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

[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.

"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.

Did he have the sort of rookie season that made you think he has future All-Star potential?  I think it's reasonable to say that Hield has the same star potential as Kaminsky.  If it is important for the Celtics to maximize their chances of getting a future star at #3, I think they probably need to go with someone who is likely to have more bust potential than Hield.  If it is more important to avoid a bust, even if you become much more likely to get a role player who may not start, then maybe Hield should be preferred over some of the other possibilities.

[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.

Did he have the sort of rookie season that made you think he has future All-Star potential?  I think it's reasonable to say that Hield has the same star potential as Kaminsky.  If it is important for the Celtics to maximize their chances of getting a future star at #3, I think they probably need to go with someone who is likely to have more bust potential than Hield.  If it is more important to avoid a bust, even if you become much more likely to get a role player who may not start, then maybe Hield should be preferred over some of the other possibilities.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Kaminsky being an All Star.  And, I definitely wouldn't rule it out with Hield.

[dreamgreen]

Well I'm getting more excited about the pick. The more I hear and read I believe we'll get a good player. Someone that sooner or later depending on who they pick will make the team better.

[PaulP34]

Drafting Dragon Bender is a mistake. We need a guy who could light up the perimeter. That's Buddy Heild. He's being considered to have no ceiling. There's no limits to his progression. Tim Duncan played all 4 years, D-Wade played all 4 years. Buddy is an automatic star. He's got the IT factor. Murray is one guy I wouldn't be upset about if we draft at #3. I like Murray a lot. Bender no, I hate the thought of drafting Bender when we got Jamal Murray and Buddy Heild in our pocket. Buddy Heild is a no brainer man he's being compared to Curry and I think he will absolutely be as good as Curry in a few years. You don't let that kind of it factor go by you and draft a kid who is unproven such as Bender. I will be extremely upset if Bender is called at #3. Buddy Heild baby 👍 automatic offense and king of the perimeter. A player we so desperately need...

[PaulP34]

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.

Did he have the sort of rookie season that made you think he has future All-Star potential?  I think it's reasonable to say that Hield has the same star potential as Kaminsky.  If it is important for the Celtics to maximize their chances of getting a future star at #3, I think they probably need to go with someone who is likely to have more bust potential than Hield.  If it is more important to avoid a bust, even if you become much more likely to get a role player who may not start, then maybe Hield should be preferred over some of the other possibilities.

Buddy Heild avge 25ppg he's a no brainer. If u can't see that then u would be a horrible drafter. No thanks

[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.

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.

I think my earlier post showed that there's been like 1 guy in the past 13 years ... Brandon Roy... and he only lasted 4 years in the NBA for other reasons.

Typically, players who need to play four years of College ball to get drafted have lower ceilings.  Hield might be a good player.  Who knows.  Maybe his stats translate to a player who can average 12-14 points with decent shooting percentages and improve minimally.   But if you can draft a guy a few years younger who will get you 10-12 points with slightly worse shooting percentages as a rookie, but has a much higher ceiling, you take that kid.

It's pretty clear that Buddy Hield didn't compare well as a Freshman to the top freshman in this class.  Conventional wisdom says he's probably done the bulk of his developing.   It's the same argument people have every year when Boston ends up taking an old rookie like Kelly Olynyk.  Generally, you get what you get with those guys.  So while Hield might have been slightly better than these Freshman coming up, ask yourself what these Freshman will look like 4 years from now after development. 

If your an ivy league school giving out an academic scholarship, do you want the 17 year old who got a 3.6GPA... or do you want 20 year old who failed Senior year of high school 3 times before finally putting up a 4.0GPA?  I mean, yeah... technically the 20 year old had better scores, but he had 4 times to figure it out.

[flybono]

Buddy Bust

Nobody heard of this kid until the tourney..

[max215]

Buddy Bust

Nobody heard of this kid until the tourney..

That is completely false.

[PhoSita]

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.

Why not take Murray, who was nearly as good at nineteen and reportedly has great intangibles as well?

[MBunge]

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.

Why not take Murray, who was nearly as good at nineteen and reportedly has great intangibles as well?

Let's start with two names.

Michael Beasley.  O.J. Mayo.

The 2nd and 3rd pick of the 2008 draft.  Freshmen who, I believe, were even more highly rated than Murray is this year.

