Keegan Murray

[CptCrunch]

A senior aged sophomore on a hot streak.

A late first rounder in the best case.

Yes this first round projection is only based on him making a massive leap from freshman year to sophomore year.

Massive overreactions to a hot streak against inferior competition?

Oh did I mention that he is one of those, ummm, that t-word...tweener that we all hate to see?

I'm really not a fan. I'll go for one of those 18/19 year old if drafting before pick 20 for potential/upside. See Michael Foster.

[The-Power]

A senior aged sophomore on a hot streak.

Junior aged. And what does ‘hot streak’ mean exactly? His numbers will come down to earth some but it's not like he's shooting >50% on his 3s (which is usually what people mean when they talk about hot streaks – long-distance shooting).

Yes this first round projection is only based on him making a massive leap from freshman year to sophomore year.

He was already quite impressive in his Freshman season. 23.4 PER, 8.3 BPM. He just had fewer minutes and a lesser role not least due to having two 2021 draft picks ahead of him in the pecking order.

Massive overreactions to a hot streak against inferior competition?

We'll see how this holds up. I don't believe anyone would have him that high if he comes crashing down against better competition. But for what it's worth, he actually upped his game during conference play (i.e. against tougher competition) last year.

Oh did I mention that he is one of those, ummm, that t-word...tweener that we all hate to see?

Draymond Green was considered a tweener. Point being: if you're defending well enough, you're not a tweener – you're versatile. Not to mention that the current NBA is full of previously large SFs that play PF, so I'm much less worried about him playing the 4.

I'm really not a fan. I'll go for one of those 18/19 year old if drafting before pick 20 for potential/upside. See Michael Foster.

Being younger doesn't mean you necessarily have higher upside or much more untapped potential, that's a fallacy. Age matters, but many GMs have been burned by thinking in such general and simplistic terms. At some point in the draft, young players are just not that talented anymore or have big bust potential – and in this draft, I'd argue that point comes pretty quickly.

[CptCrunch]

A senior aged sophomore on a hot streak.

Junior aged. And what does ‘hot streak’ mean exactly? His numbers will come down to earth some but it's not like he's shooting >50% on his 3s (which is usually what people mean when they talk about hot streaks – long-distance shooting).

Yes this first round projection is only based on him making a massive leap from freshman year to sophomore year.

He was already quite impressive in his Freshman season. 23.4 PER, 8.3 BPM. He just had fewer minutes and a lesser role not least due to having two 2021 draft picks ahead of him in the pecking order.

Massive overreactions to a hot streak against inferior competition?

We'll see how this holds up. I don't believe anyone would have him that high if he comes crashing down against better competition. But for what it's worth, he actually upped his game during conference play (i.e. against tougher competition) last year.

Oh did I mention that he is one of those, ummm, that t-word...tweener that we all hate to see?

Draymond Green was considered a tweener. Point being: if you're defending well enough, you're not a tweener – you're versatile. Not to mention that the current NBA is full of previously large SFs that play PF, so I'm much less worried about him playing the 4.

I'm really not a fan. I'll go for one of those 18/19 year old if drafting before pick 20 for potential/upside. See Michael Foster.

Being younger doesn't mean you necessarily have higher upside or much more untapped potential, that's a fallacy. Age matters, but many GMs have been burned by thinking in such general and simplistic terms. At some point in the draft, young players are just not that talented anymore or have big bust potential – and in this draft, I'd argue that point comes pretty quickly.

1/ True freshman turn 19 during year of draft (20 if they are old, held back one year or started school late). Keegan turns 22 during year of draft, he is a senior in age for a sophomore

2/ You think this dude shooting 60+% on many ill-advised shots while stuffing the box-scores at an efficiency greater than Zion Williamson (25% higher PER, similar BPM) isn't on some hot streak?

3/ Arguing with exception is a tell-tell sign that the take is bad. We'll just draft all the 6'6" - 6'8" players a little slow for SF and see how many of them turn into Draymond. Or are you arguing that Murray is defensive prospect in any way. It is laughable to compare his defensive projections to a DPOY-caliber player like Draymond.

4/ No crap, being young doesn't make you automagically better than an older player. Age trajectory curve is a well established phenomenon for predicting mean trends in average NBA outcome.

