Header image by Emiliano Naiaretti.

Impacting the game of basketball without the ball in your hands has always fascinated me. It’s easy to become enchanted by on-ball creators, but there are countless ways to generate value without the ball. But what does that actually look like in practice, what defines offensive impact away from the ball in a small role, and which macro-level traits contribute most to it?

My thesis is that the next competitive edge in basketball lies in valuing the intersection of three-point rate and offensive rebounding rate. Before diving into the 2026 NBA Draft prospects who embody this emerging trend, it’s necessary to examine the league’s recent stylistic evolution and provide evidence for my claim. 

The great teams of the past decade largely succeeded by creating an advantage in both shot selection and shot-making. During their legendary 73-9 season, the Warriors ranked near the bottom of the league in net possession value, yet completely separated themselves from the field by dominating the true shooting battle on both ends of the floor. The era of “Moreyball”, the Warriors’ Hampton Five, and the Cavaliers introduced a kind of Basketball 2.0: slow-footed big men were phased out, small-ball fives became essential, and offensive and defensive shot profiles were optimized at the expense of positional size, turnover aversion, and rebounding.

This graph shows the correlation between overall net rating and net possession rating (so the points per 100 that teams are over or below league average in the combined categories of Otov, Ddtov, Oreb, and Dreb) in 2016, proving that emphasizing the possession game wasn’t a hallmark of the good teams of that era.

Nearly a decade later, this correlation has risen to 0.783, and current market inefficiency appears to be the exact opposite. With a league-wide rise in analytics, the competitive advantage gained from an optimized shot diet is smaller than ever; separation from the field now has to come through winning the possession game.

With this in mind, strong NBA offenses in recent years have focused on minimizing turnovers, with teams like Oklahoma City, Boston, and Indiana at the forefront of this trend. Interestingly, however, this season has revealed a divergence: the best teams in the league are crashing the glass at higher rates than we’ve seen in years. The correlation between O-Rating and Oreb% is the highest it`s ever been.

So rather than just O-TS and O-Tov, top-end offenses are trying to positively affect all 3 factors now. The question, then, is how this can be achieved consistently on a macro level.

The most effective approach appears to be maximizing both three-point rate and offensive rebound rate. These two elements are highly synergistic. Three-point shots typically produce a higher effective field goal percentage but a lower raw field goal percentage than average two-point attempts, which in turn creates more offensive rebounding opportunities. At the same time, a perimeter-oriented shot profile reduces turnover risk by limiting drives into traffic and the kind of high-risk passes that often lead to live-ball turnovers.

Additionally, long rebounds generated by missed three-pointers are easier to rebound out of five-out alignments, making it more valuable for perimeter players to crash the glass effectively. In theory, then, maximizing three-point rate and offensive rebounding should positively impact all three offensive pillars: efficiency, turnover avoidance, and possession generation. This is especially valuable in an environment where the marginal gains from shot diet optimization alone have diminished.

The clearest examples of this approach in action are the Boston Celtics and Charlotte Hornets. Both teams have significantly exceeded preseason expectations and their perceived talent levels, ranking among the top five in both three-point rate and offensive rebound rate, while also fielding the 2nd- and 6th-ranked offenses in the league, respectively. Their success stems from a combination of deliberate coaching emphasis and targeted roster construction, prioritizing players who fit this philosophy (e.g., Luka Garza, Hugo Gonzalez, Josh Green, Kon Knueppel).

From a team-building perspective, this trend is particularly intriguing because three-point rate and offensive rebounding are areas where complementary players can have an outsized impact. Traditionally, offensive value has been driven by high-usage players: pick-and-roll maestros, dominant post scorers, or heliocentric wings who control possessions. Even today, 14 of the top 15 players in five-year offensive RAPM rank well above average in offensive load.

This raises a key question: how can lower-usage perimeter players still drive positive offensive impact?

To explore this, I analyzed all non-big players with a substantial sample size who posted an offensive load below 30 (per Ben Taylor’s formula) while maintaining an offensive RAPM above +1 over a three-year sample. The goal was to identify the underlying traits and skills that sustain offensive value across thousands of possessions. I then examined their estimated influence across the three offensive factors—O-TS, O-TOV, and O-REB—and ran correlations to better understand which dimensions are most responsible for driving their impact.

(These are the r values of each of the factors compared to the player’s total O-RAPM.)

As expected, O-TOV influence appears to be the most limited of the three factors, largely because sound decision-making has diminished value when it isn’t exercised at scale. That said, it remains possible to generate meaningful impact in this area, even in a lower-usage role.

O-TS, by contrast, emerges as the primary driver of offensive value for low-usage perimeter players. A clear pattern appears when examining the sample: players like Sam Hauser, Isaiah Joe, and Luke Kennard consistently stand out. High-volume, high-efficiency three-point shooters exert a strong positive influence on team-wide true shooting, both through their own shot-making and the spacing advantages they create.

