"It's not complicated: Hield can play" -Kobe

[Beat LA]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

Ok- I mean it's certainly hard to challenge the unknown opinions of unknown other people. The fact that Kobe isn't a great analyst doesn't matter. Nobody is judging Hield based on what Kobe says, despite the thread title.

What doesn't add up is the idea that most if not all "good" analysts are ranking Hield in the Nick Young / Redick / Ben Gordon camp. None of those guys would be lottery picks if teams had a crystal ball to see their career arcs, let alone if that arc was their ceiling.

And I guess that speaks volumes about how this draft is perceived.  Two guys with star potential and a lot of role players.  It's not unheard of... Anthony Bennett went #1 in a draft... nobody really had him projected as a future star either.

Like it was mentioned before... #3 in this draft might be equal to the #10 pick in the 2014 draft.  And Hield might not even go in the Top 5.

It actually makes a lot of sense.  Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton suggested Boston's options at #3 were between Murray, Dunn, Bender and Chriss.  So based on that, looks like they are projecting Hield 7th at the highest.  And Pelton said that Boston should consider moving #3 for Jusaf Nurkic.  Nurkic was selected #16 in 2014 and spent most of last season injured.   So there you go... two draft experts who think the #3 pick is the equivalent of a mid 1st in 2014... and don't see Hield going 3rd.

And this is the same kind of stuff the people I know who follow College ball are telling me... that there's nobody with star potential available at #3 (though nobody knows anything about Bender) and that Buddy Hield's ceiling is limited.  And fwiw, I'm pretty sure it was on Bill Simmons podcast that they suggested Hield would fall somewhere in the Nick Young -> JJ Reddick spectrum.   Whoever drafts Hield will be hoping he can be more Reddick than Nick Young.

Really?  No one?  Wow.  Is this the bubble tea guy again?

Dude it's not just Zhihong, though his avacado honeydew blend is delightful and rivals his knowledge of College basketball.

It's several others who have told me these things... such as the guy who I buy my kati rolls from.  He agrees.  He adds a wonderful chana masala filling with tamarind spices and lime zest and he's told me point blank Buddy Hield will not be as good as Jamal Murray on the next level... and that if Jamal Murray stayed in College for 4 years and had the type of shooters surrounding him that Hield had this season, Murray would average 80 points per game... and despite this, he doesn't anticipate anyone available at #3 will be a star on the NBA level.

Man, I don't even know what any of that stuff is, lol.  I would like to know this guy's thoughts of whether or not Hield could have put up even better numbers if he'd been on this year's Kentucky team, because Ulis commands much more respect from the opposing defense as opposed to anyone with whom Hield played, right?  Just curious.

[LarBrd33]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

Ok- I mean it's certainly hard to challenge the unknown opinions of unknown other people. The fact that Kobe isn't a great analyst doesn't matter. Nobody is judging Hield based on what Kobe says, despite the thread title.

What doesn't add up is the idea that most if not all "good" analysts are ranking Hield in the Nick Young / Redick / Ben Gordon camp. None of those guys would be lottery picks if teams had a crystal ball to see their career arcs, let alone if that arc was their ceiling.

And I guess that speaks volumes about how this draft is perceived.  Two guys with star potential and a lot of role players.  It's not unheard of... Anthony Bennett went #1 in a draft... nobody really had him projected as a future star either.

Like it was mentioned before... #3 in this draft might be equal to the #10 pick in the 2014 draft.  And Hield might not even go in the Top 5.

It actually makes a lot of sense.  Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton suggested Boston's options at #3 were between Murray, Dunn, Bender and Chriss.  So based on that, looks like they are projecting Hield 7th at the highest.  And Pelton said that Boston should consider moving #3 for Jusaf Nurkic.  Nurkic was selected #16 in 2014 and spent most of last season injured.   So there you go... two draft experts who think the #3 pick is the equivalent of a mid 1st in 2014... and don't see Hield going 3rd.

And this is the same kind of stuff the people I know who follow College ball are telling me... that there's nobody with star potential available at #3 (though nobody knows anything about Bender) and that Buddy Hield's ceiling is limited.  And fwiw, I'm pretty sure it was on Bill Simmons podcast that they suggested Hield would fall somewhere in the Nick Young -> JJ Reddick spectrum.   Whoever drafts Hield will be hoping he can be more Reddick than Nick Young.

Really?  No one?  Wow.  Is this the bubble tea guy again?

Dude it's not just Zhihong, though his avacado honeydew blend is delightful and rivals his knowledge of College basketball.

It's several others who have told me these things... such as the guy who I buy my kati rolls from.  He agrees.  He adds a wonderful chana masala filling with tamarind spices and lime zest and he's told me point blank Buddy Hield will not be as good as Jamal Murray on the next level... and that if Jamal Murray stayed in College for 4 years and had the type of shooters surrounding him that Hield had this season, Murray would average 80 points per game... and despite this, he doesn't anticipate anyone available at #3 will be a star on the NBA level.

Man, I don't even know what any of that stuff is, lol.  I would like to know this guy's thoughts of whether or not Hield could have put up even better numbers if he'd been on this year's Kentucky team, because Ulis commands much more respect from the opposing defense as opposed to anyone with whom Hield played, right?  Just curious.

An interesting thing was brought up to me about Hield from the guy I buy my Bulgogi from.  It's not the best Bulgogi in the region, but it's centrally located and I appreciate that the marinade used has a subtle hint of ssamjang... so I trust his analysis of Buddy Hield.

We know that Hield shot .457% from three and made 147 threes.  Ignore his age for a moment.  Do-yun brings up the point that Hield shared major minutes with Jordan Woodard (.455% shooting from three - 80 threes), Isiah Cousins (.411% shooting from three - 65 threes) and Ryan Sprangler (.364% shooting from three - 32 threes).   All three of them were dangerous three point weapons that impacted spacing and Hield's shooting.  Or was it the other way around?  Did Hield help them more than they helped him?  A little of both?  Being that Do-Yun only makes the 3rd best Bulgogi in the region, at best, I can't be certain.

