Can Someone Emphatically Against Bender Explain Why?

[crimson_stallion]

Now I'm about to say something that should not be considered a direct comparison. When Kawhi Leonard came into the league he was also one of those guys who wasn't flashy, had sound fundamentals but pretty much played within his game. I see Bender as the same kind of character. I don't see him reaching the same heights and they play different positions however I see some similarities in that they are both Swiss army knife guys. They have multiple things they can do on the court, multiple ways of impacting a game. They can score, they can defend, they show the intelligence to get out fast on the break or step across as a help defender.

Bender will never be a ball dominant offensive player like so many of the stars we have seen. Stars come in all forms though. With where we are right now it should be easier to develop a guy like Bender than a Hield or a Murray. There are threads developing again with the trade Bradley theme. DA and Stevens are not doing that. They aren't shipping out the most experienced guard on our team for a rookie. Whoever comes in will have a tough time getting into the rotation but Bender has a chance to slot in straight away. The PF spot is open, we have seen that Brad likes to run, he likes to switch. Bender brings those skills.

If he evaluates well in the workouts, everything is moot till then, he fits too well with our future to let him slide. Shooters can be found in FA if we need them. I don't know why DA continues to ignore it but there have been several good options the last few years. Guys like Morrow or Wright. We shouldn't feel pressured to add a shooter in the draft.

I get what you are saying, but to be honest I think Hield and Dunn have a far better chance at cracking the rotation then Bender - regardless of our frontcourt hole.

First of all, we don't even know if Bender will play next year - he might stay in Europe (no idea about contractual situation).

Secondly, our lack of scoring and shooting was the #1 thing that got us knocked out in the first round this year.  Jerebko and Amir were actually doing a pretty solid job of holding the fort on the boards and on defence in the front-court positions...but our lack of scoring and shooting absolutely killed us. 

Atlanta completely ignored Smart and Crowder out on the perimeter, and they just threw 2-3 guys at Thomas every time he touched the ball - he never had a chance.  The reason they could afford to do that is because we didn't have another scorer or shooter who could make them pay.

On the other side of things, Boston had trouble defending Atlanta at times because we absolutely could not leave Korver for an instant - the handful of times our guys lost sight of him he killed us with a three point dagger.   His presence out there had a major impact on our defence because we were basically playing 4-man team defence, since one guy was permanently locked on to Korver.

If we had a shooter/scorer like Hield on the court, there is no way in hell Atlanta could have risked leaving him open in order to throw three guys at Thomas.  Having Bradley out there alone would have changed that series because Atlanta would have had to respect his shot.  Having Hield (who is an absolute lights out shooter) out there would have forced Atlanta to stick a guy on him like glue 24-7 (just like we did with Korver) and would have completely changed the course of the series.

You just can't begin to comprehend the type of impact a guy like Hield can have on a team - a guy who (like Curry) can hit contested 25 footers practically with his eyes closed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uK4EwZfZ1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOpw-WTPavc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMSFYVKH1rY

Just take a look at some of the shots this guy hits - can you seriously tell me he looks like anything less then a future star? His shooting is absolutely out of this world.  He's also much more athletic (and much better at getting to the basket) then people give him credit for - he's far from being a one dimensional shooter, the man can flat out score.

Guys here are always talking about how badly we need a guy like Korver / Reddick / Booker, and the unfortunate reality of how hard it is to get your hands on a shooter that good.  Well we have one right there for the taking, and it would be one hell of a shame to let that opportunity walk away.

I'm going to go on record right now and say this - any team outside of the top two who passes on Hield is going to end up regretting it in a massive, massive way.  I won't be at all shocked if he turns out better than Ingram, Simmons or maybe even both. Not saying it's probable, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.  There is no better scorer in this draft - period.