As outlined earlier, there is also a subset of players who provide significant value through offensive rebounding above positional average, even from the wing, while maintaining a high three-point rate. A prime example is Saddiq Bey, who has posted a +1.8 three-year O-RAPM while sustaining a 47% three-point rate and a 7.2% offensive rebound rate over his last 4,000 minutes.

This leads to a clear framework for the “ideal” complementary player. A player who both takes and makes threes at a high rate, crashes the offensive glass effectively, and avoids turnovers—though the emphasis tilts more heavily toward the first two traits.

To provide proof of concept for this rather theoretical skill intersection so far, we need to look no further than 2011-12 Ryan Anderson, who embodied this intersection like no other player ever. He took and made lots of 3s (55 3pr, 11.6 3pa/100 at 39%), still crashed the offensive glass (13 Oreb%) and avoided turnovers (97th percentile ctov%) while having a usage rate of 21.2%. The result? An offensive footprint adjacent to that of an MVP candidate.

Anderson ranked 11th in O-xRAPM and 5th in O-LEBRON while carrying an offensive load comparable to players like PJ Washington or Noah Clowney this season, exclusively through increasing his team’s three-point rate, crashing the offensive glass, and avoiding turnovers.

Many of the league’s most impactful role players today fit within this framework, as well. The beauty of basketball is that a player’s skillset isn’t just a collection of isolated abilities, but rather a chain of interconnected traits, where strengths in one area can influence multiple aspects of the game simultaneously. Players with the feel and athleticism to generate offensive rebounds despite operating farther from the basket often also produce stocks at an above-average rate, positively impacting the defensive turnover battle and adding another layer of value to this archetype. (e.g., Tari Eason, Josh Minott, etc. 

There is, of course, a cause versus effect debate to be had. One could argue that many players on this list are forced into these “garbage man” roles to stay on the floor offensively due to a lack of traditional on-ball skills, rather than these being true strengths. While there is definitely some truth to this, it can just as easily be framed as a positive. Oreb/3pr maxxing is the easiest way for this athletic,  “defensive specialist” mold to stay on the floor, especially if they have any semblance of shooting touch, and it minimizes the offensive issues you would encounter with them if utilized differently. 

Allen Graves

Draft Twitter darling Allen Graves is coming off the most impressive possession value season in the Barttorvik era. He combines the cognition of a point guard with the physicality of a big man to a degree we haven’t really seen before.

Allen`s ancillary production has been mindbending right from the jump, but the big question coming into conference play was: how can he score in the league? A 4/5 hybrid who isn’t athletic enough to dunk or get out in transition frequently and doesn’t finish efficiently at the rim, while not having the prerequisite driving or shooting indicators of a wing, doesn’t have the best offensive projection in the NBA. The drastic improvements Graves made in these areas then have turned him into one of the most unique and underranked prospects ever.

A 14 Oreb% on the season is a historic mark, and maintaining that while upping his three-point rate is particularly intriguing in the context of this article. It provides a clear pathway to offensive value for Graves, combined with a more wing-adjacent scoring profile. Despite recent improvements, it is still reasonable to be skeptical of Graves’ two-point scoring at the NBA level, as he boasts a questionable combination of length and verticality. However, this matters less if he can get up threes and crash the offensive glass at a high rate.

Graves has magnet hands on the offensive glass, crashing hard and displacing opponents with his strong base

This year, Santa Clara’s offensive rebound rate improved by 7% with Graves on, while they upped their 3par by 4% v t220 comp.

Furthermore, Graves’ turnover aversion as a passer is special as well, an 8 TOV% and 2.5 A:TO ratio is essentially uncharted territory for a freshman non-guard. Elite offensive rebounder and turnover suppressor? We’re starting to get uncomfortably close to the aforementioned ideal of the complementary player. Graves’ recent development in terms of shooting volume and accuracy makes this concept all the more intriguing.

The most accurate NBA proxy is likely Tari Eason, with whom Graves shares a number of statistical indicators. The fact that Eason has a 7’2″ wingspan compared to Graves’ 7’0″, while also dunking at roughly twice the rate, is significant in this comparison.

Conversely, Tari is also one of the lowest-feel wings in the league, whereas Graves projects as one of the highest.

Tari has already rattled off multiple top-70 RAPM seasons in the league while being one of the worst two-point scorers and passers, largely on the strength of his offensive rebounding and defensive brilliance. This pathway seems realistic for Graves as well: only with the added benefits of superior ball security and a more stable shooting projection.

