The draft is one week away, rank the 3 probable targets:

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Good video and story on Hield. I know he's not a 2 way player (yet) and could have some overlap with LaVine, but I just think this guy is going to be a serious difference-maker with his outside shooting and his intangibles look great. He's got the desire and the athleticism to become a solid defender at least. I'd take this guy if he were available.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/Coach16243775/how-high-buddy-hield-nba-ceiling

Good find Drew. I like Thorpe's analysis and even said he reminded him of Ray Allen. That's high praise. Again, it's just age discrimination. Thorpe said he's #1 if he were a freshman this year. Good attitude, good worker, awesome shooter. If he overlaps with Lavine, then we'll address that next year, but I think they can co-exist. Start up up the chant again:

Buddy! Buddy! Buddy!

I like Thorpe too, Jerry, and am not opposed to drafting Hield at 5 (although not my first choice), but I do have issues with some of Thorpe's assertions. I don't want to gin up the age discrimination discussion again, but Thorpe's comment that Hield would be #1 if he were a freshman this year is flawed logic. Hield as a freshman averaged only 8 PPG and only 24% on threes, not good enough to be the #1 pick in the draft. Thorpe means to say "If Hield put up in his freshman year the same stats he put up his senior year, he would be #1". I don't disagree, but it's an absurd concept. Hield's actual stats as a freshman is the only valid comparison we have to the other freshmen in this year's draft.

I also take issue with his assertion that Hield has been a very good long-distance shooter for the past three years. While he had a stellar senior year shooting 3's at 46%, his junior year 3-point 36% rate is only average. I'm always skeptical of college players who make a big leap ahead in shooting percentage their final year in college, because I often find it's not sustainable in the pros. Many of us (including me) fell for the Victor Oladipo hype when he dramatically improved his 3-point shooting his junior year to 44%, but in his first three years in the NBA he has proven to be what we should have known he was by his early college years...a below average 3-point shooter.

And I find the Steph Curry comparison flawed also. Curry shot over 41% on threes for his entire 3-year college career, and actually had his highest percentages his first two years.

I think Hield will likely be a pretty good NBA player, but I didn't find Thorpe's article about him to be his best work.

[TheFuture]

Good video and story on Hield. I know he's not a 2 way player (yet) and could have some overlap with LaVine, but I just think this guy is going to be a serious difference-maker with his outside shooting and his intangibles look great. He's got the desire and the athleticism to become a solid defender at least. I'd take this guy if he were available.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/Coach16243775/how-high-buddy-hield-nba-ceiling

Good find Drew. I like Thorpe's analysis and even said he reminded him of Ray Allen. That's high praise. Again, it's just age discrimination. Thorpe said he's #1 if he were a freshman this year. Good attitude, good worker, awesome shooter. If he overlaps with Lavine, then we'll address that next year, but I think they can co-exist. Start up up the chant again:

Buddy! Buddy! Buddy!

I like Thorpe too, Jerry, and am not opposed to drafting Hield at 5 (although not my first choice), but I do have issues with some of Thorpe's assertions. I don't want to gin up the age discrimination discussion again, but Thorpe's comment that Hield would be #1 if he were a freshman this year is flawed logic. Hield as a freshman averaged only 8 PPG and only 24% on threes, not good enough to be the #1 pick in the draft. Thorpe means to say "If Hield put up in his freshman year the same stats he put up his senior year, he would be #1". I don't disagree, but it's an absurd concept. Hield's actual stats as a freshman is the only valid comparison we have to the other freshmen in this year's draft.

I also take issue with his assertion that Hield has been a very good long-distance shooter for the past three years. While he had a stellar senior year shooting 3's at 46%, his junior year 3-point 36% rate is only average. I'm always skeptical of college players who make a big leap ahead in shooting percentage their final year in college, because I often find it's not sustainable in the pros. Many of us (including me) fell for the Victor Oladipo hype when he dramatically improved his 3-point shooting his junior year to 44%, but in his first three years in the NBA he has proven to be what we should have known he was by his early college years...a below average 3-point shooter.

And I find the Steph Curry comparison flawed also. Curry shot over 41% on threes for his entire 3-year college career, and actually had his highest percentages his first two years.

I think Hield will likely be a pretty good NBA player, but I didn't find Thorpe's article about him to be his best work.

I agree with your analysis in the first paragraph here . The Oladipo comparison is a bit flawed though as Hield shot nearly 5 times as many 3's this last year as oladipo did in his 44% season. If you take out Hields outlier freshman season (in terms of 3pt shots), he averaged 41% shooting on 271 attempts per season. That's a huge sample. Jamal Murray averaged near exact numbers. I've been a Hield > Murray guy for months, but it's very hard to dismiss how great Murray could be offensively given what he did at 18. They're dead even for me now.

[Monster]

Thorpe has good stuff despite him typically being positive about nearly everybody. Hey if I was 3 years old with my body and my game people would at least be considering me the next Luke Walton!

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

For those that are coming around -- or already have come around -- on Jamal Murray, may I ask what's changed for you? What I mean to say is, what's occurred since the end of the college season that altered how you viewed him? Is it the further gathering of information/data on him?

