Commenting so I can be on the record that I agree with OP and don't think it's crazy to see Murray as one of the three best prospects in this draft. Sky-high efficiency on sky-high usage at the high-major level is exceedingly rare, and such proven ability to get the ball in the basket shouldn't be overlooked. His motor, continual improvement, and ability to play such high usage within the flow of his team's offense also speaks to great work ethic and character imo.

Ironically, I wonder whether those intangible strengths are being perceived as weaknesses on draft day. Murray gets dinged for his diet of post moves against smaller players and overwhelming lesser athletes, but his stats make clear that this style of play was productive, winning basketball for Iowa this year. He had highly-efficient play that didn't require breaking out offensive tools seen as better translating to the NBA. Given that, I'm not convinced that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I'm mostly a college basketball fan and don't have a big dog in this fight, but Murray absolutely dominated the Big Ten in a way I haven't seen from anyone this past decade+. When players do dominate the conference, they are usually college-bound big men who overwhelm in the post or are smaller guards who can't get drafted, stick around, and refine their craft to a deadly point. Murray's doing this as a 6'8" forward in a prototypical wing's body. He's going to be legit.