The more I watch on Murray, the more I wonder if we're actually going to wind up drafting Jae Crowder 2.0 if we pick him.
I just don't know if his "stuff" is going to translate to the NBA. He scored 23.5ppg but how many of those points were due to him taking advantage of guys inside while throwing up ugly shots that went in? He is very efficient even while throwing up a lot of junk in the paint but will those types of shots be available in the NBA? He has a really slow first step and a loose handle. I just have a feeling that his meat and potatoes isn't going to translate to the NBA and that he will strictly be a 3&D player.
I do like his 3pt shot the more I watch him. Confident with a good release and he's accurate.
Take away his inside work against smaller and less talented players and is he really just a 12ppg player masquerading as a 23.5ppg player?
Meh, this feels like diminishing what Murray actually did on the court. Doesn't take into account his team context (the only viable scorer), the statistical dominance, 5.7% TOV rate for his usage is insane and the fact he got better as the season went on vs better competition. He's literally 99%ile player in transition/half-court/post-ups... so like the entire offensive spectrum.
I think where I will agree is the post-ups aren't going to be the same reliable source of production. I do like that's it's now a unique wrinkle in his game that only a few guys in the NBA are capable of now, but it probably only becomes a serious weapon if he hits his ceiling and is a feature offensive threat in the vein of a Siakam/Tatum.
Perhaps where I differ on Murray than a lot of people is I see a significant upside in his player archetype. 6'8 forwards with his physical measurables/IQ/shooting/defensive versatility are few and far between; they're basically never available outside the draft because teams hold on to them for dear life. He'll need to show a few things at the NBA level (off the dribble creation, playmaking, switchability onto NBA 3's) to become a star, but what's important to me is he actually has the ability to get there at the NBA level. The late-bloomer rise, the work ethic, how hard he plays on the court. It's the real deal to me. I just think there's just upside to what he can be and I want to bet on that player archetype more than anything. You mention Crowder, but I'd bet on that being more the floor than the median outcome; which is a 10+ year starter that's incredibly valuable to winning. Certainly not the best outcome with a #4 pick, but we can absolutely do worse.
Conversely, I think everyone is focusing in on Ivey's ceiling rather than focusing on his potential downside. All we hear on Ivey is how his ceiling is sky-high and all the ridiculous player comps. People seemed to have made up their minds (possibly due to highlights and the national draft media saying so) that Ivey is the ceiling/star play while Murray is the fit/floor play.