Maximizing 3PAR and OREB rate while minimizing turnovers should allow Graves to stay on the floor and wreak havoc defensively in a way few players can. His anticipation and hand-eye coordination are truly generational: Graves consistently capitalizes on opponent mistakes and projects as a high-level off-ball defender.

Losing a bit of weight to improve his lateral quickness would likely help his long-term projection as a wing, but, even in his current form, he stocks and boards at historic rates for a freshman.

Allen Graves is young, has the 6th-highest BPM in the country, and fits perfectly with what the sharpest front offices currently value. He’s still nowhere to be found on many consensus mock drafts, but in reality, he shouldn’t slip out of the top seven, and a smart team will reap the benefits.

Motiejus Krivas

While we have exclusively focused on wings so far, there is still plenty to be said about the value of bigs who can get up threes while still crashing the glass. I am generally lower on “stretch bigs” than most. Having your biggest player operate farther away from the basket limits your team’s influence at the rim in terms of both frequency and efficiency and limits your team Oreb% all while removing a key release valve for your primary ball handler in the dunker spot.

If your center excels at traditional interior skills, you are actively hurting your team by pulling him away from the rim. Nonetheless, there is value in overcoming the typical inverse relationship between Oreb rate and three-point rate, especially if said big isn’t an effective finisher in the paint.

Motiejus Krivas provides a highly intriguing case study. The 7’2″ Lithuanian out of Arizona has long been a draft Twitter favorite and has finally put together a draft-worthy season, largely due to his defensive brilliance and outlier mobility. While he rebounds (14.4 Oreb% / 19.9 Dreb%) and protects the rim like a true five (7.5 Blk%), he presents a paradoxical disconnect between his size, touch, and physicality indicators and his actual rim finishing and scoring process:

(Drafted >7‘0 with <65 Rim fg%, >35 midrange freq, <10 3par)

Krivas’ combination of low rim FG% and rim aversion is a significant ceiling capper at the next level. Arizona’s rim FG% drops by 9% (!!!) with him on the floor, while rim frequency declines by 4% against top-220 competition.

His struggles as a finisher largely stem from subpar verticality and a mediocre wingspan, combined with a high center of gravity. This prevents him from accessing favorable finishing angles and often forces him into less efficient hook shots. Furthermore, he tends to struggle with ball security when going up, making him easier to disrupt around the rim.

Only finishing 62% of his rim attempts as a center would usually be disqualifying for serious lottery consideration, but Krivas offers a different pathway to NBA success. He has some of the best touch of any 7’0+ player in recent memory.

This season, he’s shooting 78% from the line while converting 54% of his non-rim twos. Historically, the only 6’11+ players with center-adjacent physicality to match these touch indicators have gone on to become some of the best three-point shooters in the world, despite often showing limited three-point volume in college.

(High Major >6`11 u22 with >18 dreb%, >40 FTR, > 77 FT%, >40 far 2%) 

Reaching a 40-50 three-point rate would help Krivas stay on the floor even as his finishing margins shrink further at the NBA level, and he should have the mechanics and touch to get there. 

As addressed earlier, there is an inverse relationship between 3par and Oreb%. It is a lot more difficult to grab boards when you are spending less time near the basket, especially for bigs who typically lack the straight-line speed and coordination to crash effectively out of spot-up situations. Conversely, we have proof of concept for a player with a similar build to Krivas maintaining this Oreb value this year in Donovan Clingan.

Standing at 7’2”, 270 pounds, he has faced similar issues as a finisher, leading Portland to deploy him more as a spot-up shooter. Even in that role, he has still managed to maintain a stellar offensive rebound rate despite the higher 3pr. And, unlike “career 64 FT%” Clingan, Krivas actually projects as a plus shooter.

Providing this value on the margins will allow Krivas to stay on the floor and become one of the league’s premier rim protectors. He is one of the most anomalous movers ever at his size. Motejeus’ technique, defensive awareness around the rim and processing are among the best in his class. So while he isn’t the most explosive vertical athlete or quickest leaper, his impact is still consistently felt at the rim.

Vs t220 comp, Arizona turns into the best 2pt defense in the country with him on the floor (25% opponent rim frequency, 22 FTR, 41 2p%). Meanwhile, they become mediocre once he’s off (33% opponent rim frequency, 37 FTR, 52 2p%).

Ultimately, Krivas’ unique combination of offensive rebounding, touch and defensive prowess should be enough to overcome his precarious finishing, especially if he is able to develop into a respectable shooter, thus boosting his team’s 3pr while leading neutral offensive rebounding lineups.

Kashie Natt

I can’t help but root for the underdogs of draft discourse, and there probably isn’t a bigger one than Kashie Natt from Sam Houston State.  A super senior who spent his only D1 season playing in the CUSA and who has a 30 3pr, 20 usg% while only converting 48% of his shots at the rim? What could possibly be the appeal? He draws comparisons to a recent “margin win” of the league: Jordan Goodwin.