Meanwhile, 19 year old Jamal Murray as a Freshman (.409% shooting from three with 119 threes) had the following shooters surrounding him: 

Tyler Ulis (.344% shooting from three with 55 threes), Derek Willis (.442% from three with 53 threes) ... and that's about it.  Dominique Hawkins had 8 threes with .276% shooting.  So really all Murray had was Derk Willis, who certainly shot a high percentage but only averaged 18 minutes per game) and Tyler Ulis (whose .344% shooting was worse than Woodard, Cousins and Sprangler). 

So according to my 3rd-best Bulgogi guy, Buddy Hield would not have the same luxury of floor spacing and multiple dangerous three point weapons surrounding him had he played in Kentucky... meanwhile, Jamal Murray might have flourished even more had he been playing next to guys like Woodard, Cousins and Sprangler.   A small level version of what the Golden State Warriors are doing this season.   The more outside weapons you have, the more spacing and the better the shot opportunities.  How much are Draymond Green (.388% shooting from three), and Harrison Barnes (.383% shooting from three) impacted by having Klay Thompson and Steph Curry out there with them?   

Do-Yun's concern is that Hield's insane shooting may have been slightly flukey.  He brings up that during Hield's Junior season last year, he only shot .359% from three and that Jamal Murray might just be a naturally gifted shooter who will develop into a better player. 

Interesting points, but I haven't spoken to my top Bulgogi guy for confirmation. 

[Beat LA]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

Ok- I mean it's certainly hard to challenge the unknown opinions of unknown other people. The fact that Kobe isn't a great analyst doesn't matter. Nobody is judging Hield based on what Kobe says, despite the thread title.

What doesn't add up is the idea that most if not all "good" analysts are ranking Hield in the Nick Young / Redick / Ben Gordon camp. None of those guys would be lottery picks if teams had a crystal ball to see their career arcs, let alone if that arc was their ceiling.

And I guess that speaks volumes about how this draft is perceived.  Two guys with star potential and a lot of role players.  It's not unheard of... Anthony Bennett went #1 in a draft... nobody really had him projected as a future star either.

Like it was mentioned before... #3 in this draft might be equal to the #10 pick in the 2014 draft.  And Hield might not even go in the Top 5.

It actually makes a lot of sense.  Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton suggested Boston's options at #3 were between Murray, Dunn, Bender and Chriss.  So based on that, looks like they are projecting Hield 7th at the highest.  And Pelton said that Boston should consider moving #3 for Jusaf Nurkic.  Nurkic was selected #16 in 2014 and spent most of last season injured.   So there you go... two draft experts who think the #3 pick is the equivalent of a mid 1st in 2014... and don't see Hield going 3rd.

And this is the same kind of stuff the people I know who follow College ball are telling me... that there's nobody with star potential available at #3 (though nobody knows anything about Bender) and that Buddy Hield's ceiling is limited.  And fwiw, I'm pretty sure it was on Bill Simmons podcast that they suggested Hield would fall somewhere in the Nick Young -> JJ Reddick spectrum.   Whoever drafts Hield will be hoping he can be more Reddick than Nick Young.

Really?  No one?  Wow.  Is this the bubble tea guy again?

Dude it's not just Zhihong, though his avacado honeydew blend is delightful and rivals his knowledge of College basketball.

It's several others who have told me these things... such as the guy who I buy my kati rolls from.  He agrees.  He adds a wonderful chana masala filling with tamarind spices and lime zest and he's told me point blank Buddy Hield will not be as good as Jamal Murray on the next level... and that if Jamal Murray stayed in College for 4 years and had the type of shooters surrounding him that Hield had this season, Murray would average 80 points per game... and despite this, he doesn't anticipate anyone available at #3 will be a star on the NBA level.

Man, I don't even know what any of that stuff is, lol.  I would like to know this guy's thoughts of whether or not Hield could have put up even better numbers if he'd been on this year's Kentucky team, because Ulis commands much more respect from the opposing defense as opposed to anyone with whom Hield played, right?  Just curious.

An interesting thing was brought up to me about Hield from the guy I buy my Bulgogi from.  It's not the best Bulgogi in the region, but it's centrally located and I appreciate that the marinade used has a subtle hint of ssamjang... so I trust his analysis of Buddy Hield.

We know that Hield shot .457% from three and made 147 threes.  Ignore his age for a moment.  Do-yun brings up the point that Hield shared major minutes with Jordan Woodard (.455% shooting from three - 80 threes), Isiah Cousins (.411% shooting from three - 65 threes) and Ryan Sprangler (.364% shooting from three - 32 threes).   All three of them were dangerous three point weapons that impacted spacing and Hield's shooting.  Or was it the other way around?  Did Hield help them more than they helped him?  A little of both?  Being that Do-Yun is only makes the 3rd best Bulgogi in the region, at best, I can't be certain.

Meanwhile, 19 year old Jamal Murray as a Freshman (.409% shooting from three with 119 threes) had the following shooters surrounding him: 

Tyler Ulis (.344% shooting from three with 55 threes), Derek Willis (.442% from three with 53 threes) ... and that's about it.  Dominique Hawkins had 8 threes with .276% shooting.  So really all Murray had was Derk Willis, who certainly shot a high percentage but only averaged 18 minutes per game) and Tyler Ulis (whose .344% shooting was worse than Woodard, Cousins and Sprangler). 

So according to my 3rd-best Bulgogi guy, Buddy Hield would not have the same luxury of floor spacing and multiple dangerous three point weapons surrounding him had he played in Kentucky... meanwhile, Jamal Murray might have flourished even more had he been playing next to guys like Woodard, Cousins and Sprangler.   A small level version of what the Golden State Warriors are doing this season.   The more outside weapons you have, the more spacing and the better the shot opportunities.  How much are Draymond Green (.388% shooting from three), and Harrison Barnes (.383% shooting from three) impacted by having Klay Thompson and Steph Curry out there with them?   