And here's a third name.  Courtney Lee.  A senior taken with the 22nd pick in 2008.

Mike

[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.

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.

In response to your first question - is it typical for players to take leaps of that maqnitude from one season to the next?  Absolutely not.

In response to your second point, it's VERY debatable that Murray is "80% as good" as Hield (who is 22, not 23) when you look at both guys in the context of the NBA game.  Hield's talents are far more likely to translate at the NBA level because he has NBA calibre size, range and athleticism. 

Allow me to present a good example.

Marcus Smart's PER40 numbers jumped from 18.3 Points, 5.0 ast, 6.9 reb and 40%/29%/77% shooting in his first season (as a 19 year old) to 22.0 pts, 5.8 ast, 7.2 reb and 42% / 30% / 73% shooting in his second season (as a 20 year old). 

That's a pretty modest improvement, with the only significant gain being a 20% increase in total scoring per 40 minutes,

When he was in the draft, the biggest knocks on Marcus Smart were question marks about his shooting, his ball handling, his passing, and his athleticism (would he be able to get past NBA defenders and score over NBA length?).

Now he's been in the NBA for two seasons, and he has yet to average more than 10 PPG. Why?  Because he lacks the quickness to blow by NBA guards, he lacks the ball handling to make up for that lack of quickness, and when he DOES get to the basket he struggles to finish against length.

With that in mind, you can now take in to account the fact that Smart is a similar height to Murray and about on par as a ball handler...but is significantly longer, stronger, and more athletic.  If Smart can't blow by NBA defenders or score at the basket, then how will Murray?

Yeah I know he has the advantage od being an excellent here point shooter (which Smart obvious isn't) but if he can't get to - or finish at - the rim at the NBA level then his three point shot is going to be about the only offensive tool he'll be able to make use of, and that pretty much limits him to being a spot up shooting role player (e.g Stauskas). 

Of course being a physically challenged shooter doesn't always mean a guy is doomed to become a complete bust - JJ Reddick has carved out a very solid career as a quality, starting caliber shooting guard (he's averaged > 14 PPG in 5 of his last 5 seasons) so it doesn't mean Murray is going to be a terrible player - it just means that his ceiling is probably limited to being a solid-to-good starter.

The thing with these prospects is you need to mentally remove them from the NCAA environment and try to envision them in the NBA environment, against NBA competition.  Murray looks like he's not THAT far off Hield if you look at is college stats, but that's because his most significant weaknesses (lack of length, lateral quickness and outright athleticism) isn't a major factor at the NCAA level. 

It's a very different story at the NBA level, where average sized guys who lack length / athleticism / ball handling tend to struggle to become anything more than solid-to-good starters. 

Everybody is hating on Hield because he is 22 years old, as if that somehow means the guy has passed the point of being able to improve. 

* Avery Bradley didn't look like a starting calibre player until he was around 22 years old

* Jae Crowder was nobody until he hit 24, now every team in the league seems to want him

* .Isaiah Thomas was since as a one-dimensional player until he took the next step at 24 years old and became an All-Star.

* Draymond Green looked like a nobody when he entered the league at 22 years old, and continued to look like a nobody until finally broke out at the age of 24.

*  Marc Gasol was 24 when he entered the NBA, and the Grizzlies were the laughing stock of the NBA when they traded for him

* Dwyane Wade was 22 when he entered the league, and nobody considered him to be on par with the likes of Lebron, Milicic, Carmelo and Bosh - he ended up better than anybody on that list bar Lebron and MAYBE Carmelo

Anybody writing off a prospect just because he's 22 years old is out of their mind.  It's like people forget the old Ewing/Jordan/Hakeem days - when all the guys used to stay in college for 2-3 years before they'd come in to the NBA.  Just crazy. 

[chambers]

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.

I think my earlier post showed that there's been like 1 guy in the past 13 years ... Brandon Roy... and he only lasted 4 years in the NBA for other reasons.

Typically, players who need to play four years of College ball to get drafted have lower ceilings.  Hield might be a good player.  Who knows.  Maybe his stats translate to a player who can average 12-14 points with decent shooting percentages and improve minimally.   But if you can draft a guy a few years younger who will get you 10-12 points with slightly worse shooting percentages as a rookie, but has a much higher ceiling, you take that kid.

