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

[crimson_stallion]

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.

[hwangjini_1]

cs, perhaps another factor is that it is much, much harder to project a player's future when the player is only 18 or 19.

[max215]

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.

[LarBrd33]

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.

Right.  Things changed in the mid-late 90s when players started jumping from high school to the pros.  The top players are usually gone after Freshman year and players make dramatic leaps the longer they stay playing against the same level of inferior College competition.

Kobe saying Hield can play is kind of worthless.  Of course he can play.  He'll be a lottery pick.  So was Doug McDermott and from what I've been told by folks who follow College ball, McDermott was a superior prospect to what Hield is now.  I'm not doubting Hield will have some kind of role in the NBA, but I wouldn't count on him ever being a star.

[crimson_stallion]

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

[trickybilly]

If C's take Hield they should know by the deadline whether Avery is expendable.

[Beat LA]

Right.  Things changed in the mid-late 90s when players started jumping from high school to the pros.  The top players are usually gone after Freshman year and players make dramatic leaps the longer they stay playing against the same level of inferior College competition.

Kobe saying Hield can play is kind of worthless.  Of course he can play.  He'll be a lottery pick.  So was Doug McDermott and from what I've been told by folks who follow College ball, McDermott was a superior prospect to what Hield is now. I'm not doubting Hield will have some kind of role in the NBA, but I wouldn't count on him ever being a star.

Interesting.  I'm not a Buddy guy, but doesn't he at least have the tools to be a much better defender than McDermott, even though, admittedly, that's not much of a bar .

[chambers]

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.

Right.  Things changed in the mid-late 90s when players started jumping from high school to the pros.  The top players are usually gone after Freshman year and players make dramatic leaps the longer they stay playing against the same level of inferior College competition.

Kobe saying Hield can play is kind of worthless.  Of course he can play.  He'll be a lottery pick.  So was Doug McDermott and from what I've been told by folks who follow College ball, McDermott was a superior prospect to what Hield is now.  I'm not doubting Hield will have some kind of role in the NBA, but I wouldn't count on him ever being a star.

Who are these 'folks' that you often refer to?
McDermott was NEVER a superior prospect to what Hield is now lol. C'mon man.

[LarBrd33]

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.

Right.  Things changed in the mid-late 90s when players started jumping from high school to the pros.  The top players are usually gone after Freshman year and players make dramatic leaps the longer they stay playing against the same level of inferior College competition.

Kobe saying Hield can play is kind of worthless.  Of course he can play.  He'll be a lottery pick.  So was Doug McDermott and from what I've been told by folks who follow College ball, McDermott was a superior prospect to what Hield is now.  I'm not doubting Hield will have some kind of role in the NBA, but I wouldn't count on him ever being a star.

Who are these 'folks' that you often refer to?
McDermott was NEVER a superior prospect to what Hield is now lol. C'mon man.

Dude I buy bubble tea from says it's a no-contest - Hield can't hold a candle to McBuckets at the same age.   

Both were award winners for College Player of the Year.  McBuckets put up better stats.

[crimson_stallion]

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.

Right.  Things changed in the mid-late 90s when players started jumping from high school to the pros.  The top players are usually gone after Freshman year and players make dramatic leaps the longer they stay playing against the same level of inferior College competition.

Kobe saying Hield can play is kind of worthless.  Of course he can play.  He'll be a lottery pick.  So was Doug McDermott and from what I've been told by folks who follow College ball, McDermott was a superior prospect to what Hield is now.  I'm not doubting Hield will have some kind of role in the NBA, but I wouldn't count on him ever being a star.

Who are these 'folks' that you often refer to?
McDermott was NEVER a superior prospect to what Hield is now lol. C'mon man.

Dude I buy bubble tea from says it's a no-contest - Hield can't hold a candle to McBuckets at the same age.   

Both were award winners for College Player of the Year.  McBuckets put up better stats.

McDermott never had the profile of an NBA star.  He was very much a bigger JJ Reddick in that he was a great scorer at the college level, but his lack of physical tools made him look (very obviously)  limited as an NBA prospect. 

Reddick and McDermott both lacked the length, quickness and agility to ever project as much more then spot up shooters at the NBA level.  They remind me a lot of Jamal Murray in that regard - great shooters with high basketball IQ, who lacked the type of quickness and length needed to become stars at the next level. 

It was always obvious that neither of those guys was ever going to be able to blow by NBA defenders. They couldn't compensate for that by shooting over guys, because they lacked the size.  They couldn't compensate for it with their shiftiness, because neither was a great ball handler.  It was always pretty obvious that neither of those two guys was ever going to be able to create their own shots at the NBA level, and they they'd be dependent on screens and open looks to get their buckets.  It was always obvious that both guys would struggle to stay in front of NBA athletes defensively.  All of these things were very clear.

There was a hope that maybe as an outside chance McDermott could develop into the type of player Gordon Haywood is now- but I always believed that tKyle Kover was a more realistic target.

All of the things I just described in Reddick and McDermott are the same things I see in Jamal Murray, which is why I have significant reservations about taking him at #3.  I think his physical limitations are going to hold him back from ever being able to create his own offense, and from ever being anything more then a medicore defender.

