Buddy Hield

[Duke4life831]

Hield's crazy 3pt % started to come back down to earth the 2nd half of the season. During February, March and his 1 one game in April his 3pt% was 38%. When you look at that and his 3pt% during his first 3 years (35%), the more you have to question, maybe those first 3 months was just a very hot 3 month stretch for him. I think he is going to be a solid rotation player. If he has an elite work ethic like Redick than he has a chance to to be on Redick's level.

Redick's per 36 stats this year
21 points on 47/48/89 shooting numbers and a 63.2 TS% (3rd in the NBA behind Curry and KD)

Redick is probably the elite off ball shooter, he runs off screens better than anyone in the NBA. So I think Redick is Hield's ceiling. But I think there is a much better chance he ends up as a rotational catch and shoot guy than being arguably the 2nd or 3rd best shooter in the game

[HotelVitale]

If he has an elite work ethic like Redick than he has a chance to to be on Redick's level. Redick's per 36 stats this year 21 points on 47/48/89 shooting numbers and a 63.2 TS% (3rd in the NBA behind Curry and KD)

Those stats are out of line with his career #s, though, might well be an outlier. He's always been a great shooter, but he's always been more in the 57-60% TS zone. The 63% was almost a 5-pt leap from his previous career average (which is now up to almost 60%).

[Duke4life831]

If he has an elite work ethic like Redick than he has a chance to to be on Redick's level. Redick's per 36 stats this year 21 points on 47/48/89 shooting numbers and a 63.2 TS% (3rd in the NBA behind Curry and KD)

Those stats are out of line with his career #s, though, might well be an outlier. He's always been a great shooter, but he's always been more in the 57-60% TS zone. The 63% was almost a 5-pt leap from his previous career average (which is now up to almost 60%).

Last year was not as good but similar with a 62% TS. But still his career per 36 numbers are

17 points on 45/41/89 shooting numbers and a 59 TS%. That's pretty ridiculous numbers for a 3 point shooter. That is elite efficiency all time for a 3 point specialist. I'm not sure Buddy Hield is going to be the next all time great type shooter. I think he can be a really good shooter but don't know if he can become the next JJ type guy where he can put up 16+ on crazy high efficiency.

[Barnsey]

Welp, Buddy Hield measured in at 6'5" with a 6'9.25" wingspan, so we can stop with the "undersized" talk

[Von Bismarck]

Welp, Buddy Hield measured in at 6'5" with a 6'9.25" wingspan, so we can stop with the "undersized" talk

6'5 is 6'3 without shoes and to be honest that is undersized.

[No-Man]

He is not undersized, he has average size for a SG.
The issue has never been size, the issue is that he plays 0 defense.

[Mustinjo]

He is not undersized, he has average size for a SG.
The issue has never been size, the issue is that he plays 0 defense.

And provides zero offensive skills besides scoring

[ChuckChilly]

Welp, Buddy Hield measured in at 6'5" with a 6'9.25" wingspan, so we can stop with the "undersized" talk

6'5 is 6'3 without shoes and to be honest that is undersized.

Same height as Ray Allen.

[Von Bismarck]

Welp, Buddy Hield measured in at 6'5" with a 6'9.25" wingspan, so we can stop with the "undersized" talk

6'5 is 6'3 without shoes and to be honest that is undersized.

Same height as Ray Allen.

Undersized, exactly.

Look, no one's saying he's not going to be good, many undersized players were/are good, some of the even all-time great. But the fact is that 6'3 without shoes is undersized for a SG.

[HotelVitale]

6'5 is 6'3 without shoes and to be honest that is undersized.

Same height as Ray Allen.

Undersized, exactly. Look, no one's saying he's not going to be good, many undersized players were/are good, some of the even all-time great. But the fact is that 6'3 without shoes is undersized for a SG.

