quote:
yea, but the thing is, at Hield's age, how much more room does he have for improvement?

If Murray develops even close to Hield's rate and production, he is going to be a monster. As is, he is 40% 3pt shooter as a Freshman. Hield is 45%.

Both are near elite rates.

At 22? Plenty. We talk about a guys peak being at 25-28. But given measurables of each, their ultimate ceilings seem to be about the same, though slightly different final forms. The best case projection I have seen for Murray is a mid to later career Chauncy Billups clone after he lost some athleticism. That and McCollum with maybe less passing. The best for Hield is a more team orientated, better character, poorer mans Harden. I.E.Both borderline to possible allstar players with second best player potential.

What you say about trajectory of development seems to be where a lot of people justify youth over experience/proven growth. "If X player develops on the same trajectory..." Well considering Hield is kind of an outlier in both his growth as a player and insane work ethic, how likely is it to assume Murray will have that sort of trajectory? Given past history, why would ANYONE think Hield is done developing at 22?

Not the same situation as I like Murray much more but it is also why some justified Rivers over Lillard. Anthony Bennet, Burke and McLemore over a 4 year guy like McCollum who people assumed had nearly maxed out. Potential is intoxicating. For me potential in non-freak specimens is a bit more dangerous and Murray is not exactly a freak prospect. When it comes to those average measurables guys, I begin to put a lot more value into proven growth and work ethic.

I say all this but want to finish by saying I personally think Murray and Hield will be solid pros at worst. Dunn, if he can stay healthy and find the right team, will as well.

This post was edited on 5/17/16 at 4:03 pm

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by ShamelessPel

Metairie

Member since Apr 2013

12724 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 4:00 pm to NOLA Bronco

quote:
At 22? Plenty. We talk about a guys peak being at 25-28. But given measurables of each, their ultimate ceilings seem to be about the same, though slightly different final forms. The best case projection I have seen for Murray is a mid to later career Chauncy Billups clone after he lost some athleticism. The and McCollum with maybe less passing. The best for Hield is a more team orientated, better character, poorer mans Harden. I.E.Both borderline to possible allstar players with second best player potential.

What you say about trajectory of development seems to be where a lot of people justify youth over experience/proven growth. "If X player develops on the same trajectory..." Well considering Hield is kind of an outlier in both his growth as a player and insane work ethic, how likely is it to assume Murray will have that sort of trajectory? Given past history, why would ANYONE think Hield is done developing at 22?

Not the same situation as I like Murray much more but it is also why some justified Rivers over Lillard. Anthony Bennet, Burke and McLemore over a 4 year guy like McCollum who people assumed had nearly maxed out. Potential is intoxicating. For me potential in non-freak specimens is a bit more dangerous and Murray is not exactly a freak prospect. When it comes to those average measurables guys, I begin to put a lot more value into proven growth and work ethic.

I say all this but want to finish by saying I personally think Murray and Hield will be solid pros at worst. Dunn, if he can stay healthy and find the right team, will as well.

This is a killer post. Eye test I'd add as well. Hield looked like the best player on the floor when you watched him play. Murray just didn't jump out in any phase of the game for me.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by NOLA Bronco

Member since Dec 2014

1898 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 4:01 pm to NOLA Bronco

To sum myself up, I think there is a lot of this around draft time:

LINK

Which isn't to say the potential guy should never go over the college vet. Far from it. But I do think when you get past the obvious freak guys like Simmons/Ingram/Bender potential seems to get a bit over-valued at times IMO and for some reason proven guys begin getting knocked for things that if they had done in the pros, they would be lauded for but it almost gets turned into a negative strike against them.

This post was edited on 5/17/16 at 4:07 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Lester Earl

Member since Nov 2003

279190 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 4:22 pm to NOLA Bronco

I generally agree with you, but if you want, when I get back to a computer, I can find guys that played 3-4 years that were "safe, developed" guys.

They don't call it a crapshoot for nothing. Hield, based on his athleticism and other measurables are close to maxed out. You have to take into account his slow development as well. A 23 year old can and will adjust to the nba game, but history shows us he is pretty close to done developing. He'll no longer be the oldest guy on the court playing with a bunch of kids.

Murray like Hield already has his calling card, and that is his shooting touch. Both will play in the league because of that. You gamble with a guy like Murray hoping he can build on that and become a better player than what Hield is now.

I really do like them both and would be happier with either.

This post was edited on 5/17/16 at 4:24 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Pelicans Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board