To put things into perspective, when the 2014/15 draft was coming up I had McDermott somewhere around the 7 or 8 range.  There's no way I would have even thought of taking him over Wiggins, Embiid or Parker.  No way I'd have taken him over Smart, Randle, Exum.  I wouldn't have even taken him over Gordon (who I didn't like) or Vonleh (who I recognised was a high risk). 

If the current version of Hield was available in the 14/15 draft I would ABSOLUTELY taken him over Parker, Smart, Gordon, Exum and Randle.  No question about it.  I would have considered him over Wiggins - would have been a really hard decision.  Probably Wiggins if I was rebuilding or Hield if I was trying to win.  I would have taken a healthy Embiid over Hield probably, but with the red flags he had at draft time I'd have probably taken Hield over him too.   Basically I'd have taken Hield Wiggins and Embiid in the top three (in some order or other) and McDermott nowhere near there.

If McDermott was in this year's draft I'd don't think I would consider him in the top 10 period. 

Hield might put up similar offensive numbers to what those guys did but his defensive potential, physical attributes and outstanding intangibles put him on another level entirely.

[LarBrd33]

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.

Right.  Things changed in the mid-late 90s when players started jumping from high school to the pros.  The top players are usually gone after Freshman year and players make dramatic leaps the longer they stay playing against the same level of inferior College competition.

Kobe saying Hield can play is kind of worthless.  Of course he can play.  He'll be a lottery pick.  So was Doug McDermott and from what I've been told by folks who follow College ball, McDermott was a superior prospect to what Hield is now.  I'm not doubting Hield will have some kind of role in the NBA, but I wouldn't count on him ever being a star.

Who are these 'folks' that you often refer to?
McDermott was NEVER a superior prospect to what Hield is now lol. C'mon man.

Dude I buy bubble tea from says it's a no-contest - Hield can't hold a candle to McBuckets at the same age.   

Both were award winners for College Player of the Year.  McBuckets put up better stats.

McDermott never had the profile of an NBA star. 

And as I've been told... neither does Hield.  Most scouting reports I've read say he will be a quality role player.

[chilidawg]

From Draft Express:

With that in mind, Hield's overall intangibles make him the type of player who is difficult to write off, and to some degree, root for. He's one of the best “rags to riches” stories you'll find in the past few years, and is universally lauded for his work ethic, competitiveness and character. It's tough to envision a player who was as productive as he was at the college level not translating his effectiveness to the NBA, at least in some capacity. In that regard, there is a certain comfort level knowing what you're getting, which is, at worst, a tremendous shooter/scorer who plays extremely hard and will do everything in his power to be successful.

NBA draft.net:

Hield is one of the elite players in college basketball this season, and he’s done so by improving his game tremendously throughout his four years ... This kind of work ethic, and the results on the court present a huge draw when looking to draft a player ... He’s an NBA ready 3 point marksman, and scorer, and an emerging ball handler, who is clearly looking to become a more versatile combo guard at the next level ... He doesn’t have great size for the NBA, but his wingspan, athletic ability, and drive compensate for not being 6’6’’... I feel Hield has real potential in the NBA to score the basketball, and very early in his career ... His ceiling will be dictated on if and when he feels comfortable running an NBA offense ... If Buddy can keep improving, he has a very high ceiling, if Buddy’s current model is closer to his peak, then I feel he’s still a lottery worthy NBA draft pick ...


Sounds like more than a role player to me.

[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

[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

[LarBrd33]

From Draft Express:

With that in mind, Hield's overall intangibles make him the type of player who is difficult to write off, and to some degree, root for. He's one of the best “rags to riches” stories you'll find in the past few years, and is universally lauded for his work ethic, competitiveness and character. It's tough to envision a player who was as productive as he was at the college level not translating his effectiveness to the NBA, at least in some capacity. In that regard, there is a certain comfort level knowing what you're getting, which is, at worst, a tremendous shooter/scorer who plays extremely hard and will do everything in his power to be successful.

NBA draft.net:

Hield is one of the elite players in college basketball this season, and he’s done so by improving his game tremendously throughout his four years ... This kind of work ethic, and the results on the court present a huge draw when looking to draft a player ... He’s an NBA ready 3 point marksman, and scorer, and an emerging ball handler, who is clearly looking to become a more versatile combo guard at the next level ... He doesn’t have great size for the NBA, but his wingspan, athletic ability, and drive compensate for not being 6’6’’... I feel Hield has real potential in the NBA to score the basketball, and very early in his career ... His ceiling will be dictated on if and when he feels comfortable running an NBA offense ... If Buddy can keep improving, he has a very high ceiling, if Buddy’s current model is closer to his peak, then I feel he’s still a lottery worthy NBA draft pick ...


Sounds like more than a role player to me.

most likely he's done improving.  Players usually make their biggest leaps before 23.  And nobody is doubting he can be effective.  Doug McDermott shot well this year also.   Pretty much everything I've seen says Hield will be a quality role player somewhere on the nick young to Jj reddick spectrum.