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

[crimson_stallion]

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

You're missing the point. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference here?

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

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

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

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

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

[crimson_stallion]

If buddy has such great peripheral abilities aside from shooting, why wasn't he drafted sooner? It's not like with Lillard or McCollum where they were dominating at lower tier schools.

Buddy played for a pretty high level program and didn't stand out as a draft prospect until his senior year. Why is that?

Does it matter?   Guy can ball.

If buddy has such great peripheral abilities aside from shooting, why wasn't he drafted sooner? It's not like with Lillard or McCollum where they were dominating at lower tier schools.

Buddy played for a pretty high level program and didn't stand out as a draft prospect until his senior year. Why is that?

That part doesn't bother me.  Why do some NBA players make a leap after a few years?

Hield taking four years to stand out does matter. For one, he was a 22-year-old whose superior competition was presumably a bunch of 19-year-old underclassmen. That leaves the possibility that Buddy only dominated because of a significant physical advantage, which he will certainly not have in the pros. Also, if it was simply a skill-translation problem, if it took Hield 3 years to adjust to college basketball, how long will it take him to adjust to NBA basketball? If his ceiling is JJ Reddick and it takes him 3-4 years to reach that ceiling, what will people be saying on this board for the next three years? What if he doesn't hit his ceiling or it takes longer than 3 years? How old is Hield then? What happens in-between? Because then you're at a situation where Bender or some other developmental prospect with a higher ceiling looks like a better selection. It's where the "OMG why didn't we take Giannis the GREEK FREAK over solid role player Kelly Olynyk?" threads come from.

Brown, Simmons, Ingram and Labissiere are probably have probably the most physically gifted players in the draft lottery, and those guys are all young...so how in god's name would Hield's age give him a 'superior physical advantage' over the younger players??

It doesn't. 

Hield has the physical tools (size, length, strength, quickness) to excel at the NBA level, but he is by no means physically "dominant".

The reason Hield has made such a huge jump is because he has an incredible work ethic, and her has worked tirelessly on improving on his weaknesses.  He's worked on his ball handling, his decision making, his shooting, his ability to create offense off the dribble and finish at the basket. 

These are all areas Hield has worked hard on, and has dramatically improved on as a result.  It's these massive improvements that have pushed him from being a solid player, to being an absolutely dominant one. 

There isn't a single player in the draft who dominated the college game offensively the way Hield did - not even the physically elite guys (like Simmons, Ingram and Brown) came close to impacting the game offensively as much as Hield did.  You can argue about whether you feel that will translate or not, but you'd be a fool to ignore it entirely. 

See, you look at Hield and you see a guy who has proven he's willing to work to get better.  A guy who has shown he will not 'settle'.  A guy who has a clear desire to be great, and the willingness to work to make that happen.  There is no fear of him not doing that, because he's already shown it.

You look at guys like Murray however - he really hasn't proven he's got the skills to be able to produce against NBA defence.  People fall back on the fact that he's 19, but we really haven't seen any evidence that he's going to put in the effort to get better - or that he's even capable of become much more than he is now.

How do you feel about taking Hield at #3?
I too am not convinced on Murray but I won't be shattered if we take him at #3, although I'd prefer Hield or Bender.

 But yeah, it's Hield's work ethic that stands out above everyone to me.
Here's a guy that is in the Kobe/Ray Allen department of tireless workers who spend every waking minute trying to get better and improve their games.

I think Hield and Dunn are HANDS DOWN the best players available at #3, and I would be thrilled if we took either.  I would lean towards Hield though - would be absolutely wrapped if we got him at #3.

If we take Bender or Murray at #3 then I will close my eyes and pray for the best, because I think both guys are huge risks taken at #3 - about the equivalent of spending 3/4 of your weekly pay on a lottery ticket.

[moiso]

Everything sounds better when you say boom after it.

[Sixth Man]

Love Hield, but I think Murray is a terrific alternative.  However, I'm happy to accept any pick at #3 that Danny makes, even Bender (aaarrgh!). 

[PaulP34]

Heild at #3. Bender is not worth the risk.no way am I taking that risk. Heild is a top 10 player in 2 years and a top 5 player in 3 years. You don't let that kind of talent slip through the cracks because someone else might be great. No, you draft the guy that everyone knows is going to be great

[elcotte]

Heild at #3. Bender is not worth the risk.no way am I taking that risk. Heild is a top 10 player in 2 years and a top 5 player in 3 years. You don't let that kind of talent slip through the cracks because someone else might be great. No, you draft the guy that everyone knows is going to be great

Not everyone knows he's going to be great. He wasn't anywhere near great in his last game.
There is risk to both Heild and Bender.