Do-Yun's concern is that Hield's insane shooting may have been slightly flukey.  He brings up that during Hield's Junior season last year, he only shot .359% from three and that Jamal Murray might just be a naturally gifted shooter who will develop into a better player. 

Interesting points, but I haven't spoken to my top Bulgogi guy for confirmation.

Thanks for the info on the OU players, TP.  It's probably a bit of both, though.  I know that you have to respect the shooting of those guys, but wouldn't Ulis, because of his speed, require more defensive attention?  I really don't know.  If those OU guys were only like Danny Green who can't even dribble, then I'd be inclined to go with Ulis, but if not, then perhaps they have the edge over Tyler, collectively, although it's probably still close.

Now consider putting Murray in Hield's spot, where he'd have to be the man.  Neither is a great ball handler, although I haven't seen much of them, to be honest, so this is coming from what people on here say as well as scouting reports, but wouldn't Murray struggle, with his lack of speed and quickness, to create for himself, as well as others?  His assist to turnover ratio doesn't bode well in that regard, and if he doesn't have even a good handle, could he have scored at least what he did this year at Kentucky and, most importantly, on the same percentages?  I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound promising.

[MBunge]

Sometimes being older is an advantage. Who is to say that any of the freshmen leaving after this year would be able to put up the incredible numbers he did if they stuck around for 3 more years.  Plus you get a guy who is more likely to contribute right away, instead of learning on the job like the rookies we usually draft.  It can be an asset, really.

People are just silly - they choose to live inside a little bubble which only allows them to comprehend anything that goes outside of current trends.

People choose to ignore past facts like:

* David Robinson was 24 in his rookie year
* Michael Jordan was 21 in his rookie year
* Hakeem Olajuwon was 22 in his rookie year
* Anfernee Hardaway was 22 in his rookie year
* Karl Malone was 22 in his rookie year
* John Stockton was 22 in his rookie year
* Clyde Drexler was 21 in his rookie year
* Larry Bird was 23 in his rookie year

I could go on and on and on listing past greats who were 21 and older in their rookie years, because (as people seem to forget) the trend for guys to declare for the draft at 18/19 is something that's only really started up in around the past 10 years.

Part of the reason Kobe fell so far in the draft is because he was so young, and people were worried about whether he'd be ready for the NBA and mature enough to make the transition.
15-20 years ago players leaving early was something seen mostly as a bad thing.  Now days people thing "he's 21/22 years old, he has no upside". 

It's ridiculous.

The logic here's a bit faulty. When these hall-of-famers were dominating college, they were dominating top-level talent--players who were as old and developed as they were. The argument against Hield is that the best talent usually leaves college after one year; that wasn't true when the guys you listed played. If you want to use Curry, Lillard, McCollum, Isaiah, Draymond, Jae, Middleton, etc. as examples, then that would be reasonable, but a 23 year-old Bird was not the same thing as a 23 year-old Hield is.

It's not faulty logic because Hield's numbers are not only dominant when compared with 18 and 19 year olds.  His numbers are dominant no matter who you compare him too.

The only guys in college basketball who (could be argued) are putting up overall numbers as good as Hield are Simmons and Valentine.  Nobody else comes remotely close.   

It's pretty clear to see that Hield, as a offensive player, is on a whole other level to everybody else in the college game right now. 

* He's dominating to the tune of 28 Points and 6.7 Rebounds Per 40 minutes

* He's taking almost 8.7 three point attempts per game on 46% shooting

* He's taking 7.5 two point attempts per game on 55% shooting

* He is getting to the foul line at a high rate and shooting 88% from there

*  He has +22.3 net rating and a +11.5 Box Plus Minus, so he clearly makes his team better to a dramatic degree

* He carried his team deeper then any other top-6 projected prospect did, so he clearly is a winner

* He has the greatest intangibles of any prospect in the draft - nobody  could say a single bad thing about his attitude, his work ethic, his motor, his willingness to improve or his desire to win

I just don't get it - what more can the guy do?"  What does a 22 year old college player have to do to prove that he has star potential?  Do you people expect him to average 40 PPG on 65% from the field?  Pull off 360 dunks from the three point line?  Win national championships on an annual basis? 

Hield has done pretty much everything you could possible ask of a college player except win a national title, and he came closer to that then ANY of the other guys who are being talked about here.  Yet still people do not show him the respect he has well and truly earned.

I can understand why Kobe appreciates Hield, because like Kobe, Hield is a supremely talented scorer and a competitor of the highest degree.  Guys who have great talent tend to become stars.  Guys who are great competitors win games.  Guys who have both tend to win championships

Kahlil Felder has significantly better total stats than Hield.  I mean Felder was 3rd in PPG and led college basketball at 9.3 apg (1.2 apg better than the guy that finished in 2nd).  He leads the nation by a wide margin in something called Points Produced (basketball-reference stat).  Felder was 27.1, Hield was 21.7.

That is the problem with college stats and projecting them to professional ability.  I mean Felder is 5'9" 180 pounds.  Does that strike you as a NBA player's typical body type?  Yet he is dominating college basketball

Felder played for an Oakland team out of the Horizon League that didn't even make the NCAA tournament.  Hield performed in the Big 12 and made it to the Final Four.

Mike

Grayson Allen, Stefan Moody, etc.  The list goes on and on.  College success has absolutely no relation at all to professional success.

I have no idea what throwing out the names of two guys, neither of whom has been rated anywhere as highly as Hield, is supposed to prove.  Yes, some guys who are great in college turn out to be so-so NBA players and some of them are even busts.  So what?  Plenty of guys who get drafted for their huge upside also turn out to be mediocre or terrible NBA players.

There's little point in arguing against an unreasoning prejudice that won't recognize even something as obvious as Steph Curry going from being drafted behind Hasheen Thabeet, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio and Johnny Flynn at 22 to MVP and best player on a 73 win team at 27.