I think in general you are struggling with statistical understandings when you try to argue against trends with singular examples: 1) Draymond is a tweener hence tweeners aren't bad, which is verifiably false in the average case, and 2) GMs have been burned by a few young raw players, hence young players don't necessarily have higher potential, which is once against verifiably false given published studies showing (and really this is basic intuition level stuff) that younger players on average have higher potential.

Keegan is putting up jaw dropping stats, it's a matter of discounting his production by his warts in age, athleticism/agility/build, competition, high school RSCI. I would personally discount all these aspects heavily because he checks all these boxes in terms of negative factors. At the end of the day, I'm comfortable drafting him in the late first round. Any mock playing him in top 10, near the lotto is asinine in my opinion and hasn't really discounted his gaudy counting stats.

[EvanZ]

I tend to agree he's being overrated, although I don't really think this is a "hot streak" that will end suddenly. He's going to be productive all season. But the age is a legit issue (as it always is despite what people want to tell us every time), and so are the questions about how this translates at the next level.

[The-Power]

1/ True freshman turn 19 during year of draft (20 if they are old, held back one year or started school late). Keegan turns 22 during year of draft, he is a senior in age for a sophomore

Then most top-ranked freshmen in this draft are not the age of a freshman. Not sure if you'd bring up this point for prospects you do like but I hope you'd be at least consistent.

2/ You think this dude shooting 60+% on many ill-advised shots while stuffing the box-scores at an efficiency greater than Zion Williamson (25% higher PER, similar BPM) isn't on some hot streak?

I already acknowledged that his numbers are bound to come down. Still, I'm not sure ‘hot streak’ is the appropriate term here. Mind you that his TS% in last year's conference play was at 63.3% – so there's no reason to believe he's not going to be highly efficient going forward. Also, if you're scoring with as much success as he had, there can't have been ‘many ill-advised shots’.

3/ Arguing with exception is a tell-tell sign that the take is bad. We'll just draft all the 6'6" - 6'8" players a little slow for SF and see how many of them turn into Draymond. Or are you arguing that Murray is defensive prospect in any way. It is laughable to compare his defensive projections to a DPOY-caliber player like Draymond.

Considering that your argument didn't involve any kind of elaboration or substantiation, I'd be careful calling anyone else's take bad. Also, you seem to be arguing in bad faith here and I'm inclined to stop responding if that's your idea of conversation.

I never stated that I believed he'd be the next Draymond. I was simply stating that throwing out the term ‘tweener’ without any further arguments isn't the be-all and end-all point you think it is because – yes – Draymond was called the same thing and he slipped because of it. My point is that Keegan Murray can be something between Draymond Green and someone who can't guard any position because he doesn't project to fit your criteria of a Forward in the NBA.

Especially when it's quite obvious that numerous NBA 4s these days are not traditionally-sized PFs. Heck, probably most starting PFs around the league aren't. If he's indeed 6'9'', 223 lbs with a 7'0'' wingspan as claimed by Chad Ford then at least size-wise he's certainly not out of his depth among guys like Morris, Crowder, Tucker, Green, Gordon, Harris, Barnes and many more.

4/ No crap, being young doesn't make you automagically better than an older player. Age trajectory curve is a well established phenomenon for predicting mean trends in average NBA outcome.

Maybe you can point me to the analyses that demonstrate that drafting mediocre young prospects tend to be better than excellent older prospects. Otherwise, pointing to trajectory based on age is completely irrelevant for what we're talking about.

I think in general you are struggling with statistical understandings when you try to argue against trends with singular examples: 1) Draymond is a tweener hence tweeners aren't bad, which is verifiably false in the average case, and 2) GMs have been burned by a few young raw players, hence young players don't necessarily have higher potential, which is once against verifiably false given published studies showing (and really this is basic intuition level stuff) that younger players on average have higher potential.

It's quite rich to see you far up your high horse when your previous posts really didn't have any substance to them.

First, for me to struggle with statistical understandings in this conversation you'd actually have had to use statistics that I could misunderstand. You haven't so far, but I'm happy to learn from you.

Second, I never argued with exceptions to prove the point you made up; I used one example to illustrate a specific point, which is that just throwing around the word ‘tweener’ doesn't mean much in and of itself. It's up to you to back up that he can't defend a single position, i.e. that he is a tweener in the negative sense of the word. That would actually be a worthwhile contribution to this discussion, right before we start talking about recent changes in the NBA to the Forward position and their implications.

