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

12879 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 GynoSandberg

Bay St Louis, MS

Member since Jan 2006

73277 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 4:11 pm to Lester Earl

quote:
i guess what happens is when you pass on guys that "had more talent around them" you miss out on guys like Karl Anthony Towns and Devin Booker.

KAT- 10/6reb guy
Booker 10ppg scorer at UK.

That being said, UK wasnt all that talented this year

Have an upvote, gent

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by NOLA Bronco

Member since Dec 2014

1898 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 4:18 pm to ShamelessPel

quote:
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.

I did think he looked pretty great toward the last part of the season. Enough to keep me optimistic if we took him.

But it is hard to know what to take from him. A lot of his hype is centered around him developing into a more full time PG/Combo guard. But what if he veers more into the SG territory? I wouldn't be as hot on him going that route but its also the route he is currently on.

He is someone I really would of loved to see one more year at Kentucky after Ullis left and he would be forced into a more facilitator orientated role and to see how he did/ how he tried to develop as a player.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Lester Earl

3rd Ward

Member since Nov 2003

284796 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

Posted by NOLA Bronco

Member since Dec 2014

1898 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 4:25 pm to GynoSandberg

quote:
Have an upvote, gent

The Kentucky pedigree can't be ignored, certainly. Very few busts out of that school when a player went around or in top 10 in recent history.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by NOLA Bronco

Member since Dec 2014

1898 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 4:36 pm to Lester Earl

quote:
They don't call it a crapshoot for nothing. Hield, based on his athleticism and other measurables are close to maxed out.

Then by this logic Murray's ceiling is below what Hield is at right now. After all, Murray has similar athleticism, a smaller frame and shorter height/wingspan.

But we know that isnt the case. There is no hard and fast rule that a person with X athleticism and height has a hard ceiling. Hield is boringly average in most of his measurables. Murray, slightly below average. Yet the case is being made that the guy with less measurables will develop into a better Buddy Hield?

That is where this logic gets a bit lost on me. It seems to stem solely from the assumption Murray will project out on a similarly strong trajectory and push past Hield over the long term. I'm not convinced because I haven't seen Murray prove he can do that yet. Hield I have. Which is a pretty important component of NBA transition, the ability to improve and round out your game.

History honestly doesnt have a ton of Buddy Hield's to compare him with. Most of these 4 year busts are guys that didn't do what Hield did while still having NBA measurables. Nylon Calculus has done a couple investigations and he seems to be in some interesting, elite company in terms of 2 year plus SG's, but like everything in the lottery, the data also contains a couple less flattering case studies.

This is again, all to say I like both guys and they are much closer to me then apart in terms of my preference.

This post was edited on 5/17/16 at 4:40 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Lester Earl

3rd Ward

Member since Nov 2003

284796 posts

Posted on 5/17/16 at 6:54 pm to NOLA Bronco

quote:
Then by this logic Murray's ceiling is below what Hield is at right now. After all, Murray has similar athleticism, a smaller frame and shorter height/wingspan.

yea but look at how Hield's skill and shooting have improved over 4 years. There are other parts of Murray's game that are untapped. He hasnt had 4 years of college weight room development either. He just made 19. He's thin but his body is mushy.