Hmm, not sure why you're dug in on things that aren't true and are also easily check-able facts. First, 6'5 isn't 6'3 with shoes and never has been (most guys add about 1.25 inches with shoes). Also, the combine also measures you without shoes, and Hield came in at 6'3.75

And as this DX combine database shows, 6'3.75 without shoes is well above average for SG prospects:
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=2&source=All&sort=2

It's the same size roughly as Harden, Wade, Wes Matthews, Ben McLemore, Tony Allen, etc--all guys who have prototypical height for a SG. Some SGs are bigger, sure--Iggy, Klay, Vince Carter--but those guys are unusually big SGs. Not being unusually big doesn't mean you're undersized.

[Saberestar]

6'5 is 6'3 without shoes and to be honest that is undersized.

Same height as Ray Allen.

Undersized, exactly.

Look, no one's saying he's not going to be good, many undersized players were/are good, some of the even all-time great. But the fact is that 6'3 without shoes is undersized for a SG.

He is not undersized.

Hield is 6'3.75" without shoes...nearly 6'4. He weights 212-pounds, has an strong body and has a great wingspan (6'9.25").

Do you know wich great SG is exactly like him...? Dwayne Wade. If you think that Wade is an undersized SG too then I don't know what to say about it.

Hield can have some weaknesses but size for his position is not one of them.

[Von Bismarck]

I thought he was closer to 6'2 than 6'4. In that case, it's alright considering his wingspan.

How about his quickness and his first step? How good are those?

[kennydorglas]

[DrCoach]

How about Bradley Beal as a comparison ?

[Mustinjo]

How about Bradley Beal as a comparison ?

Not really. They're the same age.
Let's just say if Beal was still in college his numbers would be significantly better than Hield's were.

[DrCoach]

How about Bradley Beal as a comparison ?

Not really. They're the same age.
Let's just say if Beal was still in college his numbers would be significantly better than Hield's were.

Significantly better?

I strongly disagree

Hield is avg 25 ppg on 46% 3pt shooting with a PER of 30

You can't get significantly better than that

[Mustinjo]

How about Bradley Beal as a comparison ?

Not really. They're the same age.
Let's just say if Beal was still in college his numbers would be significantly better than Hield's were.

Significantly better?

I strongly disagree

Hield is avg 25 ppg on 46% 3pt shooting with a PER of 30

You can't get significantly better than that

First, he's a senior. Compare his freshman or sophomore stats to Beal's when he was at college. I don't think it's outlandish to claim that Beal would post better stats if he stayed all four years at Florida.
Second, there are other important statistical parameters in basketball which aren't shooting or scoring numbers. Bradley Beal averaged 8 rebounds per 40 minutes as a freshman. His a/to, steals and blocks numbers as a freshman were also significantly better than Buddy's are as a senior. He was never one dimensional like Buddy is.

[No-Man]

Beal would have been, if healthy, scoring +30ppg in this year's weak-ass NCAA

[DrCoach]

Not really. They're the same age.
Let's just say if Beal was still in college his numbers would be significantly better than Hield's were.

Significantly better?

I strongly disagree

Hield is avg 25 ppg on 46% 3pt shooting with a PER of 30

You can't get significantly better than that

First, he's a senior. Compare his freshman or sophomore stats to Beal's when he was at college. I don't think it's outlandish to claim that Beal would post better stats if he stayed all four years at Florida.
Second, there are other important statistical parameters in basketball which aren't shooting or scoring numbers. Bradley Beal averaged 8 rebounds per 40 minutes as a freshman. His a/to, steals and blocks numbers as a freshman were also significantly better than Buddy's are as a senior. He was never one dimensional like Buddy is.

Hield has gotten exponentially better

I am not disputing that Beal would not have put up better numbers had he stayed, what I am disputing is that Beal would not have put up significantly better stats than Hields 30PER.

Beal has a Career NBA PER of 14.3 which is BELOW avg, this after 4 years. I think you are severly overrating Beal

[DrCoach]

Beal would have been, if healthy, scoring +30ppg in this year's weak-ass NCAA

Highly doubt he would score 30ppg, he isnt great at creating his own shot. how many allstar guards in the NBA never put up 30ppg, especially at a Big School