Mike

follow along, he is saying because Hield is so dominant in college he will be a star in the league (he also incorrectly says Hield is so much better than everyone else offensively, which is just silly because Hield didn't lead anything except total points (not ppg) as a result of his team playing so many games).  My point is there is no correlation at all between college and professional basketball as it pertains to success or lack there of in one or the other.  Some of the greatest NBA players, weren't very good in college (some didn't play in college at all), while some of the greatest college players had almost no success in the NBA (Dennis Hopson, Adam Morrison, and even a guy like Christian Laettner certainly didn't live up to the college success).  Now sure a future great NBA players is most likely also going to be great in college, but it certainly doesn't have to be so, especially now with players leaving after 1 year of college (David Robinson, for example averaged only 7.6 p and 4 r per game his freshman year at Navy).

My homework task for you, is to name me the last 5 college players who (in the same season):

1) Averaged at least 25 PPG
2) Shoot at least 50% / 40% / 80%
3) Made it to the final four 

You time starts....now!

While you're at it I would also like to note that there are only four (4) players in this entire draft who actually played in the final four:

Buddy Hield
Brice Johnson
Malachi Richardson
Michael Gbinije

Hield is the only guy on that list who is a sure fire first rounder, which means he is the only guy projected to go top 20 who has actually proven himself as a winner on the big stage.  Does that count for nothing in your books, truly?

1) Best Scorer in the draft lottery
2) Best shooter in the draft lottery
3) Best winner in the draft lottery
4) Best overall physical measurements (combined height/length/strength/athleticism) of any guard in the lottery

Apparently all of the above approximately equates to a future NBA role player.

Hield will have a fine NBA career, I just don't see star potential in him.  I think he will be a spot starter/6th man type player, which absolutely matches what a number of scouts say about him.  He had a very nice senior season, but there is after all a reason he wasn't even projected to be drafted after his junior season.  He then started off the year like a crazy man but then reverted back much closer to his mean (which wasn't even projected as a 1st round pick).  There is no way I'd take Hield at 3.  It would be a waste of a pick.

I see star potential with him, with his shot form and finishing ability around the rim. If he for some reason forgets how to shoot then he will be a bust. Otherwise he is sure to fill it up. What is not to like about his offensive game?

How about these from draftexpress' write up on him. 

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/

"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."

"Hield also doesn't offer much as a passer or facilitator, sporting the second lowest pure point rating and assist to turnover ratio among the shooting guards in our Top-100 prospect rankings. He'll pull off the occasionally drive and dish play, but for the most part he's looking for his own offense whenever he's on the floor, and does not possess an exceptionally high basketball IQ."

And don't even get started on his defense, which is pretty poor at this point (and he is already 23 which means he isn't going to make leaps and bounds improvements).  Hield is a pretty one dimensional scorer.  He isn't a great dribbler, he isn't a great facilitator, and he isn't the quickest guy in the world.  He could easily be a Kyle Korver type player, which is a fine NBA career, but not a guy you would want with the 3rd pick in the draft.

Of course, Draft Express also says...

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/

"Hield's perimeter shooting is as good of a place as any to start the conversation about his offensive game. His 147 3-pointers made (in 37 games) was by far the highest mark among all college players this year, and is tied for the highest total mark any college basketball player has achieved since Steph Curry made 162 back in 2008.

What's impressive about Hield's 3-point shooting isn't just the huge volume of makes this season, it's also the incredible accuracy, at 46%.

He's deadly in transition, is always moving to relocate into a better look after giving it up, and has a super quick trigger that allows him to get his shot off in the blink of an eye. Hield knocks down shots from NBA range on a regular basis, often with a hand in his face while well-guarded by defenses that are geared to slowing him down.

Hield has always been a tremendous shooter (career 39% 3P%), but he was much more of a catch and shoot guy for the first few years of his college career. Although he's absolutely elite with his feet set still (68/139, 49%), he's also turned himself into a much improved off the dribble shooter as well (51/137, 37%), which makes him very difficult to stop considering many of these attempts come from beyond the 3-point line (0.98 PPP).

Although he doesn't have great size, or the highest release point (he's largely a flat-footed shooter), he utilizes impressive footwork, hesitation moves and fadeaways to help him get his shot off in difficult situations, especially in big moments with the shot-clock running down.

His ball-handling skills in general improved as his college career moved on, as evidenced by his career high 55% 2P% this past season. He's able to attack his defender off closeouts with nice footwork and timing, and will mix in some change of speeds, spin moves and side-steps out of pick and rolls and isolations. He drives left almost exclusively, but has started to show some ability to use it to finish inside the paint as well, where he shot 56% this season."

Draft Express had negative things to say about Karl Anthony Townes last season too.  They're supposed to have negative things to say about every player.

Mike

He specifically asked what wasn't to like about his offensive game.  I answered his question.  The good things he does on offense had nothing to do with his question and thus there was no reason to point them out.  Everyone knows Hield can shoot the ball.

And my response highlights that everyone knows Hield can do more than just "shoot the ball."

People have gotten hung up on the Redick comparison for Hield but I saw somebody bring up another name...Cutino Mobley.  Mobley had an 11 year NBA career where he averaged over 17 points a game four times after spending four years in college, and Hield was a substantially better college player and is rated by everyone far higher than anyone had Mobley.

Mike

actually reading that it basically just says Hield is an excellent shooter, but is so coming off the dribble, standing still, at the rim, etc. and has some respectable shooting moves (like fadeaways).  But he is predictable, isn't a good ball handler, isn't quick enough to stay with PG's or big enough to stay with wings, etc. 

Hield is a pretty one dimensional player.  I think Kyle Korver is the best comparison (though Hield should be a better rebounder).  A great shooter (and was almost immediately), but didn't have a varied offensive game and wasn't what you would call a good defender.

Draft Express, whom you seem to believe is 100% accurate in their player assessments, had Hield as #6 in this year's draft.  That's above Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray and behind only Chriss, Bender and Dunn.  Considering the VERY high bust potential in Chriss and Bender, the all-knowing Draft Express is essentially saying that Hield is really the 4th surest thing in the draft.