Third, it is you who seem to struggle understanding statistical inferences. Because what you forgot to add is that younger players have on average higher upside ceteris paribus. That is a fundamental assumption in any kind of scientific analysis and you simply gloss over it, and that assumption is clearly not met in this case.

To put it in simple terms: if two players are exactly the same in all variables but age, you take the younger player. But that's as far as your argument takes you. Obviously two such players do not exist, so we have to factor in other variables. To say that younger players have on average more untapped potential than older players is true, but that doesn't mean that any given young player has more untapped potential than any older one. What is more, untapped potential ≠ likely or even high-end outcome. A player that is 18 has – on average – more untapped potential than someone who's 23; but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a better prospect (in terms of floor, median outcome, x-percentile outcome, ceiling etc.) if the older player is already much further along in the development and a much better player.

In the case of Murray, the last point is crucial. Any younger prospect that I'd draft lower than Murray is most definitely going to be a much worse player than him at the time of the draft, and I'd draft them lower because I'd consider it unlikely that they will make up enough ground to surpass him. Because the younger players would not only have to develop more than Keegan does but develop so much more that they also make up all the ground he already has on them, before they hit their ceiling. So that's an entirely different conversation to have from the one you're trying to push for whatever reason.

So yeah, you can save these lectures for another day. Your problem is that you talk about random players (‘on average’), whereas I talk about specific players. Once you start talking about specific players, your arguments have to be about a lot more than just one factor to be taken seriously. It's also like that in statistical analysis in general, by the way.

[CptCrunch]

1/ True freshman turn 19 during year of draft (20 if they are old, held back one year or started school late). Keegan turns 22 during year of draft, he is a senior in age for a sophomore

Then most top-ranked freshmen in this draft are not the age of a freshman. Not sure if you'd bring up this point for prospects you do like but I hope you'd be at least consistent.

2/ You think this dude shooting 60+% on many ill-advised shots while stuffing the box-scores at an efficiency greater than Zion Williamson (25% higher PER, similar BPM) isn't on some hot streak?

I already acknowledged that his numbers are bound to come down. Still, I'm not sure ‘hot streak’ is the appropriate term here. Mind you that his TS% in last year's conference play was at 63.3% – so there's no reason to believe he's not going to be highly efficient going forward. Also, if you're scoring with as much success as he had, there can't have been ‘many ill-advised shots’.

3/ Arguing with exception is a tell-tell sign that the take is bad. We'll just draft all the 6'6" - 6'8" players a little slow for SF and see how many of them turn into Draymond. Or are you arguing that Murray is defensive prospect in any way. It is laughable to compare his defensive projections to a DPOY-caliber player like Draymond.

Considering that your argument didn't involve any kind of elaboration or substantiation, I'd be careful calling anyone else's take bad. Also, you seem to be arguing in bad faith here and I'm inclined to stop responding if that's your idea of conversation.

I never stated that I believed he'd be the next Draymond. I was simply stating that throwing out the term ‘tweener’ without any further arguments isn't the be-all and end-all point you think it is because – yes – Draymond was called the same thing and he slipped because of it. My point is that Keegan Murray can be something between Draymond Green and someone who can't guard any position because he doesn't project to fit your criteria of a Forward in the NBA.

Especially when it's quite obvious that numerous NBA 4s these days are not traditionally-sized PFs. Heck, probably most starting PFs around the league aren't. If he's indeed 6'9'', 223 lbs with a 7'0'' wingspan as claimed by Chad Ford then at least size-wise he's certainly not out of his depth among guys like Morris, Crowder, Tucker, Green, Gordon, Harris, Barnes and many more.

4/ No crap, being young doesn't make you automagically better than an older player. Age trajectory curve is a well established phenomenon for predicting mean trends in average NBA outcome.

Maybe you can point me to the analyses that demonstrate that drafting mediocre young prospects tend to be better than excellent older prospects. Otherwise, pointing to trajectory based on age is completely irrelevant for what we're talking about.

I think in general you are struggling with statistical understandings when you try to argue against trends with singular examples: 1) Draymond is a tweener hence tweeners aren't bad, which is verifiably false in the average case, and 2) GMs have been burned by a few young raw players, hence young players don't necessarily have higher potential, which is once against verifiably false given published studies showing (and really this is basic intuition level stuff) that younger players on average have higher potential.