[kraidstar]

rather, the question is whether hield worth the #3 pick in this draft? here, my opinion is no, he is not worth it. at #6? no brainer, take him unless someone better has dropped.

hield does score and shoot, as you mention. but the rest of his skills are pedestrian (see? i expressly did not say he sucks eggs.    ) his ball handling is mediocre, and even if he improves i see no indication of it being superior. his defense is passable, and might improve. in the small sample i watched, he regularly made questionable decisions on when to drive, when to pass. he is athletic, but overly so.

so, is he terrible? heck no. is he worth the #3 pick? heck no.

i think murray will be the better basketball player and help the celtics more than hield. murry shots the ball very well and also brings better skills to the table. he is the better player, period.

bender? no brainer for me. i have long thought highly of bender's potential and would be willing to roll the dice on him.

dunn? obviously dunn is the better basketball player and will have a better career in the nba, at least to me and many others.

so....i dont say hield stinks or is terrible. instead, i am saying that i see at least 5 players in the draft whom i would prefer and i think will be better.

I just don't understand how anybody can see those other guys (aside from Dunn) as being more worthy of a #3 spot then Hield.

Lets start with Murray. 

In terms of skills Murray (like Hield) is a mediocre ball handler and a mediocre passer. He's a good shooter, but doesn't have Hield's "out of the park" range.  Physically he is the same height and weight as Hield, but he lacks Hield's length and quickness.

With his medicore ball handling, mediocre ball athleticism, mediocre length and (comparatively) limited range, how does Murray project to get his shots off against quicker and more physical NBA defenders?  I think he'll struggle to do so unless you run him off a million screens the way we did with Ray Allen once he got older and lost his athleticism. 

How will Murray ever become even "serviceable" as a defensive player?  Unlikely he ever will, because (at 6'5" with a 6'6" wingspan and poor lateral quickness) he just doesn't have the tools to defend even remotely quick shooting guards - never mind switching on to point guards.

He sure as hell isn't going to be able to get to the basket (or finish there) against NBA defence.  If Marcus Smart (who is significantly longer, quicker AND stronger then Murray) struggles to get to the rim, then Murry hasn't got a hope in hell.

All signs point to him becoming a major disappointment and busting out as a three point shooting role player...since I just can't see how anything else in his game could possible translate into the NBA.   

I've already covered Bender, so I won't go any further on him.

Dunn I rate up there with Hield - I think the two are about on part as far as potential goes.  Dunn is a better all-round package no doubt about it, but Demar Derozan is living proof that you do not need to be a good ball handler or passer to become a star in the NBA.  If you can score at an elite level (which Dunn definitely can) and hold your own on defence (which Hield has the potential to do) then you can be a star.

Ultimately I still think Dunn is probably a safer pick, but I lean towards Hield for us simply because we REALLY need a deadly shooter / scorer to take pressure off Thomas, and Hield has the potential to become a Korver / Curry calibre shooter and a legit 20 PPG scorer. 

I could find space for Dunn but there are complications in terms of where we would fit him in, and we don't really have a huge need for a guy with his skill set.  Having a guy with his talent certainly wouldn't go astray, and I'd be perfectly happy if we ended up with him, I just think Hield makes a little bit more sense to us. 

It's also important to note just how much Hield has improved over the past 2-3 years.  He's taken a far bigger jump then anybody else I know of from one year to the next, which is a testament to his willingness to recognise his faults and put work into improving them.  That's a huge plus in my eyes that cannot be ignored, because if he improved that much in one year who knows how good he can be after 2 or 3 years under Brad Stevens.

So definitely thrilled with either Dunn or Hield - honestly I'd be pretty much equally stoked with either of those guys. 

Murry for me falls into the Bender category of being a high risk guy with questionable upside. Given the choice between those two guys, I'm honestly not sure which I'd take.  I might actually take Bender over Murray because I really am that worried about Murray becoming a complete bust - versus Bender who I feel should become a solid 3+D big man at the very least.  I see Murray as a guy who might not even crack an NBA rotation 3 years from now (e.g. Fredette), and that scares me.

agree on murray, i see a guy who reminds me a little too much of nik stauskas or james young - can execute and look pretty, but might struggle when things get dirty in the big boy league. IMO he's a little better than those guys were at the same point in their careers - just concerned about his makeup.

love hield, he looks like a gamer with incredible shooting touch, he'll manufacture points like a boss. draft express claims he had the 4th-highest points per possession of nay player in the NCAA on guarded jumpshots. he really looks like he has the skills to beat NBA defenders.

i also like jaylen brown - his slashing is unreal, gets to the line a ton. love the athleticism, if he ever improves his jumpshot he'll be very, very good.

