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

[Who]

I feel like the NBA is getting easier for guys like Hield, Redick & Korver to be effective.

I think they have more impact with their shooting now than before & that it is easier to get them shots. I also think they are less exposed one-on-one on defense. Less isos. Less post ups. Less exposed to superior athletes in those ways. More about foot-speed and defensive rotations and then how well they can contain dribble penetration on the wing.

I would've been more worried about Hield in past years in the NBA. I think both his floor and ceiling are higher in today's league than they were 10-15 years ago.

[Moranis]

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

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

People choose to ignore past facts like:

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

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

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

It's ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

[MBunge]

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

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

People choose to ignore past facts like:

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

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

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

It's ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

Mike

[Denis998]

I wonder how he compares statistically to other guys that came out after 4 years after college. How he compares to guys like Lillard and CJ.

[Moranis]

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

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

People choose to ignore past facts like:

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

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

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

It's ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

Mike

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

[snively]

I think Hield has a little bit of Derrick Williams mojo inflating his stock - had an insane hot streak from 3 to begin the year (52+% on huge volume the first 3 months of the season) - that shot his efficiency numbers through the roof.

He was in the process of coming down to earth as the season wrapped up - his usual 38% from deep over the last 3 months.

And if he's just a good not great shooter, what's there to love about him? A solid athlete who might turn into a solid defender. A decent slasher/ball-handler for a 2-guard who doesn't pass the ball well and may be too predictable against NBA defenders.

Somewhere in between Jodie Meeks, Arron Afflalo and Wes Matthews.

I like Denzel Valentine so much better than Hield. A better shooter over the course of their collegiate careers at good volume. Better size though not as quick. Better rebounder. As comfortable off-ball as on. 1000X the passer. A lesser scorer but he doesn't do a lot of stuff that will have a hard time translating like Hield.

[Beat LA]

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.

Lol, TP for the, uh, laugh.

[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.

Lol, TP for the, uh, laugh.

yah dude, I trust him.  He knows just the right amount of tapioca balls to include and sometimes adds some lychee jelly for free. 

[Beat LA]

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.

Lol, TP for the, uh, laugh.

yah dude, I trust him.  He knows just the right amount of tapioca balls to include and sometimes adds some lychee jelly for free.

I'm not knocking him, or you, I just thought that it was funny.  At least McBuckets got to the line more .

[biggs]

Was this thread written by Tony Mazz? I love all these comparisons to players like JJ Reddick, Doug McDermott and Adam freaking Morrison. Hate to pull the race card boys, but are we really going to compare Buddy to un-athletic white guys? I think most people that know basketball knew that these players would not dominate the way they did in college. (Well except MJ )

I'm not saying Buddy will be the next Kobe, but the big difference between Buddy and the role players that he's being compared to is the fact that he can create. Also- he is not a Ray Allen/Rip Hamilton spot up shooter, he is a give me the ball and watch me create offense type of player.

I'm not sure he is the BPA at 3, or even the player with the most upside, however his skill set, his heart, his work ethic and his motor are all things that we could benefit from, and I would not be all that upset if we ended up with him.

[Sixth Man]

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.

We don't have the luxury of having bodies of evidence of how 22 year old Bird would have performed against many 18/19 year olds, nor do we have the same for how 22 year old Hield would perform against mostly 21/22 year olds.  I think that the performance data we have from their respective college careers cannot be effectively compared because there are so many variables which cannot be controlled. 

[MBunge]

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

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

People choose to ignore past facts like:

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

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

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

It's ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

Mike

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

The logic would seem to be with the guy who is trying to argue with actual evidence.  Almost every great player in the NBA was also a great player in college.  Hield proved himself to be a great player in college.  It might not transfer to the NBA but the same can be said for guys like Bender and Murray who proven themselves far less than Hield.

Mike

[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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

You time starts....now!

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

Buddy Hield
Brice Johnson
Malachi Richardson
Michael Gbinije

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

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

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

[crimson_stallion]

Was this thread written by Tony Mazz? I love all these comparisons to players like JJ Reddick, Doug McDermott and Adam freaking Morrison. Hate to pull the race card boys, but are we really going to compare Buddy to un-athletic white guys? I think most people that know basketball knew that these players would not dominate the way they did in college. (Well except MJ )

I'm not saying Buddy will be the next Kobe, but the big difference between Buddy and the role players that he's being compared to is the fact that he can create. Also- he is not a Ray Allen/Rip Hamilton spot up shooter, he is a give me the ball and watch me create offense type of player.

I'm not sure he is the BPA at 3, or even the player with the most upside, however his skill set, his heart, his work ethic and his motor are all things that we could benefit from, and I would not be all that upset if we ended up with him.

On the contrary, I think you give Ray Allen too little credit.  He wasn't just a shooter when he was young.  He was a pretty good (if not elite) athlete and was a very capable shot creator. 

Hell he was a >25 PPG scorer in 2007 before he came to Boston.

Funny thing is that when I watch old footage or Ray Allen as a Sonic, it reminds me a LOT of Buddy Hield.  The way he moves, the way he creates space, the way he gets his shots of so quickly with a hand in his face - Hield all the way.

Ray was also never a standout ball handler or passer - he was capable, but nothing special.  Similar physicals to Hield as well - height, length, weight, athleticism, etc.

[BlackCeltic]

Id be excited to have this happen:

#3 - Hield (Young Ray Allen)
#16 or #23 - Thon Maker (Young KG)