It's pretty clear that Buddy Hield didn't compare well as a Freshman to the top freshman in this class.  Conventional wisdom says he's probably done the bulk of his developing.   It's the same argument people have every year when Boston ends up taking an old rookie like Kelly Olynyk.  Generally, you get what you get with those guys.  So while Hield might have been slightly better than these Freshman coming up, ask yourself what these Freshman will look like 4 years from now after development. 

If your an ivy league school giving out an academic scholarship, do you want the 17 year old who got a 3.6GPA... or do you want 20 year old who failed Senior year of high school 3 times before finally putting up a 4.0GPA?  I mean, yeah... technically the 20 year old had better scores, but he had 4 times to figure it out.

I dunno where you're getting this one guy Brandon Roy thing from.
There are many more 4 year guys that became All Stars.
There are also plenty of 3 year guys. The current MVP is a 3rd year guy and so is his championship running mate Klay Thompson.
Draymond Green is also a 4 year player.
Other 4 year guys:

David West (2003, Xavier)
Josh Howard (2003, Wake Forest)
Kyle Korver (2003, Creighton)
Jameer Nelson (2004, Saint Joseph)
Danny Granger (2005, New Mexico)
David Lee (2005, Florida)
Brandon Roy (2006, Washington)
Roy Hibbert (2008, Georgetown)
Jimmy Butler (2011, Marquette)
Damian Lillard (2012, Weber state)

Those are just 4 year players. Change it to 3 year players and the list includes even more studs.

Anyway, just pointing out that the point you are basing this argument on is incorrect.
And Buddy Hield didn't fail his senior year before exploding.
He was always the best scorer on that team.
Watch the video 'the evolution of buddy hield' on YouTube.

Anyway the argument for us Hield lovers is mainly based on his incredible work ethic.
His work ethic is what has made him take this leap as a college player and it's the same work ethic that will help him to keep improving in the NBA.

[crimson_stallion]

There are a few issues with your logic here.

Typically, players who need to play four years of College ball to get drafted have lower ceilings.

Hield didn't need to play four years of college ball to get drafted.  He was good enough to get drafted last year if he wanted to, and probably the year before that too.  He chose to stay another year because he wanted to, not because he had to. 

Hield might be a good player.  Who knows.  Maybe his stats translate to a player who can average 12-14 points with decent shooting percentages and improve minimally.   But if you can draft a guy a few years younger who will get you 10-12 points with slightly worse shooting percentages as a rookie, but has a much higher ceiling, you take that kid.

You are making two invalidated assumptions here:

1) That a guy being young means he has a higher ceiling - this is not true, and guys like James Young are living proof.  Ceiling is determined not only by your age, but also things like intangibles, and how well your specific talent set translates to the NBA game.  Just because two guys can both score, and one is 3 years younger, that doesn't immediately mean the younger player has a higher ceiling.
 
2) That the younger guy is just as capable of scoring at the same level - Hield is currently scoring at about a 25% higher rate then Murray is and also has far superior shooting percentages across the board.  How is it at all rational to assume that if Hield is a 10-12 PPG scorer as a rookie, Murray will also be a 10-12 PPG scorer - with the only difference being higher percentages for Hield?  There is absolutely nothing available to suggest that.  Heild is scoring significantly more points and doing it at a far higher efficiency.  For all intents and purposes, he is on a whole other level as a scorer right now compared to Murray - it's not even close. 

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of saying:

"it's a no brainer to take Steph Curry over Damian Lillard, because Lillard is younger and so he has a higher ceiling". 

It's just irrational.  Steph Curry is hands-down the best scorer the NBA right now.  Lillard could improve every year in the league still never become as good as Curry is right now. 

Similarly, Hield is hands-down the best scorer player in college ball right now.  Murray could stay in school for another three years and might still never become as good as Hield is currently. 

You can't just assume that all players improve at the same rate.  Some players improve massively, some players improve modestly, some players don't improve at all.

It's pretty clear that Buddy Hield didn't compare well as a Freshman to the top freshman in this class.  Conventional wisdom says he's probably done the bulk of his developing.   It's the same argument people have every year when Boston ends up taking an old rookie like Kelly Olynyk.  Generally, you get what you get with those guys.  So while Hield might have been slightly better than these Freshman coming up, ask yourself what these Freshman will look like 4 years from now after development. 