It's a sincere question because while we as fans tend to think prospects are moving up or down on big boards every week, the reality is that that isn't the case at all for most organizations. I'm trying to feel out what has made some fans come around on a particular guy though he hasn't played in a game since March.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Good video and story on Hield. I know he's not a 2 way player (yet) and could have some overlap with LaVine, but I just think this guy is going to be a serious difference-maker with his outside shooting and his intangibles look great. He's got the desire and the athleticism to become a solid defender at least. I'd take this guy if he were available.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/Coach16243775/how-high-buddy-hield-nba-ceiling

Good find Drew. I like Thorpe's analysis and even said he reminded him of Ray Allen. That's high praise. Again, it's just age discrimination. Thorpe said he's #1 if he were a freshman this year. Good attitude, good worker, awesome shooter. If he overlaps with Lavine, then we'll address that next year, but I think they can co-exist. Start up up the chant again:

Buddy! Buddy! Buddy!

I like Thorpe too, Jerry, and am not opposed to drafting Hield at 5 (although not my first choice), but I do have issues with some of Thorpe's assertions. I don't want to gin up the age discrimination discussion again, but Thorpe's comment that Hield would be #1 if he were a freshman this year is flawed logic. Hield as a freshman averaged only 8 PPG and only 24% on threes, not good enough to be the #1 pick in the draft. Thorpe means to say "If Hield put up in his freshman year the same stats he put up his senior year, he would be #1". I don't disagree, but it's an absurd concept. Hield's actual stats as a freshman is the only valid comparison we have to the other freshmen in this year's draft.

I also take issue with his assertion that Hield has been a very good long-distance shooter for the past three years. While he had a stellar senior year shooting 3's at 46%, his junior year 3-point 36% rate is only average. I'm always skeptical of college players who make a big leap ahead in shooting percentage their final year in college, because I often find it's not sustainable in the pros. Many of us (including me) fell for the Victor Oladipo hype when he dramatically improved his 3-point shooting his junior year to 44%, but in his first three years in the NBA he has proven to be what we should have known he was by his early college years...a below average 3-point shooter.

And I find the Steph Curry comparison flawed also. Curry shot over 41% on threes for his entire 3-year college career, and actually had his highest percentages his first two years.

I think Hield will likely be a pretty good NBA player, but I didn't find Thorpe's article about him to be his best work.

I agree with your analysis in the first paragraph here . The Oladipo comparison is a bit flawed though as Hield shot nearly 5 times as many 3's this last year as oladipo did in his 44% season. If you take out Hields outlier freshman season (in terms of 3pt shots), he averaged 41% shooting on 271 attempts per season. That's a huge sample. Jamal Murray averaged near exact numbers. I've been a Hield > Murray guy for months, but it's very hard to dismiss how great Murray could be offensively given what he did at 18. They're dead even for me now.

Fair point about VO, future. I only mentioned him because he was the most recent example of a guy whose draft status went up because of a belief that he may have improved his long distance shooting. My real point is to be wary of experienced college players who have a big spike in performance their senior years...they are playing against a lot of players 3 years younger than them, and the improvement may not be sustainable.

Can anyone come up with an example of a college player whose results really improved his senior year, who didn't experience a big drop off in performance in the pros?

[Coolbreeze44]

For those that are coming around -- or already have come around -- on Jamal Murray, may I ask what's changed for you? What I mean to say is, what's occurred since the end of the college season that altered how you viewed him? Is it the further gathering of information/data on him?

It's a sincere question because while we as fans tend to think prospects are moving up or down on big boards every week, the reality is that that isn't the case at all for most organizations. I'm trying to feel out what has made some fans come around on a particular guy though he hasn't played in a game since March.

These guys are put under a microscope after the season, and you learn a lot more about them if you're inclined to listen and do a little bit of digging. My opinion of Murray is mostly shaped by the recent opinions of guys I respect.

[60WinTim]

Well, he has not moved up for me, although I will not be upset if they decide it is best to draft him. I like Dunn. Then Hield. Then Murray or Bender. Of course, I admit to only having post college season analysis to work with...

(And none over the last week because I am traveling again)

[BizarroJerry [enjin:6592520]]

Good video and story on Hield. I know he's not a 2 way player (yet) and could have some overlap with LaVine, but I just think this guy is going to be a serious difference-maker with his outside shooting and his intangibles look great. He's got the desire and the athleticism to become a solid defender at least. I'd take this guy if he were available.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/Coach16243775/how-high-buddy-hield-nba-ceiling

Good find Drew. I like Thorpe's analysis and even said he reminded him of Ray Allen. That's high praise. Again, it's just age discrimination. Thorpe said he's #1 if he were a freshman this year. Good attitude, good worker, awesome shooter. If he overlaps with Lavine, then we'll address that next year, but I think they can co-exist. Start up up the chant again:

Buddy! Buddy! Buddy!

