is Bender?  Is Murray?

I'm not a Buddy booster over any other pick but it's kind of ridiculous to talk about the guy who was the best or 2nd best player in all of college basketball last season like we don't have any idea of what kind of player he could be, while guys who are total mysteries or one-year wonders get every benefit of the doubt.

Mike