Kyle Korver, by the way, was the 51st pick in 2003.  It makes far more sense to equate Bender to Darko and Chriss to Tyrus Thomas than it does to match Hield with Korver.

Mike

where Korver was drafted has no relevance to his career 13 years later.

The relevance is that you are throwing Korver out as an unflattering comparison to Hield.  However, Hield is vastly higher rated than Korver was by literally everyone in the basketball world.  Whatever weaknesses you think Hield has, Korver was universally believed to be even worse.

Mike

Mike, I think you're misunderstanding what player comps are. 

No, you're missing the point.

1.  If you're calling someone the next Kyle Korver or the next Ben Wallace, you're comparing their ability and skill.

2.  It's stupid to compare a 19, 20, 21 or 22 year old who hasn't played a minute in the NBA to a 8+ year veteran in their prime.

3.  It's only usefulness is in saying Player X is like Player Y.

4.  The more useful response it to point out that the draft evaluations of Player X are NOTHING like the draft evaluations of Player Y.  For example, literally everybody has Hield as a lottery pick while literally everybody had doubts that Korver could even play in the leage.  In other words, everyone thinks 22-year-old Buddy Hield looks like a much, much better player than 22-year-old Kyle Korver did.

None of which means that Hield will or will not turn out better or worse than Korver, only that such comparisons are almost always self-serving and of dubious value.  A more instructive comparison would be Klay Thompson.  Drafted 11th overall as a junior, only a bit bigger than Buddy and with the same or even more serious questions about his athleticism.  Which isn't to say Hield will be as good as Thompson but at least there is a real basis upon which to compare them.

Mike 

[LarBrd33]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

Ok- I mean it's certainly hard to challenge the unknown opinions of unknown other people. The fact that Kobe isn't a great analyst doesn't matter. Nobody is judging Hield based on what Kobe says, despite the thread title.

What doesn't add up is the idea that most if not all "good" analysts are ranking Hield in the Nick Young / Redick / Ben Gordon camp. None of those guys would be lottery picks if teams had a crystal ball to see their career arcs, let alone if that arc was their ceiling.

And I guess that speaks volumes about how this draft is perceived.  Two guys with star potential and a lot of role players.  It's not unheard of... Anthony Bennett went #1 in a draft... nobody really had him projected as a future star either.

Like it was mentioned before... #3 in this draft might be equal to the #10 pick in the 2014 draft.  And Hield might not even go in the Top 5.

It actually makes a lot of sense.  Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton suggested Boston's options at #3 were between Murray, Dunn, Bender and Chriss.  So based on that, looks like they are projecting Hield 7th at the highest.  And Pelton said that Boston should consider moving #3 for Jusaf Nurkic.  Nurkic was selected #16 in 2014 and spent most of last season injured.   So there you go... two draft experts who think the #3 pick is the equivalent of a mid 1st in 2014... and don't see Hield going 3rd.

And this is the same kind of stuff the people I know who follow College ball are telling me... that there's nobody with star potential available at #3 (though nobody knows anything about Bender) and that Buddy Hield's ceiling is limited.  And fwiw, I'm pretty sure it was on Bill Simmons podcast that they suggested Hield would fall somewhere in the Nick Young -> JJ Reddick spectrum.   Whoever drafts Hield will be hoping he can be more Reddick than Nick Young.

Really?  No one?  Wow.  Is this the bubble tea guy again?

Dude it's not just Zhihong, though his avacado honeydew blend is delightful and rivals his knowledge of College basketball.

It's several others who have told me these things... such as the guy who I buy my kati rolls from.  He agrees.  He adds a wonderful chana masala filling with tamarind spices and lime zest and he's told me point blank Buddy Hield will not be as good as Jamal Murray on the next level... and that if Jamal Murray stayed in College for 4 years and had the type of shooters surrounding him that Hield had this season, Murray would average 80 points per game... and despite this, he doesn't anticipate anyone available at #3 will be a star on the NBA level.

Man, I don't even know what any of that stuff is, lol.  I would like to know this guy's thoughts of whether or not Hield could have put up even better numbers if he'd been on this year's Kentucky team, because Ulis commands much more respect from the opposing defense as opposed to anyone with whom Hield played, right?  Just curious.

An interesting thing was brought up to me about Hield from the guy I buy my Bulgogi from.  It's not the best Bulgogi in the region, but it's centrally located and I appreciate that the marinade used has a subtle hint of ssamjang... so I trust his analysis of Buddy Hield.

We know that Hield shot .457% from three and made 147 threes.  Ignore his age for a moment.  Do-yun brings up the point that Hield shared major minutes with Jordan Woodard (.455% shooting from three - 80 threes), Isiah Cousins (.411% shooting from three - 65 threes) and Ryan Sprangler (.364% shooting from three - 32 threes).   All three of them were dangerous three point weapons that impacted spacing and Hield's shooting.  Or was it the other way around?  Did Hield help them more than they helped him?  A little of both?  Being that Do-Yun is only makes the 3rd best Bulgogi in the region, at best, I can't be certain.

Meanwhile, 19 year old Jamal Murray as a Freshman (.409% shooting from three with 119 threes) had the following shooters surrounding him: 

Tyler Ulis (.344% shooting from three with 55 threes), Derek Willis (.442% from three with 53 threes) ... and that's about it.  Dominique Hawkins had 8 threes with .276% shooting.  So really all Murray had was Derk Willis, who certainly shot a high percentage but only averaged 18 minutes per game) and Tyler Ulis (whose .344% shooting was worse than Woodard, Cousins and Sprangler). 

So according to my 3rd-best Bulgogi guy, Buddy Hield would not have the same luxury of floor spacing and multiple dangerous three point weapons surrounding him had he played in Kentucky... meanwhile, Jamal Murray might have flourished even more had he been playing next to guys like Woodard, Cousins and Sprangler.   A small level version of what the Golden State Warriors are doing this season.   The more outside weapons you have, the more spacing and the better the shot opportunities.  How much are Draymond Green (.388% shooting from three), and Harrison Barnes (.383% shooting from three) impacted by having Klay Thompson and Steph Curry out there with them?   