It's quite rich to see you far up your high horse when your previous posts really didn't have any substance to them.

First, for me to struggle with statistical understandings in this conversation you'd actually have had to use statistics that I could misunderstand. You haven't so far, but I'm happy to learn from you.

Second, I never argued with exceptions to prove the point you made up; I used one example to illustrate a specific point, which is that just throwing around the word ‘tweener’ doesn't mean much in and of itself. It's up to you to back up that he can't defend a single position, i.e. that he is a tweener in the negative sense of the word. That would actually be a worthwhile contribution to this discussion, right before we start talking about recent changes in the NBA to the Forward position and their implications.

Third, it is you who seem to struggle understanding statistical inferences. Because what you forgot to add is that younger players have on average higher upside ceteris paribus. That is a fundamental assumption in any kind of scientific analysis and you simply gloss over it, and that assumption is clearly not met in this case.

To put it in simple terms: if two players are exactly the same in all variables but age, you take the younger player. But that's as far as your argument takes you. Obviously two such players do not exist, so we have to factor in other variables. To say that younger players have on average more untapped potential than older players is true, but that doesn't mean that any given young player has more untapped potential than any older one. What is more, untapped potential ≠ likely or even high-end outcome. A player that is 18 has – on average – more untapped potential than someone who's 23; but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a better prospect (in terms of floor, median outcome, x-percentile outcome, ceiling etc.) if the older player is already much further along in the development and a much better player.

In the case of Murray, the last point is crucial. Any younger prospect that I'd draft lower than Murray is most definitely going to be a much worse player than him at the time of the draft, and I'd draft them lower because I'd consider it unlikely that they will make up enough ground to surpass him. Because the younger players would not only have to develop more than Keegan does but develop so much more that they also make up all the ground he already has on them, before they hit their ceiling. So that's an entirely different conversation to have from the one you're trying to push for whatever reason.

So yeah, you can save these lectures for another day. Your problem is that you talk about random players (‘on average’), whereas I talk about specific players. Once you start talking about specific players, your arguments have to be about a lot more than just one factor to be taken seriously. It's also like that in statistical analysis in general, by the way.

You talk about statistics, but yet construct examples missing the concepts themselves. Let's talk about trajectories of individual players instead the mean of 'random players' aka the expectation. My philosophy is to project based on the mean outcome for similar archetypes, not to make outlier adjustments for players who follow outlier developmental paths. I sure damn do not know if Murray has the work ethic of Jimmy G or will follow an outlier developmental pattern like Giannis (who is the poster boy of this type of argument).

ceteris paribus Some classes in econometrics I see. Think critically about how it doesn't make sense to apply the concept in this case in the context of comparing two prospects with equals stats, but different age. Why is this not (never?) realistic?

[EMG518]

Seems like an obvious lottery guy. Guys like this always go high and have a ton of value in the league aka Mikal Bridges.

[EvanZ]

Seems like an obvious lottery guy. Guys like this always go high and have a ton of value in the league aka Mikal Bridges.

He's nothing like Mikal Bridges.

[clyde21]

reminds me of late stage Carmelo, high end outcome is probably 2015 or 2016 Melo imo. im not a HUGE fan but I get the intrigue, just wish he was younger and more athletic.

[EMG518]

Seems like an obvious lottery guy. Guys like this always go high and have a ton of value in the league aka Mikal Bridges.

He's nothing like Mikal Bridges.

Similar age, height, length, draft position. There are 4 things right there. Haven't even touched on similar movement and 3/D potential although I think Murray will be better than Bridges.

[EvanZ]

Seems like an obvious lottery guy. Guys like this always go high and have a ton of value in the league aka Mikal Bridges.

He's nothing like Mikal Bridges.

Similar age, height, length, draft position. There are 4 things right there. Haven't even touched on similar movement and 3/D potential although I think Murray will be better than Bridges.

I mean whatever floats your boat. I'm not going to stop you from drowning.

[Hoopz Afrik]

Reminds me a bit of Paul Millsap on offense. Not sure he will be quite the same level of defender.

I can see it for sure. He's a tricky one but I took a shot at comping him.