[kozlodoev]

Hield's offensive game (other than the three-point shooting) looks like it won't translate very well to the next level though. He doesn't have great length or athleticism, and his moves are predictable (pull-up going left, drive to the hoop going right).

[crimson_stallion]

Hield's offensive game (other than the three-point shooting) looks like it won't translate very well to the next level though. He doesn't have great length or athleticism, and his moves are predictable (pull-up going left, drive to the hoop going right).

How is a 6'5" height and a 6'9" wingspan not great length for an NBA shooting guard??

Looking at the videos I just posted, I fail to see how people question his athleticism either.  He's extremely fast in the open floor, and seems to get up quite high with his vertical, and he also seems to have more than enough quickness to to get to the basket at the NBA level if he can improve his handle.

Remeber that just because Hield is old for a rookie, doesn't mean he's old for a player.  He is still only 22 years old, and he has made significant improvements on his ball handling this season - it's pretty safe to expect that he will only improve futher.

So many people look at older prospects as if they have no potential because of their age, but NBA players tend to not come close to reaching their true potential until they get to the age of 25 or 26 - that's still a LONG way to go for guys like Hield and Dunn.

In fact you could argue that a 22 year old with Hield's scoring talent and work ethic may well have higher potential then an 18 year old who is still quite raw and who's work ethic and motor is not nearly as high (e.g. Ingram), or an 18 year old who is still incredibly raw (Bender).

Hield doesn't have as long to develop, but he's so good already that he also doesn't really NEED as long to develop.  Hield right now is already at least 2 years more NBA ready then Bender is - maybe even more then that.  Hell, when Bender and Murray get to the age of 22 they may well still not be as dominant as Hield is right now - or as overall polished as Dunn is.

[crimson_stallion]

love hield, he looks like a gamer with incredible shooting touch, he'll manufacture points like a boss. draft express claims he had the 4th-highest points per possession of nay player in the NCAA on guarded jumpshots. he really looks like he has the skills to beat NBA defenders.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Hield actually averaged 1.54 Points Per FGA this season, which is absolutely ridiculous for a guard.

Steph Curry averaged 1.49 Points Per FGA this season for the Warriors, so that should give you some idea of how utterly insane that number is.

His peers by comparison:

Simmons: 1.64 Pts Per FGA (absolutely out of this world)
Ingram: 1.29 Pts Per FGA
Dunn: 1.31 Pts Per FGA
Murray: 1.34 Pts Per FGA
Brown: 1.32 Pts Per FGA

Hield's efficiency is largely due to the fact that he averaged four 3PM per game (on 46% shooting) and had a 33% Free Thow Rate (on 88% shooting).

[mmmmm]

I think there's a separation between Bender lovers/ haters that stems from one basic preference:

The willingness to gamble on a potential franchise guy.
The lovers see his size, stroke, agility, footwork and work ethic and see that there's potential to be a franchise player somewhere there.

The haters don't want this gamble. They want someone who is going to contribute earlier and isn't as much of a risk.

Personally for me, Simmons and Ingram were the only two in the top 5 that were pretty much a lock to be All Stars.
The rest of the draft (at least the ncaa guys) is solid but there aren't any other standout 'franchise' guys.

Bender, at 18 yrs old, is a big risk, but for the lovers, he's worth it because we desperately need a franchise player.
Humans with his physical attributes and mental aptitude do not come around very often and that's what's worth taking a risk on.

Basically for me, I'd be happy with Buddy Hield and he could certainly be an All Star. However I'm not really convinced he has the physical make up to be a franchise guy. Bender has that and it's in his size, length and agility-however risky that may be.

Good post.

I feel nearly the same way. 

My own personal preference is that we trade the pick(s) for a star player.    That would be my Plan A.

But if that isn't available to do, and if we ARE going to use the picks, I lean heavily towards drafting for as much 'upside' as possible.  We have enough picks and a strong enough core that we should, imo, roll the dice.

The problem I have with some of the 'safer' pick choices is that an 'NBA ready' rookie taken in this draft is not going to get us over the hump and past Lebron and the Cavs.   Buddy Hield or Jamal Murray are great shooters, but they are not getting us past the Cavs.

So unless we make a trade and FA signings that are going to immediately make us contenders to get out of the East in the next year or two, I would rather 'go long' with the picks and take the player(s) that Danny thinks will have the most upside 2-3 years from now.