[PaulP34]

Your basing this off one game ? You can't be that .... The kid is the best shooter in college. He's everything we need. Work ethic is best in what's out there. I like Murray. I like Brown. We r not drafting Dunn so that's an automatic no. I don't wanna draft Bender. I don't see how you can say there's any chance in Buddy Heild. The kid is as automatic as there is. I hope we Draft Buddy that's a sure pick

[mctyson]

If buddy has such great peripheral abilities aside from shooting, why wasn't he drafted sooner? It's not like with Lillard or McCollum where they were dominating at lower tier schools.

Buddy played for a pretty high level program and didn't stand out as a draft prospect until his senior year. Why is that?

He substantially improved through his 4 years at OU, and made a huge leap as a Senior.  You know, that's kind of the way it used to work prior to everyone leaving after 1 season.

[PaulP34]

If buddy has such great peripheral abilities aside from shooting, why wasn't he drafted sooner? It's not like with Lillard or McCollum where they were dominating at lower tier schools.

Buddy played for a pretty high level program and didn't stand out as a draft prospect until his senior year. Why is that?

He substantially improved through his 4 years at OU, and made a huge leap as a Senior.  You know, that's kind of the way it used to work prior to everyone leaving after 1 season.

Tp - Buddy Heild has shown his ability to climb up the boards. He's done so at the right time and is showing he is about to blossom into a top 10 talent in the NBA and I feel Buddy will be a top 5 talent in 3 years. You cannot let that pass by. Buddy is clearly a much better for the Celtics. I am hearing from people close to Celtics management that Buddy Heild is the clear top choice with Murray in a close 2nd. But if Buddy comes in and lights it up for his workout that Danny's mind is made. I like the thought of Buddy Heild and Avery Bradley both on the court at the same time shooting 3's which leaves Crowder and Isaiah to work the floor.

[LarBrd33]

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

You're missing the point. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cltc5]

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

You're missing the point. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love hield at 3, but got to thinking about that today.  Murray is 19and possible a top 5 already.  He's got a better chance to bloom.  Interesting.  Oh what a fun moth it shall be indeed

[LooseCannon]

The track record of guys who go from projected possible late first-round pick at best in the preseason to top ten pick is poor.  (Kaminsky, Stauskas, Bennett)  As a college senior, Hield is much closer to "what you see is what you get" and is significantly less likely to improve than younger players, with less room for improvement.  There should also be some concern that Hield over-achieved and is due for some regression to the mean.

As a high-character, hard-working, mature player with a high-level, versatile offensive skill set, it is very easy to see Hield as the guard equivalent of Frank Kaminsky and appealing to the same sorts of people who were high on Kaminsky last year.

[Celtics18]

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

You're missing the point. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally I like Murray as well (heck I even like Bender).  Every time I watch a Buddy Hield video, though, I become re-convinced that this young man is going to be special.  Just watching videos, and what I remember from watching their games, Murray seems less explosive and athletic than Hield.  Murray sure is a smooth scorer, though; silky. 

it's going to be interesting that's for sure.  In the end, it'll probably be Bender (or Jaylen Brown--who seems to be lagging in the CB popularity contest).

[Celtics18]

The track record of guys who go from projected possible late first-round pick at best in the preseason to top ten pick is poor.  (Kaminsky, Stauskas, Bennett)  As a college senior, Hield is much closer to "what you see is what you get" and is significantly less likely to improve than younger players, with less room for improvement.  There should also be some concern that Hield over-achieved and is due for some regression to the mean.

As a high-character, hard-working, mature player with a high-level, versatile offensive skill set, it is very easy to see Hield as the guard equivalent of Frank Kaminsky and appealing to the same sorts of people who were high on Kaminsky last year.

"The same sorts of people" . . . nice.  Actually, despite a very vocal contingent of Frank the Tank naysayers, Kaminsky actually had a very solid rookie season.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Jaylen Brown is IMO the riskiest pick in the first 10 picks. 

Anyways, I am pretty much convinced that we draft Bender at this point.  Every board for the Suns and Wolves are also hoping he falls to them, with both happy with Murray as a consolation prize.  None of them want Brown and Hield isn't nearly as big with their fan bases.  I think Brown falls to 10 or so, which will probably be good for him.