Do-Yun's concern is that Hield's insane shooting may have been slightly flukey.  He brings up that during Hield's Junior season last year, he only shot .359% from three and that Jamal Murray might just be a naturally gifted shooter who will develop into a better player. 

Interesting points, but I haven't spoken to my top Bulgogi guy for confirmation.

Thanks for the info on the OU players, TP.  It's probably a bit of both, though.  I know that you have to respect the shooting of those guys, but wouldn't Ulis, because of his speed, require more defensive attention?  I really don't know.  If those OU guys were only like Danny Green who can't even dribble, then I'd be inclined to go with Ulis, but if not, then perhaps they have the edge over Tyler, collectively, although it's probably still close.

Now consider putting Murray in Hield's spot, where he'd have to be the man.  Neither is a great ball handler, although I haven't seen much of them, to be honest, so this is coming from what people on here say as well as scouting reports, but wouldn't Murray struggle, with his lack of speed and quickness, to create for himself, as well as others?  His assist to turnover ratio doesn't bode well in that regard, and if he doesn't have even a good handle, could he have scored at least what he did this year at Kentucky and, most importantly, on the same percentages?  I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound promising.

Well like I said, I don't watch any College basketball so I just have to go off what others have told me about Murray vs Hield.  Here's what I do know, though...

A while back, I found myself in a little hole-in-the wall sitting on the floor sharing a heaping plate of doro wat with my then-girlfriend.  As we used our hands to pick and shovel mouthfuls into our gullets, I found the delectable blend of savory meats and biting spices intriguing.   Flash forward a couple hours later and I nearly crapped my pants in the midst of a drag show.  Queen Tess T. Cull is up there butchering her rendition of the Hedwig standard "Angry Inch" and I'm frantically making impromptu sanitary seat covers out of several rolls of toilet paper.   My guess is my body simply wasn't prepared to try doro wat for the first time.  I suspect it may have been the injera bread made of teff grain.  Or perhaps it was just the berbere and niter kibbeh spices ravaging my intestines. 

I had no intention of trying it again until happenstance I found myself returning a few months later after several rounds of Smash Putt during a team-building exercise with my coworkers.   I gotta say, I grew quite fond of doro wat the second time around.  I found the kitfo and waadii to be on point as well.  I had to give thanks to Habtamu on a job well done.  He then proceeded to tell me that Buddy Hield, while a seemingly deadly shooter, did not have the same playmaking abilities of Jamal Murray.  According to him, Murray had a better chance of being a more well-rounded offensive weapon on the next level.    I tend to believe him.  He makes the best chechebsa in town. 

[Moranis]

Some of these people hate comparing Hield to Ray Allen but want to compare him to stiff Kyle Korver 

Kyle Korver is a former all star and one of the greatest shooters in NBA history (8th all time in 3PT%) and a guy who has been in the league for 13 years and counting.  Not a bad career if you ask me.

I thought the discussion was about skillsets. Korver is one of the greatest shooters ever, but thats all he can really do. Im arguing that Hields offensive skillset is much more well rounded than to be brought up with Korver.


https://youtu.be/8uK4EwZfZ1s

LoL he looks like a bust for certain, sure.

I know what you are arguing, I just don't think you are right.  Hield is a pretty poor ball handler, is undersized for a SG, and doesn't have elite quickness, first step, or speed.  He is a well below average defender.  Hield is a great shooter in college.  If that translates, he will have a very nice long career in the NBA, but I just don't see much more than Kyle Korver from him.

Which is perfectly fine, but just about everyone else disagrees with you...and that includes the very same people excited about players like Chriss, Bender and Murray.  I don't think I've seen a single mock anywhere that doesn't have Hield in the top 8 and most seem to have him somewhere between 3 and 6.

Could everyone be overrating Hield?  Sure, but that's no different than any other player out there.

Mike

In a re-draft of 2003, a draft with at least 4 future HOFers, Korver would get drafted between 6 and 9.  I don't see how that is a bad comparison for Hield.  The thing is, Korver had all of the college stats.  He led his team in points, rebounds, assists, steals, etc. and was an incredible outside shooter, but he was undersized, didn't have a great first step, etc. so he went in the 2nd round, but 2nd round picks don't stay in the league for 13 years because they should have been 2nd round picks.  The teams missed on Korver, as he not only made the team as a rookie, he performed quite well and started 57 games in his 2nd year.

[Moranis]

Sometimes being older is an advantage. Who is to say that any of the freshmen leaving after this year would be able to put up the incredible numbers he did if they stuck around for 3 more years.  Plus you get a guy who is more likely to contribute right away, instead of learning on the job like the rookies we usually draft.  It can be an asset, really.

People are just silly - they choose to live inside a little bubble which only allows them to comprehend anything that goes outside of current trends.

People choose to ignore past facts like:

* David Robinson was 24 in his rookie year
* Michael Jordan was 21 in his rookie year
* Hakeem Olajuwon was 22 in his rookie year
* Anfernee Hardaway was 22 in his rookie year
* Karl Malone was 22 in his rookie year
* John Stockton was 22 in his rookie year
* Clyde Drexler was 21 in his rookie year
* Larry Bird was 23 in his rookie year

I could go on and on and on listing past greats who were 21 and older in their rookie years, because (as people seem to forget) the trend for guys to declare for the draft at 18/19 is something that's only really started up in around the past 10 years.

Part of the reason Kobe fell so far in the draft is because he was so young, and people were worried about whether he'd be ready for the NBA and mature enough to make the transition.
15-20 years ago players leaving early was something seen mostly as a bad thing.  Now days people thing "he's 21/22 years old, he has no upside". 

It's ridiculous.