One of my buddies who hadn't seen him play yet asked me to give him a comp and what his game could translate to at the next level. I said it's a weird mashup but he plays like a Paul Millsap but in Luol Deng's body in college. As far as next level, I feel like if he can be a souped up version of JaMychal Green or even a prime Jeff Green then that would be a huge success for him.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Lasst three games 15 ppg on uninspiring shooting. PER still above 40 though.

[Ruzious]

Lasst three games 15 ppg on uninspiring shooting. PER still above 40 though.

Last game was 35 points on 13 of 17 shooting in 29 minutes against Utah State. Maybe the best comp is to his twin brother Kris. Actually, Kris is doing a helluva job off the bench with a 31.6 PER and .625 eFG. He mostly backs up Keegan. Hopefully they'll play them together more often. Kris might fill a niche as a 3 point shooter off the bench in the NBA. He's making 50% on high volume.

[babyjax13]

Reminds me a bit of Paul Millsap on offense. Not sure he will be quite the same level of defender.

I can see it for sure. He's a tricky one but I took a shot at comping him.

One of my buddies who hadn't seen him play yet asked me to give him a comp and what his game could translate to at the next level. I said it's a weird mashup but he plays like a Paul Millsap but in Luol Deng's body in college. As far as next level, I feel like if he can be a souped up version of JaMychal Green or even a prime Jeff Green then that would be a huge success for him.

I think a better scoring JaMychal makes sense. He certainly doesn't have Jeff's athletecism, but man, I think Jeff Green is one of the most 'vaporware' players of all time - million dollar athletecism but historically inefficient, high volume, and a poor decision-maker. In Utah the last player I had seen that was as unplayable was Jason Hart.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Lasst three games 15 ppg on uninspiring shooting. PER still above 40 though.

Last game was 35 points on 13 of 17 shooting in 29 minutes against Utah State. Maybe the best comp is to his twin brother Kris. Actually, Kris is doing a helluva job off the bench with a 31.6 PER and .625 eFG. He mostly backs up Keegan. Hopefully they'll play them together more often. Kris might fill a niche as a 3 point shooter off the bench in the NBA. He's making 50% on high volume.

Always good to have a 50+ PER game to let the NBA know you still exist. Cool story bro about his brother. Nice to see both killing it at the same time.

Kinda interesting stat, but PER 40 minutes he's getting 34 points, 5 Stocks, and just 1.6 turnovers. On the season he has 34 offensive rebounds and just 12 turnovers. Probably helps his ridiculous offensive rating, though I don't know how that works.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

A senior aged sophomore on a hot streak.

A late first rounder in the best case.

Yes this first round projection is only based on him making a massive leap from freshman year to sophomore year.

Massive overreactions to a hot streak against inferior competition?

Oh did I mention that he is one of those, ummm, that t-word...tweener that we all hate to see?

I'm really not a fan. I'll go for one of those 18/19 year old if drafting before pick 20 for potential/upside. See Michael Foster.

I'd give you my left nut if he drops out of the first round. He's statting up a statload of stats.

[The-Power]

He has now scored between 18 and 29 points in 10 out of 12 games this season, and had a TS% below 50 only once. Super consistent, and his touch around the basket is really special. But it'll be key for him to show out against the better competition after we now know that lower-level competition can't handle him at all.

[Ruzious]

Murray mutilated Maryland yesterday - to start off conference play - in a close game. And he finally showed 3 point shooting - making 5 of 6. His stats continue to be absurd. And you don't see prolific scorers like him with just 14 turnovers in 13 games - and continues to accumulate blocks and steals at a very high rate for a forward. I have him as the 6th pick.

[Hawkeyejam]

Hawkeye fan here..

Keegan is kind of an oddity in watching. He doesn't seem overly athletic but is far more athletic than given credit for. Lanky, can hop out of the gym, and can beat the defender on the drive..

Good ball handler and plays well with position. Go back and check out some freshmen highlights from last year. The BIG had alot of high end Big Men and for a Wing/4 held his own a lot against the bigs. His issues last year was getting caught in bad fouls and this year has really improved. He showed flashes last year and had spurts in games where he took over. Anyone who thinks he won't terrorize the BIG this year is nuts. He did things in BIG games last year that made you do a double take. When he makes plays it seems effortless at times. Super smooth in movement and large strides. Really has great control with the ball on fast break situations..

Think he's gonna be real good in the league. Not certain a.scorer.but a jack of all trades Swiss Army knife type