If he thinks that is Hield or Murray, I'm totally cool with that.  If he thinks it is Bender or Brown or Dunn, that's cool with me too.

If he instead trades the pick for a young big like say Okafor, I'm cool with that as well.   There is a lot of upside in that path as well.

I just don' want him to try to simply 'address a need' for this current roster and pick some rookie who looks right now like something we needed for last year's team   Because depending on rookies to fill a need is pretty much a lousy, awful strategy in the NBA.

[ederson]

If he thinks that is Hield or Murray, I'm totally cool with that.  If he thinks it is Bender or Brown or Dunn, that's cool with me too.

Well at the end of the day DA`s opinion is all that matters. It`s very easy to talk about taking risks without actually having to live with the consequences of your choice.

BTW since he still has games to play you can check here his production http://maccabi.co.il/season.asp?cYear=2016&lang=en

[Eddie20]

You sound like someone who wants to keep taking mid-range jumpers that you're comfortable with because you're afraid of missing a three even when the math says that's the higher value shot.

And most Bender fans sound like someone who stubbornly insists on chucking threes even though they shoot .250.

http://basketball.realgm.com/player/Dragan-Bender/Summary/41582

I think you mean 40%, and that's not from college 3 distance either.

I think you need to google "figurative language", then reread my post and what I was responding to.

I admit I didn't read any of the previous discussion before responding to the percentage part, which you've actually posted several times incorrectly. So my apologies for thinking you were once again posting misinformation.

[mmmmm]

What, exactly, is the upside ceiling of Buddy Hield?

Some invoke Steph Curry.  Others invoke J.J. Redick.

Redick actually had better overall college numbers.   Hield narrowly beat him out in 3PT% in his senior season (45% to 'only' 42% for JJR), but Redick posted far more impressive numbers in his freshman - junior seasons.  Hield shot 23.8%, 38.6% & 35.9% over those three years, while Redick shot 39.9%, 39.5% & 40.3%.  On a very large volume of shots.

Redick scored more points each season and dished out far more assists in three of their four college seasons.  He also got to the FT line more frequently all four years and shot better from the line all seasons except the senior one (where Buddy edges him 88.0% to 86.3%).

Hield has a much longer wingspan, though Redick is slightly taller.

Redick started out a little rough in Orlando but eventually became a very good team defender - Stan Van Gundy has commented on how he came to value JJR's team defense over more athletic on-ball defenders.   Doc obviously puts a premium on defense and trusts him for heavy minutes.

He's become a very, very valuable SG on one of the better teams in the league and overall has proven to have a great NBA career.

Is that Buddy's ceiling?  Or is there reason to hope for more?

Don't get me wrong.  If we got a player out of this draft as valuable as Redick, that would be great.   That's a win in the big scheme of things.   There have been many times over the last decade when I have hoped Danny could make him a Celtic.

I'm just trying to surmise just how high Buddy or Jamal Murray's ceiling really is.

[kozlodoev]

Hield's offensive game (other than the three-point shooting) looks like it won't translate very well to the next level though. He doesn't have great length or athleticism, and his moves are predictable (pull-up going left, drive to the hoop going right).

How is a 6'5" height and a 6'9" wingspan not great length for an NBA shooting guard??

Looking at the videos I just posted, I fail to see how people question his athleticism either.  He's extremely fast in the open floor, and seems to get up quite high with his vertical, and he also seems to have more than enough quickness to to get to the basket at the NBA level if he can improve his handle.

Looks like we see different things. From what I could gather from the DX scouting video, he didn't seem to have a lot of elevation on any of his shots: the jumper is pretty much almost a set shot, and finishing around the basket usually involves some sort of a spin move or other crafty way to get horizontal separation.

This may work in the NCAA, but there are legitimate question marks about how it's going to translate in an environment where the players are bigger, meaner, and more athletic.

And no, I don't think 6'5 is great length for a SG -- anything shorter than 6'5 is usually considered undersized, so that's at best average. At the very least, he seems to play small -- no evidence he can rise over people to shoot or finish, and that's a red flag for me.

[mmmmm]

Here's why:  His game, based upon what I've seen, will not translate well to the NBA... even if he were to gain muscle.

