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.
Hield will have a fine NBA career, I just don't see star potential in him. I think he will be a spot starter/6th man type player, which absolutely matches what a number of scouts say about him. He had a very nice senior season, but there is after all a reason he wasn't even projected to be drafted after his junior season. He then started off the year like a crazy man but then reverted back much closer to his mean (which wasn't even projected as a 1st round pick). There is no way I'd take Hield at 3. It would be a waste of a pick.
I see star potential with him, with his shot form and finishing ability around the rim. If he for some reason forgets how to shoot then he will be a bust. Otherwise he is sure to fill it up. What is not to like about his offensive game?
How about these from draftexpress' write up on him.
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/
"There are some question marks about what type of creator he will be at an NBA level, though, as he at times struggles to turn the corner already against quicker collegiate guards, and can't always create much breathing room against bigger and lengthy wings. "
"He can be a little bit predictable when putting the ball on the floor, as he almost always pulls up off the dribble or tries to execute a step back when driving left, and will try to get all the way to the rim when going right (which is rare). Not blessed with an elite first step, he can still stand to continue to improve his advanced ball-handling skills to create space in the half-court. In traffic, as he doesn't always have the size or explosiveness to finish effectively against rim-protectors, and thus relies very heavily on his shot-making prowess from the perimeter."
"Hield also doesn't offer much as a passer or facilitator, sporting the second lowest pure point rating and assist to turnover ratio among the shooting guards in our Top-100 prospect rankings. He'll pull off the occasionally drive and dish play, but for the most part he's looking for his own offense whenever he's on the floor, and does not possess an exceptionally high basketball IQ."
And don't even get started on his defense, which is pretty poor at this point (and he is already 23 which means he isn't going to make leaps and bounds improvements). Hield is a pretty one dimensional scorer. He isn't a great dribbler, he isn't a great facilitator, and he isn't the quickest guy in the world. He could easily be a Kyle Korver type player, which is a fine NBA career, but not a guy you would want with the 3rd pick in the draft.
Of course, Draft Express also says...
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/
"Hield's perimeter shooting is as good of a place as any to start the conversation about his offensive game. His 147 3-pointers made (in 37 games) was by far the highest mark among all college players this year, and is tied for the highest total mark any college basketball player has achieved since Steph Curry made 162 back in 2008.
What's impressive about Hield's 3-point shooting isn't just the huge volume of makes this season, it's also the incredible accuracy, at 46%.
He's deadly in transition, is always moving to relocate into a better look after giving it up, and has a super quick trigger that allows him to get his shot off in the blink of an eye. Hield knocks down shots from NBA range on a regular basis, often with a hand in his face while well-guarded by defenses that are geared to slowing him down.
Hield has always been a tremendous shooter (career 39% 3P%), but he was much more of a catch and shoot guy for the first few years of his college career. Although he's absolutely elite with his feet set still (68/139, 49%), he's also turned himself into a much improved off the dribble shooter as well (51/137, 37%), which makes him very difficult to stop considering many of these attempts come from beyond the 3-point line (0.98 PPP).
Although he doesn't have great size, or the highest release point (he's largely a flat-footed shooter), he utilizes impressive footwork, hesitation moves and fadeaways to help him get his shot off in difficult situations, especially in big moments with the shot-clock running down.
His ball-handling skills in general improved as his college career moved on, as evidenced by his career high 55% 2P% this past season. He's able to attack his defender off closeouts with nice footwork and timing, and will mix in some change of speeds, spin moves and side-steps out of pick and rolls and isolations. He drives left almost exclusively, but has started to show some ability to use it to finish inside the paint as well, where he shot 56% this season."
Draft Express had negative things to say about Karl Anthony Townes last season too. They're supposed to have negative things to say about every player.
Mike
He specifically asked what wasn't to like about his offensive game. I answered his question. The good things he does on offense had nothing to do with his question and thus there was no reason to point them out. Everyone knows Hield can shoot the ball.
And my response highlights that everyone knows Hield can do more than just "shoot the ball."
People have gotten hung up on the Redick comparison for Hield but I saw somebody bring up another name...Cutino Mobley. Mobley had an 11 year NBA career where he averaged over 17 points a game four times after spending four years in college, and Hield was a substantially better college player and is rated by everyone far higher than anyone had Mobley.
Mike
actually reading that it basically just says Hield is an excellent shooter, but is so coming off the dribble, standing still, at the rim, etc. and has some respectable shooting moves (like fadeaways). But he is predictable, isn't a good ball handler, isn't quick enough to stay with PG's or big enough to stay with wings, etc.
Hield is a pretty one dimensional player. I think Kyle Korver is the best comparison (though Hield should be a better rebounder). A great shooter (and was almost immediately), but didn't have a varied offensive game and wasn't what you would call a good defender.
Topic: "It's not complicated: Hield can play" -Kobe (Read 34258 times)