Jordan Goodwin embodies the essence of this philosophical piece, a rather untalented offensive player who crashes glass and gets up 3s just enough to stay on the court and unleash his enormous defensive value.

 Employing players who provide guard-level cognition with big-man physicality can be an extreme value add and significantly ease lineup construction, provided the rest of their skill set is adequate.

Natt’s ability to rack up steals (4.2 stl%) and rebounds (near 10 Oreb% / 24 Dreb% at that size is anomalous), alongside impressive verticality and physicality (13 dunks and a 2 blk% at 6’3”), are strong indicators. These are all shared strengths with the aforementioned  Goodwin, who has since become an NBA contributor despite his poor two-point scoring.

However, a much smaller sample, weaker competition, and a significant gap in both scoring and playmaking volume could completely hinder Natt’s ability to reach an NBA floor. Fortunately, he has two factors working in his favor: free throw percentage and the positional necessity of maintaining a high three-point rate as a pseudo-guard. Similar to Goodwin, Natt’s precarious two-point scoring and ball handling relative to position will force him into a 50+ 3par if an NBA team takes a chance on him. Unlike Goodwin, however, he has posted near 80% from the free throw line this season, something Jordan never approached as a prospect, suggesting a stronger baseline indicator for future shooting translation.

Natt’s path to the league hinges on his anthropometrics. Standing at 6’3”, 215 pounds with a 6’10” wingspan, Goodwin had the physical profile that allows him to play his style at the NBA level. If Natt can approximate that, he becomes a compelling UDFA flyer and a franchise can stress test how reliable his shooting truly is, all while providing guard-level turnover influence and big rebounding.

We don’t settle for mediocrity around here; we chase outliers, and it doesn’t get more outlier than Kashie Natt.

Paul McNeil

After a rather disappointing freshman season at NC State, McNeil has finally carved out a major role this year. Funnily enough, Paul McNeil is possibly the closest match to my earlier definition of the “perfect role player” in the Bart Torvik era:

A profile of 14.3 3PA/100 at 41.7%, alongside a 4.5 OREB% and 5 TOV%, is exactly what we are looking for, and McNeil has shown this same intersection in previous samples as well. In AAU, he posted a 2 A:TO ratio, a 71% three-point rate, and 1.1 offensive rebounds per game.

McNeil’s “off-screen” frequency and efficiency both rank in the 99th and 95th percentile, respectively. This is one of the most confident and best pure shooters in this class.

McNeil is also a good vertical athlete for his mold, posting a 1.7 BLK% and a 0.14 dunk rate over his career. For a movement shooter, that is a rare trait that helps him crash class at a high rate. 

Unfortunately, the rest of his profile raises concerns. At 6’5”, 180 pounds, he is effectively position-locked as a shooting guard while boasting the assisted rate (around 60% of his twos are assisted) and passing volume of a wing. There is at least some theoretical upside as a ball handler, as he has been highly efficient as a pick-and-roll operator, producing 1.3 points per possession across 30 total possessions, but the sample is extremely small.

His thin frame and mediocre handle significantly limit his ability to create off closeouts. As it stands, he is shooting just 20% on two-pointers off drives, further emphasizing these issues. 

Furthermore, while McNeil does block shots, his overall defensive production, combined with a low BMI, is subpar and puts him in precarious company.

(Paul McNeil is currently sitting at a -0.1 d-bpm and 19.2 usg) 

It would be in McNeil’s best interest to go back to college, put on some weight, and improve his ball skills so he can be more of a guard at the next level, but even in his current form, there is a certain appeal to his game. Outlier ball security and shot making, alongside a moderately high O-reb rate, is a frictionless skillset that scales extremely well next to other ball handlers. A more refined McNeil could be similar to Max Strus, one of the finest offensive role players in basketball.

(Strus’ superior BMI+ creation volume matters in this comp, but McNeil being the better shooter and way more turnover averse could make this comparison work) 

I am curious if and to what degree these players will stick in the league, but they serve as case studies for a much larger trend amongst NBA Teams. The true value of “3par/oreb maxxing” lies within its duality.  It can help conceal rather problematic offensive skillsets and singular weaknesses (like Krivas’ rim finishing or Natt`s 2pt scoring) and provides a pathway to acceptable offensive value, which then allows these players to put in work on the other side of the court. On the other hand, I can’t stress the potential ceiling of this approach enough if they hit certain athletic and touch thresholds. A frictionless playstyle that perfectly fits next to ball-dominant creators to max out possessions while taking the most efficient perimeter shot on the court at a high rate.

 Smart front offices will continue targeting such players, building upon the modern principles of Morey ball with traditional size.