The logic here's a bit faulty. When these hall-of-famers were dominating college, they were dominating top-level talent--players who were as old and developed as they were. The argument against Hield is that the best talent usually leaves college after one year; that wasn't true when the guys you listed played. If you want to use Curry, Lillard, McCollum, Isaiah, Draymond, Jae, Middleton, etc. as examples, then that would be reasonable, but a 23 year-old Bird was not the same thing as a 23 year-old Hield is.

It's not faulty logic because Hield's numbers are not only dominant when compared with 18 and 19 year olds.  His numbers are dominant no matter who you compare him too.

The only guys in college basketball who (could be argued) are putting up overall numbers as good as Hield are Simmons and Valentine.  Nobody else comes remotely close.   

It's pretty clear to see that Hield, as a offensive player, is on a whole other level to everybody else in the college game right now. 

* He's dominating to the tune of 28 Points and 6.7 Rebounds Per 40 minutes

* He's taking almost 8.7 three point attempts per game on 46% shooting

* He's taking 7.5 two point attempts per game on 55% shooting

* He is getting to the foul line at a high rate and shooting 88% from there

*  He has +22.3 net rating and a +11.5 Box Plus Minus, so he clearly makes his team better to a dramatic degree

* He carried his team deeper then any other top-6 projected prospect did, so he clearly is a winner

* He has the greatest intangibles of any prospect in the draft - nobody  could say a single bad thing about his attitude, his work ethic, his motor, his willingness to improve or his desire to win

I just don't get it - what more can the guy do?"  What does a 22 year old college player have to do to prove that he has star potential?  Do you people expect him to average 40 PPG on 65% from the field?  Pull off 360 dunks from the three point line?  Win national championships on an annual basis? 

Hield has done pretty much everything you could possible ask of a college player except win a national title, and he came closer to that then ANY of the other guys who are being talked about here.  Yet still people do not show him the respect he has well and truly earned.

I can understand why Kobe appreciates Hield, because like Kobe, Hield is a supremely talented scorer and a competitor of the highest degree.  Guys who have great talent tend to become stars.  Guys who are great competitors win games.  Guys who have both tend to win championships

Kahlil Felder has significantly better total stats than Hield.  I mean Felder was 3rd in PPG and led college basketball at 9.3 apg (1.2 apg better than the guy that finished in 2nd).  He leads the nation by a wide margin in something called Points Produced (basketball-reference stat).  Felder was 27.1, Hield was 21.7.

That is the problem with college stats and projecting them to professional ability.  I mean Felder is 5'9" 180 pounds.  Does that strike you as a NBA player's typical body type?  Yet he is dominating college basketball

Felder played for an Oakland team out of the Horizon League that didn't even make the NCAA tournament.  Hield performed in the Big 12 and made it to the Final Four.

Mike

Grayson Allen, Stefan Moody, etc.  The list goes on and on.  College success has absolutely no relation at all to professional success.

I have no idea what throwing out the names of two guys, neither of whom has been rated anywhere as highly as Hield, is supposed to prove.  Yes, some guys who are great in college turn out to be so-so NBA players and some of them are even busts.  So what?  Plenty of guys who get drafted for their huge upside also turn out to be mediocre or terrible NBA players.

There's little point in arguing against an unreasoning prejudice that won't recognize even something as obvious as Steph Curry going from being drafted behind Hasheen Thabeet, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio and Johnny Flynn at 22 to MVP and best player on a 73 win team at 27.

Mike

follow along, he is saying because Hield is so dominant in college he will be a star in the league (he also incorrectly says Hield is so much better than everyone else offensively, which is just silly because Hield didn't lead anything except total points (not ppg) as a result of his team playing so many games).  My point is there is no correlation at all between college and professional basketball as it pertains to success or lack there of in one or the other.  Some of the greatest NBA players, weren't very good in college (some didn't play in college at all), while some of the greatest college players had almost no success in the NBA (Dennis Hopson, Adam Morrison, and even a guy like Christian Laettner certainly didn't live up to the college success).  Now sure a future great NBA players is most likely also going to be great in college, but it certainly doesn't have to be so, especially now with players leaving after 1 year of college (David Robinson, for example averaged only 7.6 p and 4 r per game his freshman year at Navy).

My homework task for you, is to name me the last 5 college players who (in the same season):

1) Averaged at least 25 PPG
2) Shoot at least 50% / 40% / 80%
3) Made it to the final four 

You time starts....now!

While you're at it I would also like to note that there are only four (4) players in this entire draft who actually played in the final four:

Buddy Hield
Brice Johnson
Malachi Richardson
Michael Gbinije

Hield is the only guy on that list who is a sure fire first rounder, which means he is the only guy projected to go top 20 who has actually proven himself as a winner on the big stage.  Does that count for nothing in your books, truly?

1) Best Scorer in the draft lottery
2) Best shooter in the draft lottery
3) Best winner in the draft lottery
4) Best overall physical measurements (combined height/length/strength/athleticism) of any guard in the lottery

Apparently all of the above approximately equates to a future NBA role player.

Hield will have a fine NBA career, I just don't see star potential in him.  I think he will be a spot starter/6th man type player, which absolutely matches what a number of scouts say about him.  He had a very nice senior season, but there is after all a reason he wasn't even projected to be drafted after his junior season.  He then started off the year like a crazy man but then reverted back much closer to his mean (which wasn't even projected as a 1st round pick).  There is no way I'd take Hield at 3.  It would be a waste of a pick.

I see star potential with him, with his shot form and finishing ability around the rim. If he for some reason forgets how to shoot then he will be a bust. Otherwise he is sure to fill it up. What is not to like about his offensive game?

How about these from draftexpress' write up on him. 

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/

"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."

"Hield also doesn't offer much as a passer or facilitator, sporting the second lowest pure point rating and assist to turnover ratio among the shooting guards in our Top-100 prospect rankings. He'll pull off the occasionally drive and dish play, but for the most part he's looking for his own offense whenever he's on the floor, and does not possess an exceptionally high basketball IQ."