It's nothing like that at all, because when Boston has taken those 'old' rookies they have been guys who have been taken late in the draft due to very obvious limitations that introduce question marks about whether they can actually make it at the NBA level.

Kelly Olynyk was one such player.  He had major limitations (length, athleticism, defensive ability, rebounding, strength, etc) that introduced significant question marks about whether he'dbe able to make it in the NBA.  That's why he went #13 in a pretty much star-less draft.

Boston has never had an opportunity to draft a senior who (at the time of the draft) is the most deadly shooter and most dominant scorer in the entire college game.  That's what Hield is.

If your an ivy league school giving out an academic scholarship, do you want the 17 year old who got a 3.6GPA... or do you want 20 year old who failed Senior year of high school 3 times before finally putting up a 4.0GPA?  I mean, yeah... technically the 20 year old had better scores, but he had 4 times to figure it out.

Again, that is a fruitless comparison. 

Hield never 'failed'.  He was an excellent scorer in his second season.  He was an excellent scorer in his his third season.  He became an elite scorer his fourth season.

Murray is an excellent scorer now.  Whether he will ever take his game to the next level and become an 'elite' scorer is a question that is as yet unanswered. 

The more accurate comparison would be a 17 year old who put up a 3.6 GPA versus a 20 year old who put up a 3.4 GPA twice, then not being satisfied with that score, staying in school, working his butt off, and finally coming back strong with a 4.5 GPA.

Do you take the 17 year old in the hope that he will one day match a 4.5 GPA?  Or do you just take the 20 year old who already has a 4.5 GPA?   

Why take a guy who you hope can become an elite scorer in 2-3 years, if you could just the guy who is 2-3 years older and is already an elite scorer?

[PhoSita]

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.

Why not take Murray, who was nearly as good at nineteen and reportedly has great intangibles as well?

Let's start with two names.

Michael Beasley.  O.J. Mayo.

The 2nd and 3rd pick of the 2008 draft.  Freshmen who, I believe, were even more highly rated than Murray is this year.

And here's a third name.  Courtney Lee.  A senior taken with the 22nd pick in 2008.

Mike

Yes, I'm aware those guys exist. What exactly is your point?

[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.

I think my earlier post showed that there's been like 1 guy in the past 13 years ... Brandon Roy... and he only lasted 4 years in the NBA for other reasons.

Typically, players who need to play four years of College ball to get drafted have lower ceilings.  Hield might be a good player.  Who knows.  Maybe his stats translate to a player who can average 12-14 points with decent shooting percentages and improve minimally.   But if you can draft a guy a few years younger who will get you 10-12 points with slightly worse shooting percentages as a rookie, but has a much higher ceiling, you take that kid.

It's pretty clear that Buddy Hield didn't compare well as a Freshman to the top freshman in this class.  Conventional wisdom says he's probably done the bulk of his developing.   It's the same argument people have every year when Boston ends up taking an old rookie like Kelly Olynyk.  Generally, you get what you get with those guys.  So while Hield might have been slightly better than these Freshman coming up, ask yourself what these Freshman will look like 4 years from now after development. 

If your an ivy league school giving out an academic scholarship, do you want the 17 year old who got a 3.6GPA... or do you want 20 year old who failed Senior year of high school 3 times before finally putting up a 4.0GPA?  I mean, yeah... technically the 20 year old had better scores, but he had 4 times to figure it out.

Lillard and McCollum have done fairly well.  The former is a bona fide star and the latter is fast approaching that status.  Jan Redick is no star, but he's become a fantastic role player.  Channing Frye has had a strong career.  This doesn't include the guys who have succeeded taken post-lottery.

The success rate of four year seniors actually measures up reasonably well to one and dones, two year college players, players who declare after their junior year, and internationals.  To be honest, I have 't done a complete study, but even if the success rates of one and dones is higher than for seniors, I feel comfortable saying it's not stark enough that you would shy away from taking the senior if you felt he was the best guy purely due to his age.

The age is a factor, but it seems to me that it would be short sighted to make it the sole determining factor.  In the case of Murray vs. Hield, I understand the inclination to say that Jamal Murray is like a three year younger version of Buddy.  I disagree with that assessment.  I like Jamal Murray, but think that Buddy Hield is ready to play a starring role in the NBA within his first couple of seasons.  I don't see that from Murray.

Obviously, I could be wrong.  It's happened before.