Shooting:  I think Kelly Olynyk is a faster shooter and dribbler, and Kelly is thus far unable to get separation for a clean shot.  All too often Kelly has a very nice pump fake, and where a normally fast player could make a one or two step move (or put up a shot very quickly w/o dribbling), Kelly slowly drives and the defenders are able to get back into position... leading to a Kelly pass.  The same goes for Jerekbo.  Bender's form does not look as good as Kelly's either, so simply taking more shots in the gym will not improve any of this.

Rebounding:  His form is poor in this category.  He fails to block out, and when he does he finds himself directly under the hoop or out-muscled by guys.  Players in the NBA will kill him around the hoop in rebounding.

Speed: Players in the NBA will get out on a fast break before Bender can regroup.  He's probably on the slow end of 7 footers, despite weighing some 40lbs less.

Mismatch:  We like to think of him as a talented 7 footer who can create mismatches on the perimeter, but he's just as likely to create a mismatch against himself (bigger/stronger/faster players)

Production:  As others have highlighted, he hasn't produced much yet.  While the players in his league are talented, they don't appear to be nearly as fast or as strong as the players in the NBA.


He has some attributes I like, but a #3 pick in the draft should come with a hell of a lot more than what Bender is bringing to the table.

I think this is a good post and raises the right questions.

I agree with your concerns about whether he has the dribble & quickness of shot to get a shot off as a ball handler.  I don't see a lot of evidence in his play this season to suggest he can.  But then, he really hasn't been used in a way to raise that opportunity.  He hasn't been used as a 'point forward' at all by Maccabi Tel Aviv.  If he has that potential, I don't see it in his IBSL league play.   He at least seems to be a solid 3PT shooter on catch & shoot plays, though.

His rebounding has been lame.  He grabs the balls he's near, so that's good.  But he doesn't go after the ball and take it from people.   His rebounding numbers were better in Juniors, so it's possible this is just him being too deferential.

I disagree on his speed.  I think he is quicker than you are giving him credit for.  In fact, his ability to get up in transition is the very first 'strength' that DraftExpress discusses.

I concur that whether he will pose a mismatch advantage is questionable.  But if he can shoot open threes, all he has to do on offense is stretch the floor to provide at least some positive value.  On the defensive side, I don't see him as a good match against true centers until/unless he puts on some more beef.   I see him as more of a 4 than a 5.

The production question has been addressed repeatedly elsewhere.

[PickNRoll]

Hield's offensive game (other than the three-point shooting) looks like it won't translate very well to the next level though. He doesn't have great length or athleticism, and his moves are predictable (pull-up going left, drive to the hoop going right).

How is a 6'5" height and a 6'9" wingspan not great length for an NBA shooting guard??

Looking at the videos I just posted, I fail to see how people question his athleticism either.  He's extremely fast in the open floor, and seems to get up quite high with his vertical, and he also seems to have more than enough quickness to to get to the basket at the NBA level if he can improve his handle.

Looks like we see different things. From what I could gather from the DX scouting video, he didn't seem to have a lot of elevation on any of his shots: the jumper is pretty much almost a set shot, and finishing around the basket usually involves some sort of a spin move or other crafty way to get horizontal separation.

This may work in the NCAA, but there are legitimate question marks about how it's going to translate in an environment where the players are bigger, meaner, and more athletic.

And no, I don't think 6'5 is great length for a SG -- anything shorter than 6'5 is usually considered undersized, so that's at best average. At the very least, he seems to play small -- no evidence he can rise over people to shoot or finish, and that's a red flag for me.

Agree.  Hield measured 6’3.75’’  barefoot at the combine but "plays small".  Dunn on the other hand measured 6'3" but looks much more comfortable in traffic and finishing around the rim.  His burst opens up the floor.  Hield doesn't have that extra gear.

[LooseCannon]

How is a 6'5" height and a 6'9" wingspan not great length for an NBA shooting guard??

What is the average?  My idea of great length/height would be large enough to be an average-sized SF.

[PickNRoll]

How is a 6'5" height and a 6'9" wingspan not great length for an NBA shooting guard??

What is the average?  My idea of great length/height would be large enough to be an average-sized SF.

Average height of shooting guards in the 2015 draft was 6'5.6", fwiw.