And don't even get started on his defense, which is pretty poor at this point (and he is already 23 which means he isn't going to make leaps and bounds improvements).  Hield is a pretty one dimensional scorer.  He isn't a great dribbler, he isn't a great facilitator, and he isn't the quickest guy in the world.  He could easily be a Kyle Korver type player, which is a fine NBA career, but not a guy you would want with the 3rd pick in the draft.

Of course, Draft Express also says...

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/

"Hield's perimeter shooting is as good of a place as any to start the conversation about his offensive game. His 147 3-pointers made (in 37 games) was by far the highest mark among all college players this year, and is tied for the highest total mark any college basketball player has achieved since Steph Curry made 162 back in 2008.

What's impressive about Hield's 3-point shooting isn't just the huge volume of makes this season, it's also the incredible accuracy, at 46%.

He's deadly in transition, is always moving to relocate into a better look after giving it up, and has a super quick trigger that allows him to get his shot off in the blink of an eye. Hield knocks down shots from NBA range on a regular basis, often with a hand in his face while well-guarded by defenses that are geared to slowing him down.

Hield has always been a tremendous shooter (career 39% 3P%), but he was much more of a catch and shoot guy for the first few years of his college career. Although he's absolutely elite with his feet set still (68/139, 49%), he's also turned himself into a much improved off the dribble shooter as well (51/137, 37%), which makes him very difficult to stop considering many of these attempts come from beyond the 3-point line (0.98 PPP).

Although he doesn't have great size, or the highest release point (he's largely a flat-footed shooter), he utilizes impressive footwork, hesitation moves and fadeaways to help him get his shot off in difficult situations, especially in big moments with the shot-clock running down.

His ball-handling skills in general improved as his college career moved on, as evidenced by his career high 55% 2P% this past season. He's able to attack his defender off closeouts with nice footwork and timing, and will mix in some change of speeds, spin moves and side-steps out of pick and rolls and isolations. He drives left almost exclusively, but has started to show some ability to use it to finish inside the paint as well, where he shot 56% this season."

Draft Express had negative things to say about Karl Anthony Townes last season too.  They're supposed to have negative things to say about every player.

Mike

He specifically asked what wasn't to like about his offensive game.  I answered his question.  The good things he does on offense had nothing to do with his question and thus there was no reason to point them out.  Everyone knows Hield can shoot the ball.

And my response highlights that everyone knows Hield can do more than just "shoot the ball."

People have gotten hung up on the Redick comparison for Hield but I saw somebody bring up another name...Cutino Mobley.  Mobley had an 11 year NBA career where he averaged over 17 points a game four times after spending four years in college, and Hield was a substantially better college player and is rated by everyone far higher than anyone had Mobley.

Mike

actually reading that it basically just says Hield is an excellent shooter, but is so coming off the dribble, standing still, at the rim, etc. and has some respectable shooting moves (like fadeaways).  But he is predictable, isn't a good ball handler, isn't quick enough to stay with PG's or big enough to stay with wings, etc. 

Hield is a pretty one dimensional player.  I think Kyle Korver is the best comparison (though Hield should be a better rebounder).  A great shooter (and was almost immediately), but didn't have a varied offensive game and wasn't what you would call a good defender.

Draft Express, whom you seem to believe is 100% accurate in their player assessments, had Hield as #6 in this year's draft.  That's above Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray and behind only Chriss, Bender and Dunn.  Considering the VERY high bust potential in Chriss and Bender, the all-knowing Draft Express is essentially saying that Hield is really the 4th surest thing in the draft.

Kyle Korver, by the way, was the 51st pick in 2003.  It makes far more sense to equate Bender to Darko and Chriss to Tyrus Thomas than it does to match Hield with Korver.

Mike

where Korver was drafted has no relevance to his career 13 years later.

The relevance is that you are throwing Korver out as an unflattering comparison to Hield.  However, Hield is vastly higher rated than Korver was by literally everyone in the basketball world.  Whatever weaknesses you think Hield has, Korver was universally believed to be even worse.

Mike

I don't think it is unflattering at all.  Korver is 8th all time in 3 point percentage, has played in the league for 13 years, made an all star team, and if his draft was re-done would have gone between 6 and 9.  Not sure why you think that is unflattering unless you are seriously underrating Korver.

[apc]

I am not going to read to 9 pages of this topic, but if it wasn't mentioned before:

Buddy Hield hires Kobe Bryant's agent.

So I can see the agent asking Kobe to say something nice about Hield.

[TheTruthFot18]

Well like I said, I don't watch any College basketball so I just have to go off what others have told me about Murray vs Hield.  Here's what I do know, though...

A while back, I found myself in a little hole-in-the wall sitting on the floor sharing a heaping plate of doro wat with my then-girlfriend.  As we used our hands to pick and shovel mouthfuls into our gullets, I found the delectable blend of savory meats and biting spices intriguing.   Flash forward a couple hours later and I nearly crapped my pants in the midst of a drag show.  Queen Tess T. Cull is up there butchering her rendition of the Hedwig standard "Angry Inch" and I'm frantically making impromptu sanitary seat covers out of several rolls of toilet paper.   My guess is my body simply wasn't prepared to try doro wat for the first time.  I suspect it may have been the injera bread made of teff grain.  Or perhaps it was just the berbere and niter kibbeh spices ravaging my intestines. 

I had no intention of trying it again until happenstance I found myself returning a few months later after several rounds of Smash Putt during a team-building exercise with my coworkers.   I gotta say, I grew quite fond of doro wat the second time around.  I found the kitfo and waadii to be on point as well.  I had to give thanks to Habtamu on a job well done.  He then proceeded to tell me that Buddy Hield, while a seemingly deadly shooter, did not have the same playmaking abilities of Jamal Murray.  According to him, Murray had a better chance of being a more well-rounded offensive weapon on the next level.    I tend to believe him.  He makes the best chechebsa in town.

TL/DR for those checking this out later. Good story though 

[LarBrd33]

I am not going to read to 9 pages of this topic, but if it wasn't mentioned before:

Buddy Hield hires Kobe Bryant's agent.

So I can see the agent asking Kobe to say something nice about Hield.

good call