I like Thorpe too, Jerry, and am not opposed to drafting Hield at 5 (although not my first choice), but I do have issues with some of Thorpe's assertions. I don't want to gin up the age discrimination discussion again, but Thorpe's comment that Hield would be #1 if he were a freshman this year is flawed logic. Hield as a freshman averaged only 8 PPG and only 24% on threes, not good enough to be the #1 pick in the draft. Thorpe means to say "If Hield put up in his freshman year the same stats he put up his senior year, he would be #1". I don't disagree, but it's an absurd concept. Hield's actual stats as a freshman is the only valid comparison we have to the other freshmen in this year's draft.

I also take issue with his assertion that Hield has been a very good long-distance shooter for the past three years. While he had a stellar senior year shooting 3's at 46%, his junior year 3-point 36% rate is only average. I'm always skeptical of college players who make a big leap ahead in shooting percentage their final year in college, because I often find it's not sustainable in the pros. Many of us (including me) fell for the Victor Oladipo hype when he dramatically improved his 3-point shooting his junior year to 44%, but in his first three years in the NBA he has proven to be what we should have known he was by his early college years...a below average 3-point shooter.

And I find the Steph Curry comparison flawed also. Curry shot over 41% on threes for his entire 3-year college career, and actually had his highest percentages his first two years.

I think Hield will likely be a pretty good NBA player, but I didn't find Thorpe's article about him to be his best work.

I agree with your analysis in the first paragraph here . The Oladipo comparison is a bit flawed though as Hield shot nearly 5 times as many 3's this last year as oladipo did in his 44% season. If you take out Hields outlier freshman season (in terms of 3pt shots), he averaged 41% shooting on 271 attempts per season. That's a huge sample. Jamal Murray averaged near exact numbers. I've been a Hield > Murray guy for months, but it's very hard to dismiss how great Murray could be offensively given what he did at 18. They're dead even for me now.

Fair point about VO, future. I only mentioned him because he was the most recent example of a guy whose draft status went up because of a belief that he may have improved his long distance shooting. My real point is to be wary of experienced college players who have a big spike in performance their senior years...they are playing against a lot of players 3 years younger than them, and the improvement may not be sustainable.

Can anyone come up with an example of a college player whose results really improved his senior year, who didn't experience a big drop off in performance in the pros?

So you're not impressed that he improved his shooting drawing the best defender every game against the best competition in the league? I don't follow. Yes, I'm sure there are examples of players you're looking for and I could probably find great freshman shooters who were drafted and didn't have great careers in the pros. I like seeing the progress and I think he can bring some good leadership to this already young team.

[Lipoli390]

As others have mentioned, the Oladipo comparison is fundamentally flawed for three reasons. First, Hield has always been a high volume 3-point shooter, taking 8.7 threes his last college season compared to Oladipo's 1.9. Second, Oladipo's 44% percentage his last season bore absolutely no resemblance to his previous two seasons during which he shot 21% and 31%. In contrast, Buddy shot 36% his junior year and 38.6% his sophomore year, both on high volume shooting of 7+ shots per game. So Buddy's 3-point efficiency his last year was in line with his shooting the prior two seasons. Oladipo's final year was an anomaly. Finally, the eye test is compelling. Oladipo has never looked like a shooter. In contrast, Buddy's has a beautiful, fluid shooting motion and lightning quick release.

Focusing solely on Buddy, his stats support Thorpe's assertion that Buddy has been a very good three-point shooter before this season. He shot 36% his junior year, a percentage that Is actually better than average. He shot nearly 39% his sophomore year on over 7 three attempts per game. He shot poorly from behind the arc only in his freshman season after which he became a consistently good and ultimately great three-point shooter. And again, the eye test provides further evidence of his three-point prowess and the likelihood it will carryover into the NBA. Fluid motion, extremely quick release and obvious NBA range.

There are certainly legitimate questions about Buddy's defensive potential. There is also uncertainty about the extent to which he can be more than a perimeter shooter offensively in the NBA. But the evidence strongly suggests he'll be a very good NBA shooter from both 2-point and 3-point range.

[TheFuture]

For those that are coming around -- or already have come around -- on Jamal Murray, may I ask what's changed for you? What I mean to say is, what's occurred since the end of the college season that altered how you viewed him? Is it the further gathering of information/data on him?

It's a sincere question because while we as fans tend to think prospects are moving up or down on big boards every week, the reality is that that isn't the case at all for most organizations. I'm trying to feel out what has made some fans come around on a particular guy though he hasn't played in a game since March.

As much as i wish my job was to scout or pay people to bring me heaps of data on players, it isnt. I pay attention to big boards throughout the college basketball season, but I do not get to watch as much as i would like. For me, I generally have time late at night and slowly gather information the entire season. As a draft nut i ramp it up as we near the deadline. There is great discussion here, but there is also a ton of it. Between quoting numerous posts and the amount of posters i think a lot of the actual info on here gets lost in the pages. To some the information may seem regurgitated, but to others it may be the first time seeing it.

As for Murray and Hield, I think many people have gone back and forth on them. I've never seen them as terribly far apart, and mostly because of Murray's age. I'm still on the Dunn train though.